[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 18]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 25973-25974]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



              TURKEY AND POSSIBLE MILITARY EQUIPMENT SALES

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, November 2, 2000

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the United States has a 
longstanding dynamic relationship with our NATO ally, the Republic of 
Turkey, and I believe that the strength of that relationship relies on 
forthright candor. I have willingly recognized positive developments in 
Turkey, and I have sought to present fairly the various human rights 
concerns as they have arisen. Today, I must bring to my colleagues' 
attention pending actions involving the Government of Turkey which seem 
incongruous with the record in violation of human rights. I fear the 
planned sale of additional military aircraft to Turkey could 
potentially have further long-term, negative effects on human rights in 
that country.
  As Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I presided over a hearing in 
March of 1999 that addressed many human rights concerns. The State 
Department had just released its Country Reports on Human Rights 
Practices covering 1998. Commissioner and Assistant Secretary of State 
for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Harold Hongju Koh noted in 
testimony before the Commission that ``serious human rights abuses 
continued in Turkey in 1998, but we had hoped that the 1998 report 
would reflect significant progress on Turkey's human rights record. 
Prime Minister Yilmaz had publicly committed himself to making the 
protection of human rights his government's highest priority in 1998. 
We had welcomed those assurances and respected the sincerity of his 
intentions. We were disappointed that Turkey had not fully translated 
those assurances into actions.''
  I noted in my opening statement, ``One year after a commission 
delegation visited Turkey, our conclusion is that there has been no 
demonstrable improvement in Ankara's human rights practices and that 
the prospects for much needed systemic reforms are bleak given the 
unstable political scene which is likely to continue throughout 1999.''
  Thankfully, eighteen months later I can say that the picture has 
improved--somewhat.
  A little over a year ago the president of Turkey's highest court made 
an extraordinary speech asserting that Turkish citizens should be 
granted the right to speak freely, urging that the legal system and 
constitution be ``cleansed,'' and that existing ``limits on language'' 
seriously compromised the freedom of expression. The man who gave that 
speech, His Excellency Ahmet Necdet Sezer, is the new President of the 
Republic of Turkey. Last summer several of us on the Commission 
congratulated President Sezer on his accession to the presidency, 
saying, in part:

       We look forward to working with you and members of your 
     administration, especially as you endeavor to fulfill your 
     commitments to the principles of the Helsinki Final Act and 
     commitments contained in other Organization for Security and 
     Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) documents. These human rights 
     fundamentals are the bedrock upon which European human rights 
     rest, the solid foundation upon which Europe's human rights 
     structures are built. It is worth remembering, twenty-five 
     years after the signing of the Final Act, that your 
     predecessor, President Demerel, signed the commitments at 
     Helsinki on behalf of Turkey. Your country's engagement in 
     the Helsinki process was highlighted during last year's OSCE 
     summit in Istanbul, a meeting which emphasized the importance 
     of freedom of expression, the role of NGOs in civil society, 
     and the eradication of torture.
       Your Presidency comes at a very critical time in modern 
     Turkey's history. Adoption and implementation of the reforms 
     you have advocated would certainly strengthen the ties 
     between our countries and facilitate fuller integration of 
     Turkey into Europe. Full respect for the rights of Turkey's 
     significant Kurdish population would go a long way in 
     reducing tensions that have festered for more than a decade, 
     and resulted in the lengthy conflict in the southeast.
       Your proposals to consolidate and strengthen democracy, 
     human rights and the rule of law in Turkey will be 
     instrumental in ushering in a new era of peace and prosperity 
     in the Republic. The Helsinki Final Act and other OSCE 
     documents can serve as important guides in your endeavor.

  We all recall the pending $4 billion sale of advanced attack 
helicopters to the Turkish army. I have objected to this sale as 
leading human rights organizations, Turkish and western press, and even 
the State Department documented the use of such helicopters to attack 
Kurdish villages in Turkey and to transport troops to regions where 
civilians were killed. Despite repeated promises, the Turkish 
Government has been slow to take action which would hold accountable 
and punish those who have committed such atrocities.
  And we recently learned of the pending sale of eight even larger 
helicopters, S-80E heavy lift helicopters for Turkey's Land Forces 
Command. With a flight radius of over three hundred miles and the 
ability to carry over fifty armed troops, the S-80E has the potential 
to greatly expand the ability of Turkey's army to undertake actions 
such as I just recounted.
  Since 1998, there has been recognition in high-level U.S.-Turkish 
exchanges that Turkey has a number of longstanding issues which must be 
addressed with demonstrable progress: decriminalization of freedom of 
expression; the release of imprisoned parliamentarians and journalists; 
prosecution of police officers who commit torture; an end of harassment 
of human rights defenders and re-opening of non-governmental 
organizations; the return of internally displaced people to their 
villages; cessation of harassment and banning of certain political 
parties; and, an end to the state of emergency in the southeast.
  The human rights picture in Turkey has improved somewhat in the last 
several years, yet journalists continue to be arrested and jailed, 
human rights organizations continue to feel pressure from the police, 
and elected officials who are affiliated with certain political 
parties, in particular, continue to be harassed.
  Anywhere from half a million to 2 million Kurds have been displaced 
by the Turkish counter insurgency campaigns against the Kurdistan 
Workers Party, also known as the PKK. The Turkish military has 
reportedly emptied more than three thousand villages and hamlets in the 
southeast since 1992, burned homes and fields, and committed other 
human rights abuses against Kurdish civilians, often using types of 
helicopters similar to those the Administration is seeking to transfer. 
Despite repeated promises, the Government of Turkey has taken few steps 
to facilitate the return of these peoples to their homes, assist them 
to resettle, or compensate them for the loss of their property. Nor 
does it allow others to help. Even the ICRC has been unable to operate 
in Turkey. And, finally, four parliamentarians--Leyla Zana, Hatip 
Dicle, Orhan Dogan, and Selim Sadak--continue to serve time in prison. 
We can not proceed with this sale, or other sales or transfers, when 
Turkey's Government fails to live up to the most basic expectations 
mentioned above.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is also time that the United States 
establishes an understanding with Turkey and a credible method of 
consistent monitoring and reporting on the end-use of U.S. weapons, 
aircraft and service. An August 2000 report from the General Accounting 
Office (GAO) entitled ``Foreign Military Sales: Changes Needed to 
Correct Weaknesses in End-Use Monitoring Program'' was a cause for 
concern on my part regarding the effectiveness of current end-use 
monitoring and reporting efforts. While we had been assured that end-
use monitoring was taking place and that the United States was holding 
recipient governments accountable to the export license criteria, the 
GAO report reveals the failure of the Executive Branch to effectively 
implement monitoring requirements enacted by Congress. For example, the 
report points out on page 12:

       While field personnel may be aware of adverse conditions in 
     their countries, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency has 
     not established guidance or procedures for field personnel to 
     use in determining when such conditions require an end-use 
     check. For example, significant upheaval occurred in both 
     Indonesia and Pakistan within the last several years. As a 
     result, the State Department determined that both countries 
     are no longer eligible to purchase U.S. defense articles and 
     services. However, end-use checks of U.S. defense items 
     already provided were not performed in either country in 
     response to the

[[Page 25974]]

     standard. DSCA officials believed that the State Department 
     was responsible for notifying field personnel that the 
     criteria had been met for an end-use check to be conducted. 
     However, DSCA and State have never established a procedure 
     for providing notification to field personnel.
       Currently, the end-use monitoring training that DSCA 
     provides to field personnel consists of a 30-minute 
     presentation during the security assistance management course 
     at the Defense Institute of Security Assistance Management. 
     This training is intended to familiarize students with en-use 
     monitoring requirements. However, this training does not 
     provide any guidance or procedures on how to execute an end-
     use monitoring program at overseas posts or when to initiate 
     end-use checks in response to one of the five standards.

In the past there have been largely ad hoc attempts to report on the 
end-use of U.S. equipment. Therefore, I was pleased to support the 
passage of H.R. 4919, the Security Assistant Act of 2000 that was 
signed by the President on October 6. Section 703 of this Act mandates 
that no later than 180 days after its enactment, the President shall 
prepare and transmit to Congress a report summarizing the status of 
efforts by the Defense Security Cooperation Agency to implement the 
End-Use Monitoring Enhancement Plan relating to government-to-
government transfers of defense articles, services, and related 
technologies. I want to commend House International Relations Committee 
Chairman Ben Gilman for his efforts in trying to make our end-use 
monitoring and reporting programs effective and accurate. I look 
forward to working with him and others to ensure that an effective and 
credible monitoring program is put in place without further delay.
  We must be consistent in our defense of human rights, and our 
relations, including our military relations, must reflect that 
commitment. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to support 
the sale of additional weaponry and aircraft to Turkey at this time.

                          ____________________