This report has shown the negative consequences of Turkey's poor human rights record on Turkish scientists. The Turkish military campaign against PKK guerrillas, coupled with restrictive legislation to assist in those efforts, has contributed to a marked increase in human rights violations throughout the country. Members of the scientific community, particularly social scientists and physicians, have also been victims.

As evidenced by the case studies in this report, social scientists addressing Kurdish issues are particularly vulnerable to governmental persecution. Physicians have also been persecuted and face additional professional, ethical dilemmas, as government authorities repeatedly interfere with their work. Scientists who speak out against governmental policies are often prosecuted, fined, and imprisoned for the peaceful expression of their beliefs, or for conducting their work in accordance with their professional ethical standards.

The human rights of Turkey's scientists, indeed, of all Turkish citizens, will not improve until fundamental changes are made to Turkey's government. Respect for scientific and academic freedoms is not possible until Turkey's human rights problems are addressed in a meaningful way. Although the Turkish government has taken steps to improve its human rights record, they appear to be only limited measures to attain international political objectives, particularly membership in the European Union. Statements made by Turkish officials have made it clear that the standards Turkey is legally bound to uphold are subjugated to the military's objectives: the struggle to fight the PKK and Islamist activism. It appears that all vestiges of democracy may be forfeited in this struggle. Turkey's own Human Rights Minister, Hikmet Sami Turk, said that there are limits to the concessions that could be made to improve the country's human rights record when it comes to Kurdish separatism and Islamist actvism.^[1] 

Turkey's actions, introducing legislative and constitutional amendments to appease its critics on the one hand, while on the other hand justifying its actions as a necessary response to terrorist threats, may be explained by the fragility of the Turkish government itself. As was evidenced by the forced resignation of Prime Minister Necmettin Erbakan in 1997, the Turkish military plays a key role in governing the country. Having already mounted three military coups, the mere threat of another effectively assures that the military's objectives will supersede all others.

The fundamental lack of power of Turkey's elected officials limits the Turkish government's ability to institute necessary reforms to improve human rights conditions and enable democratic institutions to function effectively. The legislative and constitutional reforms necessary to bring Turkey's laws into conformity with its human rights obligations under international law will, therefore, not be meaningful unless the military's role in politics is limited. This would include the permanent lifting of the state of emergency that provides extra-judicial powers to provincial governors thereby limiting the constitutional rights of Turkish citizens living in affected areas. In addition, the village guard system, implemented to assist the Turkish military in its quest to quash the PKK, must be dismantled, as ample evidence links it to numerous human rights violations.

The amendment of laws restricting freedom of expression, including non-violent political activities, would do much to improve the human rights situation in Turkey. Prime Minister Mesut Yilmaz, like Tansu Ciller before him, has introduced a series of legislative reforms, which if passed, would have a positive effect on Turkey's human rights record.^[2]  However, these reforms rarely make it past Parliament, primarily due to the government's weakness.

Failure to pass such reforms contributed to the European Union's rejection of Turkey's application for full-membership into the EEC, dashing its long-standing political aspirations. Citing Turkey's human rights record and the conflict in the southeast of Turkey in its explanation, the EU effectively closed the door, at least for now, on one of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk's primary objectives: to Europeanize Turkey. The real cost to Turkey's citizens is much greater: leaving the country without effective human rights monitoring mechanisms, which along with the lack of judicial independence, contributes to the virtual impunity afforded to Turkish security forces.

Such impunity has contributed to the systematic use of torture in Turkish prisons, primarily during pre-trial detentions. To date, the Turkish government has only instituted cosmetic solutions to the problem, such as the anti-torture circular issued in 1997. The circular was characterized by Turkey's three main human rights organizations as insincere and only representing a "message to the EU conference." ^[3]  The prosecution of security personnel committing torture would do more to deter such abuse.

Government officials also have taken actions to prevent human rights monitoring efforts using restrictions on freedom of expression to prosecute those who speak out against government actions, closing human rights monitoring organizations, and being complicit in the extrajudicial actions taken against human rights workers. In addition, Turkish officials have hampered the work of physicians who have exposed torture by resorting to intimidation tactics and interfering with physician-patient confidentiality. Physicians providing medical services to torture survivors also have been the targets of government attacks.

Instead, the government should encourage human rights monitoring organizations to work freely throughout Turkey without fear of persecution. The government should also take steps to support public and private efforts to treat and rehabilitate torture survivors, while fully respecting physician-patient confidentiality.

^[1]  Elif Unal, Turkey Appeals to EU over Human Rights Record (Reuters World Report, 7 August 1998). Return to Text

^[2]  Neal Hicks, Delegation Has Mixed Impression. Return to Text

^[3]  Neal Hicks, Delegation Has Mixed Impression. Return to Text