Täglich kommen immer mehr Details über die Umerziehungslager aus der Provinz Chinas Xinjiang ans Tageslicht. Während die Regierung die Menschenrechtsverletzungen an den Uighuren dort immer noch als Bildungsmaßnahme debattiert, versuchen längst immer mehr Politiker*innen und Aktivist*innen die Öffentlichkeit mit den realen Tatsachen vertraut zu machen. Die Menschen dort unterliegen dort Zwangsmaßnahmen, die zuletzt während des zweiten Weltkrieges in Konzentrationslagern durchgeführt wurden: Assimilationspraktiken, psychische-physische und sexuelle Gewalt, Experimente an Menschen. Bundestagsabgeordnete wie Gyde Jensen (FDP) und Margarete Bause (die Grünen) fordern bereits die Bundesre-gierung zu aktivem Handeln auf. Auch immer mehr uighurische Aktivist*innen bilden einen Aufschrei, der auf die Menschenrechtsverletzungen aufmerksam machen soll.

Anlässlich des Tages für Menschenrechte haben wir mit der Aktivistin Shahnura Kasim aus München über die tragische Lage der Uighuren in Xinjiang gesprochen. Sie machte mit einem Video auf Instagram auf die Situation der Menschen in den Lagern aufmerksam.

PPJ: Über ein Posting auf Instagram wurde ich auf dich aufmerksam. Dieses Posting wurde von diversen Menschenrechtsorganisationen und Aktivistinnen geteilt. Worum geht es da?

Kasim: In meinem Video, was so verbreitet wurde, habe ich über meine  verschwundenen Verwandten berichtet und Bilder von ihnen gezeigt und mögliche Gründe für ihr Verschwinden in einem der vielen Umerziehungslagern  genannt und noch Details was mit ihnen im Lager passiert ist. Zudem habe ich noch am Ende erwähnt das ich nicht die einzige bin und um Hilfe gebeten, was dann auch zahlreich kam.

PPJ: Viele Menschen bekommen derzeit nicht das Ausmaß der Menschenrechtsverletzungen in China gegen die uighurische Bevölkerung mit. Was genau passiert da?

Kasim: Osttürkistan, was von der Chinesischen Regierung zu Xinjiang unbenannt wurde, was soviel wie „neues Gebiet“ heißt, wurde 1949 erobert, und das Volk wird seitdem dort unterdrückt.

Es war schon immer schlimm was dort passierte, aber die Konzentrationslager und Umerziehungslager welche im Jahr 2016 erschienen, übertreffen alles. Das ist die oberste Grenze was man gegen Menschenrechtsverletzungen machen kann. Leider berichten nicht alle Medien darüber, aber das Thema kommt von Tag zu Tag mehr ans Licht und ich hoffe es hat einfach bald ein Ende. In den Lagern sollen bis zu 3 Millionen Uighuren festgehalten werden.

Die Chinesische Regierung sagt, dass wir eine Minderheit von 10 Millionen sind aber das stimmt nicht. Die Regierung handelt unethisch und macht falsche Angaben. Das Uighurische Volk hat eine Bevölkerung von 20-30 Millionen Menschen. Auf alten Fotos kann man auf den Straßen früher die Einkaufszentren mit Menschen überfüllt sehen. Aber ich habe Bilder gesehen, auch von Journalisten die 2018 dort waren, auf den Straßen sind keine Menschen mehr- nicht einmal Kinder die spielen. Deswegen zweifle ich sehr an den drei Millionen ich bin mir sicher das es über 5-10 Millionen Menschen sind, die in den Lagern festgehalten werden. Es gibt dort ja nicht nur ein Lager, sondern dutzende.

PPJ: War die Situation davor in China für die Uighuren denn jemals demokratisch?

Kasim: Das Uighurische Volk kennt das Wort „Demokratie“ oder „Freiheit“ nicht. Mein Volk hatte seid 1949, das Jahr an dem Osttürkistan erobert wurde, keine Freiheit mehr. Das Volk dort wurde schon immer unterdrückt. Es gab keine Meinungsfreiheit und keine Pressefreiheit sowie Reiseverbote ins Ausland.

Die Menschen mussten damals schon fliehen, genauso wie mein Vater. Friedliche Demos wurden brutal beendet sowie das Massaker vom 05.07.2009, bei der die Uighuren während einer friedlichen Demonstration von der chinesischen Polizei mit einem Blutbad getötet wurden.

Wenn Menschen, insbesondere junge Männer oder Aktivisten sich für Ihre Menschenrechte dort einsetzten, wurden sie in geheimem getötet oder erpresst oder schlimmeres was man sich nicht vorstellen kann. Ich könnte noch so viele Punkte und Daten  aufzählen, an denen mein Volk unterdrückt wurde und getötet wurde aber dann würde ich niemals fertig werden.

PPJ: Laut Angaben einiger uighurischer Aktivistinnen, sollen Angehörige in China dafür streng bestraft werden, wenn diese im Ausland dazu Stellung nehmen. Du zeigst in deinem Posting viele Fotos von Verwandten die bereits verstorben oder verschollen sind. Dennoch zeigst du Mut diesen Völkermord öffentlich zu machen. Hast du manchmal Angst, Bedenken oder Gegner, die dich von deinem Aktivismus zurückhalten?

Kasim: Leider stimmt es, dass die chinesischen Behörden die Uighuren mit den Verwandten in Osttürkistan erpressen und viele lassen sich auch erpressen- es ist schließlich die Familie und Angst spielt leider auch eine sehr große Rolle bei diesem Thema. Tatsächlich fragen mich sehr viele, „ja hast du denn keine Angst?“ Ich habe wirklich keine Angst. Keine Angst vor den Erpressungen oder die Mittel die sie verwenden, um mich zurückzuhalten. Zum Glück ist das bis jetzt aber noch nicht passiert. Ich denke immer an die unschuldigen Menschen die dort in den Lagern gerade gefoltert werden und sterben müssen.

An die Kinder, die von ihren Eltern getrennt werden und an chinesische  Familien gegeben werden und an die Frauen und Mädchen die vergewaltigt werden oder zur Prostitution gezwungen werden oder sogar mit Chinesen zwangsverheiratet werden. Dieser Gedanke ist für mich Grund genug, um aktiv zu bleiben und wenn nicht noch aktiver zu werden denn meine Verwandten haben „Glück“, dass wir im Ausland leben und über die berichten können oder wir sie für eine Zeit lang schützen können, aber die anderen Millionen? Was ist mit ihnen? Die brauchen uns die brauchen unsere Stimme die für sie spricht! Das ganze Volk ist meine Familie und das sind alles Menschen für die man sich einsetzen muss.

Außerdem finde ich sind wir das ihnen schuldig sind! Wir leben im Ausland frei und ohne Sorgen und können machen, was wir wollen, also sollten wir diese Freiheit nutzen und was Gutes tun und unschuldigen Menschen helfen und für sie kämpfen bis das ein Ende hat.

PPJ: Leider fehlt eine starke Solidarisierung seitens unterschiedlicher Länder mit den Uighuren in China. Woran könnte das liegen und was könnte eine derartige Unterstützung bewirken?

Kasim: Leider gibt es viele Länder die Uyghuren nach China abschieben aber dafür bekommen die auch tonnenweise Geld das sind teilweise Länder die ohne Chinas Geld gar nicht mehr leben können. China hat die so unter Kontrolle das sie wie eine Marionette sind. Sie machen alles was China ihnen sagt und wenn sie mal was machen was sie nicht tun sollten, müssen sie mit den Konsequenzen rechnen. Für mich aber noch lange kein Grund, Menschen in einen Völkermord zurückzuschicken, mit dem Wissen, was ihnen dort passiert.

PPJ: Welche Länder könnten deiner Meinung nach wie unterstützen? Worum würdest du Menschen bitten, die dich in deiner Aktion unterstützen wollen?

Kasim: Amerika und Europa unterstützen uns viel aber meiner Meinung nach können sie noch viel mehr machen und wirklich China klare Grenzen setzen, was Amerika gemacht hat aber Deutschland zum Beispiel nicht, denn der Wirtschaftshandel ist ethisch nicht vertretbar, den sie mit China haben.

Zudem hätte die Türkei uns sehr viel unterstützen können was sie leider nicht gemacht haben. Sie wissen bestimmt von dem Projekt „Seidenstraße“ das China gerade führt. Sie wollen ja die Seidenstraße bis nach Europa führen und müssen durch die türkischsprachigen Raum durch.

Durch ganz Osttürkistan, denn sonst können sie nicht nach Europa gelangen und die Türkei und die anderen türkischsprachigen Länder wie Kasachstan oder Kirgistan hätten sagen können „Stopp! Du willst den Zug durch meinem Land führen? Dann höre auf mit dem Genozid!“ Es wäre vielleicht nicht so weit gekommen, denn sie hatten die Gelegenheit, was sie leider nicht nutzen.    
Die Situation in den sozialen Medien zu verbreiten, ist eine sehr große und wichtige Sache, denn in der heutigen Zeit verbreitet sich alles in den sozialen Medien so schnell und je mehr Menschen davon wissen und es verbreiten, desto mehr Druck gibt es auf die Chinesische Regierung.

About The Author

Hilal Akdeniz

Hilal Akdeniz is a junior researcher at the Institute of Sociology of the Goethe University Frankfurt. Her main topics are gender, flight and migration. She is currently researching biographical narratives of refugees on identity and affiliation. She works as a freelance journalist and a speaker at the intercultural council in Darmstadt.

Platform for Peace and Justice met with journalist Mesale Tolu to discuss her recent book ‘My son will stay with me!’ (Rowohlt Verlag). Tolu was detained after Turkey’s 2016 coup d’état. She is one of many who decided to take her young child to prison as he could not be without his mum. We have spoken with the strong woman who has grown out of her own pain over her time in detention and throughout the conditions in Turkish prisons for women and children.

“You can live through all this, but you can still continue!”

We met with journalist Mesale Tolu to talk about her newly published book ‘Mein Sohn bleibt bei mir!’ (‘My son stays with me!’). Tolu was arrested after Turkey’s 2016 coup attempt. She decided to take her two-year-old son Serkan with her to detention because he could not be separated from his mum. She grew out of her pain. We talked with the strong woman about her time in detention and about the circumstances in Turkish jails for women and children.

PPJ: In your book ‘Mein Sohn bleibt bei mir!’ you describe very emotionally and in detail about your arrest and the conditions in Turkey as a political hostage and mother of a young child. What made you to relive everything again through your writing process in Germany?

Tolu: To write about my story has moved me, because many people spoke to me and told me “You are so courageous! So strong and we are so proud of you!”. I always felt so bad because I also am a human with fears. I was scared during this time. I was often dejected emotionally, and I was not always strong. I especially wanted to show with the book that you can get through everything. That is why I really wrote everything down, the emotional things too, which depressed me, so that the readers can see that I was so vulnerable and that I was injured. But you can gain power through these experiences. I wanted to show people that they have to stand up for their rights, to solidarise, so they can come out stronger with these experiences. The motivation of this book is to show: you can live all that, but you can continue and go on! It is important to go on, especially for the future of humankind. That was my main motivation to write this all down how it is. Even though there is a danger, because you become with that more vulnerable, not everyone is lovable. Some people are really hostile towards me. But I take that all for granted because I think that all in all the result is positive, to tell the people everything, to motivate them to continue fighting.

“The problem is that there is no child-friendly prison in Turkey”.

PPJ: You decide to go through the detention with your two-year-old son Serkan, after he could not take to live separated from you. You are not the only one to take that decision. At this time approximately 800 infants are with their mothers in jail, although there is a clear protection and exemption for women with children in detention situations written down in law which are ignored by Turkey. How can the situation in Turkey be imagined? Are there measures or precautions which are child-friendly?

Tolu: Unfortunately, there are many children in Turkey who are in prison with their parents, especially children between the ages of 0-6 years. The numbers are up to 700-800 children. There is no statistic about how many children have to wait outside the prison. Children aged six years and up are raised without their parents because in many cases both mother and father are in prison. Children are raised by their relatives or in youth homes. There are also cases where children are younger, for example with the HDP deputy Burcu Celik Özkan. Her daughter is five years old and is not with her mother in prison because she is afraid. This kid does not understand what a prison is, she is afraid of the guards and that is why she cannot stay there. That actually means that children are also punished because of the incriminations against their parents. The parents do not have to break any rules but still whole families are pushed in this system. There are Turkish mothers, Kurdish mothers or women from different states, who tried to build up a living in Turkey and were criminalized and imprisoned because of various reasons. The problem is that there is no child-friendly prison keeping in Turkey.

That means there is no effort in being and acting child friendly. For example, children do not go to the prison kindergarten because they are afraid of leaving their mothers, and they do not get food which is child friendly, like in the case with my son Serkan. He had to eat from my food, he had to stay in the cell with me. There was no bed for children, no toilet for children. Toys are generally not allowed! They are only allowed to play with the toys from the kindergarden which were mostly out of plastic and broke when played with a few times. The system is not made so that children can stay alive. Only the commitment of the prisoners and the mothers there enable the living of the children in prison, so they can see the minimum of a children’s life. That means painting pictures on the wall, building out of plastic bottles. Only with that we can motivate the children to live a life like they should live. But definitely it is no normal life behind grids. Raising up children behind behind grey grids, whereby they actually symbolize the opposite. Color, enjoyment of life, diversity… The system is made like that to punish parents especially by also punishing their children!

“I was hesitating if my decision was correct to take Serkan with me to jail”.

PPJ: You describe the first night with Serkan in the prison cell. No diaper, pacifier or milk bottle brought by your family were provided to you that night. How did you have to imagine such a night?

Tolu: The first night was my worst night. That was the night where I regretted a lot. Speaking about my regret: I have been doubting that the decision was correct to take Serkan to jail. My son had nothing! No diaper, pajamas and spare clothes! But more importantly: he didn’t have pacifier and a milk bottle! For a child who is two years old this is very vital. That was the one night when he also protested a lot, he cried, said everything: “Why are we here? I want to go home! What’s this all about?”. Trying to explain a two-year-old child the situation is beyond any limits even for mothers. In fact, this caused desperation. So that was my worst night in jail.

I had to bring my son to sleep while I was crying. Luckily, I had women who supported and motivated me and said, “Everything gets better!”. Could not the system and the jailers have made it easier? Of course, they could have made it easier by just giving a pacifier. But, as I said, because everything is focused on punishment, everything was made more difficult. We still managed to find a way to settle and integrate there.

“The problem is that the Federal Government of Germany and the EU has watched for years, as in Turkey an autocracy was established!”

PPJ: There is still far too little information about the condition of prisons and inmates given to the general public outside of Turkey, especially about the innocent children. Even in Germany, the suffering gets too little hearing. What do you think are the causes that see this precarious human rights contempt somehow accepted?

Tolu: In Germany, the public is always present when Germans are affected by those circumstances. We are talking about the previous two years; 2017 was the culmination of the German-Turkish crisis. That was also the year in which the media reported a lot. Now and again we hear from Turkey about human rights violations. The problem is that the Federal Government and the EU has watched for years, as in Turkey an autocracy was established! In front of these European countries, Erdogan has built a system that is tailored to him alone. Moreover, human rights violations were always incorporated. Another problem is with the European Court of Human Rights which has simply turned a blind eye or even brought negative decisions. That shows us that also European countries are acting in their own interest. For instance, they are only reacting when there is publicity in the media and pressure from German people.

“Many people have stood up for us, taken to the streets and have reported about it.  I’m not sure if the same publicity would have been created after my incident such was with Hozan Caney, Patrick K. or other Germans who were sentenced to prison in Turkey and who are still in jail. Indeed, this shows us to extend publicity and public pressure are important to create awareness.”

PPJ: You have German citizenship, and the Federal Government has a special endeavor to rescue German citizens. The situation was similar in the case of Deniz Yücel. Do you think that there could be a possibility of support or solidarity for non-German victims?

Tolu: It is essential for the German government to fight for human rights in general. It is always important for Germany that Turkey is obliged to follow the Refugee deal. Turkey is one of the biggest NATO members with the second largest army in the Union. Add to this there are several other deals made with the EU. However, we can see that Turkey is not following other agreements except trade deals and the Refugee deal. Therefore, there is no attention by the German government and other countries in regard to torture allegations and other human rights violations in Turkey. This explicitly shows that Germany’s interest is not centered around human rights violations, rather on economic or military benefits. Self-interest is prioritized. This is a pity, because it would certainly be more effective if the partner, no matter what agreement, would simply be a reliable and trusting partner. We have seen many examples in which Germany was directly attacked by Turkey. They verbally accused Germany with “Nazi methods”. Of course, the question is whether to solve the existing problems before continuing with further negotiations?

“Indeed, these Women need our solidarity!”

PPJ: You describe a warm and close solidarity among female prisoners in your book. Similar descriptions are made by Asli Erdogan in Germany about the situation in Turkey. How would you describe your experience with these women and are you still in contact with them?

Tolu: The experiences I’ve had like this in prison are actually the best during that time. Interestingly, I am very positive about my time in prison, although the whole story is a negative story. This can perhaps be imagined as follows: something green grows out of concrete walls and that is something positive that symbolizes life. In prison everything is gray, dark, cold and only flow and concrete cement. On top of that there are very warm-hearted women in these cells, and they support you completely without any self-interest.

This is the period and the time that has changed my life. Because I arrived there as a mother, who was very desperate and very scared of all the experiences and the future. These women have shown me how to turn all these weaknesses into strengths. You do not have to be an expert to do the same. They are people who have experienced the same thing and have drawn a conclusion and consequences. Therefore, it is very essential to publicize this solidarity everywhere. Indeed, those women need our solidarity! I am still staying in contact with them. Unfortunately, I cannot visit them because I am now in Germany, but we keep in touch via letters. I know, for example, that it is very nice when they get my package with clothes or books. It helped me a lot when I received so many books from outside, from strangers. I just try to continue this tradition by making smaller gifts for them or just sending pictures, so they know we’re are doing well.

“Many families had not any political affiliation at all and are being punished for it.”

PPJ: If the Turkish regime is unable to find the people who are accused of crimes, they are punishing their family members by depriving them of their rights such as your husband or Can Dundar’s wife through banning their entry or exit into the country. These measures are historically known as “Sippenhaft” from the Nazi era. How do you feel about these measures?

Tolu: The measures to punish family members are not new in Turkey. It is simply more up-to-date today because many popular people have been affected or still are. In the past, there have always been cases of family members being abducted or being subjected to violence. Add to this in Turkey there is also the history of “disappeared-people”. Unfortunately, today it affects thousands of people. Many people can no longer enter Turkey themselves and are worried about their bereaved ones. The state uses a very arbitrary method of punishment, forcing them to come back to Turkey to liberate their family members. I had the same problem when my husband had an exit lock and when he was again deprived of his passport two weeks ago. That was a sign saying “stay away! Or we’ll keep you here!” as it was the case with Can Dündar. His wife Dilek Dündar has no criminal procedure herself, it is not right to lock her up in the country for years. She could not see her son or her husband! All of this shows us very dictatorial and reactionary methods which the general public should protest against. Furthermore, international sanctions should be ordered, because every human being can only be held accountable for their own responsibility and the entire family should not be drawn into it.

“They are very simple housewives, who actually had no idea about politics and public life.”

PPJ: Recently, social media reported an incident in Halfeti regarding severely abused and tortured women during interrogation. The violent attacks are unfortunately not individually driven cases. There is currently an increasing trend in violence against women and children in Turkey. What do you think are the reasons? How would you interpret the mechanism of violence against women in a triangle of laws, traditions and political polarization?

Tolu: Unfortunately, patriarchy is very strong in Turkey. That’s not new! In Turkish culture and tradition, it has always been the case that the woman herself came behind the ox; first the man, then the cattle and then the woman. This attitude is still present today and represented by this government. The president himself has repeatedly stated that women should give birth to three children and sit back in their homes. All women who do not comply with this traditional gender role will be punished. Therefore, it is not a coincidence that especially women involved in politics are punished for their behavior and treated repressively. I have often witnessed how women were badly abused and faced violence in police custody. Especially in this new phase, i.e. after the coup attempt in 2016, many innocent women were arrested on charges of being members of the Gulen movement. They are very simple housewives, who actually had no idea about politics and public life. And of course, all these women do not really know how to resist! In those cases, the state is threatening the family and children! Here, the government argues with religion in which it says: “in our religion, the woman comes second!” or simply at the bottom. This is always the way women are approached. They should obey, otherwise they will experience negative things.

Nevertheless, I think that there is still a great culture of resistance in Turkey, especially among women. We can say today that the women’s movement in Turkey is the strongest civilian movement. We can see that on March 8 and November 25, in the marches in Istanbul on the day against violence against women. In fact, it is seen that women keep breaking the barriers, that they do not want to be forced into the role of obeying. They went on the street against honor killings, family and state violence. Normally these reactions by women are not expected as they wouldn’t dare anymore, because it is taken for granted that women are so often victims of violence. That’s why it is just the opposite! Because they are experiencing so much violence and repression, they have reached their limits. Many women protest against it, even if it costs them their lives. Many women have murdered their husbands because otherwise their lives would have been in danger, which is a measure of self-protection. You have to consider it self-defense when you see on daily basis that five women are losing their lives in honor killing. It is misogynistic policy of the state that wants to justify all this with religion and other reasons.

About The Author

Hilal Akdeniz

Hilal Akdeniz is a junior researcher at the Institute of Sociology of the Goethe University Frankfurt. Her main topics are gender, flight and migration. She is currently researching biographical narratives of refugees on identity and affiliation. She works as a freelance journalist and a speaker at the intercultural council in Darmstadt.

Wir haben uns mit der Journalistin Meşale Tolu zum Interview getroffen, um uns über ihr neu herausgekommenes Buch „Mein Sohn bleibt bei mir!“ (Rowohlt Verlag) zu unterhalten. Tolu wurde nach dem Putschversuch 2016 in der Türkei festgenommen und entschied sich, ihren zweijährigen Sohn Serkan mit in die Haft zu nehmen, als dieser die Trennung von der Mutter nicht verkraftet. Über die Zeit in ihrer Haft und die Zustände in türkischen Gefängnissen für Frauen und Kinder haben wir mit der starken Frau gesprochen, die an ihrem Schmerz aus sich heraus gewachsen ist.

HA: In Ihrem aktuellen Buch „Mein Sohn bleibt bei mir!“ schildern Sie sehr emotional und detailliert von Ihrer Verhaftung und den Haftbedingungen in der Türkei als politische Geisel und Mutter mit Kleinkind. Was hat Sie dazu bewegt, hier in Deutschland all das Erlebte nochmals beim Schreibprozess zu erleben?

MT: Mich hat bewegt meine Geschichte aufzuschreiben, weil mich sehr viele Menschen angesprochen haben und gesagt haben „Sie sind so mutig! So stark und wir sind so stolz auf Sie!“ Ich habe mich immer etwas schlecht gefühlt dabei weil ich auch ein Mensch mit Ängsten bin. Ich hatte auch Angst während all dieser Zeit. Emotional war ich sehr oft bedrückt und vor allem geschwächt. Ich war nicht immer stark. Ich wollte vor allem mit diesem Buch zeigen, dass man all das erleben kann, daher habe ich auch wirklich alles, auch das emotionale, was mich bedrückt hat, aufgeschrieben, damit die Leser sehen können, ich bin so verletzlich gewesen, und ich wurde auch verletzt, aber man kann aus dieser Erfahrung auch Kraft schöpfen. Ich wollte damit anderen Menschen auch zeigen, dass sie für ihre Rechte einstehen müssen, sich solidarisieren müssen, damit sie aus solchen Erfahrungen eben gestärkt hervor kommen können. Die Motivation dieses Buches ist eben zu zeigen: man kann all das erleben, aber man kann weitermachen! Es ist wichtig weiter zu machen, vor allem für die Zukunft eines Menschen. Das war die Hauptmotivation alles aufzuschreiben wie es ist, wobei das immer eine Gefahr ist, weil man dadurch noch verletzlicher wird, denn nicht jeder ist liebenswürdig, manche sind auch sehr feindselig mir gegenüber. Aber ich nehme das alles in Kauf, weil ich denke dass im großen und ganzen das Ergebnis positiver ist, den Menschen ganz offen über alles zu berichten um sie zu motivieren weiter zu kämpfen.

Das Problem ist, dass es keine kindgerechte Gefängnishaltung in der Türkei gibt

HA: Sie entscheiden sich mit Ihrem zwei jährigen Sohn Serkan die Haft durchzustehen, nachdem er die Trennung von Ihnen kaum durchhalten kann. Sie sind in dieser Entscheidung kein Einzelfall. Momentan befinden sich knapp 800 Kleinkinder mit ihren Müttern in Haft, obwohl ein klarer Schutz und Ausnahmeregelungen von Frauen mit Kindern in Haftsituationen per Gesetz geregelt sind und derzeit in der Türkei missachtet werden. Wie muss man sich die Situation in den Gefängnissen der Türkei vorstellen? Gibt es Maßnahmen oder Vorkehrungen die „kindgerecht“ sind?

MT: Leider gibt es in der Türkei sehr viele Kinder, die mit ihren Eltern inhaftiert sind, vor allem Kinder im Alter von 0-6 Jahren. Die Zahl beläuft sich derzeit auf 700-800 Kinder. Es gibt aber keine Statistik darüber, wie viele Kinder draußen bleiben müssen. Also das heißt Kinder ab 6 Jahren, die ohne Eltern aufwachsen müssen, meist sind Vater und Mutter betroffen, das heißt Kinder werden von Verwandten großgezogen oder in Jugendheimen. Dann gibt es auch Fälle, bei denen die Kinder kleiner sind, zum Beispiel bei der HDP Abgeordneten Burcu Celik Özkan. Die Tochter ist 5 Jahre alt und ist nicht mit der Mutter im Gefängnis, weil sie einfach Angst hat. Dieses Kind versteht nicht was ein Gefängnis-Komplex ist, hat Angst vor den Wärterinnen und diese Angst hindert sie daran bei ihrer Mutter zu bleiben. Das zeigt eigentlich, dass Kinder für die Beschuldigungen der Eltern mitbestraft werden. Die Eltern müssen nichts verbrochen haben und dennoch werden ganze Familien in dieses Bestrafungssystem hineingezogen. Es gibt dort türkische Mütter, kurdische Mütter oder aus anderen Staaten Frauen, die versucht haben in der Türkei eine Existenz aufzubauen, und auch wegen verschiedenen Gründen kriminalisiert und inhaftiert wurden. Das Problem ist, dass es keine kindgerechte Gefängnishaltung in der Türkei gibt. Das heißt, es wird nicht wirklich für das Wohl der Kinder gesorgt. Wenn Kinder zum Beispiel nicht in den Gefängnis Kindergarten gehen, was bei vielen Kindern in Haft vorkommt, weil sie Angst haben sich von der Mutter zu trennen, dann tritt der Fall ein wie bei meinem Sohn Serkan, dass er keine kindgerechte Nahrung bekommt, also nur die Speisen für die Erwachsenen mitessen kann, mit mir in der Zelle ist, kein Kinderbett hat, keine Kindertoilette hat. Spielsachen sind generell verboten! Sie dürfen nur mit den Spielsachen des Kindergartens spielen, und das sind meistens Spielsachen aus Plastik, die nach zweimal Fahren kaputt gehen. Das System ist folglich nicht so eingerichtet, dass Kinder dort überleben können. Lediglich das Engagement der Häftlinge und Mütter dort ermöglicht das Überleben der Kinder dort in Haft, damit sie zumindest einen Hauch von kindgerechtem Leben spüren können, das heißt, wenn wir Bilder an die Wand malen, wenn wir aus Plastikflaschen Autos bauen, nur dann können wir diese Kinder etwas motivieren ein normales Kinderleben dort zu erleben. Aber ganz sicher ist es hinter Gittern kein normales Leben. Hinter grauen Zellen Kinder großzuziehen, die eigentlich genau das Gegenteil symbolisieren, nämlich Farbe, Lebensfreude, Vielfalt… Das System ist eigentlich von daher so ausgerichtet, Eltern insbesondere dadurch zu bestrafen, indem sie auch die Kinder bestrafen!

Ich habe daran gezweifelt, ob die Entscheidung richtig war, Serkan mit ins Gefängnis zu nehmen

HA: Sie beschreiben die erste Nacht als Serkan mit Ihnen in der Gefängniszelle verbringt. Weder Windel noch Schnuller oder Milchflasche, die von ihrer Familie mitgebracht wurden, wurden Ihnen in dieser Nacht bereitgestellt. Wie muss man sich eine solche Nacht vorstellen?

MT: Die erste Nacht war auch meine schlimmste Nacht. Das war die Nacht in der ich auch sehr viel bereut habe. Bereut in diesem Sinne: ich habe daran gezweifelt, ob die Entscheidung richtig war, Serkan mit ins Gefängnis zu nehmen. Mein Sohn hatte nichts! Keine Windel, Pyjamas, Ersatzklamotten! Aber das wichtigste: er hatte keinen Schnuller und keine Milchflasche! Für ein Kind im Alter von zwei Jahren ist das lebensnotwendig! Das war die eine Nacht, wo er auch sehr viel protestiert hat, geweint hat, alles gesagt hat: „Warum sind wir hier? Ich will nach Hause! Was soll das alles?“ Einem zweijährigen Kind, das alles verständlich zu machen, stößt an alle Grenzen! Auch für Mütter- und das sorgt für Verzweiflung! Daher war das meine schlimmste Nacht im Gefängnis. Meinen Sohn musste ich in dieser Nacht weinend in den Schlaf wiegen. Zum Glück hatte ich Frauen, die mich unterstützt und motiviert haben und sagten „alles wird besser!“ Hätten das System und die Gefängniswärter nicht das Ganze erleichtern können? Natürlich hätten sie das alles erleichtern können, indem sie lediglich den Schnuller gegeben hätten. Aber, wie gesagt, weil alles darauf ausgerichtet ist, eine Bestrafung durchzuführen, wurde alles erschwert. Wir haben es dennoch geschafft einen Weg zu finden um Serkan dort schnell einzugewöhnen.

Das Problem ist, dass die Bundesregierung und die EU jahrelang zugesehen hat, wie sich in der Türkei eine Alleinherrschaft etabliert!

HA: Immer noch gelangen viel zu wenige Informationen über die Zustände der Gefängnisse und der Insassen, insbesondere der unschuldigen Kinder an die breite Öffentlichkeit außerhalb der Türkei. Selbst in Deutschland bekommt das Leid zu wenig Gehör. Was denken Sie sind die Ursachen, dass diese prekäre Menschenrechtsverachtung billigend in Kauf genommen wird?

MT: In Deutschland ist immer wieder Öffentlichkeit vorhanden, wenn Deutsche betroffen sind. Wir reden über die bisherigen zwei Jahre und 2017 war der Höhepunkt der deutsch-türkischen Krise. Das war auch das Jahr in dem die Medien sehr viel berichtet haben. Jetzt hören wir immer wieder vereinzelt aus der Türkei über Menschenrechtsverletzungen. Das Problem ist, dass die Bundesregierung und die EU jahrelang zugesehen hat, wie sich in der Türkei eine Alleinherrschaft etabliert! Vor den Augen dieser europäischen Länder, hat Erdogan ein System aufgebaut, dass allein auf ihn zugeschnitten ist. Damit waren eigentlich schon immer Menschenrechtsverletzungen verbunden. Ein weiteres Problem ist, dass das europäische Gericht für Menschenrechte bei vielen Verfahren einfach ein Auge zugedrückt hat, oder sogar negativ entschieden hat und das zeigt uns eigentlich, dass auch die europäischen Länder in ihrem eigenen Interesse handeln, und nur dann reagieren, wenn die mediale Öffentlichkeit und der Druck von den Menschen aus Deutschland beispielsweise, so hoch wird, dass sie nicht mehr Stand halten können- dass für meinen und andere Fälle so viel Druck entstanden ist, haben wir natürlich der Solidarität in diesem Land zu verdanken! Viele Menschen haben sich für uns eingesetzt, sind auf die Straße gegangen, haben darüber berichtet, ich bin mir nicht sicher ob die selbe Öffentlichkeit entstanden wäre, und wir sehen es ja auch an den Beispielen nach uns an Hozan Caney, Patrick K. oder andere Deutsche in der Türkei verurteilt wurden und ihre Haftstrafe absitzen. Das zeigt uns also dass diese Öffentlichkeitsarbeit und der Druck enorm wichtig sind.

HA: Sie haben die deutsche Staatsangehörigkeit, sodass die Bundesregierung ein besonderes Bestreben zur Rettung ihrer Bundesbürgerin gehabt hatte. Ähnlich verhielt es sich auch im Fall von Deniz Yücel. Denken Sie, dass es auch für Nicht-Deutsche Opfer seitens der Regierung eine Möglichkeit der Hilfe oder Solidarisierung geben könnte?

MT: Es ist wichtig, dass die Bundesregierung sich generell für Menschenrechte einsetzt. Dass sie generell darauf achtet, dass die Türkei Abkommen einhält. Die Türkei ist eines der größten NATO-Partner, mit der zweitgrößten Armee in diesem Bündnis, und es sind auch viele weitere Abkommen, wie EU und andere, außerhalb der NATO die mit der Türkei vereinbart sind. Da ist es doch immer wichtig, dass Deutschland immer darauf schaut, dass die Türkei sich an diese Abkommen hält, dass der Partner ein verlässlicher Partner ist. Aber wir sehen an allen Beispielen, dass außer wirtschaftlichen Interessen und sozialen, wie zum Beispiel die Flüchtlingsfrage, alle anderen Abkommen nicht eingehalten werden, und dass tagtäglich Foltervorwürfe oder auch Menschenrechtsverletzungen eigentlich durchsickern aber es keine Reaktion seitens der Bundesregierung oder auch anderen Ländern gibt. Das zeigt uns, dass unsere Politik in Deutschland nicht menschenrechtszentriert sondern wirtschaftlich und militärisch zentriert ist. Interessen treten in den Vordergrund. Das ist sehr schade, weil es sicherlich effektiver wäre wenn der Partner, egal zu welchem Abkommen, einfach ein verlässlicher und vertrauensvoller Partner wäre. Wir haben sehr viele Beispiele erlebt, in denen Deutschland direkt angegriffen wurde von der Türkei, verbal mit „Nazi-Methoden“ beschimpft wurde. Da stellt sich natürlich die Frage, müsste man nicht vorher einige Probleme aus dem Weg räumen, bevor man weiterverhandelt?

Denn genau diese Frauen benötigen auch unsere Solidarität!

HA: Sie beschreiben eine warme und innige Solidarisierung zwischen den weiblichen Inhaftierten in Ihrem Buch. Ähnliche Beschreibungen findet man auch bei Asli Erdogan, die nun Deutschland über die Zustände in der Türkei aufklärt. Wie haben Sie diese Erfahrung in Erinnerung und besteht noch Kontakt zu diesen Frauen?

MT: Die Erfahrungen, die ich im Gefängnis gemacht habe sind eigentlich die besten, die ich in dieser Zeit gemacht habe. Ich erzähle eigentlich von dieser Zeit im Gefängnis sehr positiv, obwohl die ganze Geschichte eine negative Geschichte ist. Das kann man sich vielleicht so vorstellen, wie wenn zwischen Beton-Wänden etwas grünes rauswächst und das ist das positive, was ja auch das Leben symbolisiert. Und im Gefängnis ist auch alles grau, düster, kalt. Nur Fließen und Beton. Dann sind da aber auch ganz warmherzige Frauen in diesen Zellen und unterstützen einen eigentlich komplett ohne irgendwelche Selbstinteressen. Das ist die Phase und die Zeit, die mein Leben verändert hat. Denn ich bin dort als eine Mutter angekommen, die sehr verzweifelt war, die sehr viel Angst hatte, von all dem Erlebten aber auch vor der Zukunft. Diese Frauen haben mir gezeigt, wie ich diese ganzen Schwächen in Stärken umwandle. Sie müssen dafür keine Experten sein, um das zu machen. Es sind Menschen, die dasselbe erlebt haben, und daraus Ergebnisse und Konsequenzen gezogen haben. Daher ist es auch wichtig, diese Solidarität überall bekannt zu machen. Denn genau diese Frauen benötigen auch unsere Solidarität! Ich habe weiterhin Kontakt mit ihnen. Ich kann sie leider nicht mehr besuchen weil ich nun in Deutschland bin. Aber wir haben Briefkontakt. Ich weiß zum Beispiel dass es sehr schön ist wenn sie mein Päckchen bekommen mit Kleidung oder Büchern. Mir hat es sehr viel gebracht, dass ich so viele Bücher von draußen bekommen habe, von fremden Menschen. Ich versuche einfach diese Tradition weiter zu führen, in dem ich ihnen auch kleinere Geschenke mache oder einfach auch nur Bilder schicke und sie wissen, dass es uns gut geht.

Viele Familien hatten wirklich vorher keinerlei politischen Kontakt gehabt und werden jetzt dafür bestraft

HA: Das türkische Regime versucht wenn sie die jeweiligen Beschuldigten nicht fassen kann, diese mittels ihrer Familienmitglieder zu bestrafen, indem sie diese ihrer Rechte beraubt, wie zum Beispiel Ihren Ehemann oder Can Dündars Ehefrau durch die Ein- und Ausreiseverbote. Diese Maßnahmen sind historisch bekannt als Sippenhaft aus dem Nationalsozialismus. Wie empfinden Sie diese Maßnahmen?

MT: Die Maßnahmen, Familienmitglieder zu bestrafen, sind in der Türkei nicht neu. Es ist heute einfach aktueller weil viele populäre Menschen davon betroffen waren oder es immer noch sind. Es gab früher immer wieder Fälle, bei denen man wusste, dass Familienmitglieder entführt wurden oder Gewalt angetan wurde. Es gibt ja in der Türkei auch die Geschichte der „verschwunden- gelassenen-Menschen“. Leider betrifft es heute tausende Menschen. Viele Menschen können selber nicht mehr in die Türkei einreisen und haben auch Angst um die Hinterbliebenen. Der Staat setzt da eine sehr willkürliche Bestrafungsmethode ein- erzwingt eigentlich, dass diese zurück in die Türkei kommen, um ihre Familienmitglieder zu befreien. Ich hatte selbst das Problem, als mein Mann eine Ausreisesperre hatte und als ihm erneut vor zwei Wochen wieder der Pass abgenommen wurde. Das war ein Zeichen dafür um zu sagen „bleibt fern! Oder wir behalten euch hier!“ Das war bei Can Dündar dasselbe. Seine Frau Dilek Dündar hat selber kein Verfahren, es ist nicht rechtens sie in der Türkei festzuhalten, und das über Jahre hinweg. Sie konnte weder ihren Sohn noch ihren Ehemann sehen! All das zeigt uns, dass das sehr diktatorische und reaktionäre Methoden sind, gegen die eigentlich auch die breite Öffentlichkeit protestieren müsste. Auch internationale Sanktionen müssten verordnet werden, denn jeder Mensch kann nur für die eigene Verantwortung zur Rechenschaft gezogen werden und nicht die ganze Familie sollte da mit hineingezogen werden. Viele Familien hatten wirklich vorher keinerlei politischen Kontakt gehabt und werden jetzt dafür bestraft. Leider gibt es auch den Fall dass viele Beamten aus dem Amt entlassen wurden und mit ihnen auch ihre Familienmitglieder. Das zeigt eben dass man damit die ganze Familie einschüchtern will. Also ein ganzes Volk einschüchtern und beängstigen möchte!

Ganz einfache Hausfrauen, die eigentlich keine Ahnung von der Politik und dem öffentlichen Leben hatten

HA: Vor kurzem wurde über die Sozialen Medien über einen Vorfall in Halfeti berichtet bei dem Frauen beim Verhör schwer misshandelt und gefoltert wurden. Derartig gewaltige Übergriffe sind leider kein Einzellfall. Es scheint derzeit generell eine vermehrte Gewalt gegenüber Frauen und Kindern in der Türkei zu geben. Was glauben Sie sind die Gründe dafür? Wie würden Sie in einem Dreieck von Gesetzen, Traditionen und politischer Polarisierung den Gewaltmechanismus an Frauen interpretieren?

MT: In der Türkei ist das Patriarchat leider sehr stark ausgeprägt. Das ist nicht neu! In der türkischen Kultur und Tradition war das schon immer so, dass die Frau selbst noch hinter dem Ochsen kam, also erst der Mann, dann das Vieh und dann erst die Frau. Diese Haltung wird heute von dieser Regierung auch repräsentiert und vertreten. Der Staatspräsident selbst hat immer wieder verkündet, Frauen sollen drei Kinder gebären und gefälligst in ihren eigenen vier Wänden sitzen. Alle anderen Frauen, die diese traditionelle Geschlechterrolle nicht einhalten, werden dafür bestraft. Daher ist es nicht zufällig, dass insbesondere Politikerinnen, also Frauen, die sich in die Politik einmischen, für ihr Verhalten bestraft werden und auch repressiv behandelt werden. Es gab in den 80er und 90er Jahren viele Fälle von Vergewaltigung und sexuelle Nötigung in Polizeihaft. Das gibt es leider heute immer noch. Die Aussagen dazu sind alle sehr überzeugend. Ich selber bin oft Zeuge geworden in Polizeihaft, wie Frauen neben mir schwer misshandelt wurden, Gewalt angetan wurde. Insbesondere in dieser neuen Phase, also nach dem Putschversuch 2016, wurden sehr viele unschuldige Frauen wegen der Fethullah Gülen Mitgliedschaft unter diesen Vorwürfen festgenommen. Ganz einfache Hausfrauen, die eigentlich keine Ahnung von der Politik und dem öffentlichen Leben hatten. Und all diese Frauen kennen sich natürlich auch nicht darin aus, Widerstand zu leisten! In ihren Fällen droht der Staat mit Familie und Kindern! Hierbei argumentiert die Regierung mit religiösen Argumenten in dem sie sagt „in unserer Religion ist die Frau an zweiter Stelle!“ oder an hinterster Stelle. Das wird den Frauen immer wieder so lanciert. Sie sollen sich gefälligst in ihren Schranken bewegen ansonsten erfahren sie andere Dinge. Aber ich denke dass es in der Türkei trotzdem eine große Widerstandskultur gibt, vor allem bei den Frauen. Wir können heute sagen, die Frauenbewegung in der Türkei die stärkste zivile Bewegung ist. Das sehen wir an den 8. März Märschen in Istanbul, aber auch am 25. November, am Tag gegen Gewalt an Frauen. Da sehen wir eben, dass Frauen immer wieder die Schranken brechen, dass sie sich nicht in die Rolle einzwängen lassen wollen, dass sie gegen Ehrenmorde, familiäre Gewalt, gegen staatliche Gewalt auf die Straße gehen. Und das erwartet man eigentlich gar nicht, weil man denkt, wenn Frauen so häufig Opfer von Gewalt werden, dann trauen sie sich nicht mehr. Aber es ist genau das Gegenteil! Weil sie eben so viel Gewalt und Repression erfahren, sind sie an ihre Grenzen angekommen. Viele Frauen protestieren dagegen, selbst wenn es sie das Leben kostet. Es gibt sehr viele Frauen, die ihre Ehemänner ermorden müssen, weil ansonsten ihr Leben in Gefahr ist, was ja dann eigentlich Selbstschutz ist. Man muss es als Selbstschutz sehen weil in der Türkei täglich fünf Frauen an Ehrenmord ihr Leben verlieren. Die frauenfeindliche Politik des Staates möchte all das mit Religion und anderem begründen.

In this article, we interview renowned Turkish author, Çiler Ilhan. In 2011, Ilhan’s book, Exile, won the EU Prize for Literature. She is also a member of the Dutch and Turkish PEN Centres, the voices for literature and freedom of expression in the respective countries. Here, we discuss her work, her personal experiences as a women and the situation of women and girls in Turkey.

The Platform for Peace and Justice focuses on human rights, democracy, peace and justice in Turkey as well as all over the world and thus, it is a great pleasure to be able to talk to you as a Turkish writer about your views and opinions on human rights and women’s rights in Turkey and elsewhere.

In the 1930s, Turkey was a great example regarding women’s rights and even served as a model for the surrounding Middle Eastern countries. Today, however, it appears as if women’s rights in Turkey are declining. Some even argue that women’s rights have been deteriorating since the rise in power of the AKP. Would you agree with this? Are there certain personal experiences that you can refer to as an illustration?

What happened in Turkey in 1930s was just a start. You cannot transform a patriarchal country in a few decades. It needs a solid plan that includes legislation, education of both children and adults and, well, marketing too, if you like. Legislation delivered a big step forward making women firstly “visible”, and then “equal”. Unfortunately, the governments after 1950 did not inherit and continue the mission of the founders of the republic; they fell into populist traps willingly or unwillingly.

Having said this, I truly believe the question of women’s rights is not an issue only in Turkey. There is still a long and bumpy road to be covered for actual equality, even in the most “modern” societies. But in many European countries, the law protects women even if traditions do not; this is the big and crucial difference. And where law is enforced, people have a tendency to follow it on a social level, which then brings a sense of shame to the perpetrators.

We all know that laws can be interpreted, stretched or abused in the hands of the implementers. Hence, under a “big-brother”-esque guise, the government, lawmakers and implementers have started to bend legislation in Turkey… A few days ago, one even said, “laws cannot be higher or more important than traditions.” Now, this is very dangerous. If the law does not protect you, you become vulnerable.

In this sense, these days in Turkey, we are going backwards, not forward. A new, aggressive, backwards culture against women is being carefully seeded; they are putting women back in the kitchen and positioning them as only housewives and mothers in school books, cartoons, state-controlled media and popular culture, in short, through every channel possible. This will also take time to “undo”.

I personally did not go through a certain experience, but it was more a feeling that I got; a feeling of not being protected by the law anymore. I felt unsafe.

Turkey has not only changed since the rise of Erdoğan’s regime, but it has also severely changed since the attempted coup of 2016. Freedom of expression is not as evident as it used to be. Was this difficult for you as a female journalist and writer? How has this affected you and your work?

Personally, I was not doing staunch newspaper or TV journalism, so my field of censorship was more limited than that of in news journalism. But even in our field – lifestyle magazines – we saw changes. We started to be more careful with fashion shoots or other topics that we covered because the profile of our advertisers changed. Our parent company, which also ran a news channel, was subject to a severe censorship that we witnessed daily in the last few years. Some people were not allowed to appear on our screens, some events were not to be covered, or covered only in a way that was allowed. The amount of change was amazing.

Before my last job as the editor of a luxury travel magazine, I managed the PR department of a big hotel in Istanbul for years. We hosted countless press trips and journalists, and in 2012-2013, I remember having a conversation with some Russian journalists. I was surprised to hear how careful they had to be whilst covering news, any type of news. They told us that they were subject to censorship in every field of journalism, and that the state was controlling many things. I remember saying to them, “compared to you, we consider ourselves quite free and lucky”, and I was sincerely upset for them. I could not imagine how they coped with it on a daily basis. Now we can easily compete with Russia.

Turkey was the first country to ratify the ‘Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence’, also known as the Istanbul Convention. At the same time, it seems as if Turkey is lacking the will to implement the Istanbul Convention. For example, a baseline evaluation on Turkey released in 2018 stated that child marriage and domestic violence against women is still a big problem in Turkey. What is your opinion about this situation and why do you think is it so hard for Turkey to combat child marriage and domestic violence?

The problem is that people sitting in “high seats” do not see it as a problem. Therefore, for them, it is not as vital as building mega-airports or roads or compounds or shopping malls. Clearly, it is not a “project”: you cannot make money out of human rights. And, as I mentioned before, this is a whole culture that needs to be transformed. In some parts of Turkey, families marry their children at an early age due to poverty or due to tradition.

They do not see young girls like you and I would see them: for them, they are potential wives and they do not see any harm in this. They would tell you that their mothers also got married when they were 13 or 14 years old. This is just how it goes… You cannot tell these people that the concepts of age and time are different now. Now, humans live longer, and times have changed: girls also have to go to school. If you don’t invest in society, these people are bound to keep believing in the same values for decades.

Concerning domestic violence, I am positive that it is an even bigger issue than it seems because we only read about it or learn something when there is actually a murder or a type of violence that is close to death, and only when incidents are reported at hospitals or police stations. There are so many cases of violence that women do not mention even to their close family and friends; it is just taken for granted. There are various reasons for this: they have nowhere else to go, or they are ashamed to talk about it, or they think it’s the natural, normal way to live life.

A handful of women’s rights foundations must work like detectives to come up with numbers and statistics in order to provide support for these women, the victims. Needless to say, they do not get any help from officials. On the contrary, in many cases they are vilified for supposedly exaggerating or distorting the facts.

I would like to ask you a question about one of your books, more specifically the one that won the EU Prize for Literature. The title of this book is “Exile”, which refers to people that are alienated from their homeland, their families and the community to which they belonged. Do you sometimes feel alienated from your own homeland – Turkey – as a female writer? Why is that?

Exile has reached an international audience because it concerns various levels of humanity and the various conditions of being human. I grew up in a family that was liberal in the sense of education and daily life, but patriarchal when it came to the domestic roles of the genders. I started to think about the issue of being a woman in this society from an early age. I had witnessed how unfair life is for women, not only at home but in many fields.

For example, in business life later on, I worked at big hotels where I saw that women had to work double, and that it actually is a “man’s world”. Again, I must say this was not a “Turkish” issue. I worked at international hotel chains and the macho culture is visible in many European and North American companies. High executives finish deals at bars where women are not invited rather than at morning meetings.

Did I feel alienated as a writer, or as a female writer? No more than the usual level of alienation. Being a writer is not a prestigious occupation in Turkey anyway… Funnily enough, in my professional circle, I used to be better known for my editorship roles and lifestyle journalism for magazines and newspaper weekend supplements more than for my fictional writing. Most of the time, as a writer, you somehow feel alienated. In daily life, I often feel like an “alien”. I don’t feel like talking about the weather, or this or that TV series… I almost always prefer reading, writing or indulging myself in other art forms.

After reading your book, “Exile”, a few stories really stuck with me. Especially the story “My Daughter”, which is about a girl that was the victim of an honour killing by her three brothers. Honour killings primarily affect women and are not only a severe problem in Turkey, but also in many other countries around the globe. How important was it for you to include this story in your book?

This was a true story that I read in a newspaper. I gave it a twist, I gave the characters a voice and turned it into a story. This news literally haunted me. I could not get it out of my head. For me, the real tragedy of this crime lies in the fact that the whole family did it together. Can you imagine? But this must be true for most cases. Not only in honour killings, but in most cases of domestic violence and abuse, including incest.

I see it as a tree with cancer. One branch (usually an adult male) is infected with it first, and then, because a tree is a living organism just like a family, inevitably, the whole tree is infected after a while. And, if one of the branches (or family members) does not want to grow in the same direction as the others, in other words, members who rebel or speak out, they simply cut off that branch.

We must talk about honour killings and incest in Turkey. We cannot pretend that they do not exist. Talking openly will not solve the problem right away, but at least recognising the existence of it, and seeing it as a problem to be solved, would be a start. Even today, we don’t know how many of the “suicides” committed by women are forced suicides or honour killings or another type of domestic violence.

I read that you are a member of the Turkish and Dutch PEN, the international writers’ association that works for oppressed writers, journalists and freedom of expression. Could you tell us a bit more about your work at the Turkish and Dutch PEN? What does the Turkish PEN do to increase freedom of expression in Turkey and how do they decrease censorship?

I am not as actively involved in the Dutch PEN as I am in the Turkish PEN simply because I am not fluent in Dutch – I’m still learning the language. The Turkish PEN is a very active organisation: we have a Women Writers Committee, a Writers in Jail Committee and a Peace Committee (of which I am also a member). These committees are in touch with writers, journalists and academics in jail. They used to visit the detainees but now, for most cases, it’s forbidden to visit. However, they go to their hearings and give them legal support.

PEN Turkey constantly tries to create national and international awareness about the developing situation of freedom of speech, human rights and women’s rights in Turkey through various tools: making, distributing and printing statements, writing in a handful of newspapers that still are able to talk about such issues and using its platform to support NGOs or other groups. For example, this year, the Duygu Asena Award was given to Cumartesi Anneleri (Saturday Mothers) who are searching for their “lost children”.

PEN is also present at various book fairs and events, making its statements concerning freedom of expression and other relevant social and political issues heard. It also organizes its own panels and events in various cities including Samsun, Diyarbakır, İzmir, Bursa, Eskişehir, Ankara and Antalya in this year alone. I represent the Turkish PEN as the Turkish delegate at international PEN conferences whenever I can, updating other national centres on the current situation in Turkey, and continually searching and creating fruitful cooperation between centres.  

Ertuğrul Kürkçü is a Turkish politician, social activist and the Honorary Chair of the HDP, which is the Peoples’ Democratic Party in Turkey. Since 8 October 2018, Ertuğrul Kürkçü is the Honorary Associate of PACE (the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe). He has served as the co-chair of the HDP between October 2013 and June 2014. He has also been active as a political journalist, columnist and editor.

We interviewed Kürkçü for PPJ Brussels Talks just before the March 31st local elections and the interview represents Ertuğrul Kürkçü’s personal opinions and thus, this is not an official statement in the name of the HDP.

The upcoming nationwide local elections of 31 March 2019 are of great importance to Turkey, since it will be the first vote following the introduction of the new presidential system. One might even say that it is a test for President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and that it is a referendum on his rule. What do you think the outcome will be?

The March 31 elections are the last link in the chain of three consecutive elections (the referendum of 2017, the general and presidential elections of 2018, and the local elections of 2019) which the Erdoğan-led ruling dictatorial block have been instrumentalizing as a leverage for public consent for the fascist regime: the “Presidential Government System” as concocted by Bahçeli and in force since the 2017 referendum.

Albeit the ruling block having formally passed the 50 percent election barrier in the first two – through massive fraud based on voter rigging and ballot stuffing – the opposition in almost every shade still remains defiant and is gathering momentum to strike back both in Kurdistan and the metropolitan areas in the West: Ankara, İstanbul, İzmir, Adana, Mersin, Antalya, Hatay, Eskişehir…

I am optimistic that Turkey will be able to deny Erdoğan popular consent in this third round of elections and will change the balance of forces. This may open the way for Turkey to enter a new political era through an upsurge in the struggle for democracy from below.

Tayyip Erdoğan has inevitably turned the elections into a referendum as the ruling block’s backing has further eroded, particularly after the economic crisis which is simultaneously feeding a legitimacy crisis.

Awkwardly, Erdoğan is personally campaigning against each and every candidate of the opposition, particularly in the big cities in the west, positing himself as the “mayor of Turkey”, thus calling the people to decide between “I or they”. The people will vote accordingly. 31 March is not a local election anymore. 

There are negative economic developments in Turkey: the economy has fallen into a recession for the first time in a decade. These developments will most likely have an effect on the upcoming local elections. With this recession in mind, do you think the Justice and Development Part (AKP) will retain most of the municipalities or on the contrary, will the AKP take a big hit?

They will lose most of the big cities and Kurdistan. And even if they succeed – let’s say in the larger cities such as Ankara or Istanbul – they will lose most of the districts even where they have got the greater mayoralties.

What do you think the consequences will be for the Erdoğan regime if the AKP – of which President Erdoğan is Chairman – does not retain the majority of the municipalities?

It is highly likely that a negative result for Erdoğan and the AKP in the March 31 elections will cause the fault lines alongside the ruling block crack. Erdoğan and Bahçeli and the “Ergenekon” – a collective name for the ultra-nationalist and anti-Kurdish circles in the deep state who are rivalling Erdoğan in spite of a temporary security alliance against the Kurdish insurgency – will engage in inevitable infighting. This may push Erdoğan to look for new alliances for survival.

Practically, since the relative cohesion and the strength of the ruling block is undermined this would inevitably boost the opposition’s capacity of challenging the Erdoğan-regime.

Selahattin Demirtaş, the co-leader of the Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) has been in prison since 2016 and at least 10 other HDP parliamentarians are imprisoned as well.  Do you think these events will influence the voters and in what way? Might this attract sympathy from the voters or will this have an opposite effect?

The political prospects for the HDP are positive, in spite of a probable increase in the crackdown on our popular base and on our local and central organs and influential leaders. The HDP is maturing. The election strategy proves this. The HDP is employing a complex and even puzzling strategy in order to help oust the AKP from local power. The HDP is calling its voters to distribute their votes between its own HDP candidates, and the candidates of CHP and even of İYİ.

The HDP is acting selflessly in order to lead its voters to gather around the strongest candidate of the opposition, some sections of which are staunch right wingers and ultra-nationalists: a hard to thing to swallow for some Kurds. This political strategy, in spite of the tactical difficulties it poses for the party, will not only contribute to the decline of the AKP rule in the long run, but also lead to closer social and political connections between the HDP voters and the voters of other sections of the opposition.

Indeed, the HDP election strategy is cooked in heated debates inside the localities where grassroots networks intersect and are then systematized and reshaped by the HDP.

The HDP strategy is understood and praised by the opinion leaders of the opposition, no doubt this will yield further sympathy and solidarity from the voters too.

Over the years many HDP mayors (95) have been replaced by loyal pro-governmental officials after they were accused of supporting and cooperating with terrorists. President Erdoğan has stated in recent speeches that he might remove and replace HDP mayors that are involved with terrorism after the local elections.  Do you think that future HDP mayors will face replacement again after the local elections? Will this influence the HDP supporters and in what way?

Erdoğan and his Interior Minister Soylu have been very sharply criticized for their irresponsible and provocative statements in that direction for neither the government nor the President are bestowed such authority by the Constitution and the law.

In the past, they could remove the elected mayors by the unlawful exploitation of the extraordinary powers during the State of Emergency. Now they are stripped of these powers, at least legally.  We will see if they will still remain capable of overstepping the limits of law by the 1st of April. These threats may prove to be an April Fools, or turn into a tragedy.

Nevertheless, Tayyip Erdoğan is well-known for his grand U-turns and he may very well take back all his threats which sound pretty much like a strategy aimed at voter intimidation and spreading fear among the voters of possible official revenge should they vote for the HDP.

My impression is that not only our voters will continue to stick to their own choices but that many Kurds who have never voted for the HDP will also cast their votes for our candidates in protest of Soylu’s and Erdoğan’s gross insults directed at Kurdish people and Kurdistan.   

The HDP has announced that it will not list candidates in several key cities, such as Istanbul, Ankara and Izmir, which implies indirect support for the CHP- İYİ alliance (Republican People’s Party and Good), even though HDP spokesman Saruhan Oluç stated that this choice has been made “for the struggle for democracy”. What is your estimation for the CHP- İYİ alliance’s chances in the March-elections given this context? Will it have a positive effect on the CHP- İYİ alliance or will the nationalist voters among the CHP and İYİ – who see the HDP as not that different from the PKK – turn their back on this alliance?

One vote is one vote: This is the logic when you go to elections. In case of the March 31 elections, one HDP voter’s vote for CHP or İYİ means more than one vote since the present sum of İYİ and CHP votes is so far incapable of beating the sum of AKP and MHP votes.

The present balance may be tilted only if the HDP voters cast their votes for the CHP+İYİ candidates. This is the simple logic for sane people. There might still exist some amount of eccentric ultra-nationalists among the CHP and İYİ voters. Yet, the majority comprises of people with common sense, I presume. Nationalism does not necessarily relate to lower IQs.

As you know the New Zealand mosque attacks have been livestreamed on Facebook by the assailant. After the events, social media companies have been working on removing the images and video’s while President Erdoğan has been using edited versions for his election rallies. Do you think President Erdoğan is trying to influence people – in particular Islamists – in order to gain votes? Where do you think the danger lies in his way of campaigning?

Erdoğan’s attitude would remain as a sort of crude revanchism if he should not exploit these images in order to identify the domestic opposition in Turkey with the white supremacist, neo-nazi assailant in New Zealand and the xenophobic and anti-Christian hysteria towards the non-Muslim world.

Erdoğan exploits the massacre in Christchurch in order to represent the Turkish elections as a replica of the clash between the aggressor and the victim, of the contest between the crescent and cross, identifying himself and his followers with the victims and the opposition with the aggressor.

This is the demonization of secular and non-Muslim, non-Sunnite sections of Turkey as part of the motivating force behind fundamentalist anti-Muslim trends overseas. This sort of agitation may deepen the divide between his followers and the others but it is unlikely to gain him extra votes.

We talked with to her about the local elections in Turkey which will took place next Sunday and about the general situation in the country when it comes to issues like freedom of press and the economic crisis.

Part 2

Kati Piri is a Dutch Member of the European Parliament (MEP) who belongs to the Progressive Alliance of Socialists & Democrats. As the Parliament’s Turkey rapporteur since 2014, she has earned the reputation of being an outspoken critic of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his party, the AKP.

There will be local elections in Turkey on 31^st March. Some recent opinion polls suggest that the economic situation will be the deciding factor of the elections, with the state of the economy and unemployment being at the top of the list of what people see as the country’s most important problems. The unemployment rate (especially the youth unemployment rate) is extremely high and has been rising, and inflation has accelerated dramatically after the lira collapsed against other major currencies. For instance, food price inflation in Turkey reached an annual rate of 31%, the highest level since at least 2004.

Do you think that Turkish electors are going to punish the government for its inability to solve these problems?

The economy is a key issue for all voters in every country. And it has been essential for the AKP because they have gained the trust of a large part of the electorate due to their positive economic policies in the past.

However, the economy could also cost them their voters. If you do not have a job, or a decent house to live in, or if your salary is not enough to buy food for your family… These matters are crucial for people when they go to the voting booth.

However, we also saw in Russia, when President Putin faced economic sanctions and the possibility of a big problem at home with his country’s electorate, he tried to play the nationalist card. His message is: “do not blame me for the economy, the foreign powers are out to destroy us. If you are a true Russian, you should now defend the country.” And these are the tactics that President Erdoğan is now using.

He has all the power possible, more power than is healthy in a normal democracy, but he still blames others for the economy. The question is whether the Turkish electorate finds this credible or not. However, with all the deterioration of press freedom in Turkey in the last few years, we do not know if people hear a different opinion than the one which the government wants them to hear.

Before last year’s elections, Erdoğan said that the choice would be between nationalists (referring to his party and the MHP) and those who are under [foreign] control (the opposition parties). The Turkish President recently said that the CHP, İYİ Party and Felicity (Saadet) Party had formed a “gang” against the People’s Alliance of the AKP and Nationalist Movement Party (MHP). He even accused the CHP of being serving FETÖ and PKK.

What does this tell us about how Erdoğan sees opposition parties?

I think it tells us more about what type of politician he is: someone who does not want to have a debate about the substance of his policy but prefers directing personal attacks towards opposition leaders. We see other populists in Europe using the same tactic. Just think about Viktor Orbán in Hungary. Politicians like this always make it personal.

Then, when they are the ones being criticized, they insist that is not an institution that is criticizing them; they always say it is a personal attack by someone who was paid by this or that person. Very often the name, George Soros is mentioned. Unfortunately, these conspiracy theories always work well with a certain type of society which wants to see a complot everywhere.

Turkey is obsessed with conspiracy theories…

Yes, but unfortunately there are similar feelings within all our societies right now.

Moreover, like we mentioned before, theories blaming “foreign powers” are constantly being used by the Turkish government.

Being in power for more than a decade and saying that whatever happens to Turkey is the fault of outsiders… That is not really taking responsibilities for your actions. The same goes for the Gülen movement. Which party was cooperating with the Gülenists? It was the AKP. Everyone knows this in Turkey; I do not know who Erdoğan is trying to convince anymore.

And let’s not forget that Erdoğan, who is perhaps the person with the strongest links with Gülen, even apologized after the coup…

Yes, he apologized, but he does not forgive other people. So, he apologizes but then he wants others in jail, even if they were not involved in the attempted coup. Sometimes because they had ByLock [an encrypted mobile phone application] on their phones, sometimes because they went to Asya Bank, etc…

Erdoğan recently said that “The HDP equals the PKK, which equals the People’s Protection Units (YPG)/The Democratic Union Party (PYD)”.

Do you think this rhetoric can have some impact on the next elections?

It is not just this statement, it is a variety of statements. The AKP has formed an alliance with the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) for the local elections, and I am sure that this does not help when it comes to maintaining the Kurdish base. The AKP has a very strong Kurdish base; they won around 40% of the votes in the Southeast, and they are risking this by having this alliance with a strong anti-Kurdish party.

Besides that, I think everyone in Turkey knows that that there will never be a military solution to the Kurdish question. If there was one man who understood this, it was President Erdoğan. He decided to have peace talks but they did not deliver him what he expected in terms of support. In addition, we know that the Syrian war made the ambitions of the PKK bigger than the peace talks in Turkey. Be that as it may, one day the Turkish government will have to go back to those talks, and I think all top level AKP figures are aware of that. So, the question is: how much rhetoric can you allow yourself for the future?

Do you consider that we will witness massive arrests among the HDP elects after the elections?

My question is: who is left to arrest? They have arrested 2000 of the activists who are running the local branches, around 90 mayors, etc. Actually, they were not only arrested, but put in jail.

And let’s not forget that the HDP still have their two former co-chairs and other members of the parliament in jail. Who is left? And how long can you keep this up? These are people who represent millions of voters in Turkey. You cannot turn their voters into an enemy, they are citizens of Turkey. Irrespective of their leaders, of the HDP politicians, this is insulting to millions of Turkish citizens who voted for these people. I am really afraid of this very strong hostility that is building in Turkish society. We know that there have been more than 150 000 people fired, and the same amount of people since the coup have been in prison. We see what has been happening to the Kurdish left electorate.

I reiterate: we are talking about millions of people. How can any government think it is okay to be so hostile to its own population?

You’ve already mentioned the deterioration of press freedom in Turkey. We are talking about a country in which, according to some estimates, more than 90% of the media is under the control of the president’s allies. On 3^rd October, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said that “democracy is not possible with the media”, adding that, “it is not possible for a politician to pursue sound politics if he or she is afraid of the media”. Turkey is by all accounts the world’s worst jailer of journalists and the 2018 World Press Freedom Index of Reporters Without Borders ranks it 157 out of 180 countries in the world.

Do you see any way for this situation to get better in the near future? How?

It is going to be difficult because it means the government stopping this crazy policy and returning to some normal governance. I do not see that happening soon. Let’s be honest: Turkey has never had free media. Never.

We should not forget the fact that most Turkish media outlets in the past were always part of businesses and special interest group. If you went to Zaman Network, it looked like you had walked into Google: it was a very modern office, clearly not from the profit you make with a newspaper. In fact, it was a business association with newspaper for its own interests.

Where businesses are involved, certain interest groups are involved. This has always been the case with the group of which Hürriyet and CNN Türk were a part. Yet, before, you had a variety of opinions from different interest groups and at least it was not all the same state propaganda. Now it is different. Turkey has a society which is focused on television – that is the way that people get their information. Not having free television channels and having to rely on a couple of papers and mainly online media, which is not something that the wider public uses as a source of information, makes this a very worrying situation.

Autocrats like Erdoğan play it very smart, they all go after judiciary and free press and then they say: ‘We win elections with a majority of the votes’. Well, it is easy to win if no one gives a different opinion.

The Editor-in-Chief of Ahval, P24 journalist Yavuz Baydar told Al-Jazeera that, “some terms for the large majority, such as ‘freedom’, ‘rights’, these are too abstract (…) Particularly middle and lower-middle classes of Turkey are much more focused on economy, the pocket, the daily life and the family. That’s why freedom of media, freedom of expression, all of these issues are left only for journalists, for intellectuals.”

Do you agree with this perspective?

You cannot blame the Turkish electorate. This is something that most people all over the world have in common. If they cannot afford their groceries tomorrow, then that is a much bigger issue than a judge being fired for his political opinion. Not everyone feels the effect of important democratic institutions in their daily lives, it takes a longer time before you see that these things are not there and what they mean for your life.

On the other hand, if you lose your job, from one day to the next, it has an immediate effect on your life. I see the same in Hungary. In December, the Hungarian government made two laws: one was on overtime, the so-called “slave law”, under which you have to work one day extra per week without getting paid; the other one was a very serious law violating the independence of the court system. No one took to the streets because of the courts, but because they did not want to work one extra day per week.

We forget to teach people that while we all take democracy and democratic reforms for granted, they can be destroyed easily and quickly, and this is what is happening in Turkey right now.

What do you make of Erdoğan’s rising influence in the Balkans? Do you think is he trying to expand some kind of authoritarian model?

When you look at the Balkans, the influence of Turkey is mainly in Bosnia and in Kosovo. For a long time, the EU was very happy with the close contact between Turkey and the Balkan countries; all of them were countries on their way to becoming members of the EU. But what we see now is a totally different type of policy. The EU kind of forgot about the Balkans when it was too busy with its own problems, and now, they have become a battlefield of influence between China, Russia, and Turkey. The EU has woken up very late to these developments.

Turkey are trying to have more of a cultural influence. We saw the kidnappings that lead to the Kosovan president and prime minister having some differences and the justice minister having to resign… Turkey is no longer the positive example of a Muslim country on its way to becoming a fully liberal democracy. For many years, it was a key example of that, especially for many countries in the Balkans. Unfortunately, now, it is an example of authoritarianism.

What is the image of Turkish government in the international arena?

Once a Turkish diplomat told me, “you guys have the memory of an elephant, we have the memory of a fish”. They think: we have this rhetoric now, but we can change it very quickly later. This is not the way things work in international politics. For example, most Dutch voters remember that two years ago, President Erdoğan called Dutch people the remnants of Nazis. This is not something that resonates well, or that could be quickly forgotten or be seen as election rhetoric. This was deeply insulting.

Every year, I try go to the US to talk with experts on EU-Turkey relations and the US have always had a very positive view on Turkey, mainly due its role as a NATO partner. But now, in the US, there is a totally different rhetoric on Turkey. A lot of damage has been done especially in the last 2/3 years.

I also think the Turkish government has made some really stupid mistakes. Everyone understands that if you face a coup attempt in your country, you will want to take those responsible to court. Turkey would have received wide international support if they had not started to purge all kinds of people who committed no crime or for their belonging to a certain religious group… That was too far! Then, by widening the purge to include even opposition journalists who have never had anything to do with any of these groups, they have ended up losing all credibility on the international scene. Turkey has been seen as an ally of the West for a long time and it has come to be seen as a very big liability.

About The Author

José Miguel Rocha

José Miguel Rocha is graduated in Journalism from the University of Porto (Portugal) and did his MA in History, International Relations and Cooperation. In 2016, José did voluntary work with Syrian refugees in Turkey and then he worked at an Ankara based think-tank, SASAM. There he made extensive researches on Turkish foreign policy, Turkish communities living in Europe, religious minority communities in Turkey, the relations between Turkey and the EU and its countries, etc. He truly believes that liberal democracy is a cause worth fighting for.

Kati Piri is a Dutch Member of the European Parliament (MEP) who belongs to the Progressive Alliance of Socialists & Democrats. As the Parliament’s Turkey rapporteur since 2014, she has earned the reputation of being an outspoken critic of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his party, the AKP. We talked with her after the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs adopted her report on 20th February calling for the suspension of EU accession talks with Ankara. On Tuesday and Wednesday, the document will be voted on in the Parliament’s general assembly. The Turkish government considers the Foreign Affairs Committee’s vote “unacceptable” and if the majority of MEPs approves the report, the strained relations between the Turkish government and the European Union will certainly not be soothed.

Part 1

About The Author

José Miguel Rocha

José Miguel Rocha is graduated in Journalism from the University of Porto (Portugal) and did his MA in History, International Relations and Cooperation. In 2016, José did voluntary work with Syrian refugees in Turkey and then he worked at an Ankara based think-tank, SASAM. There he made extensive researches on Turkish foreign policy, Turkish communities living in Europe, religious minority communities in Turkey, the relations between Turkey and the EU and its countries, etc. He truly believes that liberal democracy is a cause worth fighting for.

As its rapporteur on Turkey, how do you see the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs action since 2014 when it comes to the situation in Turkey?

Well, being the rapporteur on Turkey for that committee means that much of what the committee did was at my recommendation.

We should not forget that at the beginning of the mandate, this Parliament still called for the opening of chapters 23 and 24 .

This is not a parliament which is hostile to Turkey. When I started as rapporteur, we had a totally different position because, despite the fact that things were already problematic in Turkey, we thought that the EU should use the tools at its disposal, including the opening of chapters, to try to positively influence democratic developments in the country. That did not happen.

The European Council [hereinafter referred as “Council”] never went that far and I criticized them for that in my latest report, which was adopted on 20th February by the Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee.

After the coup attempt, the Turkish government decided not only to purge all followers of the Gülen movement but also to arrest 9 HDP members of the Turkish parliament, including Selahattin Demirtaş, and some Cumhurriyet journalists. In November 2016 the European Parliament (EP) called for a freeze on the accession negotiations. That was the first time we took a tougher stance and in 2017, when we saw things deteriorating further, we thought it was necessary for the EP to draw a red line, and our red line was the new constitution.

We adopted the position that if Turkey’s new constitution was implemented without any of the Venice Commission’s recommendations, we would call for a formal suspension of the accession talks. However, at the time, in 2017, the presidential elections were to take place in 2019, so we thought that Turkey would have 2 years to make adjustments to the new constitution. But they pushed forward the election and implemented the new constitution very quickly without making any substantial changes to it. We think that our red line – the one we have been warning Turkey about ever since the coup attempt, and that they did not take seriously – has been crossed, and that is how we have ended up with our position today.

On 20th February, after the Foreign Affairs Committee voted in favour of suspending the accession negotiations with Turkey, Marietje Schaake (a Liberal MEP) said: “Contrary to the member states and the European Commission, the European Parliament does not shy away from taking a clear stance on the accession negotiations with Turkey”. On the same day, you wrote on Twitter that “in the Council there seems to be no willingness to” formally suspend talks with Turkey. Do you think that some of the EU institutions’ lack of policy to tackle human rights violations and the crackdown on the justice system is mainly due to the Refugee Deal?

Of course, the role that the Refugee Deal plays is an issue, but certainly not the only issue. Let’s not forget that we have internal problems in the EU, as you can see with the article 7 sanctions procedures against Hungary and Poland, which means that we also have very serious democratic deficit issues inside the EU.

There are also some geopolitical issues. I do not think that it is in the interest of the EU for Turkey to drift away from the West, where it has belonged for decades.

I also think that the big difference is that in the EP, we vote by majority and in the Council, unanimity is needed. That has always been the problem with EU foreign policy. If there is no unanimity on a topic, the Council cannot take a tougher position. I am absolutely sure that there are many heads of states who would also like to send a clearer signal to Turkey, but there are some who do not, hence there is no position in the Council.

How decisive and/or powerful are the EP’s (usually quite critical) stances on Turkey? Do they have any real effects?

These are complicated questions. The question is also: effect on who? If you ask me if our position on Turkey’s accession will influence the Council: Yes. But do I think that it is very likely that in June the Council will call for the suspension of the accession talks? No. For instance, in November 2016, the EP took a very strong and united stance on freezing membership talks with Turkey. I think it was adopted with almost 90% of the votes. You cannot simply ignore that, and they did not –  they could not.

On the other hand, if a country or government does not really want to become a member of the EU, which is now the case with the current government in Turkey, the EP’s influence is much less important. Because if it does not really care about the EU’s opinion on things, given the fact it does not really want membership (using it only as a rhetoric), the influence of any EU institution, not just the EP, is obviously less effective.

If Turkey was genuinely committed to wanting to join the EU, it would have been smart to take the EP’s position into consideration, but, clearly, it did not. There has not been a Turkish minister in the EP for the last 3 years. For the last 2 years, the government decided not to have meetings with me, the rapporteur on Turkey. Last time I was there none of the ruling party ministers wanted to meet. It is quite stupid if you consider that the EP decides on visa liberalisation, the upgrade of the Customs Union, the EU’s budget, including the funds for Turkey, etc. It is not a very smart diplomatic move to treat the EP the way that they do.

As you have just said, you have recently (from 15 – 19 October 2018) visited Turkey, where you had the chance to discuss the political and economic situation in the country with political parties, business and civil society representatives. How did that trip influence the EP Turkey 2018 report published some weeks after?

Normally, the basis for the EP report is always the European Commission’s country report which is published a couple of months earlier.

They have many people to look into various aspects of the accession process, and that is the report to which the EP reacts. What the EP normally does, because the European Commission’s report is very long, is mainly focus on issues like the judiciary and press freedom, which have always been key issues for the EP.

So, what I always try to do in Turkey is to speak with the government, the opposition parties (which I also met this time), the trade unions, the business environment, the NGOs, and sometimes I do an extra work visit to another city other than Istanbul or Ankara. Last time I went to Mardin. These talks have naturally influenced the report. For instance, in Mardin, I spoke with the Armenian community there, so that is reflected in the report. I know that for many Christian Democrat politicians, this is a key issue. And so is the way in which Turkey leads with religious minorities.

And the Armenian genocide, I guess…

Yes, but, to be honest, I do not think that that should be part of the accession talks. And it is not. Actually, we didn’t mention it in the report, except for a reference to the parliament’s position. It is only in the “having regards” part, not in the text of the report. Since I was appointed rapporteur, this is the way we deal with it. In the latest report, there is no reference to it, not because the EP does not have a clear position, but because we think it should not be written in the Turkey report which deals with accession.

One of the other things I did during my last visit to Turkey is I met with the trade unions who are representing the workers of the new airport in Istanbul. We talked about how many people died and everything that has happened there in terms of violations of the rights of the workers. This is something which is reflected in the report.

Besides that, as you know, I am following very closely the case of Selahattin Demirtaş, so I visited his family and his lawyers in Diyarbakır to hear the latest information about his case.

These are all issues which are in the report.

In January 2018, you told Turkish newspaper Hürriyet that the EU has made some serious mistakes in its policy on Turkey. Would you like to give some examples?

I think the moment that we allowed Cyprus in without having a solution to the Cyprus problem is the moment we gave up with the unanimity rule of ever finding a good policy on Turkey. If you have a member state which can and will always block certain strategies with Turkey… I think that is a big mistake.

The biggest leverage for finding a solution on Cyprus was EU membership, and we gave it away without even having a solution there.

The other mistake is the fact that the EU has always been dishonest about the accession process. I was recently at a conference and a Turkish participant said, “Well, after this EU parliament voting, thank God we still have Merkel”. And I started to laugh, I just thought, ‘Are you serious?‘. Merkel is the figure who, from 2005, probably never believed in the accession process of Turkey. This is hypocrisy. Even if Turkey were a perfect democracy, Merkel and, for instance, Sarkozy would not want Turkey in the EU. That is the difference with me.

I do not think that Turkey does not belong in the EU. In my opinion, it is a European country. Of course, the EU would need some reforms before being able to take in such a big country, but I think we could do it. I am of the opinion that many people in Turkey share many of our values.

From my point of view, you cannot have any leverage in an EU-Turkey relationship if you do not make it a credible process and we never did that with the accession talks. We forgot about Turkey; we never had EU-Turkey summits until we needed them for the Refugee Deal.

Throughout the Refugee Deal, we did not keep our promise related to a large-scale resettlement, the opening of chapters, the visa and the Customs Union, etc. I very much understand why a lot of the Turkish electorate look cynically at the whole process.

It is quite normal to hear in Turkey that “they do not really want us to be part of the European club”.

Yes, and the saddest part is that the EP was always the strongest supporter of the actual accession of Turkey.

We constantly called for the opening of accession chapters. The Council was always much more cynical and it remained more cynical than it is today. But under the current circumstances, I simply do not think it is credible to have this rhetoric of accession when everyone knows that Turkey is very, very far away from meeting even the minimum criteria. Let’s not even try to talk about the accession process –  that is just a theoretical discussion under the current circumstances – when you have all these journalists and human rights defenders in jail.

What do you think about that idea some people have that the EU does not want Turkey because it is a Muslim country?

It has always been the Christian-Democratic political family with that opinion. Do they rule the whole EU? No. Do they have a big influence on the EU? Yes. But, for sure, that is not why the EP is calling for the formal suspension of the accession talks.

My group, the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats, has always believed that Turkey is and should be a candidate country to become a member of the EU. Our position on that has not changed, but the developments inside Turkey have drastically deteriorated. So, it is obvious that there are people in the EU who do not want Turkey to be a member. I would say that even a larger part of the public is now of that opinion. But that is also because of what we have seen President Erdoğan doing in the last few years. These things influence each other.

According to a new survey by Istanbul’s Kadir Has University, around 52% of Turks support Turkey’s EU membership application. What message would you like to send them?

First, let me be clear: even if we call for suspension of the accession talks, Turkey will remain a candidate country to become a member of the EU. I do not think it makes any sense to continue to talk about accession with this government. We even put in the report that our call is without prejudice to article 49 of the EU, which is about accession. It does not mean that in the future Turkey can never become a member of the EU.

But I think: what is the value of the EU? Its freedoms, its economical attraction… A lot of people in Turkey still want their country to go in that direction! If we do not want to keep up these values with a candidate country, Europe will lose this attraction it has. That is why I am in favour of having these article 7 procedures against Poland and Hungary because I think these are the values we need to uphold. The same applies for a country who wants to join the EU. I would say to these people: please send your messages to your own government, do not blame the EU for this. Blame your own government for not implementing the reforms which are necessary for visa-free travel.

The EP have clearly said that when Turkey fulfills the criteria, we will vote in favour of visa liberalisation. Push your government to reform the last criteria for visa-free travel. The same goes for the modernisation of the Customs Union. Our economies are so interlinked that it is also important for us that Turkey remains a healthy economy, and it is in the interest of Turkish voters as well.

But to modernise this trade relationship, we need to see some positive signs when it comes to democratic reforms. I would say that the key lies in Ankara and therefore if the Turkish public is strong enough in raising this issue with their own government, real steps forward can be made.

He was elected President of the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) on August 27^th, 2016 by the 184 member organizations during the FIDH 39th Congress in Johannesburg. 

We have interviewed him on a wide range of matters related to Turkey and got very interesting answers.

About The Author

Polyxeni Vairami

Polyxeni is a political analyst. She holds a BA in Political Science from Panteion University, Greece and a MA in European Studies with specialization on EU External Relations from Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium. Her focus is: EU enlargement of the Western Balkans and the democratization process of those countries. She also shows a strong academic interest in Human Rights, Rule of Law, Political Parties and related fields.

1. Q: So, Mr Christopoulos, On behalf of PPJ we would like to thank you very much for accepting our invitation for an interview. To begin with, I would like to ask you about the organization itself so, what is International Federation for Human Rights (and as a sub-question) what priorities do you have as the President of this organization?

A: The International Federation for Human Rights, the Acronym of which is FIDH, coming from “La Fédération internationale des ligues des droits de l’Homme” which is the first original name, is the oldest Human Rights’ Association in the world dating from 1922.

So, in a few years from now, we are going to celebrate the first century. The FIDH is a network, based here in Paris, of 184 organizations, everywhere in the world, in all continents with a general Human Rights Mandate.

The general Human Rights Mandate as enshrined in the status of FIDH, emanating from the Universal Declaration for Human Rights, does not prevent us from setting priorities.

So, our priorities currently have to do with Migration, Women’s Rights, with protection of Human Rights’ defenders, with empowering international and criminal jurisdictions, with business and Human Rights and with Social Rights. If I might say, the FIDH is a Federation in the sense that the Member Organizations keep their autonomy but are members of the network. That could be the general description I would give.

2. Q: On the 17th of March 2018 the EU? Commission published the “Turkey 2018 Report”, a communication on EU enlargement Policy. Within the framework of accession negotiations, 16 chapters have been opened so far with one provisionally closed. In the case that the EU decides to discontinue EU accession negotiations with Turkey, in which direction Turkey will be heading?

A: I think there is a pending question for all of us here. So how to deal with the phenomenon Turkey in terms of human rights. Facing it from the outside, the difficult balance is to find here the functioning between stigmatization of Turkey which would not lead to complete isolation and on the other hand conditional cooperation which will not degenerate to an absolute, cynical neglection for the human rights’ agenda. This is, I could say, from the beginning the dilemma and this is honestly an impossible mission. You  cannot do it easily with Turkey. And that is why Turkey is a persisting issue, an existential European dilemma if you want. It cannot stop from being it and by saying that I would also wish to demystify the Turkish particularity. Turkey is of course particular yet not incomparable. That is my view.

3. Q: What is your take on Turkey’s leverage over Balkan states? Can the EU counterbalance the impact of Turkey on those countries?

A: I think that EU has an agenda of approaching the Western Balkans but obviously this agenda should be seen in the light of the general state of Affairs within EU. So, I think that setting up negotiations and putting plausible deadlines for the Western Balkans is a political operation which of course is an ongoing one and I do not give too much hope for those countries. This does not necessarily mean that Turkey is there to replace the EU.

Despite the fact Turkey has an obvious cultural and geopolitical influence in the Western Balkans, I do not believe that this influence could be compared to the leverage of EU in the region. So, a possible failure of negotiations with Macedonia, Albania, Serbia, I don’t know Bosnia maybe in the long term might offer some privileges, margin of action for Turkey in these countries but I do not believe that the things will radically change.

To put it in one word I think that Turkey, historically had always a cultural and geopolitical leverage in Western Balkans, particularly in the Muslim countries and Muslim populations but I do not think we should exaggerate regarding this impact today.

4. Since on the one hand the EU seems to be being weakened with Brexit, and on the other hand the influence that Turkey gains in the Balkans gives it greater leverage with the European Union – Do you think that it is more possible for Western Balkans to make a step closer to Turkey and take distance from the EU?

A: I think that the answer is negative. I do not believe that given the circumstances today Turkey would have a considerably bigger role to play in Western Balkans.

By saying that, I fully acknowledge again that Turkey has a cultural and geopolitical leverage in the region but we also need to consider that for these countries Turkey is a major partner but is never regarded as the exclusive partner. In that sense, I seriously doubt that the current developments between EU and the Western Balkans, as bad as they can turn, might lead to a situation where Turkey will present herself as the exclusive partner in the region.

5. Q: The Turkish Constitutional Court has been ineffective in addressing the gross violations of individual rights and freedoms which have taken place in Turkey. Amnesty International concluded that the State of Emergency Commission, rather than being an effective mode of appeal, “is in effect a rubber stamp for the government’s arbitrary dismissals”. The European Court of Human Rights, however, still considers this Commission as an effective domestic avenue that must be pursued before they will hear an application. How can the International community intervene since the domestic remedies have been proved insufficient?

A: There is only one institutionally appropriate way of the International Community to intervene in such situation and this is the jurisdictional control by the European Court for Human Rights. I do not see anything else.

Obviously, I am talking about an institutional pursuing, a jurisdictional one, about the political bargaining with Turkey and in that sense I would like to make a form distinction.

I have the impression that the EU countries, on the one hand express condemnation about the current developments with the human rights and rule of law situation in Turkey, but on the other hand I think that the fact that Turkey stores 3.500.000 migrants and refugees who want to go to EU instead of staying there offers Turkey a buying for doing nothing.

In practice, what I understand is that Turkey buys the EU silence over its authoritarian shift. So, if I would have to blame someone, I would not blame Turkey first I would blame EU who cynically enough accepts this bazaar with Turkey on human lives.

For me that is the major point to make; that the cynical, geopolitical perceptions because it is not even geopolitical interests, it is perceptions and xenophobic or racist ideologies which are dominating the EU  and render Turkey a privileged partner on the basis of the fact that Turkey appears to be far more generous than EU with migrants. So, we should blame Turkey only for that. Let’s put the blame on both sides.

Now, the second part of the answer that I have to give has to do obviously with the European Court of Human Rights which is a completely different issue and I understand that, there is still much work to do in order to exhaust all means of national remedies and address the Court in a plausible way.

Yet, the Court until today has been not proved to be as efficient as it should have been, given the fact that there is a general fear that shows some complaints are addressed and considered admissible by a Court, then the Court will sink from the volume of complaints that will come from Turkey and this is something easy for the Court to see it now. That is why I think the Court do not put the necessary pressure I think before the Turkish authorities.

6. Q: Since you are also an expert on Migration, I would like also to ask you about that. We are here two years after the EU- Turkey deal, and the deal has been accused both by national governments and multiple NGOs as the source behind the poor living conditions in refugee camps in the eastern Aegean islands, as well as the detention of the refugees. What is your opinion? Why is a temporary solution of the ‘EU-Turkey Deal’ is still very much present?

A: They EU-Turkey Deal as I told you is a deal, a common declaration, which I think creates a very bad precedent for the EU. Today it is Turkey who stores people, on the behalf of the EU according to the price of the billion Euros on a yearly basis but who knows who comes after? It has been Libya, a failed state practically; where slavery was reinvented because Libya unlike Turkey is not a state and then comes Tunisia and then we go to Niger which is a Sub-Saharan country storing people under the dessert.

This is what the externalizing and protection management that EU has started with Turkey is generalizing gradually and I do not think we should put the blame on Turkey for that, if someone has to be blamed for that then is the European Commission and the EU as such. I believe that bribing, paying Turkey for the refuges is a very short-sighted, cynical policy, which at the end of the day will not deliver much to the EU.

I also think that what the EU governments are doing is that they are trying to gain time before the next elections because there is a prevailing position in the EU today that if we have more migrants then we risk from the so-called populist parties.

What the Europeans call populist parties mainly is the extreme right but they do not even dare to call it as they should call it. The new threat now is populism, in practice it is not the populism but the extreme right political discourse which does not want migrants.

If the European mainstream political parties accept the fact that in order not to have fascists we must not have migrants, then in practice then Europeans become the beast they were supposed to be fighting against, they become themselves fascists.

I believe that it is something for Europe to deal with , this is something a major issue of self critique and introspection for the European institutions and I believe that once we liberate ourselves from such perceptions, we will be far more sincere for the benefit of the Turkish society as such. Now we are silent because we want Turkey to do the dirty job for us. This a very shameful situation for the EU which will be sadly remembered. 

7. Q:Grave human rights violations in Turkey have been reported by various international organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch as well as by the UN Special Rapporteurs. In your capacity as the president of FIDH , what would you like to say about that?

A: I would like to say that in 2013, in May, the FIDH held its Congress in Turkey and it was already visible that things were going very, very bad. The success story of Turkey in terms of institutions, rule of law and human rights had already finished years before that, but we were not able to see how far this could go.

The developments after the failed coup, in the summer of 2016, have accelerated this process. A process of de-generating the Turkish Republic from a classic autocracy because Turkey has always been an autocratic state to a presidential totalitarianism. I think this is what we see now in Turkey, a process which was ratified also by April 2017’ referendum. We are talking about the shift from a classic authoritarian state which it was always, to something new, to a presidential totalitarianism which actually challenges the basic premises of rule of law.

Yet, we need to agree on something because I hear very often a lot of critiques about Turkey, calling easily Turkey a dictatorship. Turkey is not a dictatorship. In Turkey, you still have the majority rule which is a necessary yet not sufficient for democracy. It is necessary because without the majority rule you do not have democracy, it is not sufficient because without the rule of law the majority rule cannot deliver a true democracy. And this is where the Turkish problem lies.

Yet this problem, as I said in the beginning is not only a Turkish classic problem, it is not only a national particular problem of the oriental Turkey that some Europeans would like to see, no. This is something we see in the best families as we say in Greece. We see it in the US, in Brazil, in Hungary, in Poland, we see it in Italy and so on. This is a new model of governance, a model which actually gives the full power to the executive, to one person, the President. Actually, I forgot Russia in my previous words… and the President in the name of his omni-power, omni-authority, challenges all the checks and balances to his authority.

So what Turkey does, it is actually following this line which starts to be a dominant line in many parts of the world from Brazil to Philippines and from Russia to Hungary.

Of course, you have different aesthetics, different ideologies, different religions, you cannot compare Bolsonaro to Erdogan because one is an authoritarian Catholic who comes from the Army and the other is an authoritarian Islamist who does not come from the Army.

Yet the message is the same; power to one person, the executive, forget rule of law, forget check and balances, disregard human rights and start a process of rearticulating nationalist discourse, homophobia, racism and things like that. So, I think that what we are facing today is a general tendency, within Turkey is a symptom and not an accident.

8. Q: As you mentioned in recent years, there has been growing authoritarianism in Turkey but also in many other parts of the world. The latest EU report has directed the harshest-ever criticisms against Turkey on the worsening human rights situation, deteriorating rule of law and democracy. However, the report was criticized by Ms. Kati Piri, the Turkey Rapporteur, for not giving clear message to Turkey’s leaders. Do you think Europe is successful to cope with that wave of authoritarianism in Turkey and also in other states?

A: The problem with the EU and Turkey is the fact that for a considerable stereotypical, orientalist perception of the Western Europeans is that Turkey is something like an alien, generally, historically and culturally, and Turkey knows that. And there is an existential mistrust in this story.

I have to repeat myself in what I said in the very beginning, that as long as Turkey buys off the European silence on massive human rights violations because Turkey has been proven to be more generous than the Europeans and keeps streaming the people who want to go to EU, then I do not intend to see something more clear, something more positive coming from the EU.

I think it is a cynical bazaar and again Turkey is the one side in this bazaar, there is also the other side, the side that buys silence by offering money.

9. Q: Under the state of emergency declared after the July 15, 2016 failed coup, hundreds of thousands of people have lost their jobs, freedoms, properties, and even lives. More than 150 independent media outlets have been closed or seized, dissident voices have been silenced. Turkey has become the number one jailer of journalists in the world. Human rights activists have been detained or arrested. Amnesty International’s Turkey Director (Taner Kilic) has been arrested on terrorism charges; he was in jail for nearly a year before finally released. Turkish government has been using the fight against terrorism as a pretext to crack down on the dissidents. What do you think about the fate of Turkish democracy? In which way can the level of democracy can be enhanced, if it can be enhanced in Turkey?

A: I think I answered this question although the question seems rhetorical now. What we are witnessing now in Turkey it is a shift from a classic autocracy which was always the Turkish example to totalitarianism in the name of one man show which is the President. That is a tendency that we see in Turkey, but we also see it in other countries.

Obviously, the level, the tradition of democracy in Turkey and the institutional resistance are not that high as in US for example, so Erdogan in that sense has an easier task than Trump. But they are doing the same thing actually. So, as I said we should not be trapped into the idea that Turkey is a dictatorship as many would say, no, it’s a majority rule which challenges rule of law and a majority rule which challenges rule of law is not a true democracy. This is where we going today.

As I said, you know history is an open question, I do not know where we will be in four years with Turkey, I do not know how far this regime can go, what I know is that Turkey is being transformed into this new regime, so we are talking about a new country.

What I fear is that I do not know whether transforming again this country to democracy can be done peacefully because when I see on the one hand the level of public support the President has in this country and on the other hand, the unconditional attacks he delivers to human rights, rule of law and checks and balances, I seriously doubt and I fear that the President of Turkey will not leave easily his position and this will be the test for Turkey. This will be the test for security in Turkey, for the peace in the region and this will be the test not only for Turkey but also for the whole neighborhood. I say that with a major concern because I happen to be a part of the neighborhood by being Greek.

Für seine Berichterstattung erhielt er 2012 den Helga und Edzard Reuter-Preis für Völkerverständigung und den Deutschen Journalistenpreis. 2011 erschien von ihm «Der Islam-Irrtum. Europas Angst vor der muslimischen Welt».

Sein jüngstes Buch „Neue Anschrift Bosporus. Wie wir versuchten, in Istanbul heimisch zu werden“ welches Thumann mit seiner Frau Susanne Landwehr herausbrachte, beschreibt ihren sechs jährigen Aufenthalt in der Türkei.

PPJ hat im Interview über die derzeitige Situation der Türkei und Erdogans Machtbestreben diskutiert…

About The Author

Hilal Akdeniz

Hilal Akdeniz is a junior researcher at the Institute of Sociology of the Goethe University Frankfurt. Her main topics are gender, flight and migration. She is currently researching biographical narratives of refugees on identity and affiliation. She works as a freelance journalist and a speaker at the intercultural council in Darmstadt.

Wie bewerten Sie als Journalist die Haltung der türkischen Regierung im aktuellen Fall Jamal Khashoggi? Auf der einen Seite werden Informationen an internationale Medienschaffende über den grausamen Mord an Khashoggi zugespielt, auf der anderen Seite soll es Abkommen zwischen den Saudis und den USA geben- beide Haltungen werden kritisiert. Wie ist Ihr Blick auf die Ereignisse?

Präsident Erdogan hat mit der Khashoggi-Krise eine Gelegenheit, die Rolle der Türkei im Nahen Osten aufzuwerten und gleichzeitig den Rivalen Saudi-Arabien in die Schranken zu weisen.

Hier liegt auch ein Machtkampf zwischen Ankara und Riad vor. Im Übrigen nutzt Erdogan die Krise, sein internationales Standing aufzubessern.)

Womit könnte die extreme Feindseligkeit der türkischen Regierung gegenüber den Journalisten Can Dündar zusammenhängen? Er wurde zur Pressekonferenz von Merkel-Erdogan nicht zugelassen. Dündar selbst gab an dass der Grund der Hetze und Verfolgung in direktem Zusammenhang mit der Öffentlich-Machung der Veruntreuung Erdogan’s und seiner Familie am 25. Dezember 2013 steht.

Ich stimme der Einschätzung zu. Alle, die Ende 2013 die mutmaßliche Korruption und Vorteilsannahme der Regierung, der Freunde und der Familie Erdogans öffentlich machten oder kommentierten, haben sich Erdogans ewigen Zorn zugezogen.

Das ist Erdogans schwache Stelle. Genauso wie Putin in Russland reagiert er hart und unver-hältnismäßig, wenn jemand versucht, in diesen Fragen etwas offenzulegen.

Welchen Einfluss könnte die starke politische Beziehung der Türkei zu den Balkanstaaten auf dortige NGO’s und Regierung in Bezug auf Menschenrechte und Demokratie haben?

Die Türkei versucht seit vielen Jahren, auf dem Balkan mehr Einfluss zu gewinnen. Das wäre aus EU-Sicht vor 5-10 Jahren noch begrüßenswert gewesen, heute darf die EU beunruhigt sein, denn türkische NGOs und die türkische Regierung haben eine realpolitische Agenda zur Einflusserweiterung, bei der Demokratie und Menschenrechte eine nachrangige Rolle spielen.

Journalisten wie Yavuz Baydar deuten den Richtungswechsel der türkischen Regierung in Bezug auf die Kurdenfrage von zuvor friedensstiftend und kooperierend auf heute erneut nationalistische-sanktionierend-diskriminierend darauf, dass ein quasi “mafiöses Bündnis” Erdogan’s mit extrem nationalistischen Gruppen. Wie sehen Sie den Wandel?

Ob der Begriff Mafia passt, weiß ich nicht, aber es ist offenbar, dass Erdogan seit 2015 ein Bündnis mit nationalistischen Extremisten eingegangen ist.

Alle, die in Erdogan einen Islamisten sahen, der das Land in einen zweiten Iran verwandeln würde, haben sich grundsätzlich geirrt.

Erdogan steht im Bündnis mit Nationalisten und damit durchaus in einer autoritär-nationalistischen Tradition der türkischen Republik, nur leider ihrer düstersten.

Glauben Sie, dass die Handels- und  Flüchtlingsabkommen mit der Türkei Deutschland daran hindern in Bezug auf Menschenrechtsverletzungen in der Türkei stärker Position zu beziehen und klarere Haltung einzunehmen?

Ich glaube, dass Berlin und Ankara gleichermaßen auf das Flüchtlingsabkommen angewiesen sind. Da liegt keine Abhängigkeit Berlins vor, sondern ein gegenseitiges starkes Interesse. Beim Handel sind die Deutschen, je nach Gasimport aus Russland und den Preisen, der wichtigste oder zweitwichtigste Handelspartner der Türkei. Umgekehrt rangiert die Türkei für Deutschland als Handelspartner unter ferner liefen.

Hier liegt eine klare Abhängigkeit der Türkei von Deutschland vor. Deshalb hat sich die Türkei auch so intensiv um eine Verbesserung des Verhältnisses bemüht, als Berlin mit Sigmar Gabriel im Sommer 2017 begann, die Handelsbeziehungen zu beschädigen.

Deutschland hat da weniger zu verlieren als die Türkei, deshalb hat sich Erdogan über Cavusoglu plötzlich so bemüht. Die Teezeremonie von Goslar im Januar 18 war nicht zwingend deutsches Interesse, sie hatte eher mit Gabriels Agenda zu tun, Außenminister zu bleiben.

Die Regierung Erdogan’s plädiert und wirbt stark für eine Türkei, die viele Facetten des Islamismus zeigt. In Ihrem Buch “Neue Anschrift Bosporus” schreiben Sie, dass Sie bereits zuvor mit Regierungsoberhäuptern ins Gespräch kamen, die ähnliche “religiös-identitäre Must-Haves” groß auf Ihre Fahnen schrieben. Wie würden Sie als Journalist, der Erdogan’s “Wirken und Sein” sechs Jahre vor Ort in Istanbul beobachten und begutachten würde beschreiben und bewerten?

Ich verweise hier auf Frage 4 und meine Antwort. Ich halte Erdogan nicht für einen echten Islamisten, sondern für einen machtbesessenen Pragmatiker, der sich jede mögliche Ideologie wie einen Mantel überhängt, um an die Macht zu kommen bzw. dort zu bleiben.

Der Islamismus türkischer Spielart war für ihn der soziale Aufzug nach oben in der türkischen Politik, das ideale Mittel aufzusteigen, der politische Pragmatismus und Liberalismus war das Vehikel, um ab 2003 Premier zu werden und die EU-Beitrittsverhandlungen zu erreichen, jetzt kokettiert er mit dem Nationalismus, um seine Macht zu betonieren. Der Mann glaubt an nichts wirklich außer an sich selbst.

Prof. Dr. Matthias Zimmer (CDU) ist seit Oktober 2009 Mitglied des Deutschen Bundestages. Er ist ordentliches Mitglied in den Ausschüssen „Arbeit und Soziales“ und „Menschenrechte und humanitäre Hilfe“. Für letzteres hatte Matthias Zimmer 2017 die Funktion des Vorsitzenden inne.

PPJ interviewte den Bundestagabgeordneten Prof. Dr. Matthias Zimmer zu den Themen Menschenrechte, Türkei und Integration von Geflüchteten…

H.A: Aus den Fällen von Deniz Yücel und Pastor Brunson ist ersichtlich, dass Erdogan eine Geisel Diplomatie (Hostage Diplomacy) praktiziert. Wie müsste die internationale Öffentlichkeit darauf reagieren?
M.Z: Indem wir zum einen immer wieder an die Geiseln erinnern und zum anderen dieses Thema immer wieder in den Gesprächen mit der Türkei ansprechen. Es muss deutlich werden: Wir wissen, was da passiert und wir werden die Opfer nicht vergessen.

H.A: Nach dem Putschversuch vom 15. Juli 2016 haben viele Akademiker und Hochschulabsolventen mit türkischer Staatsangehörigkeit in Deutschland Asyl beantragt. Was muss man bei der Integration dieser Flüchtlinge in Deutschland beachten?
M.Z: Hier stellt sich uns eine ganz andere Aufgabe: Es muss darum gehen, die Qualifikationen der hochqualifizierten Flüchtlinge zu erhalten und sie auch hier einzusetzen. Meine Lieblingsidee in diesem Zusammenhang: Eine türkische Exiluniversität. Als in Berlin die Kommunisten 1947 die Humboldt-Universität gleichgeschaltet haben, wurde die Freie Universität gegründet. Warum nicht auch eine Freie Türkische Universität in Deutschland?

H.A: Sie waren bis 2017 der Vorsitzende des Ausschuss für Menschenrechte und humanitäre Hilfe im Deutschen Bundestag. Wie bewerten Sie die politische Haltung der Bundesregierung und der demokratischen Staaten im Westen in Bezug auf Menschenrechtsverletzungen in den restlichen Ländern der Welt? Wie müsste das Gleichgewicht zwischen politischen Interessen und universellen Menschenrechten ausbalanciert werden?
M.Z: Das ist immer ein Spagat, aber ich bin nicht der Meinung, dass sich nationale Interessen und Menschenrechte ausschließen. Eine außenpolitische Umgebung, in der die Menschenrechte geachtet werden, liegt eben auch in unserem nationalen Interesse. John Rawls hat hierzu das Notwendige in seinem Buch über das “Recht der Völker” geschrieben.

H.A: Glauben Sie, dass die türkische Regierung die in Deutschland lebenden Türken stetig zur Manipulation der deutschen Innenpolitik missbraucht? Wie beurteilen Sie den Einfluss der türkischen Regierung in Bezug auf die Integration der in Deutschland lebenden türkischstämmigen Mitmenschen?
M.Z: Die Tatsache, dass viele türkische bzw. türkischstämmige Einwohner in Deutschland aufgrund ihrer Staatsangehörigkeit das Wahlrecht in der Türkei besitzen führt dazu, dass türkische Wahlkämpfe auch in Deutschland stattfinden. Zu einer Manipulation gehören allerdings immer zwei, d.h. man muss sich auch manipulieren lassen. Inwieweit dies auf einzelne zutrifft, mag ich nicht zu beurteilen. Ein Problem besteht sicherlich bei Menschen, die bei uns leben, unsere Freiheitsrechte genießen, aber gleichzeitig autokratische Werte der derzeitigen türkischen Regierung vertreten.

H.A: Laut einigen Nachrichtenberichten, hätten die türkischen Parteien AKP und MHP sich geeinigt, erneut die Todesstrafe für Terrorstraftäter einzuführen. Diese Gespräche sind derzeit als innerparteiliche Verhandlungen in die Medien gesickert. Wie kommentieren Sie dieses Vorhaben?
M.Z: Ich kommentiere keine Gerüchte. Die EU hat aber klar gemacht, dass die Einführung der Todesstrafe in der Türkei eine rote Linie ist. Wird sie überschritten, finden die Beitrittsgespräche zur EU ein Ende. Das gilt nach wie vor.

H.A:Oppositioneller und Präsidentschaftskandidat Selahattin Demirtas (HDP) sitzt seit knapp zwei Jahren in Haft. Wie bewerten Sie dies und die Haltung der Bundesregierung zum türkisch-kurdischen Konflikt in der Türkei?
M.Z: Als überzeugter Demokrat verurteile ich grundsätzlich, wenn Menschen nur aufgrund ihrer politischen Einstellung inhaftiert sind. Allerdings kenne ich nicht die genauen Hintergründe des Falls. Was mich aber bewegt ist, dass sich die derzeitige türkische Regierung immer weiter von rechtsstaatlichen Grundsätzen entfernt. Auch innerstaatliche Konflikte lassen sich am besten in einem funktionierenden Rechtsstaat lösen.