Hannes Swoboda, who heads the Socialist group in the European Parliament, said in an interview with Today’s Zaman that the Turkish military had too much influence in the Turkish politics in the past and it is natural that some of its members face trial if there was some sort of a coup plan.
Some 325 army officers were convicted in the trial, commonly known as the Sledgehammer case. The judges on Friday handed down sentences of up to 20 years imprisonment for 325 of the 365 suspects, concluding the trial which began in 2010. The court also gave 20-year prison sentences to three retired generals who were key suspects in the case.
Sledgehammer is a suspected coup plot believed to have been devised in 2003 with the aim of unseating the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) government through violent acts. According to the Sledgehammer plan, the military was to systematically foment chaos in society through acts of violence, among which were planned bomb attacks on the Fatih and Beyazıt mosques in İstanbul.
Swoboda also commented on escalating terrorist attacks by the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) as well as his expectations from the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) and an anti-Islam movie called “Innocence of Muslims,” which sparked violent protests across the Muslim world.
Excerpts from the interview are as follows:
Turkey is debating the verdict from the coup trial, known as the Sledgehammer trial. Do you think the Sledgehammer ruling is a historic decision in terms of military-civilian relations and democratization in Turkey? What is your assessment?
I think a vast majority in Europe knew that the military had too much influence in political decisions in Turkey. The basic perception of the military in NATO is that the military’s duty is to defend the country from outside threats, not to interfere with or influence political decisions inside. If there was some sort of a plan for a military coup, this of course has to be tried. We of course have to see what the Supreme Court of Appeals would say, but if this verdict is upheld, I think it will be a historic step forward in terms of the relations between the military and civilian authorities in Turkey.
How do you assess the recent performance of the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) in terms of fundamental rights, freedoms and the reforms?
I think we should continue the reforms started at the beginning of [Prime Minister Recep Tayyip] Erdoğan’s government. We need a new constitution, we need a way to deal with the media in a more, say, balanced way, and there is of course still the Kurdish question. There is still a lot to do and hope that the government is not refraining from the reform course started at the beginning.
Are you hopeful about the results of the constitution-making process? What are your expectations from this process? Do you think it is a doable business, given the Turkish political climate?
I think it is a doable business, it must be a doable business. If all the forces, especially the government and opposition parties come together and reach an agreement on at least the major elements of a common ground, it is workable. Many issues are on the table, of course. They are not easy issues. There should be debate not only in the relevant parliamentary commission which is tasked with dealing with the issue but also in the public about the future of Turkey, the future of regionalization in Turkey, can Turkey stay a unitary state as it is, need some regional authorities, role of the military in regard to politics. There are many issues. It is not for the EU or someone else but to the relevant institutions of Turkey to address them. In order to modernize itself, enable itself to meet the challenges of the coming decades, Turkey needs a new constitution, one that will safeguard the secular character of the country and respect the religious rights of not only the majority but also of the other people. Having a secular state and respecting religion are not contradictory. The new constitution of Turkey is not only relevant for Turkey but also for many of its neighbors. We are looking [forwards] now to the new constitution after the Arab Spring revolutions.
Double-track strategy in the fight against terror
Another big debate is the escalating Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) terror. Now almost everyday we hear of these killings in Turkey. People are so much concerned. Why do you think PKK has escalated the violence? Why do you think it comes now and how do you react to it?
Well, there may be some outside influences or there might be some, let’s say incentive, because of new-found strengths, for example, in Iraq or in other countries. And I think, on the other hand, they were already on the losing side and since they are on the losing side, then they try to start to regain influence again, which is very sad. I think we should all condemn the killings inside Turkey and outside Turkey. Terrorism is no way to change things. There is no tolerance against terrorist activities.
There is always this criticism in Turkey that EU friends and allies in NATO are not helping enough in the fight against terrorism. How do you respond to this?
Well, I think that Turkey has to have this double track [strategy] in the fight against terrorism, meaning that the military and the police forces should be used against terrorist attacks, but on the other hand, the vast majority of reasonable Kurdish people in Turkey should be given some sort of a chance to be more easily integrated into the society. In this regard, there is of course no disagreement between the Kurdish and non-Kurdish population in Turkey, but still, those cultural rights and language rights which were passed only recently need some time to get through to the society. I think some people who may have links to circles close to the PKK should be used to give the message to the PKK [leadership] that it cannot succeed. We should take examples from other countries, such as Ireland, where the governments used the double-track strategy that consisted of the military-police track and the civil dialogue track. Dialogue starts and it may be interrupted, but dialogue has to continue.
How do you think the AK Party has handled the Democratic or the Kurdish Opening? Do you think it has been successful?
My impression is that they started very well and they made a very courageous step forward. But when you look at it now from outside, it seems that the reform drive stopped a bit or that it is not going on courageously enough. We should not stop efforts to better integrate the Kurdish population into the society through the civil-dialogue track, in addition to the military-police track. It is not an easy issue; we see how difficult it is in Spain, for example. But nevertheless, I think the integration of all the groups, including the Alevis as well as the others, is important in order for the Turkish society to mature out of the narrow-minded, nationalistic position of the past into saying, “Yes, we are one Turkey and we are Turkey of diversity of cultures and languages and we are proud of this kind of Turkey.”
How about the Peace and Democracy Party (BDP)?
They still refuse to condemn terrorism and distance themselves from the PKK. I know you personally have made repeated calls on the BDP to distance themselves from the PKK. But the BDP is widely seen as the mouthpiece of the PKK.
I think the BDP has not matured enough. Perhaps some of the actions of the Erdoğan government have pushed them back. But my advice for the BDP is that it should go in one direction and this direction is seeking the integration of the Kurdish population into the society while condemning any kind of terrorist activities.
Working together to address regional challenges
When the AK Party came to power in 2002, the basic objective of the foreign policy was membership in the EU. There was a democratization and reform process to meet the EU criteria. Now it seems that the ruling party’s reform ambitions have weakened and the reform bid has almost stopped. What should both EU and Turkey do now? We know that many in the AK Party are saying that EU was not very welcoming towards Turkey, either, that they did not motivate the government to go ahead with reforms.
I think we should look at the realities and accept the realities. There is a big financial crisis in Europe and thus there is a declining enthusiasm to take new members in. On the other hand, there is declining support for the EU membership in Turkey itself. What we can do? We can do two things: First, we should rejuvenate the negotiation process by opening talks on some negotiating chapters, such as the energy chapter and the chapter on justice and home affairs. Secondly, we should look at things that are not directly related to the question of membership. Turkey is a big and important country and the EU is still a very rich community, despite the crisis it is having. We have common challenges in the neighborhood; the Arab Spring is a challenge for Turkey and a challenge for the EU, the situation in the Middle East and the Black Sea is a challenge for Turkey and EU. There are so many challenges for us, so let’s not only look at the enlargement process, let’s look at what two important neighbors, which still have a strong economic relationship, can do together politically in order to create more stability in the region. We have now less stability than 10 years ago. This economic and political instability endangers the EU’s and Turkey’s wellbeing. So, let’s work together and solve these issues. We can achieve so much more together than we can while acting on our own.
Do you think resolving the visa issue can be a way to re-energize the Turkish-EU ties?
The visa issue would be, of course, one way. I think we should make real progress on that. We have to show the citizens in Europe that some of the things we are afraid of do not in fact have to be frightening, that they can solved quite easily. Let’s take the fears about the so-called Islamist danger. I think together with Turkey we can do much better in tackling it than without Turkey. When it comes to Turkey, I think Turkey also needs a big partner like the EU as we should not overestimate Turkey’s capabilities. So I think the visa issue is one issue where we can show there won’t be an overrun of Europe by Turkish citizens because Turkish citizens already have many possibilities in Turkey. People in Europe were once afraid of immigration from Portugal and Spain, but now many people from these two countries who immigrated to other countries in Europe are now returning. So, things change quite drastically. We will live in a society where you have immigration and reverse immigration at the same time. Therefore visa-free travel in this area is, I think, very good for our common economic development.
I cannot remember when the last time Prime Minister Erdoğan visited Europe was. So perhaps the lack of mutual visits between Turkey and the EU is another indication of the political distance between the two sides.
Do you have any plans to invite the Turkish prime minister to Europe?
Well I would be very happy if Prime Minister Erdoğan would come. As far as I know, President [of the European Parliament Martin] Schulz extended such an invitation when he was in Turkey. I think it would be good to talk, not only in a strictly formal setting but also about issues such as Islam, especially at this time when we have these crazy people who make crazy films and other crazy people who protest them in an aggressive, violent way. Reasonable people have to come to Europe and speak to the citizens, explain what this is all about. Prime Minister Erdoğan recently spoke about these issues in Yalta and Egypt in very good terms. I think these messages are very important. So I think these kinds of messages should be taken up in our societies.
How would you assess the role of Turkey in terms of the Arab Spring developments, especially the Turkish stance in the Syrian crisis?
I think concerning the Arab revolution, it is very clear that Turkey can be a good example. Not everybody is happy about it, of course. The extremist Islamist side does not want this kind of example, but I think normal citizens will see in Turkey an Islamic democratic country that cares about the wellbeing of its citizens. About Syria, nobody has any remedy; it is a catastrophic situation. When the time comes, I am sure Bashar al-Assad will leave. The question is what the new Syria will be like. Because in the opposition, yes, there are quite reasonable people, but there are also those who are radical and would like to create a new Syria that does not respect minority rights. We know perfectly well that in Syria there are many Christians and other minorities and Kurds. So we have to deal with these minorities in a reasonable way. Therefore, Turkey can play an important role. Acting together, Turkey and Europe can implement common economic projects, invest in Syria and support the groups who want to build the real new democratic Syria. So Syria is the best example where we both have to act together to stabilize the situation and to create a new democratic Syria after Assad has left his position.
How could you assess the involvement of the EU in the Syrian crisis? Do you think Europe’s efforts are sufficient?
It’s never sufficient. But I am also absolutely against military intervention. We saw what the intervention in Iraq produced, we saw what happened in Afghanistan. In Libya, foreign intervention was relatively successful, but it was much easier than Syria, where even the opposition is not united. If the opposition was united, we could have fully supported them to be more active. Russia and China are also not helping in this regard. So, some people perhaps thought that Turkey can get closer to Russia, but I think Russia is not yet really constructive on many foreign policy issues. Therefore, for Turkey, there is no real alternative to an alliance with the EU. Despite all the problems we have, the EU is the closest and the most constructive ally for Turkey in the final analysis. And for us, in our neighborhood, there is only one country which so close to us, and that’s Turkey.
US support vital for Syria no-fly zone
You are not in favor of military intervention, but what about the issue of a no-fly zone? Turkey considers it as a measure to help people fleeing clashes inside Syria, as you know there are more than 80,000 Syrians in Turkey and this is a significant strain on the national budget. What do you think of the fly–zone option? What could be the help of EU and allies? Because there is an understanding in Turkey that it is left alone with the Syrian crisis.
About the no-fly zone, we cannot really do it alone without the US and as far as I know the US is very hesitant about it. We also well know how Russia would react to it. I think from the beginning, of course, both Turkey and the EU should have had a clearer stance on the opposition. We could have also done much more in helping, including militarily, if we had done so. But the influence of some groups within the opposition has not been very helpful. I don’t exclude a no-fly-zone option. But we would need the US for that and maybe after the election in the US we can get a better outcome. If Assad is still there after the election in the US, the EU together with the US could try to do it.
You were at the latest Socialist International meeting and you had the chance to evaluate the Republican People’s Party (CHP). Do you think there is a new CHP? Can the CHP be a good alternative for the ruling party in addressing the fundamental problems in Turkey?
I think every government needs good and stronger opposition. In the absence of such opposition, you think you’re alone and you can do whatever you want. This is not about one party or another, it is the rule for every system. The CHP was too weak in the past and it did not concentrate on the issues which a social democratic party has to concentrate on, the social issues. There are, of course, social issues and problems in Turkey concerning the labor rights and other fields. The CHP should defend civil liberties. They should not defend the planning of a coup by the military or do whatever the military says. The CHP has changed, taken some positive steps forward, but these are not enough. My advice for them, whenever I talk with them, is to work hard to be a social democratic party, think about the social concerns of the citizens, think about solving issues like the Kurdish question and media problems, be a strong critical voice, make it clear that you can be an alternative in some years’ time. I hope that all in the leadership of the CHP can go this way, but I am not yet sure. But Turkey needs a strong opposition party which can counterbalance some tendencies within the AK Party. A balance between an AK Party, which is obviously a strong party, and a more secular CHP could bring Turkey the right agreement, for example, on the constitution. It has to be a constitution which accepts the religious majority’s rights, religious diversity and the secular principles. And the questions like the headscarf issue or big economic and social problems should not be in the center of a fight between the AK Party and the CHP. They should have a pragmatic agreement on pragmatic issues.
About the movie, “Innocence of Muslims,” where should we find the right balance between hate speech or insulting religion and the freedom of expression?
Well, unfortunately there are irresponsible people who do not respect that balance, like some people in the media. I think politics should make it very clear that we can’t interfere in the freedom of expression. But it is very dangerous to use language offending a religion. If there is legal ground to go against these papers, I am absolutely for it. Nevertheless, I think politics should be very clear that these kinds of activities are beyond tolerance. It is a violation of the principles of respect. If I am not following a certain religion, I still have to respect the people who follow that religion. That is a basic principle for a society and therefore politics should be more outspoken and make it clear that even if is legally allowed, it is absolutely against the respect for human beings.
(Today’s Zaman)
