Chairman Üskül: Civilized world facing test of sincerity on human rights advocacy

Zafer Üskül, the chairman of the commission, said they have sent letters to parliamentary human rights commissions in a number of countries, including the US and Japan, as well as the United Nations, the European Union and the Council of Europe, calling them to action. “Our condemnation alone is not sufficient. The parliaments and parliamentary commissions of other countries should express these same sensitivities with us so that this might have some effect on Israel,” he said.

Pointing out that what Israel did was an open and grave violation of human rights, Professor Üskül asserted that the world is facing a tough test of sincerity in this regard. Critical of Israel’s intention not to apologize although it cannot deny the charges, Üskül indicated that the civilized world has great responsibilities in averting new violations. He stressed the importance of the call to parliamentary human rights commissions to maintain a common position. “Today, this incident is a test for all of us. Parliamentary human rights commissions and organizations, are they really sensitive to human rights? Or do they have double standards? This is a test that will show us which.”

Professor Üskül gave an interview to Today’s Zaman:

Why did you opt to make this written call in addition to condemning the incident?

Our condemnation alone is not sufficient. The parliaments and parliamentary commissions of other countries should express these same sensitivities with us so that this might have some effect on Israel. In this way, a step can be taken to prevent such human rights violations that might occur in the future. We want to make sure that nations exhibit determination.

Why did we choose to send a letter instead of paying a visit?

We believe that we can express our views and expectations better by writing a letter to our addressees. So we decided to take the letter route. However, paying visits to certain countries or organizations may be more effective in conveying our views. We can even resort to telephone diplomacy to this end, but paying visits to Europe, to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva, or to the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights. I believe that it would be beneficial to visit the European Parliament and the competent commissions of the parliaments in various countries.

Where did you send letters?

To all countries that reacted by setting up parliamentary commissions, ranging from the US to Japan. There is the UN Human Rights Council, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, the Human Rights Sub-committee of the European Parliament, and a commission in Latin America. We intend not only to make a call, but also to exchange opinions. In this regard, we do not have any limits.

I guess you have not made a call like this before?

This is a first on this scale. On several occasions in the past we have sent various letters making calls for certain actions, but none of them of this magnitude.

Can we describe it as the breaking of the shell?

The parliamentary Human Rights Commission should no longer restrict itself to the human rights problems in its own country but should go beyond national borders to become an effective institution in parliamentary politics. I believe we may contribute to the creation of a more advanced society by urging them to action both through these letters and our visits. There is a huge protest building up all around the world of a magnitude never before seen. The attack and what happened afterwards are so unacceptable that no one has the courage to lend support to Israel.

Are these reactions sufficiently strong?

It is good to see countries and organizations express their reactions, but these reactions will wither away in time. Indeed, when such incidents happen, they are condemned but are later forgotten. But here is an incident that should never be forgotten. These are human rights violations committed by a state using its armed forces and which cannot be justified by any means. We should not give people the impression that these violations, like others, will go unpunished.

What sort of sanctions do you expect the international community to impose?

A detailed investigation must be held before any sanctions. However, there are certain facts which are known to the whole world and which were not denied by Israel. Above all, waylaying a ship in international waters is a breach of right to travel freely. Preventing communications is a violation of freedom of communication. All these facts are known to the international community. Moreover, breaching the freedom of communication also means a violation of other people’s right to information. Furthermore, freedom of the press was also violated. Victims say that the SIM cards of their cell phones were seized. An investigation into these matters is needed. But there are certain obvious human rights violations. Indeed, the most basic right, the right to life, was violated, and no legitimate excuse can be made about it. Therefore, all of this should be determined in detail and condemned, and certain sanctions should be imposed in connection with them. Every individual should seek remedies to the incident.

Do you mean they should seek compensation?

Yes, in my opinion, every victim has the right to compensation. They should try and find the way to seek remedies through international judicial organizations. They may need to bring actions against Israel in Israeli courts or in other jurisdictions, seeking a remedy for the ill-treatment they suffered. I believe the relatives of those who died in the attack, the people who were wounded and the people who survived the attack all have the right to compensation and that they should seek a remedy under international law.

Can your commission lend support to them in this regard?

Unfortunately, this is something we cannot do. We are not structured to provide legal counsel. However, as far I as I know, the Justice Ministry has launched a program to help the victims.

What is the likelihood of an independent investigation being conducted into the incident?

Everyone is partial to some extent. We should use the term “objective” instead of “impartial” in this context. We should take a snapshot of what is seen objectively and build our assessment upon this snapshot. After finding out what happened, we should compare the incident with the definition of human rights violations laid down internationally. The investigation must be conducted to the satisfaction of people’s consciences. If hundreds of people say they were ill-treated or insulted and if many people were killed or wounded, then you cannot legitimize or offer any excuse for such an incident. For this reason, the report to be prepared after the investigation must provide relief to the consciences of the victims and their relatives.

A tough test?

Especially for those who trumpet human rights values, such as Europe. The Council of Europe Commission for Human Rights and the EU Human Rights Commission claim to be watchful of human rights violations.

Ambassadors from many countries tend to request appointments from our commission for any human rights violations in Turkey that concerns themselves. Now, this is a test. Are they really sensitive to human rights violations? Or do they maintain double standards? This is a test that will show us which.