Anasayfa
tarafından scarface Çarş. Ekim 08, 2008 1:42 pmTurkey once again found itself discussing the need to protect democracy while containing and stopping terrorist threats. However, every assumption on the relationship between anti-terror measures and democracy is disputed. From the relevance of security approaches in tackling terror threats to evaluations of damage control on the path to the EU, terrorism experts and human rights advocates find it hard to reconcile their differences.
The debate over how to balance freedom and security, which was revived after Sept. 11, assumed new urgency following the latest attack by the terrorist Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK, that killed 17 Turkish soldiers Friday.
The security forces are demanding more power to conduct searches, detain suspects and operate electronic surveillance free from the need to obtain judicial permission. This brings, however, attention back to potential human rights abuses that were less articulated in the media after the European Union accession laws reduced police and gendarmerie powers.
Turkey's dilemma is particularly intense, as it faces both the challenge of democratization on its path to the EU, and countering the terror threat, which often abuses rights and freedoms granted by an open society. Determining the right balance is particularly difficult when terrorism experts and human rights watchers base their views on seemingly unbridgeable divergences of assumptions.
Terrorism experts like Nihat Ali Özcan from International Strategic Research Organization, or USAK, and Ercan Çitlioğlu from Eurasia Strategic Research Center, or ASAM, said security was the first condition to enjoy democratic rights and freedoms.
�Individuals feel the need to restrict their own freedoms, anyway, when they are threatened by terror strikes. After the Güngören bombings, that killed 17 people in the crowded Istanbul district, people started to avoid crowded places,� Çitlioğlu said.
A human rights lawyer and independent deputy of the Democratic Society Party, or DTP, Akın Birdal, said the state was indeed after its own security, when it should consider individuals' security first. Yavuz Önen, director of the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey, or TİHV, which keeps detailed records of human rights abuses in Turkey, said individuals' security would be greatly hampered by new regulations.
�Increasing security forces' power for home and body searches will certainly lead to an increase in human rights abuses,� Önen said. TİHV said especially after June 2007's changes to the Police Powers and Authorities Act, which reversed the EU accession laws and extended detention, weapon use and search authorities of the police, led to a surge of complaints about human rights abuses.
Is security relevant to end violence?
Human rights' advocates sometimes challenge even the quest to find the right amount of security measures to fight against terror itself, on the grounds that the causal connection between the two is dubious.
�Security was at the center of discussions, but we still arrived at the same results,� said Birdal. Likewise, Önen said Turkey needed alternative politics.
�Last winter it was said that a great deal was accomplished with operations there, but it is seen that nothing has changed,� Önen said.
What may seem like an inadequacy of security measures may also be a misleading thought from a different point of view. Chief of General Staff Gen. İlker Başbuğ said earlier the security environment, even in its deteriorated form in recent years, was nowhere near comparable to the violence of the early and mid 1990s.
The nature of the fight against the PKK renders the measures to be discussed invaluable to stop terrorists, said Özcan.
�Turkey is faced with a situation going beyond terror. There are 6,000 armed men up in the mountains, acting under a hierarchy and who consider security forces as the enemy. An increase in security forces authorities is absolutely needed,� Özcan said.
Relevance of the EU accession process
Terror experts, who insisted that terror itself is a human rights abuse, and human rights advocates, differed also in the relevance of the EU accession process with the proposed legal measures. Özcan said the matter had no connection with the European Union, where states already take similar measures against terrorism.
Çitlioğlu highlighted the new police powers after the London bombings.
�Police may detain terror suspects for four days without a court decision in Britain. If the police deem the period insufficient, an interior ministry order may extend the period for up to a week. Note that neither the prosecutors nor the courts are involved here. Now, is Britain less democratic than Turkey?� Çitlioğlu said.
Birdal said, however, anti-terror regulations in the EU are taken against international terrorism, not directed at one's own people.
�Granting the security forces these measures is a diversion from the path to the EU. It is a way of excluding the EU and insisting that it is only an internal matter,� Birdal said. Turkey's supreme anti-terror board will discuss security apparatus' demands for greater flexibility of action Thursday. Discussions arrive at a critical moment, as the EU Commission will declare its fresh progress report on Turkey on Nov. 5.
Özcan said there was a price to pay on the side of security or freedoms.
�If we do not pay this price for freedoms now, Turkey will pay a lot more in the future,� Özcan said. �Turkey is at this crossroads, and it is the politicians who will decide.
Apart from stricter internal measures, a military cross-border operation with land forces is also voiced.
�Armed response to the PKK must continue,� ASAM President Faruk Loğoğlu said yesterday. �The rest of the world, the U.S. and the EU condemned the attack strongly. Although this does not mean diplomatic pressure will be absent, Turkey must counter the threat against its national security.�
The debate over how to balance freedom and security, which was revived after Sept. 11, assumed new urgency following the latest attack by the terrorist Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK, that killed 17 Turkish soldiers Friday.
The security forces are demanding more power to conduct searches, detain suspects and operate electronic surveillance free from the need to obtain judicial permission. This brings, however, attention back to potential human rights abuses that were less articulated in the media after the European Union accession laws reduced police and gendarmerie powers.
Turkey's dilemma is particularly intense, as it faces both the challenge of democratization on its path to the EU, and countering the terror threat, which often abuses rights and freedoms granted by an open society. Determining the right balance is particularly difficult when terrorism experts and human rights watchers base their views on seemingly unbridgeable divergences of assumptions.
Terrorism experts like Nihat Ali Özcan from International Strategic Research Organization, or USAK, and Ercan Çitlioğlu from Eurasia Strategic Research Center, or ASAM, said security was the first condition to enjoy democratic rights and freedoms.
�Individuals feel the need to restrict their own freedoms, anyway, when they are threatened by terror strikes. After the Güngören bombings, that killed 17 people in the crowded Istanbul district, people started to avoid crowded places,� Çitlioğlu said.
A human rights lawyer and independent deputy of the Democratic Society Party, or DTP, Akın Birdal, said the state was indeed after its own security, when it should consider individuals' security first. Yavuz Önen, director of the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey, or TİHV, which keeps detailed records of human rights abuses in Turkey, said individuals' security would be greatly hampered by new regulations.
�Increasing security forces' power for home and body searches will certainly lead to an increase in human rights abuses,� Önen said. TİHV said especially after June 2007's changes to the Police Powers and Authorities Act, which reversed the EU accession laws and extended detention, weapon use and search authorities of the police, led to a surge of complaints about human rights abuses.
Is security relevant to end violence?
Human rights' advocates sometimes challenge even the quest to find the right amount of security measures to fight against terror itself, on the grounds that the causal connection between the two is dubious.
�Security was at the center of discussions, but we still arrived at the same results,� said Birdal. Likewise, Önen said Turkey needed alternative politics.
�Last winter it was said that a great deal was accomplished with operations there, but it is seen that nothing has changed,� Önen said.
What may seem like an inadequacy of security measures may also be a misleading thought from a different point of view. Chief of General Staff Gen. İlker Başbuğ said earlier the security environment, even in its deteriorated form in recent years, was nowhere near comparable to the violence of the early and mid 1990s.
The nature of the fight against the PKK renders the measures to be discussed invaluable to stop terrorists, said Özcan.
�Turkey is faced with a situation going beyond terror. There are 6,000 armed men up in the mountains, acting under a hierarchy and who consider security forces as the enemy. An increase in security forces authorities is absolutely needed,� Özcan said.
Relevance of the EU accession process
Terror experts, who insisted that terror itself is a human rights abuse, and human rights advocates, differed also in the relevance of the EU accession process with the proposed legal measures. Özcan said the matter had no connection with the European Union, where states already take similar measures against terrorism.
Çitlioğlu highlighted the new police powers after the London bombings.
�Police may detain terror suspects for four days without a court decision in Britain. If the police deem the period insufficient, an interior ministry order may extend the period for up to a week. Note that neither the prosecutors nor the courts are involved here. Now, is Britain less democratic than Turkey?� Çitlioğlu said.
Birdal said, however, anti-terror regulations in the EU are taken against international terrorism, not directed at one's own people.
�Granting the security forces these measures is a diversion from the path to the EU. It is a way of excluding the EU and insisting that it is only an internal matter,� Birdal said. Turkey's supreme anti-terror board will discuss security apparatus' demands for greater flexibility of action Thursday. Discussions arrive at a critical moment, as the EU Commission will declare its fresh progress report on Turkey on Nov. 5.
Özcan said there was a price to pay on the side of security or freedoms.
�If we do not pay this price for freedoms now, Turkey will pay a lot more in the future,� Özcan said. �Turkey is at this crossroads, and it is the politicians who will decide.
Apart from stricter internal measures, a military cross-border operation with land forces is also voiced.
�Armed response to the PKK must continue,� ASAM President Faruk Loğoğlu said yesterday. �The rest of the world, the U.S. and the EU condemned the attack strongly. Although this does not mean diplomatic pressure will be absent, Turkey must counter the threat against its national security.�
