[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 45 (Thursday, March 28, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E469-E470]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page E469]]



           UNITED STATES--ORIGIN MILITARY EQUIPMENT IN TURKEY

                                 ______


                          HON. LEE H. HAMILTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, March 27, 1996

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, on September 8, 1995, I wrote to Secretary 
of State Christopher, asking several questions about the use and 
possible misuse of United States-origin military equipment by Turkey. 
This letter was a followup to an exchange of letters on the same issue 
earlier in the year, which I inserted in the Record at that time.
  I have now received a response from the State Department to my 
September letter, which sets out the administration's position on the 
human rights situation in Turkey and its relationship to the issue of 
U.S.-supplied military equipment in the country.
  Since I believe that other Members will find the administration's 
views informative and useful in formulating their own approach to this 
important issue, I would like to insert both my letter and the 
administration's response in the Record.

                                          Department of State,

                                    Washington, February 29, 1996.
     Hon. Lee Hamilton,
     U.S. House of Representatives.
       Dear Mr. Hamilton: This is a follow-up reply to your letter 
     of September 8, 1995, to Secretary Christopher about human 
     rights in Turkey. As stated in our November 1, 1995 interim 
     response, you raised a number of serious questions in your 
     letter. Thank you for your understanding in allowing us time 
     to prepare this reply.
       In your letter, you state that human rights abuses in 
     Turkey are a matter of real concern to the U.S. Congress. We 
     appreciate your interest and that of your colleagues in these 
     issues. Congressional hearings, reports, and statements are a 
     valuable way for the U.S. government to indicate concern 
     about human rights in Turkey.
       As we consider how best to pursue our objectives in Turkey, 
     it is important to understand just what Turkey is up against. 
     The Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) has stated that its 
     primary goal is to create a separate Kurdish state in part of 
     what is now Turkey. In the course of its operations, the PKK 
     has frequently targeted Turkish--civilians. It has not 
     hesitated to attack Western--including American--interests.
       The Turkish government has the right to defend itself 
     militarily from this terrorist threat. The Turkish military 
     has said it seeks to distinguish between PKK members and 
     ordinary Kurdish citizens in its operations. We remain 
     concerned, nevertheless, about the manner in which some 
     operations in the southeast have been conducted. As we have 
     documented in our annual human rights reports and in the 
     special report we submitted to Congress last June on the 
     situation in the southeast, these operations have resulted in 
     civilian deaths, village evacuations and burnings.
       You ask what the U.S. is doing about information that U.S.-
     supplied defense articles may have been used by Turkey's 
     military against civilians during the course of operations 
     against the PKK. We discussed those issues at length in our 
     June ``Report on Allegations of Human Rights Abuses by the 
     Turkish Military and the Situation in Cyprus.''
       These reports trouble us deeply. We have frequently 
     cautioned the Turkish government to exercise care that its 
     legitimate military operations avoid targeting civilians 
     and non-combatants. We have made it clear that, in 
     accordance with both the Foreign Assistance and Arms 
     Export Control Acts, human rights considerations will 
     continue to be very carefully weighed in considering 
     whether or not to approve transfers and sales of military 
     equipment.
       With regard to death squad activities in the southeast, as 
     we stated in our report last June, we have found reports of 
     government involvement in these incidents to be credible. 
     Others have also been involved. In this regard, a number of 
     Turkish ``Hizbullah'' terrorists are now on trial for alleged 
     involvement in ``mystery killings.'' According to Turkey's 
     prestigious Human Rights Foundation, these sorts of killings 
     were down sharply in 1995.
       We have told the Turks repeatedly that we do not believe a 
     solely military solution will end the problems in the 
     southeast. We urge them to explore political and social 
     solutions which are more likely to succeed over time. These 
     should include fully equal rights--among them cultural and 
     linguistic rights--for all of Turkey's citizens including the 
     Kurds. We have been encouraged by incremental actions toward 
     granting the Kurds such rights. For example, Turkey's High 
     Court of Appeals ruled in October that Kurdish former members 
     of Parliament had not committed crimes when they took their 
     oaths in the Kurdish language, wore Kurdish colors, and 
     stated that Turkish was a foreign language for them. The 
     Appeals Court's decision on these matters, which are very 
     sensitive and emotional in Turkey, may send an important 
     signal to the lower courts and may help expand Kurdish 
     rights.
       We believe it is important for those individuals who have 
     been displaced to be compensated for their losses and to be 
     able to return to their homes without fear. If the security 
     situation prevents their return, it is important for the 
     villagers to be compensated and resettled elsewhere. Like 
     you, we are disturbed by Turkey's failure to date to 
     adequately provide for the displaced. We will encourage the 
     new Turkish government to do so.
       In the long run, an improved dialog between the government 
     and Kurdish representatives is needed to bring a lasting 
     solution to the southeast. It is important that those who 
     purport to speak for the Kurds do so sincerely and 
     constructively. In this context, you asked whether former DEP 
     members of the Turkish Parliament who were stripped of their 
     immunities and fled to Europe could speak for the Kurds. 
     Unfortunately, some of them associated the ``Kurdistan 
     Parliament in Exile'' (KPIE), which is financed and 
     controlled by the PKK. We cannot, therefore, advocate 
     negotiations with the so-called KPIE.
       There are legitimate interlocutors with whom the government 
     could discuss Kurdish concerns. Although the Pro-Kurdish 
     People's Democracy Party (HADEP) fell substantially short of 
     obtaining the ten percent of the national vote required to 
     take seats in the Turkish Grand National Assembly, the party 
     campaigned well and carried a large number of votes in the 
     southeast. In addition, other parties, politicians, 
     academicians, businesspeople, and journalists also raised 
     Kurdish concerns during the recent election campaign.
       These developments are positive, and there are other signs 
     that our active engagement with the Turks on human rights 
     issues are meeting with success. The constitutional 
     amendments enacted this past summer broadened political 
     participation in several ways, including by enfranchising 
     voters over eighteen and those residing outside of Turkey. 
     There is also a move to devolve more authority from the 
     central government to the local authorities. And, on October 
     27, the Turkish government--with encouragement from the U.S. 
     and Europe--amended Article 8 of the Anti-Terror Law, which 
     had been used to constrain freedom of expression 
     substantially. As a result of this revision, over 130 people 
     were released from prison and many pending cases are being 
     dropped.
       U.S. officials will continue to monitor closely human 
     rights developments in Turkey. Our observations on Turkish 
     human rights are the result of a constant, energetic effort 
     by our Embassy and others in our government to stay informed. 
     Our officials meet regularly with elected officials in the 
     Turkish Administration and Parliament. We also speak 
     frequently with critics of the government--including Turkish 
     and international NGOs, bar and medical associations, 
     lawyers, and other human rights activists. U.S. officials 
     travel to the Southeast periodically where they see 
     government officials and the affected parties.
       We will also continue to encourage change by supporting 
     those who are committed to human rights and democratic 
     reforms, including Turkish NGOs. This is a long-term effort 
     that will require continued engagement. The important point 
     to keep in the forefront is that the real impetus behind 
     democratic change in Turkey must come from Turkish citizens 
     themselves. Our objective must be to give them all the 
     constructive help we can.
       I hope this information is useful. If I can be of further 
     assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
           Sincerely,

                                             Wendy R. Sherman,

                                              Assistant Secretary,
                                              Legislative Affairs.
                                  ____

         Committee on International Relations, House of 
           Representatives,
                                    Washington, September 8, 1995.
     Hon. Warren Christopher,
     Secretary of State, Department of State,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Secretary: Thank you for your reply of August 15th 
     to my letter of June 29th concerning the use and possible 
     misuse of U.S.-origin military equipment by Turkey. I wanted 
     to follow-up that correspondence with two general lines of 
     questioning.
       First, I continue to have deep concerns about the use of 
     U.S.-supplied military equipment in Southeast Turkey and 
     about the reports of the misuse of that equipment, the 
     wholesale destruction of villages, and the

[[Page E470]]

     indiscriminate firing on civilian populations. Such abuses 
     can erode support for Turkey in the Congress.
       In your response to my letter, you indicated that internal 
     security, along with self-defense is recognized as an 
     acceptable use of U.S.-supplied defense articles but that the 
     United States is troubled about reports that a large number 
     of civilians have been killed in Turkish government counter-
     insurgency operations against the PKK. Questions remain:
       What precisely are you doing about these reports?
       Is it the U.S. policy, for example, to tell the Turks when 
     we see reports of the destruction of villages or the killing 
     of civilians, that we do not like it and cannot tolerate such 
     abuses in the use of U.S.-supplied equipment?
       What is the U.S. strategy to insure that such practices 
     end?
       Second, I have further questions regarding a related aspect 
     of U.S. policy toward Turkey--resolution of the Kurdish issue 
     in southeast Turkey.
       There is considerable sympathy in Congress for the plight 
     of the Kurdish population in Turkey, although none for 
     terrorist acts by the Kurdish Worker's Party (PKK). I do not 
     know of any Member support for Kurdish separatism or the 
     break up of Turkey, but there is strong support for full 
     equality of rights, including cultural and linguistic rights, 
     for all Turkish citizens, including the Kurds. Members are 
     troubled by the Turkish government's dominant reliance on 
     force to put down the insurrection in the southeast, and 
     would like to see the United States take a more active role 
     in promoting negotiations among a broad base of Turkish 
     citizens to end the violence.
       I am concerned that if the present situation persists, the 
     United States will have difficulty sustaining its Turkey 
     policy. An amendment this summer to the Foreign Operations 
     Appropriations bill in the House which limits aid to Turkey 
     because of human rights concerns illustrates some of the 
     problems that arise if these issues are not adequately 
     addressed.
       I understand that it is U.S. policy to support Turkey's 
     territorial integrity and its legitimate right to combat 
     terrorism, including terrorist acts by the PKK. I also 
     understand that the U.S. supports democratic reform in Turkey 
     as an integral part of the effort to improve human rights 
     conditions and to undercut support for PKK violence. In this 
     context, I would like to pose the following questions:
       What is the United States doing to push efforts in Turkey 
     to amend Article 8 of the antiterrorism law?
       What are the implications for U.S. policy and for the 
     situation in the Southeast if efforts to amend Article 8 fail 
     or are abandoned?
       What is the United States doing to promote efforts to 
     provide Kurds with equal rights in Turkey? Is it United 
     States policy to support the legitimate political, cultural 
     and linguistic rights of Turkish citizens of the Southeast of 
     Kurdish origin? How do you react to recent comments by senior 
     Turkish officials that the extension of such rights are not a 
     priority of the Turkish government?
       In our human rights dialogue, is the U.S. pressing the 
     Turkish government and General Staff to abandon tactics that 
     target the Kurdish civilian population, such as forced 
     evacuation and burning of Kurdish villages?
       What is United States policy doing to address allegations 
     that the Turkish government is either sponsoring or 
     tolerating the activities of death squads reported to have 
     killed hundreds of Kurdish activists in the southeast?
       What is United States policy on meeting and dealing with 
     the elected representatives of Turkish citizens in the 
     Southeast regardless of whether they are able to sit in the 
     National Assembly at this time? Does the United States 
     support negotiations between several exiled Turkish Kurdish 
     parliamentarians and the Turkish government? With whom do you 
     think the Turkish Government should negotiate?
       What kind of political engagement between the Turkish 
     government and Kurdish nationalists does the United States 
     seek to promote in order to encourage Turkey to move away 
     from reliance on a solely military solution?
       I look forward to your reply.
       With best wishes,
           Sincerely,
                                                  Lee H. Hamilton,
     Ranking Democratic Member.

                          ____________________