HL Deb 26 April 1994 vol 554 cc591-605

7.39 p.m.

Lord Avebury rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is now their policy on the Kurdish minority in Turkey.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, six months ago we had a debate about the situation of the Kurdish minority in Turkey. It was thought appropriate that we should return to the subject today in the light of the considerable deterioration of the human rights situation in the region, as evidenced by many witnesses. The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and I spent nine days there recently. We also had the opportunity of discussing the situation with the Turkish ambassador, with senior officials in the Foreign Office to whom we are most grateful, with experts from SOAS and Chatham House and with many individual Kurds.

There is no time to review the findings of our mission in detail this evening, but we have sent the Minister a preliminary and incomplete draft of our forthcoming report which I hope will be helpful. I simply wish to list the headlines in the short time available.

We spent seven days travelling around the region, closely escorted by armed security men who said they were there for our protection. In fact, they were there to make notes of everything that was said to us and in some cases even to video the witnesses who came to speak to us. So one can imagine that very few people wanted to take the risk of having their words put down by the security forces and used against them later. The security forces also prevented us from going into villages or travelling off the main roads; in short, they frightened off people who wanted to tell us about what life was like under an occupation force.

The Turks pretend that they are dealing with a few terrorists. But they have at least a quarter of a million men under arms in the region and some estimates show the number as high as 500,000. It was stated semi-officially in March that an extra 150,000 men had been deployed for an operation that was due to continue until June on the authority of a committee made up in part of senior security personnel. The armed forces of the Turkish state deployed jet bombers, artillery, helicopter gunships, tanks and armoured cars. They have road blocks every few kilometres where they stop vehicles, check passengers' identity and sometimes minutely search their luggage, as happened to us on one occasion.

What the Serbs have done to Gorazde, the Turks have done to many Kurdish towns and villages. Among the towns that have been bombarded by artillery and tanks are, Sirnak, Cizre, Kulp, Altinova, Yuksekova, Silvan and Cukurca. Estimates of the number of villages destroyed and evacuated range from 874, according to the Turkish Daily News, up to 1,800. There is abundant eyewitness testimony to the killing of civilians and the devastation of houses and businesses.

The conflict between the armed forces and the Kurdish rebels of the PKK is subject to common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits attacks on civilians and extra-judicial killings and obliges the combatants to care for each others' sick and wounded. It also allows the Red Cross to offer its services to the parties to the conflict, and the ICRC has repeatedly done so since 1983. The president of the ICRC tried yet again when he met President Demirel on 27th January but was rebuffed. Cannot the European Union try to persuade the Turkish authorities to accept the services of the ICRC? That would have no implication for the status of the parties to the conflict but could help to alleviate the mass of civilian suffering.

It seems anomalous to me that in every other conflict in the CSCE region the parties are ready to accept help from the international community to stop the fighting and to arrive at political solutions but in this war the Turks are determined to reach a purely military solution. There are no UN observers, no CSCE mediators, no NATO planes watching the fighting, not a squeak of protest from the European Union. Yet the Turkish authorities are engaged in a major operation of demographic engineering, rivalling the ethnic cleansing which has aroused so much condemnation in Bosnia. Hundreds of thousands of non-combatants have been forcibly uprooted from their homes, ending up as internal refugees in the West or as shanty town dwellers on the outskirts of the capital of the region, Diyarbakir. Surely this demands the attention of the CSCE, which has the power to intervene if enough member states want to act.

The Turkish authorities maintain that they use military power only to counter the attacks of the PKK which they call terrorism. We condemn the attacks on civilians by the PKK and we have called on it, as we do on the Turkish state, to observe the laws of war. But we have to point out that, with few exceptions, the PKK's operations are against the Turkish military and their auxiliaries, the village guards, whereas nearly all the operations conducted by the Turkish armed forces are against non-combatants. The disparity between the military forces employed on both sides is enormous.

The open attacks on the civilian population of the Kurdish region have been accompanied by a striking increase in the rate of disappearances, according to Amnesty International. I have heard from Ankara of two more cases in the past few days. Mr. Serif Avsar was abducted at gunpoint from a shop in Diyarbakir at 11.30 on 22nd April by seven armed men and taken to police headquarters. Yet the authorities denied that he was ever detained. Mr. Hasan Demir, a 28 year-old lawyer, disappeared on Tuesday last week after being taken to the notorious Gayrettepe political police headquarters in Istanbul. There are many similar cases where the victims are known to have been in custody and yet later are found dead. I hope that as a result of mentioning those two cases this evening some action may be taken to find out what their fate is and perhaps even to save their lives. Many others have been shot or knifed in broad daylight on the streets, including one MP, Mr. Mehmet Sincar.

Kurdish opponents of the state who are taken into custody and who survive are almost invariably tortured, according to the US State Department's country reports on human rights. Turkey has the unenviable distinction of being the only country to have been reported on by the UN Committee against Torture under Article 20 of the convention, and in his latest report the UN rapporteur on torture, Dr. Nigel Rodley, devotes more space to Turkey than any other country in the world. A person detained under the anti-terror law or detained in the emergency region for offences that are dealt with before the state security courts can spend up to 30 days in custody before appearing before the court. That gives the police carte blanche to do what they like. There is almost total impunity for any act of violence, including murder, committed against detainees.

Among the victims of the death squads have been eight journalists from the pro-Kurdish newspaper 2zgur Gündem. Fifty-three journalists from the same paper have been detained and subjected to varying degrees of ill-treatment and torture. The chief editor, Ms. Gurbetelli Ersoz, was arrested on 10th December and has been in custody since then, and now the paper has been closed down. The Writers in Prison Committee lists 200 cases of persecuted writers and journalists between August 1993 and January 1994 and, again, in that report, Turkey has by far the largest entry of any country in the world.

The pro-Kurdish Democracy Party has borne the brunt of sustained attacks. Those attacks forced it to withdraw from the local elections and it is about to be closed down, as its predecessor was. By using physical and legal violence against the party, the Government have sent a signal to the Kurds that political solutions to their grievances are not available. When the PKK offered a ceasefire in March and said that it was ready to discuss federalism or other constitutional settlements falling short of total independence, its initiative was dismissed out of hand, again emphasising to the Kurdish people that unconditional surrender is their only option.

In the name of humanity, to end a devastating conflict which is bringing Turkey to its knees economically and which has given a boost to fundamentalists who may be poised to end Turkey's era of secularism, Britain and the European Union must take initiatives to stop the violence and persuade Turkey to listen to the voices of the Kurds.

7.48 p.m.

Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare

My Lords, perhaps I may open by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for initiating the debate, which he generally seems to do every quarter. It is almost becoming a regular quarterly debate. He did not make much of the point and therefore I wish to ask the Minister whether she is able to report to us the situation of the six Kurdish Members of Parliament in Turkey who seem still to be in gaol. What is their situation and are they able to have access to lawyers and to Amnesty International, in order that their cases may be heard in a civilised way?

Whenever the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, addresses this House on the matter of the PKK, you are left with the impression that they are all saints and the Turks are all sinners. Most of us know that there are very few organisations in which that is absolutely true. Therefore I should like to place on record, with the Minister present, in the hope that she might pass it on to the Turkish Government, my delight from the viewpoint of the Iraqi Kurds at the fact that the electricity in Darhuk, which Saddam Hussein had turned off, is now working. Indeed, perhaps I may pay a personal tribute to Mr. Jalal Talabani, who negotiated that particular piece of work, and congratulate him on that achievement, and on yet another feather in his cap in putting Saddam Hussein in his place.

While I have the Minister's attention perhaps I might also mention the distress that we all felt at the terrible tragedy of the helicopters being shot down. Could she convey that feeling to those British families who are involved? When I last went to Iraqi Kurdistan, I had the privilege of meeting the lieutenant-colonel and the major and of being told of the work that they were doing. It is worth reminding the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in the politest possible way, that those planes are stationed in Turkey and fly over and protect Kurds in Iraq. It is because of the goodwill of the Turkish Government that we are able every six months to renew the contract and allow that work to continue.

I also remind the Minister that the plight of the Kurds is no different today from what it was six months ago, a year ago or two years ago. Arbil is a mere 20 minutes from the border; and Sulaymaniyah is a mere 10 minutes from the border. When I say 10 minutes, I mean 10 minutes in one of Saddam Hussein's tanks. Saddam Hussein can come over whenever he likes and flatten that city in a matter of moments.

One of the most frightening sights that I have ever seen in my life was that of packed bags in corridors while people waited in the fear that they would have to go to the hills. I hope that when the Minister replies she will remember the Kurds in Iraq as well as the Kurds in Turkey.

7.52 p.m.

Baroness Gould of Potternewton

My recent visit to Turkey with the noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Hylton, left me with the profound impression that the Kurdish question can only be solved by political, and not military, means; by dialogue and not by bloodshed. I hope that all Members of this House will take the opportunity to read the report that we are to produce with a great deal of care.

No one can deny that the Turkish Government face a serious problem of political violence in the south-east province, and no one could give support to terrorist action. But the solution will not be achieved by widespread and systematic human rights violations. It will not be achieved by a repression of civil liberties or by the suppression of free speech, using the law to silence dissent by parliamentarians, journalists, writers, trade unionists and academics, or by the many hundreds of ordinary people who have been caught in the crossfire. I refer particularly to those in the Kurdish villages, where their crops and houses have been destroyed and who have in their thousands been driven from their homes by cruel and barbaric actions.

Nor is the solution to be found in an intensification of military or police activity against the civilian population, who have been imprisoned, tortured and killed, or who have disappeared for expressing non-violent opinions. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, Amnesty International, alarmed by the sharp increase in the number of disappearances, fears that unless decisive action is taken now, the practice of "disappearance" will become an established tool of intimidation and elimination.

Other aspects of concerted action by the state have been the physical and legal assault on the Democracy Party, that effectively caused its demise a month before the local elections—an assault based on the belief that DEP is the political arm of the PKK, even though no such charge has been laid before the constitutional court —and the removal of the immunities of the six DEP deputies under Article 125 of the Penal Code, which carries with it the death penalty. Only one of the deputies has been charged with having links with the PKK. The others have been charged on the basis of speeches that they have made. Like the noble Lord, Lord Archer, I hope that the Minister can indicate their current position.

It is for that reason, and the possible threat to the very essence of democracy, that those actions have been criticised by both the Assembly of the Council of Europe and the IPU's Committee on the Rights of Parliamentarians.

Not only were the recent local elections affected by the removal of the one political party that could speak on behalf of the Kurds, but there were also substantial amendments to election law which severely restricted the democratic rights of many among the Kurdish population from the villages, who had been forcibly displaced and as a consequence lost their residential qualification to vote—a qualification that was waived for officers and police, who, together with increased administrative personnel from other parts of Turkey, had a real effect on the outcome of the elections.

In conclusion, I ask your Lordships' House to take note of the final recommendations of the resolution that was carried by the Council of Europe which called on the Turkish authorities, to take initiatives for a peaceful and political solution to 'the Kurdish question' within its frontiers, including the repeal of all legislation which makes normal political discourse and free speech about specific changes in the Constitution … a treasonable offence".

7.56 p.m.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, my reason for speaking in this debate is that I am a Member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which, nearly two weeks ago, debated the issue of the six MPs who had been imprisoned. I thought that it was a very well balanced debate, with clear, though conflicting, contributions from both sides of the argument. The decision that was ultimately reached was that Turkey, as a member of the Council of Europe, had signed up to the Convention on Human Rights; that proper procedures exist through the Commission and the Court of Human Rights; and that it was not therefore for the Parliamentary Assembly to interfere. That is the point in today's debate. Turkey is a member of the Council of Europe and is committed to its obligations in that institution, and indeed in the other international institutions to which it belongs, including the United Nations.

I have not myself been to Turkey recently, nor am a great expert on Turkey or on the Kurdish plight, as are other speakers in this debate. In particular, I refer to my noble friend Lord Archer. But I wish it to be recognised that there are many Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin who have lived long and peaceful lives in Turkey and who have contributed to a full, and in some cases public, life there.

It should also be remembered—it is a fact that I came across unexpectedly two years ago—that as long ago as 1492, when the Jews were expelled from Spain as a result of the Spanish Inquisition, the only place to offer them a safe haven was Constantinople. To this day, there is a strong community of Sephardic Jews living in Turkey. Similarly, as I understand it, Turkey provided a safe haven for Kurds who were escaping from Saddam Hussein during and after the Iraqi war. Therefore I hope that there is—I feel sure that there must be—a sensible explanation of, or answer to, the issues that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, this evening, and that we shall hear that explanation from my noble friend the Minister when she winds up.

7.59 p.m.

Lord Hylton

My Lords, I should like to protest about the limitations on this debate, which has arisen from strong concerns on all sides of the House. Because of those limitations, I shall confine myself to putting questions to Her Majesty's Government of which I have given notice. I am sure that the noble Baroness, with her usual courtesy, will manage to reply to them all.

To avoid over-dependence on Turkish facilities at Incirlik air base which are essential for the protection of northern Iraq, as the noble Lord, Lord Archer, mentioned, will the Government examine the possibility of alternative bases; for example, in Cyprus? Will the Government insist that Turkey complies fully with its obligations under the CSCE? I ask the noble Baroness whether Turkey has signed and ratified all the security and co-operation agreements? Is not Turkey already in violation by stationing troops in Northern Cyprus and by recognising that breakaway republic? If so, what action is envisaged to secure compliance?

There is a further point concerning the so-called "trickle down supplies" to both Turkey and Greece under the European disarmament agreements. Has Germany recently refused to make further transfers to Turkey, and if so, why? Will the Government urge NATO to reconsider these dangerous and destabilising supplies, some of which appear to be used in the armed conflict in south east Turkey? In particular, will the Government insist on the full application of the CSCE guidelines dated 23rd November 1993?

It is well known that that conflict was started and has been continued by the PKK. I ask the Government what is their present assessment of that organisation, which has certainly conducted some indefensible terrorism, such as murdering school teachers and other non-combatants? How do they evaluate the ceasefire of March 1993, which in fact lasted nearly three months and the ceasefire offers of March 1994, which, alas, the Turkish Government rejected out of hand?

Do the Government consider that the PKK has evolved in its thinking and have our Government studied the remarkable interview given by Mr. Ocalan on 27th March 1993? Do they believe in offers by a PKK representative to abide by common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions? Those offers were in fact made to me in London in response to questions that I put forward. Do the Government believe that the PKK is sincere when it says that it does not wish to divide Turkey and would be content to accept recognition of Kurdish identity, accompanied by devolution, Kurdish language and education, and full access to the media?

Those are important questions. If the answers are positive, I trust that our Government will use their good offices to achieve a cease-fire and real negotiation for the resolution of a savage conflict, which requires above all problem-solving approaches by all concerned.

8.2 p.m.

Lord Dixon-Smith

My Lords, it is debates such as this that make me realise just how fortunate we are in this country. We are the main nation in a small archipelago at a short distance from the mainland. We have had a thousand years to develop the democratic institutions that we all accept today as the proper way for a nation to govern its affairs. Civil war and rebellion are at a sufficient historical distance to cause little concern. Our neighbours across the Channel are peaceable and intent on co-operation and development. Yet, even with all those advantages, we have across our one relatively short land frontier strife which we have great difficulty in resolving, although the principles of a solution are at least now clear and agreed.

Let us consider Turkey. It is an ancient nation at the crossroads between Europe and Asia. It is a nation that has only been developing its democratic institutions for 50 years. It is a nation which has facing it just across a long land frontier some of the most tendentious countries in the world: Syria, Iraq and Iran. It is a nation that bordered the USSR when that empire was most inclined to export rebellion. It is a nation that has feuded with its final neighbour, Greece, from time immemorial.

With that background and above all because Turkey needs the recognition and assistance of the developed world, is it likely that Turkey would gratuitously offend all the standards by which the developed world lives and works? It is in that context that we need to consider the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.

Given its location, Turkey is inevitably a multicultural society with significant minorities from many races within its community. The Kurds are probably the largest identifiable minority group. They are dispersed throughout the land and a significant number are already Members of the Turkish parliament. We have heard about some of them in particular tonight. Already the future of Turkey and the future of the Kurds are inextricably intertwined. In those circumstances it seems to me tragic that there is a Kurdish equivalent of the IRA. It should be offered similar terms to the IRA. Surely that is the principle that should guide our policy in relation to the Kurds. We, with a mote in our own eye, can hardly pull one out of the eye of others.

8.5 p.m.

Lord Finsberg

My Lords, I listened with great surprise to the sincere speech of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, which was of the most one-sided speeches that I have heard. The noble Lord could hardly bring himself to condemn the PKK, although he knows its stated terrorist aims and the murders and assassinations that it has committed over the past years.

Turkey is not anti-Kurdish. In my 10 years in the Council of Europe I have met over 200 Turkish Members of Parliament. In the present parliament there are some 100 Kurdish MPs, who are not just from the democratic party but from all over. They include ministers in the present and previous governments. Nobody can say that the Turkish Government are anti-Kurdish. As my noble friend Lord Archer said, Turkey has given sanctuary to thousands fleeing from Saddam Hussein. I believe that sufficient tribute has not been paid to Turkey for that. The Turks are finding great difficulty in looking after those refugees in their difficult economic circumstances.

Some Turkish MPs have had their immunity removed. Parliamentary immunity differs all over the world. Those MPs are now appearing before the Turkish courts. Like the South African courts, nobody has said that the Turkish courts are politically biased. Over the years nobody has ever said that. From what I have seen of Turkish judges, I have enough confidence to believe that those particular people will get a fair and reasonable trial.

I am quite certain that the Turkish Government would not deny that some of their troops have committed excesses which are too horrible to speak about. But one must realise that they are in a part of Turkey where perhaps their family or friends have been brutally murdered—it has not just been school teachers but many other people. Human nature occasionally does not understand the Geneva Convention. In fact it was not the Turkish Government who started the trouble; it was the PKK. It could stop tomorrow the murders and excesses. Then we would see a change in the attitude of the Turkish Government.

I truly wish that for once more people would try to understand Turkey. It is a staunch ally and a strong member of NATO which offered immense help during the Gulf War and again in Bosnia. One should realise that the Turkish parliamentarians are doing their best to try to bring Turkey further into a democratic state. It is a problem of secularism and fundamentalism; it is the gap between Europe and Asia.

The government in Turkey and their predecessor—and particularly Mrs. Ciller—are doing their best to try to solve the problem. Mrs. Ciller is certainly doing her best, quite rightly, to put pressure on Mr. Denktash to accept the confidence building measures in Cyprus as quickly as possible.

8.9 p.m.

Lord Kagan

My Lords, it is difficult to ask what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the Kurdish minority without asking what is Her Majesty's Government's attitude to Turkey as an independent state. There is no doubt that at some time or other the PKK wanted no less and no more than secession, which would have meant the end of Turkey as an independent state. Turkey consists of people of different origins. It would be the same as asking the British Government to allow the Welsh and the Scots to secede.

One thing is certain. Next to the will, the wish and the aim to survive as a state, the most ardent wish of the Turkish people and their government is to become a member of the European Community. They know full well what they must do. We must therefore assume that if they have not yet aligned everything to our standards, it is because it is not possible and not because they do not want to do so. We are not dealing in Turkey with prime ministers like Saddam Hussein. We are dealing with logical, competent people. We should not assume, therefore, that whatever is wrong is wrong because they want it to be so.

We must judge Turkey by its behaviour in the Korean and the Gulf wars. It stood on the side of the western powers and aspired to link with them. If one selectively wants to look at actions where there is a conflict, one will inevitably find a great deal that is wrong. The Almighty does not always give us an option between good and bad; sometimes the option is between bad, worse and terrible. Because of certain abuses, the picture can be portrayed in the manner described by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, but I am sure that the IRA could conceive a similar picture of England when lecturing in New York to the Irish community. It is extremely dangerous to be one-sided.

8.12 p.m.

The Viscount of Oxfuird

My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for giving us the opportunity to spend a short time on this subject. One hopes the issue may be placed firmly in context with the winding-up speech of my noble friend the Minister.

My interest in the subject is driven to some extent by my own experience of being closely involved in the exporting of British manufactured goods to many countries for over 30 years. The cloak of human rights is a multi-coloured one and it is not difficult to choose the wrong colour, resulting in a garish and unhappy combination of conflicting interests. There are those, particularly in these changing times, who do not have our democratic privileges. It is therefore most important that we respect the will of their people and take care that we do not rush in where the angels fear to tread.

The good relationship that exists between this country and Turkey goes back to the establishment of regular diplomatic relations in 1793. Relations between this country and Turkey are close, based as they are on centuries of trading. Britain's visible exports have grown from £224 million in 1983 to £629 million in 1992. Turkey is now Britain's third largest market in the Middle East and north Africa. In 1992 we were seventh in Turkey's list of suppliers and the fifth largest market for Turkish exports, which increased from £185 million in 1983 to £466 million in 1992.

When we consider the work done by British firms in Turkey it represents a very senior involvement in their economy—such companies as Freeman Fox & Partners, who constructed the bridge over the Bosporus, AMEC and British Gas, who undertook the first phase of the conversion of the city of Ankara to natural gas. British firms are also involved in the construction of the Ankara Metro and many water and sewerage projects. Trade between Britain and Turkey has grown to such a size that the Minister for Trade in another place recently opened a British investment office in Ankara to seek out further joint venture and investment opportunities.

Turkey is aware of her human rights problems. As her ambassador stated at a recent meeting, I am not interested in presenting Government propaganda and recognise that to do so would simply alienate the attention that their Lordships might pay to the views of the Turkish Government in the future". Perhaps my noble friend the Minister will advise the House as to the progress being made by the Turkish Government on the subject of human rights.

8.15 p.m.

The Earl of Clanwilliam

My Lords, I am happy to say that I shall be able to shorten my speech enormously by virtue of the quality of the speeches from this side of your Lordships' House. I have some sympathy with the Turkish Government in its relations with the PKK, and also a sense of déjà vu when we consider our own problems with the IRA. However, the problem with the PKK is on a considerably different scale to that with the IRA when we consider that there are 9 million Turkish Armenians in Anatolia alone, all of Kurdish origin, busy squabbling among themselves. On top of that problem we impose 150,000 well-armed PKK enthusiasts in the art of terror, assassination and border raids.

Bearing those numbers in mind, it is hardly a problem that we can reasonably discuss in terms of the IRA. It is a much bigger problem for the Turks. As allies of Turkey we should offer our support and not our retribution. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has gone entirely over the top in promoting today's debate. I thank your Lordships for listening, and I am sure everyone will be grateful if I stop talking.

8.18 p.m.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for introducing the debate and do not believe for one moment that he has gone "over the top" in deciding to do so. There can be little doubt that the Kurdish people have suffered brutal repression, not only in Turkey but also in Iraq and at certain times in Iran. Some noble Lords taking part in the debate have much more direct experience than I of the problems facing the Kurds, particularly in Turkey. As we heard, some recently visited south-east Turkey and undertook an investigation into their plight. I am grateful to them for bringing those matters to the world's attention.

I shall not explore in any detail what has been said about various instances of repression of the Kurds in Turkey in recent months. Sadly, it is clear that there has been little improvement since the last debate in this House on the subject in November. In summary, in spite of what some noble Lords opposite said—the noble Lords, Lord Dixon-Smith, Lord Finsberg and the noble Viscount—there is well documented evidence of every kind of human rights abuse in Turkey, ranging from holding people incommunicado for up to a month merely on suspicion of committing political offences; the torturing of suspects; deaths in custody, suggesting that detainees have been murdered; the disappearance of political activists; the burning by the security forces of villages thought to be sympathetic to Kurdish nationalists, on very little evidence; and the intimidation and arrest of journalists investigating those abuses.

One recent outrage was the arrest of the seven Kurdish MPs from the moderate nationalist DEP party, which it is now rumoured is likely to be outlawed. This can only result in driving politically active Kurds into the extremist PKK and lead to further terrorist action, which of course is to be deplored. We on these Benches condemn terrorism on the part of the PKK. Since Turkey is a member of NATO, as a number of noble Lords opposite have mentioned, and aspires to be a member of the European Union—indeed, it applied for full membership as long ago as 1987—it has a responsibility to accept the standards of civilised behaviour in the treatment of minorities which we regard as vitally important. In this case it is a very large minority of 10 million people.

I therefore ask the Minister what actions the Government are taking to try to get the Turkish Government to act more responsibly. Specifically, taking the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, a little further, can she comment on the recent decision by the German Government to stop selling arms to Turkey? Can she tell the House whether the Government intend to follow the example of Germany in halting arms sales to Turkey? The Germans believe that the arms have been used against the Kurds in the deteriorating situation in south-east Turkey. Can she indicate what action the UK Government have taken with respect to common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, to which Turkey is a party ? In the debate in November she promised that this would be followed up.

Following what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, can the Minister also say what steps have been taken to deal with the shortcomings in the CSCE; namely, that its provisions are not legally enforceable? Again, she said in November that steps needed to be taken to rectify that. She stated earlier too that Turkey is not a state party to the covenants on civil and political rights and the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights but that the Government believe that it should be. What have the Government done to put pressure on Turkey to act? Finally, since Turkey is a member of the Council of Europe, as already mentioned, can she tell the House what progress has been made in implementing the Council's decisions at its meetings in October last year, to which she also referred in her response to the debate last November?

While we can all condemn the Turkish Government's treatment of the Kurds, we need to do rather more than condemn. We need, within the appropriate international organisations, to take action to try to secure an improvement in the situation. I agree strongly with my noble friend Lady Gould that the solution must be a political one and that it cannot be secured by armed repression and intimidation within Turkey. We owe it to the Kurds to support them in their struggle to be allowed to maintain their unique culture and to be allowed some autonomy in how they run their affairs.

8.23 p.m.

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, I want to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for sharing their experiences and their views as a result of their visit to south-east Turkey to monitor the recent municipal elections. While I would not agree with all they have said tonight, they have brought forward some very valuable points which have been picked up in the debate. This important topic is rightly being debated in your Lordships' House. I believe that there is true concern about the issue on a far wider basis than simply in your Lordships' House and another place. I receive letters and questions about the situation in Turkey. The area of south-east Turkey is a particularly difficult one for the Turkish Government but they do not always seem to be handling it as well as we believe and know they might.

I was glad to hear many noble Lords unreservedly condemning the deplorable violence of the PKK, as we condemn all forms of terrorism. But there is a difference between the PKK and a large number of Kurds in Turkey. We are firm in our view that the freedom to express non-violent political opinion and full respect for human rights must be upheld by the authorities in any country which wishes its government to be respected. Here we are concerned with whether the Turkish authorities have full respect for human rights and whether there is the freedom to express non-violent political opinion, which clearly there is not at the present time in Turkey.

The intended prosecution of the Democratic Party deputies, which I must accept is consistent with Turkey's existing laws and constitution, severely damages her international reputation and her democratic credentials. As my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said in a speech in Ankara in January, such credentials are increasingly important as Turkey draws ever closer to the European Union.

Respect for international human rights values must be maintained by any democratic government even when that government are required to combat a terrorist group such as the PKK which has no respect for democracy or for the lives of innocent people. The Foreign Secretary, together with the German Foreign Minister, stressed this at their meeting in Ankara with the Turkish Prime Minister and Foreign Minister. My honourable friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs put the point plainly to the Turkish Minister for Human Rights in London last month. Such debates as this, and a similar debate in another place on 18th March, will, I hope, send a clear message about the concern felt by Turkey's friends for the treatment both of those who are innocently caught up in this conflict in the south-east and those who are trying to find a peaceful and democratic solution to the many problems that Turkey faces.

My noble friend Lady Hooper gave us a valuable reminder of how many Kurds live peacefully. But of course there is no Kurd more prominent in the Turkish Government than the current Foreign Minister, who I believe is trying very hard to bring about change.

I have made it clear that we raise human rights issue with the Turks whenever there is an opportunity to do so. I did so again with the Turkish ambassador only this morning. All 12 European Union Ministers expressed their concern about human rights in Turkey to the Turkish Foreign Minister when they met last November. In March this year the European Union presidency made a statement on human rights in various countries to the Commission on Human Rights. The statement included an expression of our concern at torture in Turkey, the constraints on freedom of expression and our conviction that terrorism must be combatted within the rule of law. On 31st March the European Union issued a statement in Brussels and Athens on human rights in Turkey. We and our European Union partners pointed out that, while we repeatedly condemned the terrorist acts in Turkey, we believe that the fight against terrorism has to be conducted within the rule of law, a point on which so many of your Lordships spoke tonight. We also underlined that freedom of expression is a fundamental freedom for all. That is something the Turkish Government must really tackle.

So much for the view of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury—I wrote down what he said—that the European Union had done nothing. It has kept up the pressure. It has at every opportunity, either singly or collectively, been putting these points to the Turkish Government. Despite all of that, there are some within the Turkish forces who do not seem to understand what is going on and what the Turkish Government are striving for.

We were very concerned by the forced evacuation of the villages. I know that the excuses were that the villages were supplying food to the PKK and that they were emptied for military reasons. But we were sufficiently concerned to ensure that our ambassador in Ankara raised those anxieties about that practice with the Turkish authorities.

We have sought to get the Turkish Government to improve their law. We recognise that there was a new law passed over a year ago to improve human rights provision under domestic law, but the task remains to ensure that the Turkish police and the troops abide by the code and that the fight against terrorism is conducted within the framework of international human rights obligations. Moreover, officials who commit abuses must be, and must be seen to be, brought to book for their actions. Therefore, when I say that I understand the Turkish Government's need to deal firmly with PKK terrorism, I also say, as did my noble friend Lord Finsberg, that that does not excuse the Turkish Government from striving for the highest protection of human rights for its citizens.

We are all aware that the Turkish constitution's penal code is in need of real amendment to permit non-violent expression of political beliefs. I am hopeful that there may shortly be a move to improve the penal code. But we have made it quite clear in your Lordships' House tonight that we are all watching for that reform. It is true that legally Turkish Kurds have full access to all democratic forms of expression open to other Turkish citizens. But separatism has been a punishable offence under all Turkish constitutions. The 1982 Turkish constitution is widely recognised as in need of amendment on this score as on others.

I was most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, and particularly to my noble friend Lord Finsberg for all his work in the Council of Europe on this issue of human rights and south-east Turkey. I know that he has been involved in the preparation by the Council of Europe Committee for the Prevention of Torture of its public statement on Turkey in December 1992. I do not need to quote from that statement, but I believe that when the Council of Europe passed the resolution on 13th April, as described by my noble friend Lady Hooper, expressing its anxieties about the arrest and detention of the DEP deputies, it was giving notice to Turkey that it must take action.

The assembly also noted that the DEP deputies did not go beyond using their rights to freedom of expression guaranteed in the European Convention on Human Rights and in the Turkish constitution. That is why it called on the Turkish authorities to withdraw the existing charges against the deputies and also to withdraw their request before the constitutional court to close the DEP party on the grounds of treasonable aims. The assembly also encouraged the Turks to release the DEP deputies on bail pending the preparation of their cases. The European Parliament passed a similar resolution last month.

There have been many questions raised in this debate tonight. My noble friend Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare asked about the Kurdish Democratic Party deputies. I cannot tell him what access the deputies have to lawyers, but we are taking up this matter. He will know that there has been a reaction of concern throughout Europe at what happened. How right my noble friend Lord Finsberg was when he said that Turkey has been a sanctuary to thousands of Kurds from Iraq. I would say that it was tens of thousands. I remember meeting so many of them when I went to the hills between Iraq and Turkey. Turkey has done a great deal to try to help her neighbours. I agree very much with what my noble friend Lord Archer said when he paid tribute to Turkey for helping, as a result of the campaigning by Mr. Talabani, so that the electricity should be restored in northern Iraq.

The Turks are trying to do three very difficult things at the same time. They are trying to help the Kurdish people in northern Iraq. They are trying to help their own Kurdish people, but they are not yet able to do so. And they are trying to divide by the action of their security forces those who are would-be terrorists from those who are peaceable Kurds.

The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked me about the alternative bases compared with the Turkish base at Incirlik. We find that that base continues to offer very considerable advantages. I believe that allied aircraft will want to continue to use it. We are certainly very grateful to the Turkish Government for that.

I must bring my remarks to a close, but I cannot do so without sharing the condolences of my noble friend Lord Archer to the families of the two British officers killed in the helicopter crash and to the families of the Turkish, French and US military personnel killed in that terrible shooting-down incident a little while ago.

As my noble friend Lord Oxfuird said, Turkey is a valued trading partner for Britain. We want to go on having good relations. But we do beg of Turkey to abide by the Geneva conventions, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said, and to work to find a peaceful and democratic solution to solve the problems of Turkey. The Kurds have a right to live in peace in Turkey. That is why we beg of the Turkish Government real action, because what is happening in that country today is hurting Turkey and dismaying Turkey's European friends a very great deal.

I hope that the fight against terrorism will be pursued with rigour, but that it will be pursued with respect for human rights. Freedom of expression for non-violent Kurdish opinion is an important component in the fight against terrorism, isolating extremists and reassuring the moderate majority. Restrictions on such opinion are likely, by contrast, to give the terrorists a valuable propaganda weapon. That is why I believe that the Turkish Government would do well to amend their penal code, to look at their constitution and to make sure that their armed forces and their police forces abide by the standards which have been so long upheld by the Council of Europe and all European and international bodies who believe in human rights.

On those issues to which I have been unable to respond tonight I shall write to noble Lords. It has been a valuable debate, even though at times it had its excesses too. I believe that we must take the sensible middle path to achieve the right result for all the people of Turkey.