Europe Says "Terrorism is Terrorism!"
Source: Turkish weekly
Thursday, 18 March 2010
Europe no longer considers the PKK a resistance organization, but mostly a terrorist organization that embraces violence instead of using democratic channels.
Following England, France, and Italy, comprehensive operations were carried out against the PKK at 28 distinct addresses in Belgium. It is understood that these operations were mostly related to drugs in France and concerned financial resources in Italy, but were conducted most extensively in Belgium. The arrests of 8 people, including the highest ranked leaders of the PKK in Europe, Zübeyr Aydar and Remzi Kartal, and their trials, and the custody and eventual release of the leader of PJAK (Party of the Free Life of Kurdistan), Haci Ahmedi, give insight into the extent and importance of these operations. Besides, it is known that 9 arrests, 8 judicial monitoring orders, and 13 European arrest warrants were issued for the most active members of terrorist organizations in Europe.
The Extent of Global Terror
Those subjected to arrests, judicial monitoring and investigations were also the highest ranked members of the PKK in Europe, especially in Belgium, and this doubtlessly gives the operations a different dimension and meaning. This is the first time Europe has attacked and opposed the PKK with such a clear stance.
Besides the people caught in the operations, the searching of many offices, including those of Roj TV broadcastings, the partial seizure of the organization’s archives, and the sequestration of the organization’s finances – even it was limited to 214,000 Euro – proved that there has been an important change in Western Europe in terms of the fight against the PKK. It can be asked why these extensive operations and the arrests of senior persons are occurring today. At first, Belgium’s eagerness to conduct such comprehensive operations can be also surprising as it is a country that had a tragicomic record in the case of Fehriye Erdal. However, when we analyze this process on the global, regional and national scale, it is possible to reach some satisfactory results.
In the post-September 11 era, the global war on terror was seen as limited to al Qaeda and its related organizations that only threatened the West. Europeans attempted to cooperate in the struggle against the “new terrorism” as they were simultaneously targeted by terrorist threats and subjected to pressure from the U.S. In globalization, there is an understanding that there is no place for terrorism at the expense of the security of the capital. In this framework, the U.S. decided on October 14, 2009 to put Murat Karayilan, Ali Riza Altun and Zübeyr Aydar, who were in the administrative cadres of the PKK/Kongra-Gel terrorist organization, on the list of drug barons. Besides, in May 2008 the U.S. added the PKK/Kongra-Gel to the list of the organizations involved in international drug smuggling. As a result of Turkey’s persistent political pressure, starting with the European Union accession process and including Turkey’s NATO allies, Europe turned its direct or indirect support for the PKK into the benefit of Turkey. The EU’s recognition of the PKK as a terrorist organization in 2002 and Turkey’s negotiations in the European Union process are two important indications of this. In its statements, the Union acknowledges the PKK’s desire to reach a solution by using arms as the primary means of violence. In a sense, the EU that previously accused Turkey as the source of the problem sat the organization in the dock. Thus the movement area of the PKK is starting to be constricted. The third important indicator, found in the explanation of the European Union about the closure of the Democratic Society Party (DTP), is the statement of the EU that the “DTP and its all elected members should clearly keep their distance from the PKK and terrorist activities” while it is expressing its position as being against the abolishment of parties. There is another statement here to be underlined: “all political parties should contribute to a solution to strengthen the stability, welfare and integrity of the Turkish state.” Through these statements the European Union described the PKK not as a resistance organization but as a terrorist group that embraces violence instead of using democratic channels.
A Changing Turkey Affects the European Union
The main igniter of this mental change, which emerged in Europe against the PKK, is Turkey. With the EU negotiation process, Turkey, having taken significant strides in the areas of democratization, has more to say in front of the Western democracies. Turkey’s minimization of human rights violations in counter-terrorism operations, its decision to limit the custody period to only 4 days, the prevention of violence, and conducting deep investigations into unidentified murders did not allow for the previous excuses to be made. With the democratic opening, the efforts exerted in the political, social, cultural and economic areas were combined with the diligence of security forces and made Turkey’s diplomatic attempts abroad more persuasive. Turkey, which initially had an accusatory stance toward the other states, especially Western countries, began its lobbying activities as the materials to convince these states increased instead of merely complaining. The recent operations are a result of this lobbying. It should be noted that not only changes on the global and regional scales, but also Turkey’s own change as the main actor, have played an important role in carrying the process to this point.
One of the most difficult duties for a state is having other states catch its terrorists. States achieving this would be expected to do many things at the same time. For example, Britain tried relentlessly to persuade the U.S., its strategic ally, to help with the IRA, and achieved its goal in the end. Spain, after longstanding efforts, also succeeded in persuading the EU – and above all France – in the matter of the ETA. Similarly, Turkey has to continue the same policy and strategy for years. If Turkey could discover its ability to speak up about its problems and persuade its partners, Turkey would become a state that has done its homework and prepared its bags for the diplomacy plane. This situation also highlights Turkey’s courage for confronting its problems with self-confidence alone and for thinking rationally without anger.
Guilty in Both Brussels and Diyarbakir
As is seen in the operations in the Netherlands, Italy, and France, it seems that issues such as guns, money collected by force, threats, mediation of drug trafficking and having black money will bother the organization in the days to come. At this point it appears that Europeans see the PKK as a threat to their homeland security. One of the important reasons behind this series of operations is that the PKK has trouble understanding the changing character of the world, Turkey, and Europe.
Finally, the main idea is that by taking serious steps towards democracy and law, Turkey holds very important advantages against PKK violence. Yet the era of getting results through tyranny, threats, and blackmail is over. According to the local law and judiciary proofs, all members of an organization committing a crime must answer for their activities in Brussels, Berlin, Rome, Diyarbakir, and Izmir. The values adopted by the modern world are presented within the framework of the freedom of expression and the political system, with emphasis on a laissez-faire economy and seeking justice before independent courts. The increasingly aggressive behavior of PKK supporters following the operations is out of line with modern values. Realism and national interests are important parameters for defining relations between states in international relations; however, to maintain realism and national interests there should be a consensus on an essential system of values. Therefore, EU states might be indecisive about the struggle with the PKK, and in the following period they might also act ambivalently. In the final analysis, a Turkey that can properly guide Europe about PKK terrorism, as Spain once did regarding the ETA, is not far from reaching success.
Prof. Dr. Ihsan Bal
Director of USAK Center for Security Studies
ibal@usak.org.tr
*This Column was first published in the Star newspaper supplement “Acik Gorus” on March 14, 2010.
Thursday, 18 March 2010
Europe no longer considers the PKK a resistance organization, but mostly a terrorist organization that embraces violence instead of using democratic channels.
Following England, France, and Italy, comprehensive operations were carried out against the PKK at 28 distinct addresses in Belgium. It is understood that these operations were mostly related to drugs in France and concerned financial resources in Italy, but were conducted most extensively in Belgium. The arrests of 8 people, including the highest ranked leaders of the PKK in Europe, Zübeyr Aydar and Remzi Kartal, and their trials, and the custody and eventual release of the leader of PJAK (Party of the Free Life of Kurdistan), Haci Ahmedi, give insight into the extent and importance of these operations. Besides, it is known that 9 arrests, 8 judicial monitoring orders, and 13 European arrest warrants were issued for the most active members of terrorist organizations in Europe.
The Extent of Global Terror
Those subjected to arrests, judicial monitoring and investigations were also the highest ranked members of the PKK in Europe, especially in Belgium, and this doubtlessly gives the operations a different dimension and meaning. This is the first time Europe has attacked and opposed the PKK with such a clear stance.
Besides the people caught in the operations, the searching of many offices, including those of Roj TV broadcastings, the partial seizure of the organization’s archives, and the sequestration of the organization’s finances – even it was limited to 214,000 Euro – proved that there has been an important change in Western Europe in terms of the fight against the PKK. It can be asked why these extensive operations and the arrests of senior persons are occurring today. At first, Belgium’s eagerness to conduct such comprehensive operations can be also surprising as it is a country that had a tragicomic record in the case of Fehriye Erdal. However, when we analyze this process on the global, regional and national scale, it is possible to reach some satisfactory results.
In the post-September 11 era, the global war on terror was seen as limited to al Qaeda and its related organizations that only threatened the West. Europeans attempted to cooperate in the struggle against the “new terrorism” as they were simultaneously targeted by terrorist threats and subjected to pressure from the U.S. In globalization, there is an understanding that there is no place for terrorism at the expense of the security of the capital. In this framework, the U.S. decided on October 14, 2009 to put Murat Karayilan, Ali Riza Altun and Zübeyr Aydar, who were in the administrative cadres of the PKK/Kongra-Gel terrorist organization, on the list of drug barons. Besides, in May 2008 the U.S. added the PKK/Kongra-Gel to the list of the organizations involved in international drug smuggling. As a result of Turkey’s persistent political pressure, starting with the European Union accession process and including Turkey’s NATO allies, Europe turned its direct or indirect support for the PKK into the benefit of Turkey. The EU’s recognition of the PKK as a terrorist organization in 2002 and Turkey’s negotiations in the European Union process are two important indications of this. In its statements, the Union acknowledges the PKK’s desire to reach a solution by using arms as the primary means of violence. In a sense, the EU that previously accused Turkey as the source of the problem sat the organization in the dock. Thus the movement area of the PKK is starting to be constricted. The third important indicator, found in the explanation of the European Union about the closure of the Democratic Society Party (DTP), is the statement of the EU that the “DTP and its all elected members should clearly keep their distance from the PKK and terrorist activities” while it is expressing its position as being against the abolishment of parties. There is another statement here to be underlined: “all political parties should contribute to a solution to strengthen the stability, welfare and integrity of the Turkish state.” Through these statements the European Union described the PKK not as a resistance organization but as a terrorist group that embraces violence instead of using democratic channels.
A Changing Turkey Affects the European Union
The main igniter of this mental change, which emerged in Europe against the PKK, is Turkey. With the EU negotiation process, Turkey, having taken significant strides in the areas of democratization, has more to say in front of the Western democracies. Turkey’s minimization of human rights violations in counter-terrorism operations, its decision to limit the custody period to only 4 days, the prevention of violence, and conducting deep investigations into unidentified murders did not allow for the previous excuses to be made. With the democratic opening, the efforts exerted in the political, social, cultural and economic areas were combined with the diligence of security forces and made Turkey’s diplomatic attempts abroad more persuasive. Turkey, which initially had an accusatory stance toward the other states, especially Western countries, began its lobbying activities as the materials to convince these states increased instead of merely complaining. The recent operations are a result of this lobbying. It should be noted that not only changes on the global and regional scales, but also Turkey’s own change as the main actor, have played an important role in carrying the process to this point.
One of the most difficult duties for a state is having other states catch its terrorists. States achieving this would be expected to do many things at the same time. For example, Britain tried relentlessly to persuade the U.S., its strategic ally, to help with the IRA, and achieved its goal in the end. Spain, after longstanding efforts, also succeeded in persuading the EU – and above all France – in the matter of the ETA. Similarly, Turkey has to continue the same policy and strategy for years. If Turkey could discover its ability to speak up about its problems and persuade its partners, Turkey would become a state that has done its homework and prepared its bags for the diplomacy plane. This situation also highlights Turkey’s courage for confronting its problems with self-confidence alone and for thinking rationally without anger.
Guilty in Both Brussels and Diyarbakir
As is seen in the operations in the Netherlands, Italy, and France, it seems that issues such as guns, money collected by force, threats, mediation of drug trafficking and having black money will bother the organization in the days to come. At this point it appears that Europeans see the PKK as a threat to their homeland security. One of the important reasons behind this series of operations is that the PKK has trouble understanding the changing character of the world, Turkey, and Europe.
Finally, the main idea is that by taking serious steps towards democracy and law, Turkey holds very important advantages against PKK violence. Yet the era of getting results through tyranny, threats, and blackmail is over. According to the local law and judiciary proofs, all members of an organization committing a crime must answer for their activities in Brussels, Berlin, Rome, Diyarbakir, and Izmir. The values adopted by the modern world are presented within the framework of the freedom of expression and the political system, with emphasis on a laissez-faire economy and seeking justice before independent courts. The increasingly aggressive behavior of PKK supporters following the operations is out of line with modern values. Realism and national interests are important parameters for defining relations between states in international relations; however, to maintain realism and national interests there should be a consensus on an essential system of values. Therefore, EU states might be indecisive about the struggle with the PKK, and in the following period they might also act ambivalently. In the final analysis, a Turkey that can properly guide Europe about PKK terrorism, as Spain once did regarding the ETA, is not far from reaching success.
Prof. Dr. Ihsan Bal
Director of USAK Center for Security Studies
ibal@usak.org.tr
*This Column was first published in the Star newspaper supplement “Acik Gorus” on March 14, 2010.
Comments