By Alessandro RAIMONDI (THE GLOBE)
�Much ado about nothing� may be the headlines following the months long wait to know whether Abdullah Ocalan�s trial that last June sentenced him to death for treason and �ancillary� offenses (like the moral responsability on some thousands deaths), had been fair and conducted �in accordance with legal procedures�.
Those who were expecting an abrupting change of course in the Turkish justice line have had to concede defeat. The issue was too hot and overwhelmingly watched to have Turkey�s credibility at stake by capsizing a sentence that could not be any different from the one of mid 1999.
Amid criticism and much pressure to overrule June�s decision, and under a rather vulgar threat by the EU (you let Apo live or else you won�t join us), Turkey has shown an uprightness and strenght lacked by some European Union member states.
It�s kind of strange telling someone not to kill, parmi �to sentence�, a buddy found guilty of having implemented a terrorist strategy that in 15 years has caused more than 30,000 to die. Sure, Ocalan is not Stalin, but given him the time, who knows?�
Apart from joking his appeal to his Kurdish guerrilla � from behind bars � to stop their warfare has sounded a little untimely (or perhaps too timely�) and a bit too dubious. Doubts raised that he was feeling the uncomfortable roughness of the slipknot around his neck to let him find from within a sudden vocation to dialogue with Turkish authorities.
The world has seen a �brave� knight turning into a weak ordinary guy. But that�s normal. As normal is that Turkey has stuck to her June�s decision. What�s not normal is the European Union�s behaviour that instead has chosen not to dialogue with Ankara, but, even if mitigated by diplomatic formula, has, to put it down-to-earth, left Turkey no choice: with us or against us. For once David has told Goliath to mind his businesses�
Of course, a solution of some sort will be found, the issue is still too hot: Turkey is in a bind and Mr. Ecevit, her prime minister, opposing the use of capital punishment, said he will welcome the decision of the European Court of Human Rights whom Apo Ocalan�s lawyers have announced they�ll appeal.
Now the problem is: to be sentenced to death has to be considered a violation of one�s human rights? If such is the case, then any convicted to such virdict could appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. Even Milosevis in the future!
Much to Europeans� regret � the people in the street, I mean � it�s about time to get back to basic, simple, natural values: right is right and wrong is wrong, not the current mix-up where right could be right and might be wrong. No more gambling with words: low profile retorics ought to be banned from serious talking.
Right or wrong as it may be, the issue is that if the Turkish law enforces that kind of penalty for those crimes, that�s it, let it be death. If and when Turkey changes the law then, but only then, it will be sorted out a different kind of punishment. Apo knew what kind of risk he was taking, didn�t he?
Law, any kind of law, in any country of the world, should spell certainty: once one knows it, then he adjusts himself to cope with it. Very basic, down-to-earth, as I said echoing European sentiments.
On this peculian issue, Apo�s affair, it has been recorded a complete detachment between Europe�s official voice and European citizens� opinion. Almost all EU member states� political leaders � mind you, the actual ones � have cast judgements on Ocalan�s case that have very little to do with ethics and moral (contributing to create the suspect that in politics, ethics and moral have no access). But their opinions, all soft oriented, are fostering only political reasons that the taxpayer seldom comprehends: for the sake of what, if someone is a convicted terrorist, he should deserve a better treatment? Only because he�s a leader, a chief-of-state-to-be even, he�s got to have privileges banned to ordinary citizens? At this point another suspect arises: then politicians are a different breed, Europeans think, for them rules account for very little. The doubt is legitimate.
Behaviours such as these, and conjectures of this kind very much contribute to have the political world and society at large drifted apart.
What�s needed, at least from the average European point of view, is that politicians get back to their role as people�s antenna: their reasons need to become again closer to people�s heart, people�s understanding, need to be set on the basis of justice values not only, if not predominantly, political and economical ones.
The other issue that Uncle Apo�s case unveils is Turkey�s admission into the EU. This actually rises more concern than Uncle Apo�s fate, to tell the truth, among fellow Europeans.
When I was a kid if my teacher asked where Turkey is the answer was unanimous: Asia. To answer Europe would have meant a bad mark. Matter of fact the country is in Asia Minor, actually it�s Asia Minor, even if a small area of the country is in Eastern Europe with Istanbul stretching on both continents. However, whatever is phisically located in Europe is traditionally, culturally, historically and religiously all Asian.
The question then is rather simple, what the hell Turkey ought to do in the European Union? If it�s European, that union needs to be kept so, otherwise let�s change name (and structure, i.e., let�s throw away some more money�): white is white, black is black, but none of them is grey! If instead the European Union doesn�t mean to be so, then it�s a double, the United Nations came before�
Down-to-earth, I said echoing my fellow Europeans, who are beginning to see what the European Union is: an unnecessary, bureaucratic Barnum of gigantic proportions and, sorry to say that, doubtful usefulness, if not for a far too large bunch of 2nd class politicians or rejected ones back home.
All Over the Globe is published by IPA House.
© 1998 IPA House. All Rights Reserved.