THE REPUBLIC OF TURKEY

ANKARA

STATE SECURITY COURT

Honorable Judges,

My friends and I are forced to appear before you for the ideals we have defended as representatives since October 20, 1991, the day we were elected to parliament. It goes without saying that this is not an ordinary trial; some have dubbed it a historic one. The public was familiar with these kinds of trials during periods of military rule; however, ours is the "first case" under a civilian administration. What makes this trial even more important is that it is taking place at the end of the 20th century.

To be one of the accused in this trial, which aims to settle a political account, burdens us with additional responsibilities. My friends and I have deliberated for a long time. First of all, we believe this trial has no legal basis. Instead, we have already been tried and condemned by the Prime Minister, the members of her cabinet and other political leaders. This is why, during the March 27, 1994 Local Elections, Prime Minister Tansu Ciller could boast: "I threw them out of the Parliament. Furthermore, I did it all on my own. Did I do well?" Her spokesperson has not hesitated to brand us as "terrorists." I believe it is impossible to talk about the impartiality and independence of the judiciary during the rule of a government that has manipulated the Turkish Grand National Assembly and has taken advantage of every opportunity, including ordering the production of a special program on state television (which defamed us), to influence the judiciary.

Bearing these realities in mind, I know you will be unable to act impartially and independently, and our defense will have no influence on the final decision. Despite this, I would like to state that we will use our right to defend ourselves (for the sake of posterity).

World historians have acknowledged the existence of Kurdish people in the Middle East since the onset of written history. The placement of Kurdistan in maps of the Middle East continues to this day. Presently, the "Kurdish issue" is on the agenda of many countries as one of the important political problems in the world.

The Kurds experienced the first division of their country with the Kasr-Shirin Agreement. The Ottomans developed a variety of policies to keep the Kurds divided. They strengthened the tribal social structure, rewarded Kurdish leaders with ranks, created animosity between the Alevi and Sunni Kurds, and established the mercenary Hamidiye Regiments. The inception of the Turkish republic made it its goal to eradicate the very identity of the Kurds.

The effort to silence the Kurds, during the republican period alone, has resulted in 28 Kurdish rebellions, the most recent one being the Dersim Uprising of 1938. These rebellions, which were suppressed in a very violent manner, demonstrate the historical depth of the Kurdish question. Today, the President of Turkey, Suleyman Demirel, refers to the present day uprising as the 29th one.

When the history of the Kurdish struggle is examined, it will be seen that this struggle accelerated steadily after the Ottomans met Europe (especially France) and the Ottoman-Turkish intellectuals initiated the Young Turk movement. Sultan Abdulhamid II, who realized this (development), established the Hamidiye Regiments with hopes of destroying Kurdish unity by having Kurds fight one another. However, this attempt failed to dampen the Kurdish passion for freedom.

The Young Turk movement and its organization, the Unity and Progress Society, fanned national sentiments not only among the Kurds but also among other peoples that comprised the Ottoman society. It paved the way for the Serbs, Macedonians, Bulgarians, and Arabs to gain their own independence. The Ottomans, having been defeated in World War One, faced the prospect of disappearing from the face of the earth as a result of the Sevres Treaty. The Kurds supported wholeheartedly the struggle for liberty initiated by Mustafa Kemal and his friends. Mustafa Kemal, in his speech to the congresses in Erzurum and Sivas, stated that the Kurds were an essential element in the liberation struggle and would be entitled to full rights, like Turks. The Kurds, for their part, saw to it that it was their duty to help the Turks, who were in dire need, without preconditions or a written guarantee.

Mustafa Kemal had established good relations with tribal Kurdish chiefs, sheiks, and landlords, had them photographed with himself, and had even appointed some of them as representatives to the National Assembly established in 1920. Later, when Ataturk was certain of his gains, he rendered these Kurdish notables ineffective, using a sundry of excuses.

The first Turkish constitution (1921) did not contain any nationalistic principles. This constitution took into consideration the realities of the state and the society it encompassed. It did not dwell on concepts such as the Turkish people or the Turkish nation. But, it did not mention the name of any other people either. This, at least, is an indication that the Turkish state did not belong solely to the Turks, but to every people that lived on this land.

Prior to the Lausanne Treaty, on February 6, 1922, Mustafa Kemal instructed the commander of El-Cizre to establish a Kurdistan province. And, immediately afterwards, on February 10, 1922, he introduced to the National Assembly a draft of a proposed law comprised of 19 articles related to the would-be Kurdistan Province and its Assembly. However, this proposed law was never reviewed nor acted upon. It seems that, with these measures, Mustafa Kemal aimed to pacify the Kurds and prevent the Europeans from using the Kurdish card in negotiations at Lausanne.

Apparently, some of the Kurdish notables at the time were impressed by such maneuvers. They sent telegrams to the representatives of the states negotiating the specifics of the Lausanne Treaty, notifying the participants that the Kurds would no longer be represented by the Kurdish delegate Sherif Pasha, but, instead, by Ismet Inonu, the Turkish delegate. Inadvertently, the notables prevented the European states from paying attention to the Kurdish question and to the future of the Kurds. As a result, these notables prepared the foundation of the prevailing situation for the Kurds (in Turkey).

Having secured international approval for the establishment of the initial Turkish state through the Lausanne Treaty, Mustafa Kemal and his friends had one aim: to establish the "Turkish National State." The first task was to deny the existence of the Kurds and write a new constitution based upon Turkish nationalism. The Constitution of 1924 was prepared with such an aim and it is a reflection of the official state ideology simmering in the mind of Ataturk and his friends.

The Constitution of 1924 was based on the precept that there was no other ethnic group living in the Turkish Republic. Languages other than Turkish were prohibited. In lieu of these official views, under the pretext of science, the thesis of the Turkish origin of the Kurds was accepted and the cultural elimination of the Kurds was undertaken. Concepts such as the unity and indivisibility of the state system were institutionalized and forced upon society as the advanced principles of the official ideology. Under the guise of the need for secularism, religion, seen as a barrier in the path of Turkish nationalism, and the Muslim clergy, who had provided great support for the war of liberation, were eliminated.

The 1925 Sheik Said Rebellion can be seen as a movement that emphasized the Kurdish identity vis a vis the official ideology and it adopted the tenets of Islam as a counterpoint to secularism. The pacification techniques adopted by the Turkish state following the very bloody suppression of the Sheik Said Rebellion, which initially began with the Emergency Law, have continued until now under the rubrics of Martial Law and the Rule of Extraordinary Times.

The Sheik Said Rebellion was followed by the Mount Ararat (1927) and Dersim (1937-38) Uprisings. Due to the fact that the Dersim Rebellion was suppressed with a horrendous massacre, and due to the tight military control of the Kurdish areas for decades thereafter, the Kurds abstained from any further action.

The state initiated its official policy (toward the Kurds) in 1924 with the denial of Kurdish identity. Through measures such as the acceptance of Latin characters in 1929, the designation of Turkish as the official language, the development of a "national" education policy, and the prohibition of other languages (including Kurdish), the state fortified and intensified its assimilation policy of ethnic minorities. Thereafter, a new era began for the state and for the Kurds.

This new era was the period of state-institutionalized Kemalism, the ideology named after the founder of Turkey. From the Kurdish point of view, it was a time of setbacks. "Kurds do not exist," "Kurds are mountain Turks," and "Citizens speak Turkish!" were the expressions of the day. Kurds were prohibited from giving their children Kurdish names. Kurdish settlements were also subjected to a name change; Turkish names were found for them. In addition, Kurdish intellectuals and patriots were either pacified with higher positions, imprisoned, or driven into exile.

These methods and practices during the one-party rule of the Republican People's Party (CHP) continued unchanged even after 1950, during the Democratic Party's (DP) rule. However, the new linking towards America paved the way for the capitalist economy which enabled the emergence of institutions that were more free. The migration of landless peasants into towns as a result of the introduction of tractors, the circulation of news and information as a result of the spread of radio sets, the expansion of horizons due to access to transportation, and the opening of new opportunities for those with an education were some of the new developments.

The Kurds were also affected by these (structural) changes. Those who had access to higher education became part of the emerging "Kurdish intelligentsia." These educated Kurds, having become aware of the liberation movements of the late 1950's in Africa and of the Kurdish Movement of Barzani in northern Iraq, began to study Kurdish history and searched for ways to reclaim their national identity. The founding of the Democratic Party of Kurdistan in Turkey (KDP - T) also occurred during these years. In 1959, forty-nine Kurdish intellectuals (from Turkish Kurdistan) were arrested and imprisoned for protesting the anti-Kurdish remarks of a Turkish parliamentarian, Asim Eren, of Nigde province.

The 1961 constitution, prepared in the aftermath of the coup d'etat of May 27, led to some cosmetic changes. The freedom of assembly and the discussion of issues such as Marxism or socialism became legal. But, the principles of the 1924 constitution that denied the existence of the Kurds remained intact.

Now, among the youth and other enlightened groups, the ideas of creating a new Turkey were forming based upon the influence of movements in Africa, China, Latin America, Cuba, and the Soviet Union. The establishment of the Turkish Labor Party (TIP) during these years and its representation in the Turkish Grand National Assembly of Turkey (TGNA) showed that these developments had reached a serious dimension. The Kurdish intellectuals also were affected by these developments, had become conscious of their identity, and opposed the oppression of their kind. From 1967 to 1968, in eastern and southeastern Turkey, the Kurds held a series of meetings, which were meant to lift the ban on the denial of the Kurdish identity while retaining respect for the unity and indivisibility of Turkey.

Later, in 1969, Kurdish youth at Turkish universities established cultural associations under the name "Revolutionary Eastern Cultural Associations", (DDKO). The 1971 Military Intervention viewed the DDKO's as objectionable and decided to close them down. The founders and members of the DDKO were punished with lengthy prison sentences by the Martial Courts. Also, during the same period, the Turkish Labor Party (TIP) was closed down because it recognized the existence of the Kurdish people at its Grand Convention. The Association of Revolutionary Youth (Dev-Genc) and similar Turkish leftist organizations were also shut down and some of its founding members were hanged (many others were punished with lifelong or lengthy prison terms). Throughout this suppression, one factor was overlooked, "Ideas do not vanish just because the legal ways of expressing them are blocked." People who are capable of thinking and who want to express their thoughts will search and find other means of struggle and no one can prevent this. That is precisely why the Kurdish movement for freedom and the Turkish left opted to develop means outside the blocked legal channels following the prohibitions of 1971.

In response to this, the state also established paralegal organizations to stop these movements. The paralegal activities of some of these state-run institutions and the activities of the militants of the Nationalist Action Party (MHP) with whom they shared state power are good examples of such collaboration. The illegal state organization called Counterguerrilla emerged in this way and, as a result, the Special Warfare Department and the Special Warfare Units were created. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that, when the state illegally formed Counterguerrilla, no armed movement that would challenge the state had yet emerged in Turkey.

I think it would be repetitive of me to retell everything about the coup d'etat of September 1980. However, we can define it briefly as the naked face of the official ideology and a crime against humanity. If an event like this had taken place in a country that valued freedom of thought and human rights, citizens of that country would have taken to the streets to protest. Unfortunately, since Turkish society has no such established tradition, the coup which was an ardent enemy of freedom was endured quietly. The generals of September 12, 1980 are directly responsible for the creation of the existing milieu in Turkey. The Constitution of 1982, which was imposed at the barrel of a gun, the laws that were passed in accordance with it, and the political parties that it gave birth to are still existing today. They are shaped by the logic of that militaristic period. The existing political parties that emerged under the wings of the official ideology of the time were forced to accept the (anti-Kurdish) principles of the 1982 Constitution exactly as they had accepted the precepts of the previous constitutions.

Because of this mentality, even a strong opposition party, the Social Democratic Peoples Party (SHP), could expel seven Kurdish representatives for attending a Kurdish Conference in Paris. This expulsion proved there was no conception of pluralistic democracy in Turkey. Due to these reasons, the expelled representatives and some of us came together and established the Peoples Labor Party (HEP).

Since its inception, HEP has defined itself as not just a Kurdish party but rather a party for all citizens of Turkey. However, despite these assertions, our party has been portrayed by the Turkish media as a separatist party simply because it acknowledges the existence of the Kurds. The state has tried every means possible to pull HEP into the orbit of its official ideology. However, after the events that took place during the funeral procession of Vedat Aydin, it became clear that HEP was embraced by the people and had strong support, and the state realized that HEP would not surrender itself to the state ideology. So, it took active measures against HEP to deny it an existence. The state used the fictitious link between HEP and the PKK as a justification for its naked aggression. However, HEP never had any organic link with the PKK, and neither did its successors, HADEP and DEP.

HEP was founded on June 7, 1990. Its successor, the DEP, was shut down on June 16, 1994. During these four years, 54 of our party administrators and members were assassinated by members of the Counterguerrilla. Mehmet Sincar, our representative from the city of Mardin, was added to the list of these victims of state terror on September 4, 1993. Although, in the case of Mehmet Sincar, the identities of the assassins were established by eyewitnesses to be the PKK-turncoats Alaattin Kanat, Adem Yalcin and their associates, the state still pretended "not to know" the perpetrators. The state not only showed its "ineptness" in catching the killers of our representative but also used its agents to bomb the funeral house, where I was also present. The bombing severely wounded six women and three children. The fact that the perpetrators of this event walked away from the scene of the crime, which was surrounded by a cordon of police, undetected, reveals the aptness of our suspicions. What is more, what I learned later, from a journalist who had overheard the comments of a member of the Special Forces during the funeral procession of Mehmet Sincar, explains without a doubt the attitude the state has adopted towards us. The policeman's comment was, "Don't you ever worry Mr. Sincar. I will send Leyla Zana to you soon!"

In the end, the state closed down HEP to silence the Kurds. The closure of the DEP also made it clear that there is no democracy in Turkey. The closure has already become an international problem, it even became a cause d'honneur for some institutions and influential circles. The termination of the DEP and the manner in which they arrested us -- the representatives duly elected by the people -- and imprisoned us, has had a serious impact in the West about the respectability of the Turkish Grand National Assembly, that of the political parties, the government and other institutions in Turkey. It has strengthened the suspicion that these institutions acted in accordance with the directives of the army.

Since, outside Turkey, the closure of the DEP was linked directly to the Kurdish question, the event internationalized the Kurdish question. We should also take into account the outcome of this closure for domestic politics. The state closed down the DEP to prohibit the legal struggle of the Kurdish people for freedom and democracy. In fact, Kurdish people had failed to create this tradition prior to 1990. But now, they have that experience and that tradition. The formation of the HEP and the DEP was a historical opportunity for Turkish society to solve the Kurdish question and bring forth democracy. At the same time, the HEP and the DEP constituted one of the most appropriate bridges between the Kurds and the Turks to maintain a healthy relationship. Political parties which missed this opportunity, the press which misinformed people, mass organizations that remained passive, and the intellectuals who shied away from their responsibility, all, share the blame for the current bloody confrontation and for the loss of life and property.

However, this much is clear: those who closed the DEP are not winners but rather losers. The challenge now is to prevent them from doing further harm. We hope that everybody will fulfill their responsibilities: the press will write the facts and the political parties will work for the good of the people. (Let's hope) that those who cannot stand anti-democratic practices will raise their voices and stop being spectators to the destruction of the country during the course of this unjust war.

Honorable Judges,

As I stated at the beginning of my defense, this is a political trial, not a legal one. As such, it is not so much the judiciary, but rather the political developments that will determine its outcome. Because of that, the accusations directed against me in the indictment are thoroughly artificial, custom-made and are the outcome of efforts to give it a semblance of legality. Even though this is our conclusion, still, I would like to point out some of the contradictions and accusations in the indictment in order to dispel wrong impressions in a case like this that has caught the attention of the public at large.

1) The transcription of my speeches at election rallies organized by the SHP on October 19, 1991 in Cizre and Sirnak, and in Silvan on October 20, 1991 do not represent the totality of what I said on those occasions, and what is more, they are distorted (as my friends and I have said before). In the transcripts, views and thoughts that clearly are not mine are presented as mine. Speeches made at the same time and place are placed in files as two separate texts. For example, the speech I made in Cizre is quoted in my files in various places. In the same manner, the speech I made in Suruc on June 6, 1992 is distorted both in its transcription and in its translation. Since the transcriptions do not represent my political views and thoughts, I do not share their content and reject them all.

2) The indictment is filled with unnecessary duplications, with confessions of (PKK) turncoats, with irrelevant information and unrelated documents. In this manner, a negative campaign has been launched against us to mislead public opinion. Actually, in the file, even a simple mention of the name Leyla ZANA would have sufficed for the Public Prosecutor to try me for capital punishment. The deep resentment and hatred felt towards me is visible in all its nakedness. I suppose (the authorities) have obtained the confessions of every turncoat in the Turkish prisons whose timing was right and added it to my file to hurt me. It must be due to the lack of turncoats during the preparation of the indictment that (authorities) have confined themselves to (the confessions) of twenty of them only. Another interesting aspect of (these accusations) is that the Public Prosecutor, who claims I was a member of the organization (i.e. the PKK) prior to the elections, has not come up with a shred of evidence to substantiate his claim.

The Honorable Prosecutor worked like a police agent, way before the termination of our legislative immunity, to collect evidence and has obtained false accusations and custom-made confessions from turncoats I neither met nor knew. How is it possible that the security forces who followed us like our shadows during our visit to the region and during our interactions with people, who recorded everything we did with audio and video equipment, failed to capture our (supposed) contact with these previously-PKK-militants-but-now-turncoat confessors? It is easy for the Public Prosecutor to obtain custom-made confessions from the (captive) turncoats who personally are finished, who, to escape punishment, are ever ready to please the security forces not only with confessions but also by undertaking assassination tasks, as the public also knows. I want to emphasize here one more time that it is Leyla ZANA's name and the associations that are attached to that name that are on trial.

3) The Public Prosecutor feels free to accuse me for having participated in training sessions at the camp in Bekaa valley (Lebanon) operated by the PKK, relying on the statements of turncoats such as Nevzat TURAN, Ejder PACAL and Halit ASLAN; at the same time, he is prosecuting me for the speeches I had made during the election campaigns.

To claim I was in Bekaa valley at a time when I was continuously involved in my campaign for election, and when my work was closely monitored by the office of the Public Prosecutor, is preposterous and part and parcel of a frame-up. The accusation of training at Bekaa valley alone reveals sufficiently the dimensions of the slander campaign launched against me.

4) I would like to touch upon the statements of a lady named Emel DOGAN, who supposedly said things about me which presumably constitute a very important piece of evidence upon which this indictment is based. Emel Dogan was arrested on April 1, 1992 and released on January 28, 1993. In her statements to the Prosecutor of the State Security Courts and at the court, she has said "she was illiterate" and she approved the texts of all her interrogations both at police headquarters and at just about every other stage "by finger printing." Security forces, who have used every opportunity to collect evidence against me, have forced and tortured her "to finger print" statements prepared beforehand. When the news of this forced confession (concerning this event) was noted in the Turkish daily Meydan on January 23, 1993, the paper was sued at the 11th Court in Ankara for damages to the state and the Court ruled the paper should pay a fine of TL 1.000.000. The Security Court in Diyarbakir also dismissed these confessions obtained under duress and torture as unworthy and finally released her after 24 days of detention. The Office of the Prosecutor, which has failed to find acceptable evidence against me, has reverted to using those discarded statements as evidence against me after a two-year hiatus. This event demonstrates clearly that the Office of the Prosecutor has been striving to imprison me at all costs, going beyond its power of investigation on behalf of the public. According to the Rules and Procedures of the Criminal Courts (CMUK), state prosecutors should also collect evidence in favor of the accused. Not only was the evidence favoring our innocence left out but also the Prosecutor's Office took pains to pick out with a pair of tweezers what seemed to be against us.

5) Abdullah ARISOY was another person forced to confess against me during police interrogation. His statements in the courtroom in the presence of the judge and the prosecutor revealed that the confession in his file was obtained by force and under duress during police interrogation and, as such, was inadmissible as evidence.

In the same vein, the statements of Abdullah DURSUN and his son Ali DURSUN, and that of Ahmet TEMEL, are taken as evidence by the prosecutor. Ahmet TEMEL stated to the State Prosecutor in Mardin on 11/8/1993, "I don't accept the accusations directed against me. I have no connections or relations with the terror organization, the PKK. I don't accept the statements obtained from me at the police headquarters. They were made under duress. I was forced to sign those statements."

The indictment is prepared with such prejudice that it, for example, claims I was present at a press conference at Bar Elias in Lebanon, which was covered by journalists and TV cameramen from Turkey and Europe. However, as I have documented through photocopies of my passport, I was in England on April 13, 1993. Besides, if the pictures and records of the press conference were examined, the surrealism of the claim would become quite evident.

Honorable Judges!

As we have demonstrated with all of its extreme contrasts, (the indictment) is based on the testimonies of turncoats who obviously cannot tell the truth. In this sense, your honorable committee must question, above all, the real motive behind the statements of the turncoats. As is well-known, in order to take advantage of the Law of Repentance, a turncoat must confess to as many personal names, events, documents, and as much information as possible, thus creating an impression for the authorities that an entire organization has been exposed without having to prove the veracity of what is said. In addition, the turncoat must collaborate fully with the security forces; this can often result in having to commit a crime on their behalf.

This explains the false statements and contradictions they contain, as we have mentioned above. The problem is systemic. Here is why: if things are arranged in such a way that human beings are not forced to accuse others, but rather they are won to the society, none of these injuries would result -- neither to me personally nor to hundreds of other innocent people. Each and every slander of an innocent human being due to unfounded accusations will condemn the state in the conscience of its citizens and will widen the chasm between the state and its people.

The press statement, we, the 22 (Kurdish) representatives, released on May 11, 1991 contained our views concerning the changes needed in the constitution. To transmit to the public the views expressed by then-Secretary General of the HEP, Mr. Fehmi Isiklar, was part of my legislative duty. To work towards eliminating some laws or to propose changes to the constitution is the "legislative work" itself. Even to question this right itself is against the constitution and against the principles of democracy.

I would like to focus on an issue that has been exploited and used to create bad public opinion against us ever since we were elected as representatives. Red, green and yellow are traditional Kurdish colors we have used for centuries. There are several myths and legends about this tradition. The colors might be related to the myth of iron smith Kawa or they might have been obtained from the rainbow. The use of these colors by the Kurds became widespread especially after 1988, as a reaction to the prohibition by the Minister of Interior, Abdulkadir Aksu, and by other public officials. As I answered journalist Leyla TAVSANOGLU from Cumhuriyet, I have stated these colors were used as symbols by the Kurdish Republic of Mahabad, which was established in Iran in the 1940's. The reason I said this is that these colors have no relation to the PKK, as is often mistakenly argued. In my indictment, even this explanation of mine is considered a crime.

Many wedding ceremonies (in Kurdish areas) have been blocked or prohibited due to the use of these colors by the attendants. Stranger yet, even the colors of the universally used traffic lights have been changed (in Kurdish areas). In Diyarbakir, for example, green traffic lights have been replaced by blue ones. Nowhere else in Turkey are the colors of traffic lights changed, except in Kurdish areas.

Statements I made in the Turkish Parliament during the swearing-in ceremony have been deliberately distorted. My statement consisted of only, "I am taking this oath for the brotherhood of the Turkish and the Kurdish peoples." This statement is distorted both in the records of the Parliament and in my indictment. The main reason why the words I uttered during the ceremony are brought forth as evidence of a crime is that I said them in KURDISH. Otherwise, it is inconceivable even to think that a sentence which invoked the brotherhood between two peoples could be considered a crime, notwithstanding the fact that it is unacceptable to prosecute a statement made at the TGNA, a statement that is supposed to be protected by the "PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY" clause in Article 83 of the constitution.

Although the indictment claims the petition to the UN also carried my signature, this is technically impossible since I was abroad during the preparation and the release of it, as I argued during the preliminary investigation. I did not participate in its preparation or presentation, nor does it carry my signature.

Turkey intensified its efforts after World War II to join the union of the democratic countries in Europe. Also, it has signed a number of international declarations and agreements. Through these declarations and agreements, Turkey has committed itself to the creation of an environment suitable for democracy and to removing hurdles in the path of freedom of thought and expression. The Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) Treaty is just one of many treaties Turkey has signed (presumably) to protect the basic civil liberties of its peoples. As you know, according to Article 93 of the constitution, international agreements approved and signed by the state acquire the same status as domestic laws. It is nonsense to say (my statements) are against the constitution. I would say we used our constitutional rights to petition the CSCE. The decisions made during the last CSCE meeting in Vienna support the correctness of our action. Besides, the State Security Courts (DGMs) have no authority to investigate or determine in which political activities a representative or a political party should or should not participate. Such attitudes are a sign of intervention in the independence of the legislative branch and are contrary to the principles of the parliamentary system and democracy.

Honorable Judges!

I was surprised to see in the file the text of a speech I presumably made in my meetings in the United States. I was surprised because nowhere in my visit to the U.S. did I make that speech. All of our meetings took place within frameworks described by my colleague Ahmet TURK. Only during a meeting over breakfast did I state my views concerning the colors to answer the question of a Turkish journalist and commented on what needs to be done to establish peace and brotherhood in Turkey. Nothing should be more natural than expressing my views and thoughts publicly as a representative. Besides, the views I expressed were no different from what I am saying now. However, they are falsified in the file. There are no barriers to the expression of thought. Furthermore, it is a right protected by Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Even a peaceful and passive action on our part, such as the hunger strike we organized to draw public attention to the plight of the Kurds, is treated as a crime. Every action and behavior of ours is attributed to the directives of others, as if we do not have any views of our own. To be specific, we went on a hunger strike to draw public attention to the ever increasing number of assassinations by "unknown assailants" in our region because, when we raised the issue of attacks against our party leaders several times in the parliament, neither the parliament nor other institutions entrusted with public safety showed any interest. It had no relation with the PKK or the raid across the border. As we have emphasized on several occasions, we aimed to stop the blood-letting between brothers (Turks and Kurds) and wanted to contribute to finding a peaceful solution to the (Kurdish) question.

To look for evidence of a crime in the press conference we had in Denmark reveals, one more time, the real reason we are being tried is because of the views and the ideas we defend. In that conference, we stressed the fact that the DEP was a party for the citizens of Turkey and that it believed the Kurdish question was an urgent question and its solution would remove one of the most important hurdles in the way of democratization in the country. I want to state emphatically that I still adhere to the same views today. The main cause of problems in Turkey ranging from unemployment to inflation to poverty to the high cost of living emanates from the fact that the Kurdish question has been pushed to a crisis point.

Moving on, the speech I supposedly made in the wedding hall in Adiyaman municipality during an informal meeting is not mine. It is mistranslated in its entirety.

As I have stated in my testimony to the Prosecutor, I did visit Sedat Edip BUCAK at his home in Oran complex and talked with him about the problems of the region with a former member of our Party Council, Cabbar GEZICI. However, the discussion did not take place the way it is portrayed in the file. I informed him of the intensification of the murder of the civilian population and the violation of human rights, and requested he be sensitive to these issues in Parliament. There was no special reason for Cabbar GEZICI accompanying me, aside from being a councilman of our party. The indictment concocts a scenario of its own and draws conclusions accordingly. There is nothing more natural than a parliamentarian visiting a fellow parliamentarian accompanied by an official of her party.

I went to the Hotel Dedeman in Ankara on several occasions for different reasons. However, I have never met Sedat Edip BUCAK at this hotel. This assertion is totally false. The audio tape transcription in the file is a forgery. Taping the conversation would have required planning and the mediation of an agent provocateur. There should be no reason for taping a conversation between two representatives.

Also, I stated "I feel like I am in a foreign country" during a program prepared by the German SAT - I television station on July 13, 1993 as a reply to a question regarding other female representatives in the Turkish parliament, and if I had any dialogue with them. As I have reiterated in my testimony to the Prosecutor, in spite of the presence of 8 women in that body, sadly enough, I could not develop any dialogue with any one of them. By "a foreign country," I meant to express my loneliness due to that lack of dialogue. I did not mean to describe Turkey as "foreign" to me.

My efforts to establish a dialogue with other representatives came to naught. It was for this reason that I said: "A great many representatives see me as an enemy." During the period we were still parliamentarians, instead of working with us to stop the killings and find a solution to the problem that has led to the shedding of too many tears, they viewed us with an unforgiving prejudice following the swearing-in ceremony and continuously sought to exclude us. For example, Ms. Imren Aykut, who held a post at the ministerial level at one time, pointed her finger at me in the Parliament and shouted, "There is no need to look for terrorists in Bekaa valley, they are here!" I used the concept "hostile manner" to express all of these instances, which is very different from the lexical meaning of "enemy." The Prosecutor of the State Security Court (DGM) interpreted my concept as he pleased, intentionally ignoring this difference in meaning.

The negligence of duty and insensitivity on the part of the TGNA led to arrangements and developments such as the ongoing Emergency Region Laws and Administration (OHAL), the Village Guard System and the activities of the Special Teams and Special Army Corps, the destruction and depopulation of thousands of villages, the forced exile of Kurds from the region, the failure to find the perpetrators of 2,000 mystery murders and the continuation of high levels of insecurity and terrorism. Our goal is to make the TGNA the main decision-maker in politics in Turkey, to divest it from being the stamp of approval for the ruling power and to return sovereignty to the people and to the representatives of the people, as it should be. The remarks I have made in this frame of mind are expressions of my distress and complaints.

To support what I have said above, every decision of the National Security Council presented as a "suggestion" has been approved verbatim by the government and the parliament in Turkey. It is impossible not to get distressed and not to complain about this situation as a parliamentarian.

The indictment accuses me also for having stated that the PKK might attack targets in the tourism industry.

It is a fact that Turkey's budget for this fiscal year is TL 821 billion. TL 400 billion of this sum -- about 48 % of it -- is used to suppress the Kurdish question through a variety of designated funds. State revenues from tourism have reached an annual $6-7 (US) billion during the past few years. Taking the importance of this source into account, I merely speculated that the PKK could target it eventually, just as the news and editorials have been reporting nearly every day. Otherwise, as I have been emphasizing always, I am against violence that is directed against civilians. Like my other statements, the prosecutor misinterpreted my candor and the upright manner in which I predicted events based on facts.

Honorable Judges!

It is argued in my indictment that I conversed with Abdullah OCALAN on the telephone and a long transcription of the conversation is placed in my file. In addition, it is contended that I have contacted some phone numbers in Bonn, Dusseldorf, Paris, Stockholm, Koln and Copenhagen, which purportedly belonged to the PKK.

Before delving into this matter, let me state that these allegations remind us of the possibility that the telephone numbers of my fellow representatives and myself, and those of our party officials and members, may have been wire tapped continuously. Without a doubt, this conduct is unconstitutional. Just as Article 22 of the September 12th Constitution on the Freedom of Communication states, "Everyone has the right to free communication. The privacy of communication is essential." Communication cannot be hindered and its privacy violated except in cases where the legally-obtained permission of a judge indicates this and in emergencies ordered by an agency authorized by law.

In established democracies, where institutions function well and are regulated, wiretapping the telephones of a parliamentarian would amount to a scandal and could lead to the impeachment of the government. However, in our country, the indictment prepared by a State Prosecutor could openly claim the wiretapping of the telephone of a representative and rely on "evidence" obtained in this manner.

To top this off, the telephone conversations compiled in the indictment are unreal. They are imaginary. For example, I have never had a telephone conversation with Abdullah OCALAN. I have stated this fact also in my testimony to the Prosecutor. The presumed telephone conversation is, all in all, a scenario. Just as it is clearly stated in the report of the Chief of the Association for Forensic Medicine that is in my file, it is impossible to conclude without doubt (that the recorded voice is that of Leyla Zana). The prosecutor of the State Security Court (DGM), determined to convict us at any price, is disregarding even the report of the AFM.

In the same manner, by claiming certain telephone numbers (I presumably had dialed) belonged to the PKK's contact bureaus in Europe, the prosecutor strives to establish a connection between us and the PKK. By this, the prosecutor follows the logic behind the edict: "Throw some mud. If it does not stick, at least it will leave a mark." We know the claim is not the product of any earnest investigation or effort.

For example, a phone number supposedly belonging to a PKK member in Paris, instead, belongs to a family friend of ours, Mr. Mehmet DURMAZ. Another number belongs to the Kurdish Institute in Paris.

Honorable Judges!

As you know, political parties are an essential element of democracies. In that context, they have a status that differs from other associations and organizations. For this specific reason, they are accorded constitutional protection. This protection starts with the establishment of the party, and stretches until the judicial existence of the party comes to an end. And, the officials and the representatives of the party strive to influence the political, social and economic life of the country via their views and proposals in a systematic manner in accordance with the function and the program of their party. The views, ideas, proposals and activities of the HEP and DEP, and the officials and representatives of these two parties, should be evaluated within such a framework. The activities of a party should be viewed as efforts aimed at applying the party program to life and should be evaluated in their totality. To focus on events individually and to squeeze a conclusion out of them is, therefore, deliberately wrong.

We, the 22 representatives (from Kurdish areas), even when we were still part of the SHP, prepared and signed a declaration under the leadership of Fehmi ISIKLAR, the representative from Diyarbakir, to stop the ever increasing blood-letting and tears in Turkey, to find a peaceful and lasting solution to the festering Kurdish problem. We presented it to Erdal INONU, the leader of the SHP at the time. Time has proven the validity and appropriateness of our views and proposals stated in that declaration. The views and solutions we advocated three years ago are still valid and relevant. Since all of our activities were aimed at the realization of demands stated in that declaration, I find it appropriate to present them below, in full, as part of our defense.

The demands we included in the declaration presented to the Secretary General of the SHP, Erdal Inonu:

1) To represent the social-cultural reality of Turkey, the Kurdish national identity should be recognized, legalized and included in the constitution.

2) Based on this recognition of the Kurdish national identity, all limitations placed upon the Kurds should be lifted. (Domestic applications of the) international agreements to which Turkey is a signatory must be obeyed.

3) To express itself in the modern sense, the Kurdish nation should be able to use its language and culture, in writing and in speech, in every aspect of life. Kurds should have the right to education in their mother tongue and to utilize Kurdish in radio and television broadcasting.

4) To create a democratic atmosphere in which the Kurdish question and its solution can be freely discussed in all its dimensions.

5) To abolish the Emergency Region Laws and Administration (OHAL) with all of its institutions and applications.

6) To abolish all of the odious censorship and exile decrees that are in effect.

7) To remove the Special Teams from the region.

8) To expose and dismantle the Counterguerrilla organization.

9) To abolish the Village Guards System.

10) To abolish the anti-terror laws.

11) To declare an unconditional general amnesty that can undo the impact of the September 12, 1980 coup d'etat.

12) To improve the conditions of prisons in such a way that conforms to the demands of human rights and dignity. To empower the representatives to inspect the prisons and jails.

13) To reduce the duration of custody to 24 hours and to conduct the interrogation in the presence of a lawyer.

14) To solve the crimes by "unknown" assassins and to punish the perpetrators.

15) To legislate just election laws.

16) To rebuild the depopulated, burned, and demolished villages and to compensate the losses suffered by villagers.

17) To reinvigorate the traditional economy of the region that has been the target of destruction. To lift the prohibitions against grazing at summer pastures and against the habitation of wintering grounds for sheep herders.

18) To recognize the right to unionize, to strike and to collective bargaining for all those who work.

19) To legalize the right to general strike, strike for specific demands and solidarity strikes.

20) To abolish the National Security Council with the democratization of the constitution, to put the Chief of Staff administratively under the Ministry of Defense.

Similar to our demands stated above, there is another document which I think is still relevant and constitutes an answer to the logic of the indictment -- our statements to the public when we were forced to resign from the SHP. I would like to present some sections of it below,

"...the news and the editorials of some circles in the press who deliberately propagate that we receive directives from some centers (i.e. the PKK) is nothing but a provocation. This approach with such malicious intent is directed to condemn us at the outset and to deny a platform for the emerging alternatives. Until now, we have struggled for the interests of all who live in Turkey, in general, and for the democratic rights of the Kurdish people, specifically, without any directives from any center. We need to reiterate that we are quite determined in this respect. The question of the democratization of Turkey and the Kurdish problem, which is an integral part of it, is not created by outside forces to destroy the unity of Turkey and is not an artificial problem, as some circles claim. To the contrary, it is an authentic problem and is a reality of the country. If we want to create a stronger Turkey in the Middle East, we must find a democratic solution to the Kurdish question which measures up to modern standards.

Before all else, it should be known very well that we are against all violence. We are for the creation of a society which shuns violence, which is cleansed of violence and of the reasons that create violence, a society where human blood does not flow."

As is evident, the work my colleagues and I have conducted is nothing but a reflection of our thoughts regarding the equality of peoples, the freedom of expression and the brotherhood of peoples that comprise Turkey.

We are put on trial simply because we continue to insist on our democratic and peaceful demands. Our effort will continue, no matter what direction this trial takes; we cannot and will not give up. No one should have any doubt that we will continue to defend our ideals, no matter what the cost. We will continue to work hard for the resolution of the problems. Just like Galileo, who in spite of torture and pressure could not abstain from saying, "But what can I do, the earth revolves", we have the resolve and the will to continue the struggle for a resolution of the "Kurdish question." Just as Galileo was certain of his discovery about the earth, I am equally certain about the need for the resolution of the Kurdish question and I will do my best to be a part of that solution.

LEYLA ZANA
Representative from Diyarbakir