Is the government compromising?
by
BEKİR ÇINAR*

The whole atmosphere in Northern Ireland completely changed in the aftermath of the adoption of the Joint Declaration of 15 December 1993 (Downing St. Declaration) and the declaration of a cease-fire by terrorist organizations subsequent to this document. However, nobody was in the position to make any comments on the new situation or how it would look; analysts were unable to make any predictions on the future. The Framework Document signed on Feb. 22, 1995 followed this initiative. The new document created new assignments for both the British and Irish governments; the endeavors were the results of a strong desire for a lasting peace and eagerness to make sure that people from both Northern and Southern Ireland would contribute to the whole process so that violence would cease. This new situation, however, was unpleasant to some circles.

The Unionists (advocates of integration with England) particularly unanimously argued that the government was giving concessions to the terrorists, adding that the new endeavors would not create anything good. One of those agreeing with this argument was Peter Robinson from the BBC World Service. In a statement on April 22, 1995, he said: “The IRA[Irish Republican Army] is doing nothing; it did not pledge it would renounce violence, nor that it assures dissolution; what is being done is political compromise in favor of the IRA; this is not a peace process; it is a process of surrender.”

The statement bears a resemblance to current comments on the recent return of more than 30 PKK militants. Even though the recent initiative started by the government to resolve the Kurdish issue and introduce further democratization seeks to initiate a peace process and an effective method of combating terrorism, some circles are skeptical with the initiative arguing that such a project would never be implemented. If the newcomers had been arrested or killed, they would not have been surprised; if you consider the reports encouraging the arrest of the five referred to court, you will notice that some are really eager to see them in jail. Thank God this did not happen because trust is the key in a peace process.

The parties should be able to trust not only their words but also their actions as well. The process will not be successful without confidence and trust. For instance, despite that it declared it ceased violence on Aug. 31, 1995, the IRA killed two innocent people in a bombing in London on Feb. 9, 1996; the IRA justified this assault by arguing that it had resorted to violence because the government did not keep its promises. In addition, while a peace process was started with the Anglo-Irish Agreement signed in England on Nov. 15, 1985, the implementation of the initiative was delayed for 10 years because Sinn Fein and its leaders were not convinced on the intentions and good faith of the British government. The Conservative Party was unable to make progress with respect to the issue during the period between 1993 and 1995 when it tried to keep Sinn Fein out of the process; however, the Labour Party included that party in the process after which the IRA declared a cease-fire again in 1997; the process culminated in the adoption of the Good Friday Agreement on April 10, 1998, a peaceful endeavor that brought lasting peace in Northern Ireland.

The above example shows that there are similarities between what has been going on in Turkey with respect to the issue of terrorism and the developments in Britain. Some said: “Even though the AK Party has tried to present itself as the sole controller of the whole process since the start of the process, what happened in Habur gave me the impression that the Democratic Society Party (DTP) and Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) handed over the control.” However, holders of similar views are unaware that this is how the terrorists renounce violence and armed struggle. The elimination of terrorism and the end of violence becomes possible when holders of weapons renounce violence and subsequently surrender.

Therefore, it could be said that what is happening in Turkey right now has taken place in many other countries as well. It is evident that strategies devised to eliminate terrorism are not successful when they seek to kill all terrorists; history teaches us that this is the wrong strategy to follow. On Nov. 3, 1989, Peter Brooke, secretary of state for Northern Ireland, said: “The IRA cannot be defeated for good by reliance on military measures. For this reason, the talks should seek to end violence.” In light of this perspective, the British government held talks with any party able to make contributions to the peace process. Prime Minister John Major, despite the fact that he previously declared they would not negotiate with the IRA, held secret talks on Nov. 28, 1993 via mediation by officials from MI5 (the British intelligence agency). The IRA’s decision to renounce violence was affected by these talks, and this decision resulted in concrete action during Peter Brooke’s time in office.

Mutual trust is essential

I think the misperception caused by the improper implementation of the long-standing style of combating terrorism that has remained in effect in Turkey makes the provision of correct information on the democratic opening even more essential and vital. Our people should be better informed on present and future developments with respect to the outlook of the terror issue. Otherwise, the martyrs’ families and a substantial part of society may be provoked by nationalist calls that mobilize people’s emotions. The people may also be called to protest the government because of its new style developed to deal with terrorism. The government, all other political parties and civil society organizations, as well as our intellectuals should act responsibly to make sure that the process moves forward smoothly. It should also be recalled that even though they are still in the mountains and they are following orders issued by the leadership of a terrorist organization, these people are still citizens of the Turkish Republic just like many of us.

We have been unable to take them down from the mountains over the years by relying on violence, military operations and the police force. Violence bred further violence, and it still seems impossible in the short or long run to make sure that those in the mountains come back to their homes by use of military means. So if we are able to convince them to return home through a democratic initiative, there should be no harm in trying this option. In addition, this will eventually eliminate terrorism and save huge amounts of national resources.

A successful method of combating terror depends on the full implementation of security measures and political efforts seeking to secure positive results. I think Turkey will reap the results of the projected democratic initiative provided that Turkey keeps taking effective security measures and remains loyal to its promises.