A new "fair"trial for Öcalan... So what ?
That's agreed, the European Court has decided that Öcalan will have to be judged again, for his trial did not seemed "fair", because of a military judge in the Turkish court. Well, it was not the biggest mistake in this judiciary show... It is necessary to remember the climate of hysteria which prevailed in Turkey in 1999, when Öcalan's lawyers, and especially the first of them, Ahmet Zeki Okçuoglu, were threatened, and several times attacked by nationalist gangs, when visiting their client was so difficult in Imrali : If lawyers could obtained a ship for the isle, and if authorities decided that meteorology was ok for shipping, Öcalan's lawyers should face "Turkish soldiers' mothers" (right or true for these mothers seemed to have a real logistic and material meanings without limits for demonstrating during the trial and against the defence).
If they could have reached Imrali, they should be searched as a way of humiliation, and of course no conversation between the client and his lawyers could be secret, because a hooded "guard" listened always to the talks.
As for lawyers of the charge, they profited from greatest indulgence for all the failures with the Court rules : one of them even wore a tee-shirt representing the Turkish flag, instead of its usual dress.
An unfair trial, that's true. But how judging Öcalan could be of some value, if in the same time, the crimes of the Turkish State towards the Kurds, are not judged? Requiring a new trial for Öcalan in an "equitable" way is an absolute hypocrisy, quite characteristic of the European Union : for good part of the Turkish Staff and his political community, if they had been Serbes or Hutu Ruandais, would currently be on the benches of the international Court of the Hague. Moreover, some countries of ex-Yugoslavia, eager to integrate the European Union, are obliged to help the arrest of their war criminals... To insist on the recognition of the Armenian genocide is a good thing. But a bunch of Turkish leaders( or ex-leaders) have much fresher blood on the hands.
Judging Öcalan unilaterally is then stating that the Kurdish rebellion was illegal, and thus, that any revolt against a dictatorial state or genocidary ideology is illegal. If same logic is followed, the peshmergas of Barzani and Talabani were in the illegality when they revolted against Saddam Hussein's regime. In the same way, Tutsis, if they had been able to resist the Hutus, would have been committed "crimes" ahainst Ruanda ? The case was already posed concerning the loads against Nuriye Kesbir: Will the EU declare illegal any armed resistance against a State, whatever are its abuses concerning the humans right?
The former trial should have been the trial of the Turkish state, the trial of its anti-Kurdish policy. That was the wish of Ahmet Zeki Okçuoglu, and if it did not happen, it is only because Öcalan refused any other defence than : "I beg pardon", "It is not my fault, it is my guerilla's one", "I am not responsible, but my wife did it", and finally "I am deeply kemalist".
Under does these conditions, obviously, how to defend the cause of the Kurds in Turkey when their "leader" declare them automatically guilty? The one who prevents, for the moment, any "equitable"trial of the Turkish State, is not Turkey but Öcalan himself.
If they could have reached Imrali, they should be searched as a way of humiliation, and of course no conversation between the client and his lawyers could be secret, because a hooded "guard" listened always to the talks.
As for lawyers of the charge, they profited from greatest indulgence for all the failures with the Court rules : one of them even wore a tee-shirt representing the Turkish flag, instead of its usual dress.
An unfair trial, that's true. But how judging Öcalan could be of some value, if in the same time, the crimes of the Turkish State towards the Kurds, are not judged? Requiring a new trial for Öcalan in an "equitable" way is an absolute hypocrisy, quite characteristic of the European Union : for good part of the Turkish Staff and his political community, if they had been Serbes or Hutu Ruandais, would currently be on the benches of the international Court of the Hague. Moreover, some countries of ex-Yugoslavia, eager to integrate the European Union, are obliged to help the arrest of their war criminals... To insist on the recognition of the Armenian genocide is a good thing. But a bunch of Turkish leaders( or ex-leaders) have much fresher blood on the hands.
Judging Öcalan unilaterally is then stating that the Kurdish rebellion was illegal, and thus, that any revolt against a dictatorial state or genocidary ideology is illegal. If same logic is followed, the peshmergas of Barzani and Talabani were in the illegality when they revolted against Saddam Hussein's regime. In the same way, Tutsis, if they had been able to resist the Hutus, would have been committed "crimes" ahainst Ruanda ? The case was already posed concerning the loads against Nuriye Kesbir: Will the EU declare illegal any armed resistance against a State, whatever are its abuses concerning the humans right?
The former trial should have been the trial of the Turkish state, the trial of its anti-Kurdish policy. That was the wish of Ahmet Zeki Okçuoglu, and if it did not happen, it is only because Öcalan refused any other defence than : "I beg pardon", "It is not my fault, it is my guerilla's one", "I am not responsible, but my wife did it", and finally "I am deeply kemalist".
Under does these conditions, obviously, how to defend the cause of the Kurds in Turkey when their "leader" declare them automatically guilty? The one who prevents, for the moment, any "equitable"trial of the Turkish State, is not Turkey but Öcalan himself.
posted by Sandrine Alexie @ | Permalink 
