An interview with the Kurdish resistance leader's lawyers

MIREILLE COURT, a journalist from the Paris-based left-wing newspaper, Rouge, travelled to Turkish-occupied Kurdistan in the last week of July to assess the reaction to the abduction, trial and death sentence meted out to Abdullah Ocalan - leader of the Kurdistan resistance. Writing for An Phoblacht, Court explains that the repression of the people of Kurdistan is continuing, and for its own selfish and strategic reasons, the West chooses to ignore a campaign of massive human rights abuses. It was in defence of the same human rights and the protection of defenceless human beings that the West said it undertook its war against Serbia. It seems then, given their refusal to impose any sanctions on Turkey, that the United States and Europe have a double standard with regard to human rights.
President Demirel and Prime Minister Bulen Ecevit massively contravened the presumption of innocence even before the trial started, making declarations that Ocalan would be sentenced to death.
 
     
This shows that there is a war going on and one side of the conflict is convicting the other, which is of course impossible, legally speaking.
For the European Union, trade relations have always been more important than the issues of human rights.
 
THE TRIAL of Abdullah Ocalan, leader of the PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party), took place on Imrali Island in Turkey in May and June. He had been abducted in Kenya by the MIT (Turkish secret services) with the help, most probably, of Israel's Mossad and the American secret services. Ocalan, asked to leave Syria, where he had been in exile for 20 years, had hoped he would obtain the status of political refugee in Europe as he was already advocating a political solution to the Kurdish issue which implied forgoing the armed struggle. But none of the European governments had the courage to resist the threats in terms of diplomatic and commercial retaliations immediately issued by the Turkish government. After Ocalan's abduction, the European Union voiced its concern about the necessity of ``a fair trial''. After the sentence, the EU stated that, according to Turkish law, the trial had been a fair one, but objected to the death sentence. Two of Abdullah Ocalan's lawyers discussed the trial.
     
It is the struggle for freedom that has brought humanity to where it is now, creating values and standards. In that sense all those fighting for freedom are one, even if they are geographically far apart from each other. When we follow the events in Ireland on TV, we get excited, as if we were ourselves involved. We feel the gains of the Irish are gains for humanity as a whole; in that sense, gains for the Kurdish people. People can give away everything they have, except freedom.

Mahmut Sakar was for several years in charge of the IHD (Human Rights Association) branch in Dyiarbakir, capital of that area of Kurdistan enclosed by Turkey's borders. He was imprisoned and when released became head of the Istanbul branch of HADEP, the Kurdish political party successor to the HEP and DEP parties, which were closed down by the government and whose elected MPs, such as Leyla Zana, MP and former mayor of Dyiarbakir, have been condemned to long prison sentences. Mahmut Sakar is now a full-time lawyer and one of the main counsellors of Abdullah Ocalan. Mukrime Tepe is a young woman who used to work in a publishing house but chose to become a criminal lawyer a year ago and participate in the defence because she felt her involvement could contribute to the peace process.
Would you say that Ocalan had a fair trial?

Mahmut Sakar: The trial was not a fair one. To start with, the arrest was unlawful. Ocalan was abducted from Kenya in an act of international piracy. It is impossible on these grounds to have a fair trial in the country that abducted him. The second point is the location of the trial on Imrali Island, which has been declared a military zone. The island has been declared a crisis centre under the authority of the Turkish prime minister, that is to say it is under a political authority instead of a judicial one. This was made possible under a law created to be used in the event of natural disasters but which was used for the first time with Ocalan's trial. According to Turkish law, the trial should have been held in Dyiarbakir because this is the area where most of the crimes attributed to Ocalan had been committed. All visitors to the island, including the lawyers, had to be approved by the military authorities. We were not allowed to bring any documents with us, not even legal documents. The duration of the visits was extremely limited, one hour in the pre-trial stage, two hours after his conviction. Ocalan was held in solitary confinement, that is to say in complete isolation, being alone in the prison except for his wardens with no access to a radio, newspapers or mail. Another important point is that the leading politicians in Turkey, starting with President Demirel and Prime Minister Bulen Ecevit, massively contravened the presumption of innocence even before the trial started, making declarations that Ocalan would be sentenced to death. They had judged him before he was presented to the court and the Turkish media widely echoed this stance.

Mukrime Tepe: I think it was not a fair trial. Ocalan was accused of being responsible for the deaths of 30,000 people, whereas it is obvious that a large number of these killings have been committed by the state or under the direct responsibility of the state. The destruction of several thousand villages, extra-judicial executions, people killed under torture, are not Ocalan's responsibility. We did have witnesses who could testify in that sense but our appeal for witnesses was rejected by the court. This shows that there is a war going on and one side of the conflict is convicting the other, which is of course impossible, legally speaking.

Were you, as Ocalan's lawyers, submitted to pressures and intimidation during the trial?

Mukrime Tepe: We were exposed to severe attacks, constantly targeted by the press. During the first session, on 30 April, we had to bear insults and threats from the plaintiffs and on the street. We were attacked and severely beaten up by the very policemen who were in charge of our protection. In Mudyana, where we would take the boat to Imrali, there was always a crowd shouting and abusing us. We had to submit to humiliating strip-searches and having our fingerprints taken - all our petitions of protest remained unanswered.

The European Union has criticised the death sentence and is putting pressure on Turkey not to go ahead with the execution; do you think it will be sufficient to prevent Turkey from hanging Ocalan?

Mahmut Sakar: The initiatives of the European Parliament are important but definitely insufficient. My personal opinion is that the members of the European Parliament and the European Union had extensive discussions about Turkey and the Kurdish issue and I think they have taken positive decisions. But it stayed at that level; the trade relations have always been more important than the issues of human rights. If Europe wants to be honest in what it says, it has to understand that the problem of Turkey, the Kurdish issue and Ocalan's fate, are European problems. If you talk about a European system of democratic values, then it is on these issues that the European bodies have to show their determination. If they chose to do so, then they would be efficient. But as far as I can see, Turkey is used to Europe discussing and blaming but in the end abiding to what Turkey is doing. If this situation changed, then it would have an impact on the outcome of Ocalan's case. There are some positive signs in that direction but no clear line as yet. Europe only approaches these issues with the perspective of its internal problems. It makes the calculation, for instance, that thousands of Kurds live in Germany and in France, so what could be the consequences of Ocalan's execution in terms of internal security. I am not refuting the relevance of this point, but I think that the situation of 30 million to 40 million Kurds is more important than a little unrest in Germany. Europe has to think more universally and be true to the values it advocates.

Another PKK member, Cevet Soysal, was abducted in Moldavia in July, though he had the status of a political refugee in Germany. How do you react to his arrest and the link he allegedly made during his interrogation between terrorist actions and HADEP, a democratic political party?

Moukrime Tepe : There are similarities with the Ocalan case since Soysal was abducted from a small country with the obvious complicity of the secret services from bigger countries. He was heavily tortured before his arrest was made public; he is believed to have lost the use of both his arms. We do not know what he said under torture but when presented to the prosecutor he denied his alleged declarations.

Mahmut Sakar: The message was that when Soysal was arrested he immediately submitted to pressure and betrayed everyone, making extremely significant statements. The intention is to create disillusionment among the Kurdish masses. In order to prove these allegations, the state was forced to launch a series of operations, mainly against HADEP, but it turned out to be a complete fiasco since after one day in custody they had to release the party leaders. This kind of operation is nothing new. The aim is to sabotage the possibility to make legal politics on behalf of Kurdish rights, to deprive HADEP of any chance to voice their demands. There are two law suits against HADEP to try and close it down; there are constant attempts to weaken HADEP and prevent it from functioning as a political party.

Do you think there are similarities between the Irish fight for freedom and the Kurdish issue?

Mahmut Sakar: There are certainly common features: both societies have a long history of resistance based on social and political reasons. There are also differences between these two conflicts: one is that even the British Empire, with all its might, has been forced to admit that military victory could never be achieved and finally admitted the problem had to be solved through inclusive negotiations. Among the documents we presented to court during Ocalan's trial was the Good Friday Agreement, which is for us a reference in terms of a political solution to the conflict here. Of course, the court rejected it. Another point is that even oppressed, the Irish identity has never been denied, whereas the Kurds are called ``Turks from the mountains''! It is the struggle for freedom that has brought humanity to where it is now, creating values and standards. In that sense all those fighting for freedom are one, even if they are geographically far apart from each other. When we follow the events in Ireland on TV, we get excited, as if we were ourselves involved. We feel the gains of the Irish are gains for humanity as a whole; in that sense, gains for the Kurdish people. People can give away everything they have, except freedom. This dignity that we find in our people we find it also in the Irish people who have never ceased to fight for their freedom throughout their history. I believe Irish people think the same about us.