Army, AKP and Capital in Alliance for War

The "No to War in Iraq Coordination" criticized the debates over resubmitting a proposal to the parliament allowing tens of thousands of U.S. troops to base in Turkey. The coordination's officials say the constitutional principles would be violated if the proposal were resubmitted to the parliament.

Peace Initiative spokesman Aydin Engin, Turkish Human Rights Foundation (TIHV) head Yavuz Onen, People's Democracy Party (HADEP) Secretary-General Hayri Ates, Freedom and Solidarity Party (ODP) deputy head Hakan Tahmaz, Socialist Democracy Party (SDP) deputy head Veysi Sarisozen, Confederation of Public Workers' Unions (KESK) head Sami Evren and the Chamber of Turkish Architects and Engineers (TMMOB) head Kaya Guvenc talked to bianet about the possibility of the government to resubmit the proposal to the parliament:

The parliament has a moral responsibility; it should reject the proposal

Aydin Engin: During these days when there are increasing rumours about the possibility of submitting a second proposal to the parliament, the Peace Initiative believes that the parliament has both a political and a moral responsibility and should maintain its stance.

In our opinion, it is not possible to explain this politically or morally. The parliament on March 1, clearly said "no" to war. And there can be no reason to say "yes" to war.

"They are trying to legitimize invasion"

Yavuz Onen: Turkey is factually under occupation. The U.S. is continuing its military activities without the parliamentary decision. The fact that the U.S. troops rented lands in Mardin for a year, is an example to this. They want to create a legal basis for this factual situation. That is why they want to resubmit the proposal to the parliament. The statement by the General Staff is in this direction too.

We, as peace activists, have to keep alive the solidarity we had on March 1. We need to organize events that would have an impact on the members of the parliament.

"The statement by the General Staff did not meet the people's expectations"

Hayri Ates: The General Staff's statement in support of the proposal could direct social inclinations, and thus it is a negative development. The General Staff's approach does not meet the people's expectations.

They want to declare emergency rule in the southeastern Turkey again. Those who oppose war could be faced with pressure.

A U.S. operation in northern Iraq and especially, Turkey joining this operation would risk the revival of the 15-year war between Kurdish rebels and Turkish troops and cause further economic and social losses.

The bases should be shut down, the invasion should end

Hakan Tahmaz: The statement by the General Staff demonstrates the army's role in Turkish politics. This behavior does not suit a democratic system. It is important that the statement talked about losses but never refereed to human loss.

The U.S. has factually "occupied" the southeastern region. At a time when the parliament rejected the proposal, this shows that there has been an agreement with the U.S. despite the parliament's decision.

No matter what the justification is, we as the "No to War in Iraq Coordination," will oppose this war. With intense campaigning, we will demand that the U.S. bases are shut down and the invasion ends.

AKP victorious in the AKP-army war

Veysi Sarisozen: There was a conflict between AKP and the General Staff on who would bear the responsibility of the war. AKP made sure the proposal would be rejected. Thus, the General Staff had to make this statement. The General Staff, probably for the first time, supported an Islamic-rooted party.

It is now the time to oppose war from army to capital, from the U.S. to AKP.

The General Staff's statement imposes pressure

Sami Evren: Despite the parliament's rejection, which reflects people's will, the General Staff made this statement. This imposes pressure. Democracy is suspended in Turkey. The fact that the U.S. is able to use Turkish bases and the activity in ports demonstrates that the government is acting despite its people.

Second proposal is not legitimate

Kaya Guvenc: The first proposal was not legitimate. Neither will the second one. Doing this is violating the constitution.

Those who said "no," to the first proposal, but will say "yes" to the second will be announced. Let it be after ten years. Ten years is not a long period of time. Then, those lawmakers will not be able to say anything to defend themselves.

The lawmakers should look at this issue from the viewpoint of the people, not the viewpoint of their parties. Despite all, I believe that the parliament will reject the second proposal too. (HA/OG/NK/EA/NM)