Turkish warplanes bombed outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) targets in northern Iraq early on Sunday, the Turkish military said in a statement posted on its Web site.
Turkey's deputy prime minister urged terrorists to surrender after the airstrike. Cemil Çiçek, who is also the government spokesman, said Turkey would press ahead with operations against PKK bases in northern Iraq "with determination when necessary."
It was the first confirmed operation with fighter jets against terrorist targets across the border since the invasion of Iraq, although Turkey has hit Iraqi territory with ground-based artillery and via helicopter. The attack follows a promise last month by the United States to share intelligence about the terrorists with Turkey.
Private NTV television said some 50 warplanes, taking off from bases in eastern and western Turkey, were involved in the raids. One woman was killed in the airstrikes, a local official in Iraq said.
The warplanes bombed PKK targets in regions close to the border with Turkey as well as in the Kandil Mountains, which lie further away from the frontier, the military's statement said. All planes returned to their bases safely, it added. After the planes left the operation zone, the army continued firing on the targets with long-range weapons, the military stated. Artillery units could be seen firing shells toward Iraq in the early hours of Sunday from the town of Çukurca, where the borders of Turkey, Iran and Iraq meet.
Earlier this month, the military said it fired on a group of about 50 to 60 PKK terrorists inside Iraqi territory, inflicting "significant losses."
Abdullah Ibrahim, a top local official in the Iraqi administrative center of Sangasar, said Turkish warplanes bombarded 10 villages, killing one woman and injuring two others. Ibrahim acknowledged that there were terrorist bases in the area, about 170 kilometers (105 miles) from the Turkish border, but said they were far from the villages that were hit.
After Iraqi officials' claims, the Turkish military made a statement and vowed to press ahead with operations against the PKK "according to military needs with determination." It said the operation was directed against the PKK and not against the local population in northern Iraq. The military statement also urged the media to keep out of the region for their safety.
An Iraqi army officer with the border guard said the attack was on three villages in Iraq's Kandil Mountains, where Turkish and Iranian terrorists are based. The officer spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information.
Private NTV television claimed that one of the targets hit was a PKK "command center" in northern Iraq. PKK "targets in the regions of Zap, Avasin and Hakourk located in Iraq's north, and deep in the Kandil Mountains ... were hit through a large-scope aerial operation of the Turkish Air Force," the military said.
It said the air strikes began at 1 a.m. (2300 GMT, Saturday) local time and the planes returned at 4:15 a.m. (0215 GMT). Turkish news reports said the planes had taken off from an air base in Diyarbakır, southeastern Turkey.
Turkish forces have periodically shelled suspected terrorist positions across the Iraqi border, and have sometimes carried out "hot pursuits" -- limited raids on the Iraqi side that sometimes last only a few hours.
16.12.2007
Today's Zaman with wires Ankara
http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=129493
dimanche 16 décembre 2007
UK occupiers return Basra to Iraqis four-and-a-half years after the invasion.
Basra residents blame UK troops
More than 85% of the residents of Basra believe British troops have had a negative effect on the Iraqi province since 2003, an opinion poll suggests.
The survey for BBC Newsnight of nearly 1,000 people also suggests that 56% believe their presence has increased the overall level of militia violence.
Two-thirds think security will improve when the British hand back control of the province to Iraqi forces on Sunday.
The 4,500 British troops in Iraq will then focus on training Iraqi forces.
The move to Provincial Iraqi Control will eventually pave the way for UK troop numbers to be reduced to 2,500 from the spring.
Basra is the ninth of Iraq's 18 provinces to resume responsibility for its own security and the fourth to be handed over by British forces after Muthanna, Najaf and Dhi Qar.
Improvement expected
The Public Attitudes in Basra survey carried out for Newsnight by the UK-based polling agency, Opinion Research Business (ORB), interviewed a random sample of 922 adults across the southern city of Basra between 3 and 8 December.
The survey's results suggest that only 2% of Basra residents believe that British troops have had a positive effect on the province since they helped the US overthrow Saddam Hussein in March 2003.
An overwhelming majority of 86% felt British troops had had a negative effect.
More than half felt the troops' presence had actually increased the overall level of militia violence over the past four years, while 14% said they believed the British forces had made no difference at all.
Looking to the future, a total of 83% of those surveyed said they wanted British troops to leave Iraq, including 63% who wanted them to leave the Middle East altogether.
The majority of those questioned felt that once provincial control was handed over to local Iraqi security forces, the security situation would begin to improve.
Two-thirds felt security would improve in the short term, while 72% said it would improve in the long term. Only 5% said security would deteriorate following the withdrawal.
Correspondents say British troops have had a relatively minor influence on the security situation in Basra since they withdrew to a base at the airport outside the city in September.
More than 85% of the residents of Basra believe British troops have had a negative effect on the Iraqi province since 2003, an opinion poll suggests.
The survey for BBC Newsnight of nearly 1,000 people also suggests that 56% believe their presence has increased the overall level of militia violence.
Two-thirds think security will improve when the British hand back control of the province to Iraqi forces on Sunday.
The 4,500 British troops in Iraq will then focus on training Iraqi forces.
The move to Provincial Iraqi Control will eventually pave the way for UK troop numbers to be reduced to 2,500 from the spring.
Basra is the ninth of Iraq's 18 provinces to resume responsibility for its own security and the fourth to be handed over by British forces after Muthanna, Najaf and Dhi Qar.
Improvement expected
The Public Attitudes in Basra survey carried out for Newsnight by the UK-based polling agency, Opinion Research Business (ORB), interviewed a random sample of 922 adults across the southern city of Basra between 3 and 8 December.
The survey's results suggest that only 2% of Basra residents believe that British troops have had a positive effect on the province since they helped the US overthrow Saddam Hussein in March 2003.
An overwhelming majority of 86% felt British troops had had a negative effect.
More than half felt the troops' presence had actually increased the overall level of militia violence over the past four years, while 14% said they believed the British forces had made no difference at all.
Looking to the future, a total of 83% of those surveyed said they wanted British troops to leave Iraq, including 63% who wanted them to leave the Middle East altogether.
The majority of those questioned felt that once provincial control was handed over to local Iraqi security forces, the security situation would begin to improve.
Two-thirds felt security would improve in the short term, while 72% said it would improve in the long term. Only 5% said security would deteriorate following the withdrawal.
Correspondents say British troops have had a relatively minor influence on the security situation in Basra since they withdrew to a base at the airport outside the city in September.
Kurdish Press Freedoms Curtailed
Juan Cole writes:
The parliament of the Kurdistan Regional Authority, a part of Iraq, has just passed a very dangerous press law, which has drawn vigorous protests from Iraqi Kurdish journalists. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h3Mzs0ZJ1DXNulqGBGbLhnREZuEQD8THFLEO1
AP reports that:
' Under the measure, journalists can be prosecuted in counterterrorism courts, which could bring the death penalty, and newspapers can be shut down for up to six months and face fines up to $8,200. '
Sawt al-Iraq reports in Arabic that the head of the Kurdish journalists' guild, Farhad `Awni, and 20 editors of major newspapers and magazines, along with professors of Communication at Sulaymaniya University, launched an appeal to Kurdistan Regional Authority leader Massoud Barzani to veto the bill.
http://www.sotaliraq.com/iraqnews.php?id=4842
Kurdish journalists smell a rat, and suspect that Kurdish politicians will use the law to close down newspapers that criticize them and put journalists in jail whom they do not like.
Their suspicions are not without some foundation. Even under current laws, journalists have been jailed for "libelling" high Kurdish politicians, though Qadir was ultimately released.
Editors of major newspapers protested the law. The USG Open Source Center said, "Twice weekly Hawlati declares that it will close down the paper if the Media law which was endorsed yesterday by the Kurdistan parliament is not amended."
I don't believe that basic civil freedoms will last long in Kurdistan, which is the only part of Iraq where they are even relevant to most people's lives (civil freedoms are hard to maintain with a lot of bombs going off). The horrible thing is how many US and other lives have been lost so that the Kurds could have the freedoms their parliament is now abolishing.
Labels: Iraq
posted by Juan Cole 12/15/2007
http://www.juancole.com/
--------------------------------------
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Kamal Sayid Qadir Jailed for Criticism of Barzani
The proto-fascist mini-state of the Kurdistan Democratic Party in Arbil [Irbil], northern Iraq, has sentenced an Austrian-Kurdish journalist to 18 months in prison for criticizing Massoud Barzani.
Barzani last allied with Saddam Hussein against fellow Kurds as late as 1996, only a decade ago. And you can't criticize him? If Syria or Iran had done this (not that they don't), there would have been a huge squeal of outrage from the American right. I challenge Instapundit, Andrew Sullivan, and Christopher Hitchens to intervene effectively to get Kamal Sayid Qadir out of Barzani's jail.
Here is something all of us, left and right, can agree on, and I hope the Left blogs the hell out of it, too. Will someone please start a blog to count the days Qadir is not free? American blood was shed saving the Kurds from Saddam, and this is not right. It is not right.
posted by Juan Cole @ 3/29/2006 06:30:00 AM
http://www.juancole.com/2006/03/kamal-sayid-qadir-jailed-for-criticism.html
The parliament of the Kurdistan Regional Authority, a part of Iraq, has just passed a very dangerous press law, which has drawn vigorous protests from Iraqi Kurdish journalists. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h3Mzs0ZJ1DXNulqGBGbLhnREZuEQD8THFLEO1
AP reports that:
' Under the measure, journalists can be prosecuted in counterterrorism courts, which could bring the death penalty, and newspapers can be shut down for up to six months and face fines up to $8,200. '
Sawt al-Iraq reports in Arabic that the head of the Kurdish journalists' guild, Farhad `Awni, and 20 editors of major newspapers and magazines, along with professors of Communication at Sulaymaniya University, launched an appeal to Kurdistan Regional Authority leader Massoud Barzani to veto the bill.
http://www.sotaliraq.com/iraqnews.php?id=4842
Kurdish journalists smell a rat, and suspect that Kurdish politicians will use the law to close down newspapers that criticize them and put journalists in jail whom they do not like.
Their suspicions are not without some foundation. Even under current laws, journalists have been jailed for "libelling" high Kurdish politicians, though Qadir was ultimately released.
Editors of major newspapers protested the law. The USG Open Source Center said, "Twice weekly Hawlati declares that it will close down the paper if the Media law which was endorsed yesterday by the Kurdistan parliament is not amended."
I don't believe that basic civil freedoms will last long in Kurdistan, which is the only part of Iraq where they are even relevant to most people's lives (civil freedoms are hard to maintain with a lot of bombs going off). The horrible thing is how many US and other lives have been lost so that the Kurds could have the freedoms their parliament is now abolishing.
Labels: Iraq
posted by Juan Cole 12/15/2007
http://www.juancole.com/
--------------------------------------
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Kamal Sayid Qadir Jailed for Criticism of Barzani
The proto-fascist mini-state of the Kurdistan Democratic Party in Arbil [Irbil], northern Iraq, has sentenced an Austrian-Kurdish journalist to 18 months in prison for criticizing Massoud Barzani.
Barzani last allied with Saddam Hussein against fellow Kurds as late as 1996, only a decade ago. And you can't criticize him? If Syria or Iran had done this (not that they don't), there would have been a huge squeal of outrage from the American right. I challenge Instapundit, Andrew Sullivan, and Christopher Hitchens to intervene effectively to get Kamal Sayid Qadir out of Barzani's jail.
Here is something all of us, left and right, can agree on, and I hope the Left blogs the hell out of it, too. Will someone please start a blog to count the days Qadir is not free? American blood was shed saving the Kurds from Saddam, and this is not right. It is not right.
posted by Juan Cole @ 3/29/2006 06:30:00 AM
http://www.juancole.com/2006/03/kamal-sayid-qadir-jailed-for-criticism.html
vendredi 14 décembre 2007
Palestine: No to Unjust Peace!
Palestine: No to Unjust Peace! A Response to Madrid Social Forum’s Misrepresentation of Facts
Palestinian Delegation
December 14, 2007
Yesterday, 13 December, we were shocked to read the statement posted on the website of the Forum for a Just Peace in the Middle East, as it entirely and intentionally misrepresented the facts and the factors that motivated the now growing boycott of the Forum. We feel obliged to correct these falsities and to present the facts, as they are, to all those who are still committed to a peace based on justice, international law and universal human rights.
(1) The communiqué starts by saying that only "one part" of the main entities sending delegations to the Forum has withdrawn. This is not true. It ignores the fact, which everyone knew yesterday, that our Israeli civil society partners, led by the Alternative Information Center (AIC), the Syrian Golan Heights delegation and the Lebanese delegation have all announced their withdrawal, as well. But even if the Palestinian delegation led by PNGO were the only one boycotting, it should not have been dismissed with such disrespect by anyone claiming to support a just peace in the region. After all, this is the main delegation, as the organizers have always insisted, since the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territory remains at the very core of the turmoil and colonial conflict in the Middle East.
(2) The first point in the communiqué claims that the facts mentioned in PNGO’s press release announcing its withdrawal were not connected to reality. This accusation, made under clear pressure from above, is both insulting and categorically unacceptable. Our Spanish partners know well that the premises and arguments outlined in the Palestinian position are accurate and precise. The official pressure that led to issuing such an unfortunate communiqué is itself proof of a key point mentioned in PNGO’s press release: that the Forum’s main body, the International Committee, is no longer in control of the agenda.
(3) The glaring truth that the communiqué fails to mention, despite the fact that it was the main reason behind our withdrawal, is that an Israeli establishment delegation, larger than the original delegation led by AIC, was indeed undemocratically invited by Spanish officials against the will of the overwhelming majority of the Forum’s main organizing body. Furthermore, we all know that, in a grave violation of the set rules, none of the organizations participating in this illegally invited alternative delegation has endorsed the Forum’s Reference Document, the key condition of participation, as agreed by consensus since the Forum’s International Committee meeting in July.
This delegation comprises Israeli organizations and municipal officials who are on record opposing the application of justice, international law and universal rights to reach a sustainable and genuine peace in the Middle East. Here are merely two examples: one of them, the mayor of Dimona, is a Member of the Board of Governors of the Jewish Agency, the main organization responsible for institutionalizing Israeli apartheid laws that racially and structurally discriminate against all "non-Jews" in Israel. Another, the mayor of Migdal Haemek, holds the rank of Lieutenant Colonel in the Israel army. His "town" sits on top of a Palestinian village that was ethnically cleansed by Zionists during the 1948 Nakba. All the members of that illicitly invited Israeli delegation (which, unfortunately, includes a few largely unpopular and unrepresentative Palestinian organizations as well) share one thing in common: they are all on record opposing the fundamental and inalienable right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes in accordance with international law. They all deceptively call themselves a "peace" camp, when in reality they advocate peace devoid of justice and in contravention of international law and basic human rights.
This is the major fact that was not shared with the Spanish and international public.
(4) The communiqué falsely states that the Palestinian delegation reached its decision to boycott "without the necessary dialogue." In fact, the Palestinian delegation coordinators were in constant dialogue with our Spanish partners in the International Committee and the administrative structure throughout this crisis, up to the very last minute before issuing the press release to announce the withdrawal. They all know that.
(5) Some background to the current crisis is in order. In the International Committee’s meeting in Madrid, on 20 October, the Committee members were surprised by an overt attempt to impose the participation of a mostly Israeli, uninvited, delegation in the International Committee, for "balance." That attempt was defeated, thanks to the consensus in the International Committee against this high-handed power politics. The delegation included representatives of establishment Israeli political parties that have been historically (up to the moment) responsible for the ethnic cleansing, occupation, colonization and all the war crimes committed by the Israeli army against Palestinian civilians. How can any reasonable person suggest their participation in a Forum designed to launch processes leading to justice and peace?
And what does "balance" mean in the context of racist and colonial oppression? Is there balance between colonizer and colonized? Oppressor and oppressed? Did European governments back in the 1980s insist on "balance" between anti-apartheid and pro-apartheid South African groups? Why do they expect Palestinians to accept this misleading and immoral attempt to portray the colonial conflict as a mere "dispute" between two equal sides with equivalent moral and political claims?
(6) Point 3 in the Forum’s communiqué claims that the "Geneva Initiative" has "never been a part of this process, nor [will] they send any kind of delegation to the Forum." On the Forum’s website* [1] (even today), however, the list of scheduled workshops shows on page 11 a workshop by the Geneva Initiative and its partners! Another long workshop, on page 4, is run by, among others, the so-called "Peace Voice," another of those Israeli groups advocating injustice as the path to "peace."
In short, a different agenda has been imposed on the Forum, shifting its character from a serious, even noble, civil society effort to envision and advocate an alternative path to peace, based on justice, human rights and international law, to yet another "peace" show, in a long series of similar shows, advocating an essentially unjust "peace."
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=39208
Palestinian Delegation
December 14, 2007
Yesterday, 13 December, we were shocked to read the statement posted on the website of the Forum for a Just Peace in the Middle East, as it entirely and intentionally misrepresented the facts and the factors that motivated the now growing boycott of the Forum. We feel obliged to correct these falsities and to present the facts, as they are, to all those who are still committed to a peace based on justice, international law and universal human rights.
(1) The communiqué starts by saying that only "one part" of the main entities sending delegations to the Forum has withdrawn. This is not true. It ignores the fact, which everyone knew yesterday, that our Israeli civil society partners, led by the Alternative Information Center (AIC), the Syrian Golan Heights delegation and the Lebanese delegation have all announced their withdrawal, as well. But even if the Palestinian delegation led by PNGO were the only one boycotting, it should not have been dismissed with such disrespect by anyone claiming to support a just peace in the region. After all, this is the main delegation, as the organizers have always insisted, since the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territory remains at the very core of the turmoil and colonial conflict in the Middle East.
(2) The first point in the communiqué claims that the facts mentioned in PNGO’s press release announcing its withdrawal were not connected to reality. This accusation, made under clear pressure from above, is both insulting and categorically unacceptable. Our Spanish partners know well that the premises and arguments outlined in the Palestinian position are accurate and precise. The official pressure that led to issuing such an unfortunate communiqué is itself proof of a key point mentioned in PNGO’s press release: that the Forum’s main body, the International Committee, is no longer in control of the agenda.
(3) The glaring truth that the communiqué fails to mention, despite the fact that it was the main reason behind our withdrawal, is that an Israeli establishment delegation, larger than the original delegation led by AIC, was indeed undemocratically invited by Spanish officials against the will of the overwhelming majority of the Forum’s main organizing body. Furthermore, we all know that, in a grave violation of the set rules, none of the organizations participating in this illegally invited alternative delegation has endorsed the Forum’s Reference Document, the key condition of participation, as agreed by consensus since the Forum’s International Committee meeting in July.
This delegation comprises Israeli organizations and municipal officials who are on record opposing the application of justice, international law and universal rights to reach a sustainable and genuine peace in the Middle East. Here are merely two examples: one of them, the mayor of Dimona, is a Member of the Board of Governors of the Jewish Agency, the main organization responsible for institutionalizing Israeli apartheid laws that racially and structurally discriminate against all "non-Jews" in Israel. Another, the mayor of Migdal Haemek, holds the rank of Lieutenant Colonel in the Israel army. His "town" sits on top of a Palestinian village that was ethnically cleansed by Zionists during the 1948 Nakba. All the members of that illicitly invited Israeli delegation (which, unfortunately, includes a few largely unpopular and unrepresentative Palestinian organizations as well) share one thing in common: they are all on record opposing the fundamental and inalienable right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes in accordance with international law. They all deceptively call themselves a "peace" camp, when in reality they advocate peace devoid of justice and in contravention of international law and basic human rights.
This is the major fact that was not shared with the Spanish and international public.
(4) The communiqué falsely states that the Palestinian delegation reached its decision to boycott "without the necessary dialogue." In fact, the Palestinian delegation coordinators were in constant dialogue with our Spanish partners in the International Committee and the administrative structure throughout this crisis, up to the very last minute before issuing the press release to announce the withdrawal. They all know that.
(5) Some background to the current crisis is in order. In the International Committee’s meeting in Madrid, on 20 October, the Committee members were surprised by an overt attempt to impose the participation of a mostly Israeli, uninvited, delegation in the International Committee, for "balance." That attempt was defeated, thanks to the consensus in the International Committee against this high-handed power politics. The delegation included representatives of establishment Israeli political parties that have been historically (up to the moment) responsible for the ethnic cleansing, occupation, colonization and all the war crimes committed by the Israeli army against Palestinian civilians. How can any reasonable person suggest their participation in a Forum designed to launch processes leading to justice and peace?
And what does "balance" mean in the context of racist and colonial oppression? Is there balance between colonizer and colonized? Oppressor and oppressed? Did European governments back in the 1980s insist on "balance" between anti-apartheid and pro-apartheid South African groups? Why do they expect Palestinians to accept this misleading and immoral attempt to portray the colonial conflict as a mere "dispute" between two equal sides with equivalent moral and political claims?
(6) Point 3 in the Forum’s communiqué claims that the "Geneva Initiative" has "never been a part of this process, nor [will] they send any kind of delegation to the Forum." On the Forum’s website* [1] (even today), however, the list of scheduled workshops shows on page 11 a workshop by the Geneva Initiative and its partners! Another long workshop, on page 4, is run by, among others, the so-called "Peace Voice," another of those Israeli groups advocating injustice as the path to "peace."
In short, a different agenda has been imposed on the Forum, shifting its character from a serious, even noble, civil society effort to envision and advocate an alternative path to peace, based on justice, human rights and international law, to yet another "peace" show, in a long series of similar shows, advocating an essentially unjust "peace."
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=39208
Why I Will Not Participate in the Madrid Social Forum for a Just Peace in the Middle East
Written by Michael Warschawski, Alternative Information Center (AIC)
Thursday, 13 December 2007
http://www.alternativenews.org/blogs/michael-warschawski/why-i-will-not-participate-at-the-madrid-social-forum-for-a-just-peace-in-the-middle-east-20071213.html
I have no problem in taking part in a conference where Zionist spokespersons are invited too, for debates are part and parcel of a healthy political arena. As well, I have no problem being invited to official public meetings, initiated by government agencies, including Israeli ones. I need, however, to know exactly what kind of gathering I am supposed to participate.
By its own definition, the Madrid Social Forum for a Just Peace in the Middle East belongs to the family of “social forums,” as defined in the Porto Allegre Charter, i.e. a forum of grassroots and popular organizations, without any involvement of State’s agencies, political parties (or armed-organizations).
The Alternative Information Center (AIC), together with PNGO (Palestinian NGOs coordination), Ittijah, the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD) and the Israeli Women Coalition for a Just Peace were much involved in the International Committee that was established in order to assist the local committee in shaping the forum and fixing the list of the invited organizations.
Whoever has been involved in Middle East progressive politics is aware that the list is a major political issue: most Arab organizations, including Palestinian ones, do not participate in political gatherings with Israeli organizations that don’t support Palestinian rights, as defined by the United Nations and international law, including, obviously, the Right of Return of the Palestinian refugees. This excludes most of the Israeli Zionist organizations.
In order to avoid any misunderstanding, the Madrid organizing committee and the international committee issued, at an early stage, a Declaration of Principles that defined the political framework of the Madrid Social Forum. On the basis of that Declaration of Principles, the Israeli delegation was designed and the speakers for the various plenaries were selected. In a nutshell, Madrid is the first big international Anti-Annapolis conference, and this is why it is so important.
The composition of the delegations, however, especially the Israeli one, didn’t satisfy the Spanish Minister of Foreign Affairs… or the Peres Peace Center. Obviously, the Spanish government has the right to sympathize more with Zionist organizations, and it can organize its own conference. Nevertheless, it cannot interfere in the Social Forum. Two months ago, I wrote on the AIC website:
The involvement of a government ministry in a social forum is, in and of itself, a serious violation of the Porto Alegre charter, which established the absolute independence of the social forums from the government. Yet the problem is not only statutory but absolutely political: what are bodies that openly support neoliberalism and the war doing with a conference that is entirely in opposition to neoliberalism and the war??!!! This is not the first time that this quasi-governmental entity attempts to sneak into a conference of non-governmental organizations, and we have reviewed other attempts in the past […]. However, this time the matter is more serious, as a majority of the participants perceive the forum in Madrid as being anti-Annapolis, and it is unacceptable that blatant supporters of Annapolis will be present to seek converts for their plan of war, a plan being created right before our eyes (“Anti-Annapolis in Madrid,” 29 November 2007).
In an unacceptable procedure, the Spanish Foreign Ministry established a parallel Israeli delegation, bigger than the official one, aimed to change the agenda of the Madrid Social Forum from an Anti-Annapolis conference to an “all inclusive” gathering, discussing the pro and against of the war plans shaped in Annapolis by George W. Bush and Ehud Olmert. The procedure is unacceptable, the content is outrageous.
As a result, the Palestinian delegation decided, at the last moment, to boycott the Forum, as did participants from other parts of the Arab world. One can object that the protest should have done in Madrid itself, at the site of the Forum, including boycotting it. This was, however, the decision of PNGO, and, while driving to the airport on my way to Madrid, I got the information and took the decision to return to Jerusalem, in solidarity with the Palestinian civil society organizations.
One should not underestimate what is at stake. It is not a matter of this or that person or organization being present at the Madrid Social Forum; it is not even the question of the heavy involvement of the Spanish government in a Social Forum. It is the question of War and Peace in the Middle East, what George W. Bush calls World War III, the core political issue of the moment!
In Annapolis, the United States and their allies have finalized the plans of the next war, not hesitating even to speak about nuclear strikes. It is a war against Iran, against Lebanon and Hezbollah, against Hamas and the Palestinian people, part of the global war planned by the neoconservatives of Washington and Tel Aviv.
The world today is divided between the supporters of such a war and those who oppose it: the line that divides them should be hermetic, because it is the line separating freedom from oppression, peaceful coexistence from aggression, life from death.
Some of the newly-invited Israeli organizations to Madrid are, to say the least, not fully opposed to the war plans of their government or their US godfather. To mention only two: Shimon Peres (founder of the Peres Peace Center) is calling for a preemptive war against Iran after having supported the last aggression against Lebanon; Peace Now supported the war in Lebanon in summer 2006—that is, until it became a military fiasco. It is a matter of private ethics: I do not want, today, to be in the same forum with such people. The blood of the martyrs of Tyre and Bint Jbail is not dry yet, and the noises of the next war, a war that they will undoubtedly support, are already in our ears.
Post Scriptum: We must emphasize how unacceptable the role played by some of our Israeli colleagues has been in this. They have crossed the lines, back and forth, between the civil society organizations and the Spanish Foreign Ministry, creating the whole mess and provoking the decision of the Palestinian organizations to boycott the Forum.
Thursday, 13 December 2007
http://www.alternativenews.org/blogs/michael-warschawski/why-i-will-not-participate-at-the-madrid-social-forum-for-a-just-peace-in-the-middle-east-20071213.html
I have no problem in taking part in a conference where Zionist spokespersons are invited too, for debates are part and parcel of a healthy political arena. As well, I have no problem being invited to official public meetings, initiated by government agencies, including Israeli ones. I need, however, to know exactly what kind of gathering I am supposed to participate.
By its own definition, the Madrid Social Forum for a Just Peace in the Middle East belongs to the family of “social forums,” as defined in the Porto Allegre Charter, i.e. a forum of grassroots and popular organizations, without any involvement of State’s agencies, political parties (or armed-organizations).
The Alternative Information Center (AIC), together with PNGO (Palestinian NGOs coordination), Ittijah, the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD) and the Israeli Women Coalition for a Just Peace were much involved in the International Committee that was established in order to assist the local committee in shaping the forum and fixing the list of the invited organizations.
Whoever has been involved in Middle East progressive politics is aware that the list is a major political issue: most Arab organizations, including Palestinian ones, do not participate in political gatherings with Israeli organizations that don’t support Palestinian rights, as defined by the United Nations and international law, including, obviously, the Right of Return of the Palestinian refugees. This excludes most of the Israeli Zionist organizations.
In order to avoid any misunderstanding, the Madrid organizing committee and the international committee issued, at an early stage, a Declaration of Principles that defined the political framework of the Madrid Social Forum. On the basis of that Declaration of Principles, the Israeli delegation was designed and the speakers for the various plenaries were selected. In a nutshell, Madrid is the first big international Anti-Annapolis conference, and this is why it is so important.
The composition of the delegations, however, especially the Israeli one, didn’t satisfy the Spanish Minister of Foreign Affairs… or the Peres Peace Center. Obviously, the Spanish government has the right to sympathize more with Zionist organizations, and it can organize its own conference. Nevertheless, it cannot interfere in the Social Forum. Two months ago, I wrote on the AIC website:
The involvement of a government ministry in a social forum is, in and of itself, a serious violation of the Porto Alegre charter, which established the absolute independence of the social forums from the government. Yet the problem is not only statutory but absolutely political: what are bodies that openly support neoliberalism and the war doing with a conference that is entirely in opposition to neoliberalism and the war??!!! This is not the first time that this quasi-governmental entity attempts to sneak into a conference of non-governmental organizations, and we have reviewed other attempts in the past […]. However, this time the matter is more serious, as a majority of the participants perceive the forum in Madrid as being anti-Annapolis, and it is unacceptable that blatant supporters of Annapolis will be present to seek converts for their plan of war, a plan being created right before our eyes (“Anti-Annapolis in Madrid,” 29 November 2007).
In an unacceptable procedure, the Spanish Foreign Ministry established a parallel Israeli delegation, bigger than the official one, aimed to change the agenda of the Madrid Social Forum from an Anti-Annapolis conference to an “all inclusive” gathering, discussing the pro and against of the war plans shaped in Annapolis by George W. Bush and Ehud Olmert. The procedure is unacceptable, the content is outrageous.
As a result, the Palestinian delegation decided, at the last moment, to boycott the Forum, as did participants from other parts of the Arab world. One can object that the protest should have done in Madrid itself, at the site of the Forum, including boycotting it. This was, however, the decision of PNGO, and, while driving to the airport on my way to Madrid, I got the information and took the decision to return to Jerusalem, in solidarity with the Palestinian civil society organizations.
One should not underestimate what is at stake. It is not a matter of this or that person or organization being present at the Madrid Social Forum; it is not even the question of the heavy involvement of the Spanish government in a Social Forum. It is the question of War and Peace in the Middle East, what George W. Bush calls World War III, the core political issue of the moment!
In Annapolis, the United States and their allies have finalized the plans of the next war, not hesitating even to speak about nuclear strikes. It is a war against Iran, against Lebanon and Hezbollah, against Hamas and the Palestinian people, part of the global war planned by the neoconservatives of Washington and Tel Aviv.
The world today is divided between the supporters of such a war and those who oppose it: the line that divides them should be hermetic, because it is the line separating freedom from oppression, peaceful coexistence from aggression, life from death.
Some of the newly-invited Israeli organizations to Madrid are, to say the least, not fully opposed to the war plans of their government or their US godfather. To mention only two: Shimon Peres (founder of the Peres Peace Center) is calling for a preemptive war against Iran after having supported the last aggression against Lebanon; Peace Now supported the war in Lebanon in summer 2006—that is, until it became a military fiasco. It is a matter of private ethics: I do not want, today, to be in the same forum with such people. The blood of the martyrs of Tyre and Bint Jbail is not dry yet, and the noises of the next war, a war that they will undoubtedly support, are already in our ears.
Post Scriptum: We must emphasize how unacceptable the role played by some of our Israeli colleagues has been in this. They have crossed the lines, back and forth, between the civil society organizations and the Spanish Foreign Ministry, creating the whole mess and provoking the decision of the Palestinian organizations to boycott the Forum.
Palestinian Delegation Withdraws from Madrid Just Peace Forum
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
13 December 2007
Palestinian Delegation Withdraws from Madrid Just Peace Forum
Protesting Serious Violations
The Palestinian civil society delegation to the Forum for a Just Peace in the Middle East, planned for December 14 to 16 in Madrid, has decided not to participate in the Forum due to serious last-minute violations. Coordinators of the delegation, which was to be led by the Palestinian NGO Network (PNGO), learned last night that due to unprecedented pressure from the Israeli establishment, a substantial Israeli delegation (different from the progressive civil society Israeli delegation led by the Alternative Information Center, AIC, scheduled to participate in the Forum) was undemocratically and underhandedly “invited” to participate in the Forum without endorsing the Forum's Reference Document [1]. This is not only a significant breach of the key rule of participation; it is a contravention of the express will of the overwhelming majority of the International Committee, the decision-making steering committee of the conference.
The International Committee, which includes representatives of PNGO, AIC, and other key Arab and international civil society networks, decided as far back as July that any group that wishes to take part in the Forum must first endorse the Reference Document as a necessary condition of participation. This Reference Document articulates the consensus principles agreed upon by the diverse international groups organizing the Forum, and projects an alternative vision for justice and peace based on international law and universal human rights. We, and virtually all of our partners, view the violation of this basic criterion as an undemocratic, unprofessional and utterly unacceptable attempt by some to impose governmental will on a distinguished civil society initiative. Protesting this infringement of democratic principles and recognizing that it effectively opens the door to the possibility of imposing an agenda at odds with the Forum’s vision, several of our local and international partners have also decided to withdraw. These include the Israeli delegation led by AIC, the Occupied Syrian Golan-Heights delegation, as well as many Arab and international figures and institutions.
We are deeply disappointed, saddened and surprised by this not-so-innocently-timed turn of events. We sincerely regret that an otherwise truly inspiring and democratically-organized initiative advocating peace based on justice and solidarity between nations has been hijacked by outside groups that, after failing to influence the progressive and visionary political platform of the Forum, resorted to an undemocratic coup to impose their will. Their political agenda essentially contradicts the basic principle that only peace built on justice, international law and human rights, as outlined in the Forum’s Reference Document, can be viable, equitable and sustainable.
We deeply appreciate the Spanish civil society organizations' noble and untiring efforts in organizing this Forum in the most professional, progressive and inclusive way. They are our partners for the long haul in the struggle against the forces of occupation, racism and imperial hegemony. We share with them our aspirations for a just peace.
Contact: PNGO, the Palestinian NGO Network
------------------------------------------[1] http://www.foroporlapaz.org/upload/documentos/D0005-07_Reference_doc_FINAL_EN.pdf
13 December 2007
Palestinian Delegation Withdraws from Madrid Just Peace Forum
Protesting Serious Violations
The Palestinian civil society delegation to the Forum for a Just Peace in the Middle East, planned for December 14 to 16 in Madrid, has decided not to participate in the Forum due to serious last-minute violations. Coordinators of the delegation, which was to be led by the Palestinian NGO Network (PNGO), learned last night that due to unprecedented pressure from the Israeli establishment, a substantial Israeli delegation (different from the progressive civil society Israeli delegation led by the Alternative Information Center, AIC, scheduled to participate in the Forum) was undemocratically and underhandedly “invited” to participate in the Forum without endorsing the Forum's Reference Document [1]. This is not only a significant breach of the key rule of participation; it is a contravention of the express will of the overwhelming majority of the International Committee, the decision-making steering committee of the conference.
The International Committee, which includes representatives of PNGO, AIC, and other key Arab and international civil society networks, decided as far back as July that any group that wishes to take part in the Forum must first endorse the Reference Document as a necessary condition of participation. This Reference Document articulates the consensus principles agreed upon by the diverse international groups organizing the Forum, and projects an alternative vision for justice and peace based on international law and universal human rights. We, and virtually all of our partners, view the violation of this basic criterion as an undemocratic, unprofessional and utterly unacceptable attempt by some to impose governmental will on a distinguished civil society initiative. Protesting this infringement of democratic principles and recognizing that it effectively opens the door to the possibility of imposing an agenda at odds with the Forum’s vision, several of our local and international partners have also decided to withdraw. These include the Israeli delegation led by AIC, the Occupied Syrian Golan-Heights delegation, as well as many Arab and international figures and institutions.
We are deeply disappointed, saddened and surprised by this not-so-innocently-timed turn of events. We sincerely regret that an otherwise truly inspiring and democratically-organized initiative advocating peace based on justice and solidarity between nations has been hijacked by outside groups that, after failing to influence the progressive and visionary political platform of the Forum, resorted to an undemocratic coup to impose their will. Their political agenda essentially contradicts the basic principle that only peace built on justice, international law and human rights, as outlined in the Forum’s Reference Document, can be viable, equitable and sustainable.
We deeply appreciate the Spanish civil society organizations' noble and untiring efforts in organizing this Forum in the most professional, progressive and inclusive way. They are our partners for the long haul in the struggle against the forces of occupation, racism and imperial hegemony. We share with them our aspirations for a just peace.
Contact: PNGO, the Palestinian NGO Network
------------------------------------------[1] http://www.foroporlapaz.org/upload/documentos/D0005-07_Reference_doc_FINAL_EN.pdf
mercredi 12 décembre 2007
The on-going resistance against foreign occupation: principles according to international law
Civilians in an occupied country have no obligation of loyalty towards the Occupying Power regardless of the motives of the invading forces. The only obligations they have relate to their civilian status: civilians are protected by applicable human rights law as well as by Geneva Convention IV relating to civilians and the provisions relating to civilians in Protocol Additional I. A civilian who takes up arms against the Occupying Power loses rights as a civilian, but takes on the rights and obligations of combatant forces. This is the situation of the classic levee en masse: the Geneva Conventions recognize the combatant status of persons who spontaneously take up arms on the approach of the enemy.
This rule is augmented by the principle of self-determination: under the law of self-determination, a people have the right to resist, with force if necessary, an alien or foreign occupier. The fact that some of the people resisting the U.S./British occupation of Iraq were not part of the pre-invasion Iraqi armed forces is not relevant, as persons who were civilians can take up arms as insurgents against any occupier. As protected combatants they have the right to take up arms against the Occupying Power and cannot be criminally charged except for acts that violate the laws and customs of war. The reason for this rule is obvious: were civilians who spontaneously take up arms and organize themselves into defense forces to be considered “terrorists” instead of combatants, this would mean that persons under attack from a foreign or oppressive force would not be able to fight back and resist without being considered terrorist.
The U.S. administration has generally succeeded in its political rhetoric on the issue: practically no U.S. politicians and very few scholars in NGOs in the U.S. have challenged the false labelling of the Iraq resistance as “terrorist.”
The U.S. seeks to avoid application of the self-determination rules by claiming that Iraq is no longer an “occupied” county but rather a sovereign State with a government. In this regard there has been some lukewarm recognition of an “interim” Iraqi government since 2004, but this was more for practical reasons than for legal ones. For example, UN Security Council resolution 1546 of June 8, 2004, while seeming to recognize Iraq’s sovereignty, is notable for its contradictions and ambivalence. It records “that …by 30 June 2004, the occupation will end and the Coalition Provisional Authority will cease to exist, and that Iraq will reassert its full Sovereignty,” but then notes “the situation in Iraq continues to constitute a threat to international peace and security,” thus requiring that “the multinational force shall have the authority to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq….”
Regardless of the intent of this resolution, the U.S. has not ceased either its military operations in or its military occupation of Iraq according to the terms of humanitarian law. U.S. military commanders acknowledge that they retain control in most areas. For example, Col. David R. Gray, commander of the Army’s 1st Brigade, 101st Airborne Division, said in April 2006, “We maintain over-all control in the Kirkuk province.” Similar statements by other U.S. military officers attest to the continued commitment of the military to its overall control over most of Iraq. Under the terms of Article 2 of each of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, the Geneva Conventions continue to apply as long as there is partial or total foreign military control.
The hand-over of some administrative functions to civil servants does not relieve the Occupying Power of its obligations under humanitarian law or terminate the right of the Iraqi people to resist a foreign occupation: the right to self-determination stays in force until the Occupying Power cedes all power and ceases all military operations.11 In any case, the continuous on-going clashes in Iraq demonstrate the limits of the Iraq “government” to fulfil its security and welfare responsibilities. At the same time, the U.S., by promoting that “government,” improperly seeks to limit its responsibilities as an Occupying Power while still retaining direct, if not sole, influence on the course of Iraq’s decision-making.
(written in consultation with Karen Parker, JD, Advisory Committee of BRussells Tribunal)
http://brusselstribunal.org/
This rule is augmented by the principle of self-determination: under the law of self-determination, a people have the right to resist, with force if necessary, an alien or foreign occupier. The fact that some of the people resisting the U.S./British occupation of Iraq were not part of the pre-invasion Iraqi armed forces is not relevant, as persons who were civilians can take up arms as insurgents against any occupier. As protected combatants they have the right to take up arms against the Occupying Power and cannot be criminally charged except for acts that violate the laws and customs of war. The reason for this rule is obvious: were civilians who spontaneously take up arms and organize themselves into defense forces to be considered “terrorists” instead of combatants, this would mean that persons under attack from a foreign or oppressive force would not be able to fight back and resist without being considered terrorist.
The U.S. administration has generally succeeded in its political rhetoric on the issue: practically no U.S. politicians and very few scholars in NGOs in the U.S. have challenged the false labelling of the Iraq resistance as “terrorist.”
The U.S. seeks to avoid application of the self-determination rules by claiming that Iraq is no longer an “occupied” county but rather a sovereign State with a government. In this regard there has been some lukewarm recognition of an “interim” Iraqi government since 2004, but this was more for practical reasons than for legal ones. For example, UN Security Council resolution 1546 of June 8, 2004, while seeming to recognize Iraq’s sovereignty, is notable for its contradictions and ambivalence. It records “that …by 30 June 2004, the occupation will end and the Coalition Provisional Authority will cease to exist, and that Iraq will reassert its full Sovereignty,” but then notes “the situation in Iraq continues to constitute a threat to international peace and security,” thus requiring that “the multinational force shall have the authority to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq….”
Regardless of the intent of this resolution, the U.S. has not ceased either its military operations in or its military occupation of Iraq according to the terms of humanitarian law. U.S. military commanders acknowledge that they retain control in most areas. For example, Col. David R. Gray, commander of the Army’s 1st Brigade, 101st Airborne Division, said in April 2006, “We maintain over-all control in the Kirkuk province.” Similar statements by other U.S. military officers attest to the continued commitment of the military to its overall control over most of Iraq. Under the terms of Article 2 of each of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, the Geneva Conventions continue to apply as long as there is partial or total foreign military control.
The hand-over of some administrative functions to civil servants does not relieve the Occupying Power of its obligations under humanitarian law or terminate the right of the Iraqi people to resist a foreign occupation: the right to self-determination stays in force until the Occupying Power cedes all power and ceases all military operations.11 In any case, the continuous on-going clashes in Iraq demonstrate the limits of the Iraq “government” to fulfil its security and welfare responsibilities. At the same time, the U.S., by promoting that “government,” improperly seeks to limit its responsibilities as an Occupying Power while still retaining direct, if not sole, influence on the course of Iraq’s decision-making.
(written in consultation with Karen Parker, JD, Advisory Committee of BRussells Tribunal)
http://brusselstribunal.org/
Top commanders lash out at DTP, European Union
http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=129229&bolum=103
Chief of General Staff Gen. Yaşar Büyükanıt said on Tuesday that acts of terrorism have been both politicized and legalized in recent years, pointing to the presence of deputies from the Democratic Society Party (DTP) in Parliament.
Büyükanıt delivered a speech at a symposium titled "Prevention of Economic and Ideological Support for the PKK/Kongra-Gel," organized by the Turkish General Staff Military History Archives and Strategic Studies Institute (ATASE) on Tuesday in the capital. He noted that domestic and foreign support flowing to the terrorist organization is an interaction and stated that acts of terror perpetrated by separatist and terrorist groups has recently been politicized and legalized, in particular reference to deputies from the pro-Kurdish DTP in Parliament.
Stating that the objective of the symposium is to curb psychological and financial support to the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), Büyükanıt noted, "It is not easy to find ways to prevent resources from going to the terrorist organization because it is supported by domestic and foreign entities."
He underlined that foreign support for the separatist organization comes to a large extent from northern Iraq, adding: "Domestic and foreign support trigger each other. If the terrorist organization was not supported by internal dynamics, the scope of foreign support to members of the separatist group would not be that large. In other words, domestic support leads foreign sources to support the terrorist organization."
Noting that countries around the world have squandered significant opportunities on the path to the restoration of peace and the strengthening of democracy, the rule of law and human rights, Büyükanıt said: "Now such concepts serve the interests of terrorist organizations. These concepts are of vital importance to foreign countries. When they hear members of a terrorist organization dwelling on such concepts, they believe that that the terrorist group is right in its fight."
"The entire Turkish nation should be very careful in its acts. Terrorism has been both politicized and legalized," he said.
Deputy Chief of General Staff Gen. Ergin Saygun, on the other hand, stated that the stance of certain countries, including Turkey's allies, encourages members of the outlawed PKK in their terrorist activities, while noting that financial and psychological support flowing to the terrorist organization should be cut to curb such activities.
In his speech, Saygun noted that the stance adopted by certain countries, including Turkey's allies, is the most crucial factor that paves the way for members of the terrorist organization to find safe havens and continue their armed attacks.
Noting that financial, psychological and military support going to terrorist organizations should be obstructed to flush out members of those groups, Saygun stressed that all countries need to contribute to the worldwide struggle against acts of terrorism perpetrated against innocent civilians by armed terrorist organizations.
Saygun stated that the United States, the European Union and NATO have recently pledged to help Turkey crack down on the PKK separatist organization. "The EU has taken significant and promising steps to contribute to Turkey's fight against the PKK terrorist group in the last few weeks. But we also see that conferences that spread the propaganda of the terrorist organization in question are organized in the European Parliament and in the French and UK parliaments by members and proponents of the separatist group," he said.
Saygun stressed that such conferences encourage members and proponents of the terrorist organization to support bloody attacks waged by the PKK and provide political support for the terrorist organization. "We cannot understand why some countries still continue to call members of the terrorist group 'PKK guerillas,' 'armed fighters' and 'Ankara dissidents'."
Saygun noted that the PKK receives financial aid from European countries where it conducts illegal operations such as drug and human trafficking.
"Steps taken by Turkey in its fight against terrorism are criticized by European countries for reasons of human rights, but these countries forget that they take stricter measures against terrorist organizations when necessary. Though all European countries remain silent in the face of tough measures taken to curb terrorist attacks waged against their countries, they are critical of a court case opened to close down a political party that explicitly supports a terrorist organization," he said.
12.12.2007
Chief of General Staff Gen. Yaşar Büyükanıt said on Tuesday that acts of terrorism have been both politicized and legalized in recent years, pointing to the presence of deputies from the Democratic Society Party (DTP) in Parliament.
Büyükanıt delivered a speech at a symposium titled "Prevention of Economic and Ideological Support for the PKK/Kongra-Gel," organized by the Turkish General Staff Military History Archives and Strategic Studies Institute (ATASE) on Tuesday in the capital. He noted that domestic and foreign support flowing to the terrorist organization is an interaction and stated that acts of terror perpetrated by separatist and terrorist groups has recently been politicized and legalized, in particular reference to deputies from the pro-Kurdish DTP in Parliament.
Stating that the objective of the symposium is to curb psychological and financial support to the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), Büyükanıt noted, "It is not easy to find ways to prevent resources from going to the terrorist organization because it is supported by domestic and foreign entities."
He underlined that foreign support for the separatist organization comes to a large extent from northern Iraq, adding: "Domestic and foreign support trigger each other. If the terrorist organization was not supported by internal dynamics, the scope of foreign support to members of the separatist group would not be that large. In other words, domestic support leads foreign sources to support the terrorist organization."
Noting that countries around the world have squandered significant opportunities on the path to the restoration of peace and the strengthening of democracy, the rule of law and human rights, Büyükanıt said: "Now such concepts serve the interests of terrorist organizations. These concepts are of vital importance to foreign countries. When they hear members of a terrorist organization dwelling on such concepts, they believe that that the terrorist group is right in its fight."
"The entire Turkish nation should be very careful in its acts. Terrorism has been both politicized and legalized," he said.
Deputy Chief of General Staff Gen. Ergin Saygun, on the other hand, stated that the stance of certain countries, including Turkey's allies, encourages members of the outlawed PKK in their terrorist activities, while noting that financial and psychological support flowing to the terrorist organization should be cut to curb such activities.
In his speech, Saygun noted that the stance adopted by certain countries, including Turkey's allies, is the most crucial factor that paves the way for members of the terrorist organization to find safe havens and continue their armed attacks.
Noting that financial, psychological and military support going to terrorist organizations should be obstructed to flush out members of those groups, Saygun stressed that all countries need to contribute to the worldwide struggle against acts of terrorism perpetrated against innocent civilians by armed terrorist organizations.
Saygun stated that the United States, the European Union and NATO have recently pledged to help Turkey crack down on the PKK separatist organization. "The EU has taken significant and promising steps to contribute to Turkey's fight against the PKK terrorist group in the last few weeks. But we also see that conferences that spread the propaganda of the terrorist organization in question are organized in the European Parliament and in the French and UK parliaments by members and proponents of the separatist group," he said.
Saygun stressed that such conferences encourage members and proponents of the terrorist organization to support bloody attacks waged by the PKK and provide political support for the terrorist organization. "We cannot understand why some countries still continue to call members of the terrorist group 'PKK guerillas,' 'armed fighters' and 'Ankara dissidents'."
Saygun noted that the PKK receives financial aid from European countries where it conducts illegal operations such as drug and human trafficking.
"Steps taken by Turkey in its fight against terrorism are criticized by European countries for reasons of human rights, but these countries forget that they take stricter measures against terrorist organizations when necessary. Though all European countries remain silent in the face of tough measures taken to curb terrorist attacks waged against their countries, they are critical of a court case opened to close down a political party that explicitly supports a terrorist organization," he said.
12.12.2007
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)
