THE CAPTURE OF SADDAM HUSSEIN
The event so long awaited by Iraqis has at last occurred. On 13 December at 8.pm. local time (5 pm. GMT), Saddam Hussein was discovered in a two metre deep underground hideout set up in a farm near the town of al-Daour, not far from Tikrit, in the course of an operation Red Dawn organised with 600 American troops. The former Iraqi dictator was captured, without offering any resistance, eight months after the overthrow of his regime by the American armed forces. The American civil administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, officially confirmed the news on 14 December: “Ladies and Gentlemen, we’ve got him!” “the tyrant is a prisoner” he declared at a Press conference. “Now the former dictator will face the justice he refused to give millions of people” George W. Bush affirmed in Washington soon after. “The capture of this man was essential for the emergence of a free Iraq” he added. It was the official Iranian news agency, Irna that first announced Saddam Hussein’s capture in Tikrit, quoting as its source the Kurdish chief Jalal Talabani. “American forces announced at Tikrit that Saddam Hussein has been arrested” declared Jalal Talabani, who hoped that the ex-dictator be sentenced to life imprisonment rather than death.
The former dictator was found “in a rat hole” whose entrance was hidden by bricks and earth, according to General Ricardo Sanchez, commander of the American forces in Iraq. “There was only room for one man to lie down (…) The hole had a fan to help air circulation” he declared. Saddam Hussein had a pistol, two kalashnikovs and $ 750,000 in cash. Two other persons were captured at the same time. “Today, the government of fear and repression has gone forever” declared a longstanding opponent of Saddam Hussein, Adnan Pashashi, a member of the Transitional Government Council who was a member of the delegation called to identify the former dictator. “Saddam Hussein was without remorse and even defiant” added Mr. Pashashi.
The end of the execrated tyrant gave rise to scenes of popular rejoicing more or less everywhere in Iraq, and particularly in Kurdistan and the Shiite cities of the South. The Iraqis have finally turned a page in their history.
Saddam Hussein will be treated as a prisoner of war and protected by the Geneva Convention, declared the American Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld on the American CBS network on 14 December. “He has been granted the protection of prisoner of war status and will be treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention” Mr. Rumsfeld indicating, pointing out that it would be for lawyers to decide if the Red Cross could see him. Questioned on the methods the Army might use to make Saddam Hussein talk, Mr. Rumsfeld totally rejected the idea that the American Army might use torture to obtain information from the arrested former dictator. He also denied that the Iranian authorities had had any part to play in Saddam Hussein’s capture. “The reason he was captured is because marvellous men and women have been there (in Iraq) for the last 7 or 8 months” he added. The CIA has been charged with the task of interrogating Saddam Hussein, Mr. Rumsfeld announced on 16 December. “I have asked George Tenet (CIA Director) to take charge of the interrogation of Saddam Hussein” declared Mr. Rumsfeld, explaining that the intelligence agency was better qualified for this than the Army. Questioned on Saddam Hussein’s degree of cooperation, the Defence Secretary refused to make any comments on the remarks made by Senior American officers in Iraq and Washington. “I think that the best word to describe his behaviour to his jailers is probably: resigned”.
A video was broadcast by the Americans showing the former dictator with his face hidden by a pepper and salt beard being examined by a doctor. Then a photo was shown after he had shaved, except for his famous moustache. General Sanchez states that he was captured on the basis of information supplied to the American forces but did not specify whether it was from prisoners captured recently or if the lure of reward had proved stronger than family or tribal loyalty. The Americans had promised a reward of 25 million dollars for his capture. While congratulating the American troops, Mr. Bush affirmed that this arrest did not mark the “the end of violence in Iraq”. “We are still facing terrorists who prefer to kill innocent people than accept the emergence of freedom in the heart of the Middle East” he declared.
This month’s President of the Iraqi Interim Government Council, Abelaziz Hakim, who arrived in Paris on 14 December at the head of a delegation of the Government Council that included Jalal Talabani, stated that Saddam Hussein would be tried in Iraq by Iraqi judges in the context of a court recently created for war criminals. “Saddam Hussein will be tried by Iraqi judges and the court will work and give its rulings in Iraq under the supervision of international experts” declared Mr. Hakim. On 10 December the Government Council had voted for the creation of a special court to try the crimes of the Saddam Hussein regime. Mr. Hakim and the Iraqi delegation met the French President, Jacques Chirac, and the Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin. Moreover, the British Foreign Minister stressed on 14 December that the British government was opposed to the death sentence should the Iraqis wish to try Saddam Hussein. For their part, the Iranian authorities are preparing to lodge a complaint against the fallen dictator for “war crimes” against Iran the Iranian government spokesman, Abdollah Ramezanzadeh, announced in Teheran. “We hope that an appropriate international court investigate the crimes committed by the former Iraqi dictator” he declared.
Washington's partners in Iraq or those opposed to the military intervention alike, foreign leaders congratulated the United States or hailed Saddam Hussein’s capture. The Foreign Ministers of many countries telephoned their American opposite number, Colin Powell, the State Department pointed out. “Wherever there reigns terror, division and brutality, we hope that his arrest be synonymous with unity, reconciliation and peace” commented British Prime Minister Tony Blair. The General Secretary of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, agued that the Iraqi people should decide the fate of Saddam Hussein and stressed that his arrest “marked the final end of the old regime”. Similar testimonies came from the camp of those opposed to the American intervention. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder expressed the hope that this “arrest (supports) the efforts of the international community for the reconstruction and stabilisation of Iraq”. Thus, according to French President Jacques Chirac, it was “a major event that should greatly contribute to the democratisation and stabilisation of Iraq”. Russia “expects that Saddam Hussein’s arrest will contribute to the strengthening of security in Iraq and to the activation of the process of political settlement under the authority of the United Nations”. In the Near and Middle East, only Israel, Kuwait and Iran openly welcomed the arrest of Saddam Hussein. Egypt and Syria hoped for the end of the military occupation of Iraq.
The enquiry into the crimes committed under the Saddam Hussein regime are expected to be a titanic task, with millions of documents to be examined, of witnesses to be found in a context that is still very chaotic.
No reliable statistics exist on the number of the regime’s victims, variously estimated as between several hundreds of thousands and several millions depending on the sources. Much of the evidence has, undoubtedly, been lost during the exhumation of the mass graves in the period immediately after the end of the war, when no forensic doctors or experts were present. Hundreds of thousands of documents, recovered from government offices at the fall of the regime and which contain, according to Iraqi sources, proof of the ex-raïs’s guilt, are in the hands of associations, political parties and even Iraqi private individuals. Some are held by the Coalition provisional authority. For the moment no body has centralised all this information, crucial for the preparation of any trial.
The French lawyer, Jacques Vergès, who flew to Amman on 18 December to prepare Tariq Aziz`s defence has declared he is also prepared to defend Saddam Hussein, while stressing that, for the moment, it is a purely theoretical question. Outlining a possible line of defence, he stressed that the ex-dictator had enjoyed, in the past, the support of many Western leaders. “If he is tried tomorrow, he must benefit from a legal presumption of innocence” he said. “If he must be tried, and he is treated like a pariah, his defence will clearly be forced to say this” … “but this pariah was the friend of all the Western Heads of State. He was not only their friend but their ally” he added. Furthermore, some 600 Jordanian lawyers have volunteered to represent former President Saddam Hussein in the event of a trial.
NEW YORK: HOSHYAR ZEBARI, IRAQI FOREIGN MINISTER, SHARPLY CRITICISED UNO ACCUSING IT OF FAILING TO SAVE HIS COUNTRY FROM A “MURDEROUS TYRANNY”
On 16 December, the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Hoshyar Zebari, accused the United Nations of failing to save his country from Saddam Hussein’s “murderous tyranny” for 35 years and called on UNO to return to Iraq and take part in the construction of a democratic nation.
“A year ago the Security Council was divided between those who wanted to appease Saddam Hussein and those who wanted he to answer for his acts” he declared before the UN Security Council. “The United Nations, as an organisation, did not succeed in saving the Iraqi people from a murderous tyranny that had lasted for 35 years” he continued. “UNO must not again forsake the Iraqi people” he went on. “Thus we ask you, today, to set aside your differences, unite and work with us and all those who have taken part and sacrificed so much to achieve our common objective of a sovereign Iraq, united and democratic”.
But the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, declared for his part that he needed “much greater clarity as to what the Iraqis and the US-led coalition expected of the United Nations. This would help assess whether this work justified the danger involved to the UN personnel, he pointed out.
UNO withdrew its personnel from Iraq last October after two bomb attacks aimed at the UN headquarters in Baghdad and a series of attacks against humanitarian organisations. One such attack on 19 August last killed 22 people, including the UN special envoy in Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello. For the moment, Kofi Annan considered that the situation in Iraq remained too dangerous for the re-opening of the UN offices in Baghdad. He also pointed out, in a report presented to the Security Council, that UNO was going to open an office devoted to Iraq in Nicosia, the capital of Cyprus, and an annex at Amman, in Jordan, which would enable the UN personnel to travel to Iraq whenever needed. The operation would be run by the new UN envoy, Ross Mountain.
For his part, Hoshyar Zebari assured his hearers that the Interim Government Council (IGC) understood the devastating losses that UNO had suffered, while insisting on the fact that UNO should return to Iraq to play a wider role in the setting up of a provisional government in June, the drawing up of a Constitution and the preparations of General Elections by the end of 2005.
The United Nations had always worked “in war-torn regions and in crisis areas, and Iraq was one of them” he noted. “The United Nations are a key forum for collective international action, to help us reach our aims of reconstruction and democratisation in our country” he declared to the UN Security Council. “Your aid and expertise cannot be provided as effectively from Cyprus or Amman”. “We are ready and anxious to provide all the security needed to see UNO return to Iraq” Mr. Zebari insisted. The head of the Iraqi Foreign Service thus invited Ross Mountain to visit Baghdad and discuss the role of the United Nations with the IGC, a proposal that the American Ambassador to UNO described as “a good first stage”.
Kofi Annan, however, pointed out that he was not sure that Mr. Zebari was “in a position to offer such security” while adding that he envisaged discussing this further with the Iraqi leader.
SYRIA SIGNS AN ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT WITH THE EUROPEAN UNION THAT FAVOURS EUROPEAN INVESTMENTS WHILE THE UNITED STATES DECIDES TO APPLY ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL SANCTIONS ON DAMASCUS
On 9 December, Syria and the European Union complete negotiations on an agreement of association which is due to be signed early in 2004, after the approval of the political authorities, according to Syrian and European leaders. “Syria and the EU have reached an agreement on all the issues, even political” declared the chief European negotiator, Christian Leffler, for the European Commission. “The results will be presented to the political authorities for approval” he added during a Press conference. “Syria has adopted a very positive and constructive attitude which will allow an agenda to be developed covering all the political questions” he indicated.
“We have ended our technical discussions with an agreement” affirmed, for his part, Toufic Ismaïl, President of the Syrian Planning Organisation, who led the Syrian side of the negotiations. “Considerable efforts” were made to reach this association agreement, which covered political, economic, trade, social and cultural aspects and which “will meet the common interests of Syrians and Europeans in a balanced manner” continued Mr. Ismaïl.
The two parties had started this latest series of negotiations on 8 December. They covered, in particular, the dismantling of customs barriers for various products, services and intellectual property rights. The EU has signed association agreements with all its partners round the Mediterranean basin with the exception of Syria, with which it has been negotiating since 1998.
The European official stressed that the agreement “will enable Syria to join” the WTO. “The (Syrian) private sector must be allowed to play an effective role. The objective is to arrive at the total liberalisation of the economy” he added. The agreement will facilitate European investments in Syria, which is trying to modernise its infrastructure and stimulate its economy.
The Syria-EU negotiations were speeded up by the US Congress’s recent adoption of economic sanctions against Syria, which is accused of “supporting terrorism”. Thus, on 12 November, the US Senate approved economic and trade sanctions against Syria, evoking the long tradition of Syria of sheltering terrorists and its recent failure to gag the forces opposed to the US war in Iraq. The measure, passed by 89 votes against 4, reflects the legislation passed the previous month by the House of Representatives by 390 to 4. The only difference between the two is an amendment that gives the US President greater powers to impose sanctions on the grounds of national security.
Members of the US Congress, visiting the Middle East had met Bachar El-Assad on 11 November and had pointed out to him that these sanctions were the expression of American frustration with countries that did not cooperate in the war against terrorism, according to the head of this delegation, the Republican Jim Kolbe. President El-Assad had replied to them that Syria was doing more to make its borders with Iraq more secure and “promised to continue working with us on this question” according to Mr. Kolbe.
Washington has long reproached Syria for sheltering leaders of Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, two Palestinian groups considered terrorist organisations by the US State Department. This fresh legislation calls on Syria to stop supporting terrorism, to withdraw from Lebanon, occupied for the last 13 years, to stop its attempt to produce or obtain weapons of mass destruction and long range missiles and, finally, to prevent terrorists and arms reaching Iraqi soil. Otherwise, the American President will have to ban the sale of any products that could have a dual use, both military and civilian. He must also impose at least two sanctions on Damascus, out of a list of six possible measures: ban exports, prevent American firms from operating in Syria, impose restrictions on Syrian diplomats in the USA, limit flights of Syrian airlines to the United States, reduce diplomatic contacts or freeze Syrian assets in the United States.
On 12 December, US President, George W. Bush, ratified the sanctions law in question.
JAMES BAKER SECURES PROMISES OF SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTIONS IN THEIR IRAQI DEBTS FROM THE EUROPEANS AND MOSCOW
On 18 December, James Baker, former US Secretary of State and George W. Bush’s envoy on the Iraqi debt, visited Moscow for discussions regarding the lightening of Iraq’s foreign debt, in the context of the Paris Club. He raised with President Vladimir Putin, Baghdad’s debt of some 8 billion dollars to Russia, which is Iraq’s first creditor. On 22 December, the President in office for the month, Abdel Aziz Hakim, announced that Russia had promised to cancel part of the debt and that, in return, Iraq had promised to work with “all the Russian companies”. Jalal Talabani, who accompanied Mr. Hakim to Moscow, affirmed that Russia proposed annulling 65% of the debt and that it was ready to cancel the rest if it secured privileged treatment regarding its oil contracts.
James Baker also visited Europe a week earlier and had obtained from several countries (including Britain, France, Germany, and Italy) commitments to restructure and reduce the Iraqi debt (120 billion dollars). On 16 December France and Germany agreed in principle to a “substantial reduction” of the Iraqi debt. “The reduction of the debt is an essential factor in allowing the Iraqi people to build a free and prosperous Iraq” they said in a communiqué published in Paris after James Baker’s visit, during which he met Jacques Chirac and also visited Berlin. “For this reason, France and Germany agree that a substantial reduction in the Iraqi debt must take place in the Paris Club in 2004 and they will work closely together and with other countries to reach this objective”.
After the agreement of Jacques Chirac and Chancellor Schroeder, James Baker secured that of the Italian Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, (who promised to work to lighten the Iraqi debt) on 18 December and of Tony Blair who also agreed to the need to reduce the Iraqi foreign debt in the context of the Paris Club. The amount owed by Iraq to Great Britain is 931 million dollars, without counting accumulated unpaid interest. On adding this, the bill climbs to 2 billion dollars, according to the British authorities.
This club of 19 countries is an informal group of public creditors, charged with negotiating the debt problem. Iraq owes 40 billion dollars to members of the Paris Club, which includes the United States, Great Britain and France, and 80 billion to other countries and private creditors.
The American envoy also visited Japan, South Korea and China from 27 to 30 December.
TEHERAN: STUDENT DEMONSTRATIONS IN IRAN AND THE SIGNING OF THE NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY
On 7 December, a thousand students who supported reforms gathered in Teheran and called for greater freedom of expression and the freeing of political prisoners. The rally took place under a strong police guard on the Teheran University campus. The students brandished photos of those amongst them who were in detention at the time. They shouted “Free all political prisoners” and “Death to despotism” on this occasion that marks the anniversary of the death of three of their number during a demonstration against the visit to Iran of the then US Vice-President, Richard Nixon, in 1953.
The students have been the spearhead of the demonstrations against the conservative establishment of the Islamic Republic over the last few years. Clashes have often occurred between them and the conservative militia, loyal to the regime’s hardliners, hostile to any liberalisation. U wave of student agitation shook Iran in June 2003, and dozens of students were then taken in for questioning. The students had played a crucial role in the electoral victory of Mohammad Khatami during the 1997 presidential elections, then in his re-election in 2001, on the basis of a programme of liberal political and social reforms. Iran is a demographically very young country, since about 70% of its 66 million inhabitants are under 30 years of age.
Further more, on 18 December Iran signed, in Vienna, an additional protocol to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) authorising the IEAA to carry out unexpected and detailed checks of all nuclear installations. The protocol was signed at the Head Offices of the International Atomic Energy Agency, in the name of the Iranian Foreign Minister, Kamal Kharazipian, by Teheran’s representative with the IEAA, Ali Akbar Salehi, in the presence of the Director General of the Agency, Mohamed El-Bardei.
Set up in 1997, the additional protocol constitutes the principal tool for international nuclear control. It will authorise the IEAA to inspect not only operating installations, but also locations to which it did not have access under the NPT, such as reactors that had been stopped, research centres or factories making products liable to be of use in nuclear programmes.
The IEAA may henceforth inspect all the Iranian nuclear installations, with advance warning of only two hours, and take measurements, samples including of water, earth and air so as to detect any possible secret activities.
THE PENTAGON RECOMMENDS THE EXCLUSION OF FIRMS FROM COUNTRIES OPPOSED TO THE WAR FROM IRAQ RECONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
On 10 December, the United States provoked an uproar in Europe by excluding firms from countries that had opposed the resort to force in Iraq, such as France, Germany and Russia from reconstruction contracts. The evening before, the Pentagon’s N° 2, Paul Wolfowitz, had invoked reasons of national security to announce that companies from such countries be excluded from invitations to tender.
In a circular dated 5 December and published on the 9th on the Pentagon Web site, 63 countries were considered eligible to take part in invitations to tender. The European States with a military presence in Iraq, such as Great Britain, Spain, Italy or Poland are amongst these. The White House explained next day that, as these contracts were financed by the American taxpayers and that it was normal that the countries that had not supported the United States should not benefit. In a communiqué broadcast on the web site www.rebuilding-iraq.net, Wolfowitz explained that he would limit competition for 26 reconstruction contracts to a value of 26 billion dollars. The Pentagon announced the same day that the launch of invitations to tender would again be delayed. “We have noted the guidelines signed by Paul Wolfowitz. We have no comments to make at this stage” declared the spokesman for the Quai d’Orsay (French Foreign Ministry), Hervé Ladsous. “We will study the compatibility of these decisions with international law on competition in association with our partners concerned, particularly of the European Union” he added while Berlin denounced an “unacceptable” measure. “This will not be acceptable to the German government. Nor is it in conformity with the spirit of an approach giving priority to looking to the future together” declared Bela Anda, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder’s spokesman. Nor was the European Commission backward in reacting, announcing through its spokesman Arancha Gonzalez that the restrictions set up for the 26 contracts would be examined to check their compatibility with the rules of the World Trade Organisation.
Far from toning down these remarks by the Assistant Secretary for Defence, the White House went one better, considering the decision “totally opportune”. “I think that it is opportune and reasonable to expect that the principal reconstruction contracts, financed the by the American taxpayers’ dollars, go to the Iraqi people and to those countries working alongside the United States to help build a free, democratic and prosperous Iraq” declared President George W. Bush’s spokesman, Scott McClellan. The White House nevertheless let it be understood a little later that the reconstruction contracts might be widened to those countries supporting the “Coalition’s efforts” by other means. “If other countries want to participate in our efforts (…) the situation could change” added the spokesman, Scott McClellan. The UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, firmly criticised the restrictions, considering that the international community should unite its forces in the task of stabilising Iraq. The Bush Administration also bore the brunt of criticisms from its own Opposition. Democratic Senator Joe Biden saw it as “a totally gratuitous slap in the face” that “will only get the backs up of countries whose help we need in Iraq”.
THE 2003 ASSESSMENT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATION IN TURKEY IS MORE CRITICAL THAN IN 1999
On 2 December, the Turkish Human Rights Association published a recent evaluation of the Human Rights situation in Turkey in the context of the 6th and 7th harmonisation packages passed by Ankara with a view to joining the European Union. Here are some extracts of this assessment that covers the January to September periods of the last five years.
Number of people having been tortured or been victims of inhuman and degrading treatment:
- January to September 1999 472
- January to September 2000 508
- January to September 2001 762
- January to September 2002 456
- January to September 2003 770
Attacks on freedom of expression — number of people sued:
- January to September 1999 103
- January to September 2000 254
- January to September 2001 1921
- January to September 2002 2432
- January to September 2003 1292
However, the Association shows that the number of political organisations, publishing houses and cultural centres raided and searched were 250 in 1999, and 48 in 2003. The number of publications confiscated or banned were 242 in 1999 and 102 in 2003.
KIRKUK: THE KURDS THERE DEMONSTRATE TO DEMAND THEIR INCLUSION IN THE KURDISTAN AUTONOMOUS REGION
Thousands of Kurds demonstrated on 3 December, at the call of their parties, to demand that their city be attached to the autonomous region of Kurdistan. The organisers stated that there were 10,000 demonstrators. The demonstration dispersed without any incidents around midday.
The demonstrators, who massed in the town centre, repeatedly shouted, in Kurdish, “Kirkuk, Kirkuk, heart of Kurdistan” and “We demand federalism for Kurdistan”. They also distributed a petition demanding that “Saddam Hussein be publicly tried at Halabja”, the town where some 5,000 Kurds were gassed by the fallen dictator’s Armed Forces in 1988. They brandished Kurdish flags in red, white and green with a yellow sunburst symbol in the middle, but no Iraqi flags. Some also waved an enormous American flag and a banner demanding that “Saddam Hussein be tried in Kurdistan”. Some armed peshmergas (Kurdish fighters) and members of the Iraqi Civil Defence forces maintained order in the crowd. Some American soldiers were also present in force. The crowd brandished banners that, in the main were in Kurdish demanding that Kurdish be “taught in all the schools in Kirkuk”. “Your demands are acceptable and we will try to realise them” declared the Kurdish Governor of Kirkuk, Abdel Rahman Zangana, to the demonstrators.
The demonstration was divided into two sections, one part led by the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and the other by the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), the two main Kurdish political organisations.
This is the biggest demonstration organised in Kirkuk since the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime. The city, located to the South of the Kurdish autonomous region, in inhabited by Arabs, Kurds and Turkomen. Originally it had a Kurdish majority, and was taken by the Kurds during the 1991 uprising, but brutally reconquered by Saddam Hussein’s forces, as the regime had no intention of losing control of this oil-producing centre. It was one of the prime theatres of the campaign of forcible Arabisation waged by Saddam Hussein in order to alter its ethnic composition. Since 1970, the old regime has waged an all out policy of Arabisation there.
The Iraqi Kurds demand guarantees regarding the borders of the Kurdish zones, in the context of an Iraqi Federal State. Massud Barzani, the KDP leader, stated on 21 December that the Kurds claimed Kirkuk on the grounds of their historic rights and not for its oil wealth. “The Kurds do not claim Kirkuk because this region is rich in oil (…) but because its towns and villages are important in Kurdish history and are located inside the geographic and administrative borders of Kurdistan” declared Mr. Barzani to the paper al-Taakhi, organ of the KDP that he leads. “The Kurdish people consider that federalism is the best solution to its problem and that any future government must avoid repeating the fatal errors committed by all preceding governments, and must not ignore the will of the Kurdish people” Mr. Barzani also warned. He stressed that “after twelve years of autonomy, the Kurds will not accept less than the zones that they control at the moment and that the other regions of Kurdistan that were subjected to demographic changes before the liberation should be returned to them”.
“The next few months will be crucial for determining the future of the Kurds in Iraq” stated, for his part, Dr. Mahmud Othman, a Kurdish member of the Interim Government Council. He indicated that the Iraqi executive would shortly be examining a Bill proposed by the Kurdish group within this body, laying out “its vision of federalism with in united Iraq”. Dr. Othman explained that “the Council has approved the principle of federalism for Kurdistan, but we want that this be clearly spelled out in a new fundamental Law”. “The Kurds have rights of which they have been deprived for the last 80 years, which is why they intend, today, to secure the Administrative guarantees to preserve Kurdish identity”, explained, for his part, Adel Murad, member of the Political Committee of Jalal Talabani’s PUK.
In accordance with a document presented on 20 December by the Kurdish representatives, and which resumes “a law passed by the Kurdish Parliament a year ago, the territory of Kurdistan should include the zones with a Kurdish majority on the basis of the census of 1957, that is before the policy of forced Arabisation waged in Kirkuk in particular”. “The 1957 census (before the revolution), which is the most reliable, shows that 80% of the inhabitants of Kirkuk are Kurds, followed by the Turkomen and then by the Sunni Arabs and Christians” stated Mr. Murad. The document specifies that the Kurdish regions consist of the three provinces of Irbil, Dohuk and Suleimaniah, representing the zones controlled by the Kurds since 1991, as well as that of Kirkuk and the Kurdish towns in the province of Dial (66 Km North of Baghdad) and Mussel (400 Km North of Baghdad).
The Kurds are trying to win their case before the adoption by the Government Council on 1 March of a Fundamental Law on the administration of the State during the transition period till June 2005. The Kurds are counting on their five representatives on the Government Council of 25 as well as on their five Ministers in the provisional government, whose portfolios include that of foreign affairs, to advance their aspirations to a federal state. The Kurds, who had risen against Saddam Hussein in 1991, at the end of the Gulf War, have since managed an Autonomous Territory covering the Provinces of Irbil, Dohuk and Suleimaniah.
However, the Kurdish demands seem unacceptable to neighbouring Turkey, whose Foreign Minister, Abdullah Gul issued a firm warning on 22 December. “If mistaken measures are taken in Iraq, if measures that endanger the territorial integrity and political unity of Iraq are taken, this would signify the start of a new dangerous escalation in Iraq” warned Mr. Gul before Parliament in Ankara. Such measures will cause “new sufferings and tears”, insisted the Foreign Minister. Mr. Gul stressed that these claims “attempting to change the demographic structure of Iraq, especially of Kirkuk, are very dangerous measures. We have warned the world of this” he declared. Turkey also called upon the United States not to favour the Kurds in post-Saddam Iraq.
An affray took place the day after the demonstration in Kirkuk. Four students, three Kurdish and one Turkoman, were arrested following a clash between the Kurdish students and their Turkoman and Arab fellows in the Kirkuk Technical College. According to the police, the incident occurred during a celebration at the Technical College in the course of which the Kurdish students opposed the hoisting of the Iraqi flag.
IN MEMORIAM: THE DEATH OF FATHER JOSEPH PARI
Father Joseph, known as “Abouna” (“our father” in Arabic) died of cancer in Paris on 6 December, just as he was preparing to return permanently to Kurdistan. One of the most respected and well loved public figures of the Kurdish community in France, Father Joseph Pari left us at the age of 67. Youssef (Joseph) Hana Sulaiman Pari was born on 1 July 1937 in a Christian family at Koysanjak, in Iraqi Kurdistan. After primary and secondary schooling in his home town, he entered the Benedictine seminary in Mossul, where he learnt French. He was appointed parish priest in Suleimaniah in 1961. A few years later, Father Joseph, popularly known as Abouna, joined Mollah Mustafa Barzani’s Kurdistan Democratic Party, in which he became an influential cadre. In 1966, Abouna was arrested by the Iraqi police. Tried for his political activism, he was condemned to death. His sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. He was freed following the March 1971 agreements. Father Joseph then came to Paris to prepare a doctorate in theology.
In 1992, on the liberation of a major part of Kurdistan and following the formation of the Kurdistan regional government, Father Joseph was appointed its representative to the Vatican, which he fulfilled till the first fratricidal war in May 1994.
The death of Father Joseph has aroused considerable feelings in the Kurdish community. A religious ceremony took place on Wednesday 10 December at 16.00 at the Saint Ephrem Church in Paris, and a civil ceremony also took place on the same day at the Offices of the Kurdistan Regional Government in Paris. His body was then sent to Kurdistan where Father Joseph was buried in the presence of a large crowd.
AS WELL AS...
• SADDAM HUSSEIN’S ARREST HAS LED TO MASS ARRESTS, BUT THE BOMB ATTACKS AND THE SABOTAGE CONTINUE. Following Saddam Hussein’s capture, the American Army is multiplying arrests. The American Armed Forces’ Chief of Staff, General Richard Myers, indicated on 21 December that several hundreds of prisoners had been taken in a mass round up of guerrillas thanks to information obtained following Saddam Hussein’s capture on 13 December. “Information obtained when we picked up Saddam Hussein have enabled us to understand the structure of the resistance being organised by elements of the old regime” he declared on the Fox TV channel, evoking the capture of two hundred or even “several hundred” people.
Because of the climate of insecurity that persists in Baghdad, the midnight mass on Christmas Eve was cancelled this year, for the first time. On 24 December just before dawn, the American Army carried out a large scale operation aimed at guerrillas South of Baghdad while over 70 people, including a close relative of the old regime's former N° 2, Ezzat Ibrahim, were arrested in two days by Coalition forces round the capital and in the North of the country. Thus, at dawn on 23 December, the Americans arrested a former general of the Iraqi intelligence services, Abdullah Jassem Ahmad, at Mossul. Moreover, six presumed members of the guerrilla were arrested in the course of three different operations in the Baaqouba region (60 Km North of Baghdad). At Fallujah, another rebel town of the “Sunni triangle” 26 Iraqis, including two former generals and a former colonel, were arrested by the American troops.
At Khaldiya, North-West of Baghdad, a booby-trapped car exploded in the morning of 14 December near a police station, killing 18 people, including 16 police and injuring 29. The attack took place before Saddam’s capture was announced.
A 20-year-old Polish soldier was killed on 22 December by an accidental shot from a weapon one of his colleagues was cleaning. The incident occurred in an army camp at Kerbala, 60 m from the HQ of the Polish contingent, which was visited by the Polish President, Alexander Kwasniewski during his surprise visit to Iraq.
Furthermore, on 19 December Paul Bremer confirmed that he had escaped an assassination attempt at the beginning of the month in Iraq, where the principle Shiite organisation was again the target of an attack attributed to Saddam Hussein loyalists. According to the American NBC television channel, Bremer was coming back from Baghdad Airport when his convoy hit a mine and was subjected to heavy fire from light arms. This attempt at assassination occurred on the same day as the American Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld arrived in Baghdad.
Moreover, an explosion shook the offices of the principal Iraqi Shiite political party, the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), killing an Iraqi woman and wounding five others. This was the second attack aimed at the SCIRI. A cousin of the present President if the Interim Government Council, who is also an influential member of the principal Shiite party, Muhannad al-Hakim was killed as he was leaving his house in Baghdad.
In Kurdistan, two US soldiers and a Kurdish official were killed on 10 December in two incidents at Mossul, when an American military plane was making a forced landing, after having probably been hit by a missile. On the same day, a GI met his death, and three of his comrades were injured, when their vehicle was blown up by a bomb placed beside the main road to Mossul, the commander of the 101 Airborne Division, Hugh Cate, indicated. At Kirkuk, 16 people accused of being linked to anti-American attacks were arrested on 23 December, as well as 20 other people, members of a little Kurdish Islamist faction, the Jamia Islamiya, accused of being linked to the Islamic fundamentalist group, Ansar Al-Islam. A suicide attack with a booby-trapped car caused at least four deaths on 24 December in Irbil. The car exploded just before the local offices of the Ministry of the Interior, killing the suicide bomber, two policemen on duty and a passer-bye. Irbil had, so far, been relatively spared the violence shaking the rest of the country, even if several booby-trapped cars had already been aimed at American troops and Iraqis collaborating with them. Youssef Khoshi, a judge at Mossul, was shot down on 22 December by three men driving a car. Y. Khoshi was one of the three principal investigating judges in Mossul. Iraqi cadres in the oil industry, policemen and other magistrates working in liaison with the American administration were also targeted in other attacks of the same kind.
On the other hand, a fresh act of sabotage was committed on 22 December on the pipeline connecting the Kirkuk oilfields to the Baiji refinery further South, provoking a fire. On 10 December an explosion had already damaged the pipeline connecting the Baiji (North) and Dora (Baghdad) refineries, adversely affecting supply to the domestic market and damaging some high voltage electric supply cables, according to Iraqi leaders. Almost 90 acts of sabotage have been directed against pipelines and oil industry infrastructures since the fall of the Saddam Hussein regime, provoking a major fuel shortage in Iraq. They have, in particular, prevented the re-establishment of the Kirkuk-Ceyhan oil pipeline.
On the diplomatic level, the American administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer and the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, have discussed, in Washington, the setting up of a “very big Embassy” of the United States in Baghdad when a provisional government has been set up, the State Department indicated on 22 December.
• THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS PAY A HEAVY PRICE: 70 ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS DISAPPEAR OFF THE COAST OF MARMARIS. Four people have been arrested in Istanbul and one at Marmaris where illegal immigrants from Iran, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Egypt and Syria had embarked to try and reach the Greek island of Rhodes, about fifty kilometres from there, stated the Governor of the province, Huseyin Aksoy, to the NTV television channel. He said that he did not know the number of people that were on board at the time of the shipwreck, which is said to have occurred on the night of 19 December.
The sole survivor, a young man said to be of Iranian nationality, was picked up by a Turkish ferry after spending hours hanging on to a piece of wood, according to a coastguard communiqué. The Greek authorities, for their part, found seven corpses. According to the survivor, the illegals, about 70 strong, embarked on a 14 metre long boat, whose captain was Turkish. Arriving off the coast of Rhodes, the captain left the boat on a launch, telling the illegal immigrants to sail in the direction of the lights on the coast. But the boat started to leak and then capsized when the immigrants panicked. The survivor was brought before a court at Marmora's that decided to expel him. Turkey is a major transit area for illegal immigrants from Asia to Europe.
• HOSHYAR ZEBARI VISITS MARRAKECH AND ALGERIA. The Iraqi Interim Government Council’s Foreign Minister, Hoshyar Zebari, arrived in Marrakech on 18 December to take part in the work of the ministerial summit of the Group of 77 (G77) planned for the next day. Mr. Zebari also had discussions with his Moroccan opposite number, Mohammad Benaissa.
The G77 brings together 135 countries and China, and is at present presided by Morocco. The ministerial summit was aimed at promoting the “North-South partnership” and enabling the voice of the developing countries to be heard in the negotiations on world trade.
Hoshyar Zebari then went to Algiers on 20 December for discussions with the Algerian leaders on developments in the situation in Iraq. The Minister indicated, in a statement made at the end of his visit, that his visit aimed at “informing the Algerian authorities about the political process under way in Iraq and the development of the security situation in the country”. Mr. Zebari furthermore stated that “a political process exists in Iraq that is being pursued in a difficult situation”. “We have come to hear the appreciation and the recommendations of the Algerian authorities so as to help us lead Iraq towards stability, especially as Algeria has played an important role in the last few years in safeguarding Iraqi interests” the minister stressed.
The visit of the head of Iraqi diplomacy comes as a sideline to a tour of Europe made by the President of the Interim Government Council, Abdelaziz al-Hakim, to evaluate the participation of the European countries in the reconstruction of Iraq.
• TOWARDS THE EXPULSION FROM IRAQ OF THE IRANIAN “PEOPLE’S MUJAHIDDIN”? On 10 December, Iran rejoiced at the decision of the Interim Government Council to expel the People’s Mujahiddin, its “worst enemies” but insisted that it had not done a deal for this by the extradition of members of Al-Qaida.
The leaders of the Islamic republic unanimously welcomed the decision announced by the Interim Government Council to expel the thousands of members of the People’s Mujahiddin, who have sought refuge in Iraq. This is the principal organisation conducting armed struggle against the Teheran regime since the Islamic Revolution in 1979. “The decision of the Interim Government Council is very positive” rejoiced the Minister of Information, Ali Younessi, at the end of a meeting of the council of ministers. He announced that his country would show itself “indulgent” to low-ranking activists who surrendered.
Vice-President Mohammad Ali Abtahi confirmed that this decision was the fruit of “very good relations” between Teheran and the Government Council since the fall of the Saddam Hussein regime, despite the “occupation” of Iraq unceasingly denounced by Iran. The members of the Government Council, although set up by the Americans, have multiplied visits to their Iranian neighbour, whose influence on the Shiites worries the United States. President Mohammad Khatemi finally recognised the Council on 17 November on the occasion of a visit by the then President of the Council, Jalal Talabani, himself well disposed to Iran. Mr. Talabani had declared, a week later, that Iran was prepared to amnesty the Mujahiddin, to which it nevertheless imputes hundreds of assassinations and bomb attacks, including the one, in 1981, that paralysed the arm of the present Supreme Guide, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Even before the end of the war in Iraq, the Iranian authorities, although officially opposed to the American intervention, were hoping that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein would rid them of the Mujahiddin, who has set up their camps on the other side of the border. They saw, with satisfaction, the Americans bomb their bases then disarm them and regroup them in camps near Baghdad. Since then, Teheran his unceasingly expressed anxiety at the maintenance of the Mujahiddin in Iraq and accused the Americans of allowing them to conduct operations against its territory. For some months speculation has been rife on the possibility of a deal of extraditing the Mujahiddin in return for the extradition of members of the Al-Qaida terrorist network that they are holding and that the Americans are demanding. “There is no connection” assured Mr. Younessi. “We have made no bargains over the terrorists” insisted the government spokesman Abdollah Ramezanzadeh. Mr. Abtahi explained the decision by the participation of the Mujahiddin in the repression of the Shiites and Kurds under Saddam Hussein. “They were the right arm of Saddam Hussein both during the war (against Iran from 1980 to 1988) and after the war” when Saddam Hussein drowned in blood the Shiite and Kurdish insurrections. The present members of the Government Council “bore the brunt of this” he added. It remains to be seen where the Mujahiddin will be expelled to, which the Iraqis have not yet specified. “We have already told the (rank and file) Mujahiddin activists not to remain stubborn and to surrender, in which case we will show ourselves indulgent” said Mr. Younessi. Teheran has declared in the past that it would show no mercy to the leaders of this organisation.
• SWITZERLAND RECOGNISES THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE — TURKEY PROTESTS. On 16 December, the Swiss members of Parliament passed a resolution recognising the genocide of the Armenians in 1915 by 107 votes against 67, with 11 abstentions. They called on the Government to take note and transmit their position to Turkey “by the usual diplomatic channels”. The government in Bern tried to oppose the adoption of this motion, tabled in March 2002, considering that it could “add still more emotional charge to the relations between Turkey and Armenia”.
In Ankara, the Turkish Foreign Ministry condemned and rejected this initiative. For Turkey “it is unacceptable to present unilaterally as genocide (…) these events that occurred in very special conditions during the First World War and which caused great suffering to both the Turks and the Armenians”. The next day the Swiss Ambassador to Ankara was summoned to the Foreign Ministry. A meeting between the ambassadors, Baki Ilkin and Blaise Godet was, furthermore, postponed. The discussion should enable a fresh date to be set for the visit of the Swiss Foreign Minister, Mrs. Micheline Calmy-Rey, postponed by Turkey last September. This cancellation was decided after the members of the Vaud Canton Parliament had recognised the 1915 Armenian genocide.
Thirteen national parliaments have already recognised the crimes committed between 1915 and 1918 against the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, which are said to have caused up to 1.5 million deaths. These are the Parliaments of France, Russia, Italy, Canada, Sweden, Greece, Belgium, Uruguay, Cyprus, Argentina, Armenia and the Lebanon, as well as the European Parliament.
• RENEWED OUTBREAKS OF FIGHTING BETWEEN THE PKK AND THE TURKISH ARMY, WHICH ANNOUNCES ITS COOPERATION WITH THE UNITED STATES AGAINST THE PKK FIGHTERS. Two Kurdish fighters were killed by the Turkish Army at Diyarbekir on 3 December. The Turkish forces surrounded a house and opened fire on activists who refused to surrender, explained the local police chief Attila Cinar. Elsewhere, five soldiers were killed and four wounded when their vehicle hit a land mine at Nusaybin, in Mardin province. The day before a policeman was killed when armed men opened fire on a police station in Dargecit, further North in the same province — always according to the Turkish authorities.
The PKK, that has retreated to Iraqi Kurdistan, on the Iranian border, nevertheless announced, in the 2 December issue of the pro-Kurdish daily Ozgur Politika, that it would extend its unilateral cease-fire for an indefinite period so as to give a further chance for Turkey to declare, in its turn, an end to the violence. The clashes with the Army had fallen off, over the last few years, to a level “close to zero” according to the previous chief of Staff, but have since shown a certain increase.
On 24 November, the Turkish Army had announced that nine Kurdish PKK fighters were killed in two days of fighting in the Ordu Province. The previous week 14 PKK fighters were killed in Bingol Province in clashes with the Army, and on 5 November the Turkish Army had announced the deaths of four PKK fighters in Almus (central Turkey) and in Bingol.
Furthermore, seven members of the PKK were arrested in the course of the last few months in Iran by the police in the province of Western Azerbaijan, indicated the head of the border guards of this Iranian province, Colonel Vali Salehi, adding that those arrested since March had been handed over to the Turkish authorities. “Iran will not allow these individuals to penetrate into its territories,” he said. Three new control posts had been set up along Iran’s borders “to intensify the fight against the PKK” he added.
The United States declared, on 4 December, their agreement to cooperate with Ankara in its fight against terrorism, indicated the Assistant Chief of Staff of the American combined forces, General Peter Pace, on a two-day visit to Ankara. He also stressed the special importance his country attached to the “anti-terrorist struggle, in the first place against the PKK and its successors” according to the semi-official Turkish News Agency, Anatolya. In this context, there is a community of view between the United States and Turkey on the manner of fighting all terrorist organisations and on the methods, aims and resources for this struggle, according to the same source.
• A CAMPAIGN TO BOYCOTT A SINGER WHO DARED SING IN KURDISH, HIS MOTHER TONGUE. The most popular singer in Turkey, Ibrahim Tatlises, famous both in his own country and throughout the Middle East, is the target of a campaign of boycotting and pressure from nationalist circles after having sung a song in Kurdish. The Great Unity Party (BBP — ultra nationalist) had asked the singer (who is of Kurdish origin but has never before sung in his own language so as to build a flourishing career) to “apologise to the Turkish nation”. “The people can forgive him if he proclaims that he is against all form of terrorism and separatism and that he will defend the indivisible integrity of our country” declared Ismail Turk, one of the leaders of the BBP. The Youth Association of the National Action Party (MHP — neo-fascist) had earlier launched a campaign to boycott the singer's discs, cassettes and other products, accusing him of being a “black stain”.
During his participation in a TV broadcast last week, the singer had expressed his satisfaction that the government had passed laws allowing audio-visual programmes in Kurdish, considering that it was “a first step”. Immediately after, several dozen ultra-nationalists held a meeting before his home to protest against this statement. In the daily paper Cumhurriyet of 12 December, the singer (who is also one of the richest business men in the country) retorted that he “loved his country” and wanted its “unity”.
• SENIOR MEMBERS OF THE JUSTICE AND DEVELOPMENT PARTY (AKP) DESCRIBE TURKISH COURTS AS BIASED AND PARTISAN. Just after Parliament decided to sue before the High Court of Justice the former Prime Minister Mesut Yilmaz and five other former ministers — Husamettin Ozkan, Cumhur Ersumer, Zeki Cakan, Recep Onal and Gunes Taner — accused of “corruption, favouritism nepotism and irregularities” the President of the Parliamentary Commission of Enquiry on the issue of immunity, Husrev Kutlu, simply declared, on 11 December, that “since the Judiciary was not independent, they had decided not to alter the legislation on immunity”. Commenting on these remarks, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mehmet Ali Sahin, a member of the same Justice and Development Party (AKP), added that “Members of parliament doubt the independence of the Courts” giving the example of the former Public Prosecutor of the Court of Appeals, Vural Savas, who in a recent book “recognised that he had expended considerable energy to bar the road to office of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan”. Immediately the President of the Court of Appeals, Eraslan Ozkaya and his opposite number on the State Council, Nuri Alan, reacted sharply. Mr Ozkaya declared that “those who are no longer in power, the simple citizen and the bureaucrat are brought before the courts … We cannot import courts from elsewhere or replace them by some other body … No one can have the luxury of saying they will not go to such courts … justice is not perfect but you are doing nothing to improve it and allow yourselves to criticise it”. The Vice-President of the People’s Republican Party (CHP) — the sole opposition party in the Turkish Parliament — Kemal Anadol reacted by stating: “thus there are only two things to do: either we send all the courts in the country on leave or else all the 70 millions of our citizens must benefit from immunity by becoming Members of Parliament. In other words, it means that our citizens are in danger faced with these courts”.
READ IN THE TURKISH PRESS
• WHEN JOURNALISTS ARE “CLIENTS” OF THE TURKISH INTELLIGENCE SERVICES (MIT). The Editor in Chief of the Turkish daily Hurriyet, Ertugrul Ozkok, in his column of 9 December, tells of an ordinary briefing organised by the Turkish Intelligence Service (MIT) for some Turkish journalists, who were described as “clients” by the MIT chief. The journalist, who was not unduly troubled by this label, returned to the subject the next day, revealing the names of the “client” journalists summoned by the MIT for the briefing and giving the MIT boss’s explanation of the term: “We use the word client for individuals who have been the subject of enquiries and are on file with our services … amongst the 10 client journalist, 4 are filed as “marxist”, 2 as “grey wolves” and 4 as “reactionaries””. The journalist concluded by saying he was curious to know who were the 4 journalists classed as “clean” by the MIT. Here are extensive extracts from this short article published on 9 December.:
“The chief of the Turkish Intelligence (MIT), Senkal Atasagun, last Thursday invited 14 journalists in Ankara from national papers. As from the start he said jokingly “I was looking at the guest list, 10 of the 14 here are clients of ours”. At this dinner were 14 journalists (…) The aim of the dinner was a briefing to correspondents of different papers on the latest developments in Turkey, and before the journalists left it was specified that the remarks made could be used, but without attribution of source. However, the next day, a phone call from MIT insisted that all that had been said was “off the record” and thus asked us not to use the information. … Our correspondent in Ankara, Sedat Ergin, was unable to take part in the dinner (…) but was able to secure and bring me the contents of the discussion…
Personally I wasn’t too bothered by the word “client”. Atasagun didn’t specify what exactly he meant by this word, and probably knowing the import of this word, my colleagues didn’t ask him for more details …It must imply either papers that receive the MIT’s indiscretions or papers “accredited” by them. The MIT chief then added “We also know that there are some amongst you who talk to people of foreign Secret Services”. And that was the sentence that disturbed me the most, rather than the word client”.
• THE EUROPEAN COMMISSIONER RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ENLARGEMENT, GUNTER VERHEUGEN, DECLARES THAT THE PRESENT SITUATION IN CYPRUS IS AN OBSTACLE TO TURKEY’S MEMBERSHIP OF THE E.U. In an interview given to the Turkish daily Zaman, the European Commissioner responsible for the enlargement, Gunter Verheugen, declared that it would be difficult for Turkey to begin negotiations for membership of the European Union so long as Turkish soldiers were illegally deployed in Cyprus. Here are extensive extracts from this article, published on 4 December at a time when the parliamentary elections in the Turkish part of the island produced no majority though the Opposition parties, with 48% of the vote won 25 seats (11 in the outgoing assembly) — that is as many as the supporters of the status quo, who only won the support of 46% of the electors.
“It was first of all with my Turkish friends that I spoke about this problem. No one should be surprised today (…) I said, at my first meeting with Denktash in 2000, that Cyprus would join the European Union on 1st May 2004. I had already said this to Ismail Cem in 1999. I insisted on the fact that, as from 1 May 2004, the strategic situation would no longer be the same. We still have some time, but resolving this problem is above all in Turkey’s interests”.
Questioned as to whether the Commission had given in to Greek blackmail, Gunter Verheuven replied: “This is not a matter of blackmail but a political reality … I told Denktash that 105 million Europeans were not waiting for him to condescend to find a solution with Clerides. Thus he knew it, but preferred not to believe me … I still hope that Denktash, at his age, will take decisions that are right for his people”.
Gunter Verheugen refused to describe the solution of the Cyprus question as a “condition” for Turkey, but preferred to speak about an “obstacle”, adding “Cyprus is a political reality. If the situation does not change, I will be unable to convince 15 or 25 countries to start negotiations with a Turkey that is the only country in the world that does not recognise one of our future member states. The whole world knows that the UN Security Council has judged the permanent stationing of Turkish troops on the island to be illegal. Do you imagine that we could engage in negotiations for membership with a country whose troops are permanently stationed on the territory of one of our members? For my part I do not believe it … I have always said so. We were obliged to since if Turkey were to discover the extent of this obstacle at the last moment it would have been too surprised”.
The European Commissioner was unsparing in his criticism of Rauf Denktash, declaring that “ it is not being a statesman to play games with the electoral registers just before elections …” . “You only have to look at the figures. This year there were 20,000 more electors than in 1998. There are 4,000 more than last September. This is obviously not due to any increase in the birth rate! Everyone knows the number of Turks to whom Denktash has given Cyprus nationality (…)” he added, pointing out that “we do not recognise the Turkish Republic of Cyprus as a sovereign state. Nor do we recognise its assembly. Thus we cannot compare its elections with those of sovereign and democratic countries. They have, nevertheless, political importance”.
Günter Verheugen also dealt with the non-application of the reforms adopted by Ankara, declaring with regard to the letters “q, x and w” that it is important to highlight “the problems of applying laws in Turkey”. “No one is asking for the Turkish alphabet to be changed, but what we would simply say is that there should be an end to all these obstacles to registering Kurdish names”.
|
Sunday, 22 November 2008
