The Guardian: Middle East Roundup
Top News Stories from the Past 24 Hours:
Iranian woman facing death for adultery to be whipped despite Times apologising for using picture of another person
Iran has reportedly sentenced Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani – the 43-year-old Iranian woman who faces execution after being convicted of adultery – to 99 lashes in prison for "spreading corruption and indecency" after allowing an unveiled picture of herself to be published in a British newspaper.
The claim, which could not be confirmed, comes from her family and a lawyer representing Mohammadi Ashtiani, based on reports from those who have recently left the prison in Tabriz where she has been held for the last four years.
The latest charges against Mohammadi Ashtiani – if confirmed – would appear to suggest that the Iranian authorities have been stung by the international outcry her case has attracted through the campaign of her family and supporters in the media, and could be read as a warning that it is Sakineh who could suffer from the protests.
What has made the latest charges against her even more extraordinary is the fact that the unveiled photograph in question, published by the Times newspaper on 28 August, was not actually of Sakineh but of another woman, for which the paper has since apologised.
In reality, the woman pictured was Susan Hejrat, an Iranian political activist living in Sweden whose photograph had been published on a website along with an article she had written about Sakineh's case, perhaps causing the confusion. In its apology, published on Friday, the Times said that the photograph had been obtained from Mohammad Mostafaei, one of Sakineh's lawyers, who had claimed that he received the picture from her son, Sajad – which he has denied.
Instead, in an open letter today, Sajad Ghaderzadeh accused the Iranian authorities of using the mistaken picture as "an excuse to increase their harassment of our mother".
He added: "My mother has been called in to see the judge in charge of prison misdemeanours, and he has sentenced our helpless mother to 99 lashes on false charges of spreading corruption and indecency by disseminating this picture of a woman presumed to be her [Sakineh] without hijab."
Speaking to the Observer today, Sajad said: "This news reached us through some prisoners who were released from Tabriz prison recently and have informed my mother's lawyer, Houtan Kian, that she has been given a sentence of 99 lashes for the alleged unveiled photo of her published in western media.
"As far as we know, the sentence of 99 lashes has not been administered yet. Once I got the Times apology for the misidentified photo, I instantly informed the lawyer and we are going to ask for an appeal. My mother has been denied visits for the past two weeks, no one has been allowed to visit her, including her family and even her lawyer. She has also been denied access to a phone and we have been completely cut off from her."
News of the latest punishment came amid reports from the family that they had learned her case has been referred for a judicial review to Branch 9 of Iran's supreme court which has requested police documents relating to her case, some of which appear to have gone missing. The reports have also emerged amid an increasingly bitter war of words between Iran and Sakineh's most high-profile supporter, Carla Bruni, the wife of France's president, Nicolas Sarkozy, who was described as a "prostitute" in one Iranian newspaper unhappy with her intervention.
Mohammadi Ashtiani was first convicted in 2006 of having an "illicit relationship" with two men after the death of her husband and was sentenced by a court to 99 lashes. Later that year she was also convicted of adultery and sentenced to be stoned to death, even though she retracted a confession that she claims was made under duress. Iran lifted that sentence last month, but now says that she has been convicted of involvement in her husband's killing.
According to the Iranian courts, her husband, Ebrahim Qaderzadeh, 44, was found dead on his bathroom floor in Meshkinshahr, in north-west Iran. Mohammadi Ashtiani is said by Iranian officials to have confessed to having had an extramarital affair with the killer, Eisa Taheri, and to have said that she had seduced him. The judiciary has also claimed that she confessed to having planned the murder in collaboration with Taheri, claims that are vigorously denied by her family.
Last month she was presented on Iranian state television where she "confessed" to involvement in the murder of her husband in a television interview recorded in Tabriz prison, where she is being held. It was suggested at that time that the 43-year-old had been tortured for two days before the recording of the confession.
Sajad also appealed to Mohammad Mostafaei not to make any more comments either on his mother's case or on his father's death.
Since her case has captured world attention, Iranian officials have claimed she was an accomplice to the murder of her husband, although her government-appointed lawyer, Houtan Kian, has accused the government of inventing charges against her.
Sajad has said the only reason his mother is still alive is because of the international campaign for her release.
Timeline
2006 Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani lashed 99 times for "adultery" in
Iran, charges she denies
November 2008 she is sentenced to death by stoning for the same offense due to process called "judicial wisdom"
July 2010 Protests begin about her fate
July 12th Iran says the stoning sentence is not for adultery but for the murder of her husband
August in a confession on state TV - which many believe to be forced - she confesses to complicity in her husband's murder
September 3rd News emerges she has been sentenced to 99 additional lashes for allowing the dissemination of a picture purportedly of her (although of another woman) not wearing the hijab
Group to seek full inquest into 2003 death of scientist who cast doubt on government's claims over Iraq weapons
A group of doctors is making a fresh bid to force an inquest into the death of the weapons inspector David Kelly.
Legal papers are expected to be submitted to the attorney general, Dominic Grieve, by the end of next week, requesting his authorisation for the five doctors to go to the high court to seek a full inquest into the 2003 death of the scientist.
If Grieve refuses to grant the authorisation, his decision could be subject to a high court appeal.
The doctors have conducted a long-running campaign to overturn the decision of the then lord chancellor, Lord Falconer, to suspend an inquest before the Hutton inquiry into the circumstances of Kelly's death. The inquest was not resumed after Hutton's report in 2004 concluded that Kelly killed himself by cutting an artery in his wrist.
His body was found in woods near his Oxfordshire home shortly after it was revealed he had been the source of a BBC report casting doubt on the government's claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that could be fired within 45 minutes.
The latest move was prompted by an interview given last month by pathologist Nicholas Hunt, who carried out an autopsy on Kelly's body.
Hunt told the Sunday Times that he regarded the case as a "textbook" suicide and disclosed details from his postmortem report, which the Hutton inquiry ordered should be kept secret for 70 years.
He found "big clots" of blood on the inside of Kelly's jacket, contrary to reports that there had been little blood at the scene. There were about a dozen cuts on his left wrist, including shallower cuts made before the main incisions.
Kelly's heart disease was so advanced that he could have died at any moment, according to the report.
Barrister Michael Powers QC, who is acting for the group of doctors, said Hunt's comments gave weight to their argument that Hutton's inquiry did not represent a sufficient examination of the cause of Kelly's death.
Powers said: "The media has now presented evidence which we have never had before. The fact that he felt it necessary to go to the press and say these things proves to us that the inquiry was insufficient."
The doctors are awaiting a decision from the justice secretary, Kenneth Clarke, as to whether the ruling should be overturned to allow them to see the report.
They insist an inquest is needed to clear up any doubt over whether he was the victim of foul play.
Grieve has called for papers relating to Kelly's death and is considering whether he should himself order an inquest.
But Powers said: "We can't wait indefinitely for the government to make a decision. Hence the decision to lay formal papers."
EU trade commissioner accused of antisemitism after saying Jewish intransigence dooms Middle East talks in Washington
A top European official was accused of antisemitism tonight after declaring that there was little point in engaging in rational argument with Jews and suggesting that the latest Middle East peace talks were doomed because of the power of the Jewish lobby in Washington.
Karel De Gucht, the European commissioner for trade, and a former Belgian foreign minister, sparked outrage after voicing his scepticism about the prospects for the negotiations which opened in the US this week. He told a Belgian radio station that most Jews always believed they were right, and questioned the point of talking to them about the Middle East.
De Gucht, who negotiates for Europe on trade with the rest of the world, and is one of the most powerful officials in Brussels, was forced today to issue a statement declaring that the views he expressed were personal.
"Don't underestimate the opinion … of the average Jew outside Israel," he told the radio station. "There is indeed a belief – it's difficult to describe it otherwise – among most Jews that they are right. And a belief is something that's difficult to counter with rational arguments. And it's not so much whether these are religious Jews or not. Lay Jews also share the same belief that they are right. So it is not easy to have, even with moderate Jews, a rational discussion about what is actually happening in the Middle East."
Explaining why he thought the peace talks were probably doomed, he added: "Do not underestimate the Jewish lobby on Capitol Hill. That is the best organised lobby, you shouldn't underestimate the grip it has on American politics – no matter whether it's Republicans or Democrats."
Jewish leaders were incandescent. "This is part of a dangerous trend of incitement against Jews and Israel in Europe that needs to be stamped out immediately," said Moshe Kantor, the head of the European Jewish Congress. "What sort of environment allows such remarks to be made openly by a senior politician? Once again we hear outrageous antisemitism from a senior European official. The libel of Jewish power is apparently acceptable at the highest levels of the EU."
Officials in Brussels stressed the remarks did not represent EU views or policies. De Gucht was forced to issue a statement clarifying his remarks.
"I gave an interview … I gave my personal point of view," he said. "I regret that the comments that I made have been interpreted in a sense that I did not intend.
"I did not mean in any possible way to cause offence or stigmatise the Jewish community. I want to make clear that antisemitism has no place in today's world."
Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, today attacked the "doomed" Middle East peace talks and urged Palestinians to continue armed resistance to Israel. Ahmadinejad used the annual al-Quds (Jerusalem) Day rally in Tehran to scorn the Obama administration's efforts in launching the first Arab-Israeli negotiations in nearly two years.
"The people of Palestine and the people of the region will not allow them to sell even an inch of Palestinian soil to the enemy," he said.
Iran supports Hamas, the Islamist Palestinian movement that controls the Gaza Strip and opposes talks involving Mahmoud Abbas, the western-backed PLO leader who is based in the West Bank.
Iran's president urges Palestinians to continue armed resistance against Israel at al-Quds Day rally
Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, today launched an angry attack on "doomed" US-brokered Middle East peace talks and urged the Palestinians to continue armed resistance to Israel.
Ahmadinejad used the annual al-Quds (Jerusalem) Day rally in Tehran to scorn the Obama administration's efforts in launching the first Arab-Israeli negotiations in nearly two years.
"What do they want to negotiate about? Who are they representing? What are they going to talk about?" the hardline Iranian leader said of the Palestinian negotiating team in Washington.
"Who gave them the right to sell a piece of Palestinian land? The people of Palestine and the people of the region will not allow them to sell even an inch of Palestinian soil to the enemy. The negotiations are stillborn and doomed."
Iran supports Hamas, the Islamist Palestinian movement that controls the Gaza Strip and opposes talks by Mahmoud Abbas, the western-backed PLO leader who is based in the West Bank. Its armed wing claimed responsibility for killing four Israeli settlers near Hebron on Tuesday. Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other groups have vowed to carry out more attacks.
"The fate of Palestine is determined in Palestine and through the resistance of the Palestinian people, rather than in Washington, Paris and London," Ahmadinejad said in his live TV broadcast.
Iran's al-Quds Day event was founded in 1979 to mark the solidarity of the Islamic revolution with the Palestinians, and is held on the last Friday of the Muslim holy fasting month of Ramadan.
Iranian state media reported that millions of people turned out in Tehran and elsewhere for al-Quds rallies. But the regime took pre-emptive measures to silence opposition supporters who have managed to exploit previous official holidays to show their defiance. The few foreign journalists based in Iran operate under severe restrictions.
Mehdi Karroubi, one of the two reformist candidates defeated by Ahmadinejad in last summer's presidential race, was prevented from joining the Tehran rally. Karroubi's website reported that Revolutionary Guardsmen and basij militiamen had surrounded his home while supporters of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, smashed windows and beat up one of his guards.
Mir-Hossein Mousavi, leader of the defeated Green movement – who claims his victory was "stolen" by Ahmadinejad – condemned the attack. He said it proved the government's "enmity against Israel is an excuse" for attacking opposition leaders. "Karroubi and figures like him and other freedom-seekers are the real enemies of authoritarians," he said.
Iran's opposition has not managed to hold any big demonstrations in recent months. Last February, it cancelled plans for a rally on the anniversary of the 1979 revolution. Since the election, the authorities have detained thousands and tried scores on charges of fomenting unrest, with more than 80 sentenced to prison and 10 to death.
The chief of staff of the Iranian armed forces, Hassan Firouzabadi, warned meanwhile that Iran would retaliate against Israel's nuclear facility if Israel attacked its nuclear activities.
"Our developed weapons can hit any part of the Zionist regime [Israel] ... We hope not to be forced to attack their nuclear facility," Firouzabadi told the semi-official Mehr news agency.
Iran denies it intends to build nuclear weapons but is under UN sanctions to force it to stop enriching uranium.
New information released through FOI shows the risk Sir John Chilcot is taking if he relies on the Hutton report
How complacent is the Iraq inquiry chairman, Sir John Chilcot? On the second day of the inquiry's public hearings, he told a Foreign Office witness: "We have a very detailed account in the Hutton inquiry report of the construction of the dossier, almost line by line, and I don't think there is any need for this inquiry simply to rehearse that."
Except that the Hutton inquiry's very detailed account of the construction of the September 2002 WMD dossier omits two drafts produced by spin doctors. It does not mention the John Williams draft dossier released two years ago or the draft that was produced at the beginning of June 2002 by the Coalition Information Centre (CIC), authors of the really dodgy February 2003 dossier. It says absolutely nothing about the involvement of the CIC – a propaganda unit set up by Alastair Campbell to promote the UK's involvement in the "war on terror".
I published the CIC draft today on the Iraq Inquiry Digest website and put it into context in a piece for Index on Censorship. It is dated 3 June 2002 and was circulated three days later. It is the earliest draft dossier ever published.
Essentially, the significance of the draft is that it precedes and is virtually identical to the draft given to the Hutton inquiry as the starting point for the document published in September 2002. But the government didn't tell Hutton that someone had cabinet sceptic Clare Short down to sign the dossier's introduction – without asking her.
Lord Hutton tells us that during April and May 2002, people at the Foreign Office and Cabinet Office wrote various components of what would become the notorious "45 minutes" dossier. He says – because that is what government witnesses told him – that "during the spring and summer of 2002 the draft paper was regularly updated by the assessment staff". He meant the assessment staff of the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), in line with the government's claim that the dossier was produced within the intelligence community, rather than by spin doctors, as had been alleged. "By 20 June 2002 a dossier had been prepared entitled BRITISH GOVERNMENT BRIEFING PAPERS ON IRAQ."
At least Hutton managed to ignore the claims of JIC chairman John Scarlett that the date on the 20 June version was "a misleading date in real terms" as no one had thought to assemble the different components as a single dossier until the beginning of September. It isn't clear why Scarlett and Alastair Campbell have sought to convince various inquiries that nothing much happened on the dossier that summer. Was it because it was always being said at that time that "no decisions" on Iraq had been taken? Or to conceal the CIC's involvement, given that Campbell was insisting that the WMD dossier was a world away from the dodgy dossier? Perhaps it was a matter of professional pride from the spy and the spin doctor to say things that were not entirely true.
In Campbell's published diary, he describes how on 23 April 2002 he met officials including John Scarlett "to go through what we needed to do communications wise to "set the scene for Iraq, eg a WMD paper and other papers about Saddam." He added: "Scarlett a good bloke."
What worries me most about the current Iraq inquiry is that Chilcot and co will take the Hutton approach and construct a report largely from what witnesses have told them rather than what actual evidence says. It is not clear whether the inquiry has been given the CIC draft document as they will only say, with the usual complacency, that they are satisfied that they have all the papers they need. But as Carne Ross said in his devastating statement to the inquiry: "Other documents by certain officials contradicted the testimony they have given at this inquiry and yet these witnesses were not questioned about these contradictions."
When Sir Lawrence Freedman reminded Campbell at the inquiry that the efforts of various officials in Spring 2002 led "in June to a document that was entitled 'The British Government Briefing Papers on Iraq'", Campbell said he could not recall such a document and had not been involved in it. Had Freedman been in possession of the CIC draft – and been allowed to quote from it – he should surely have put it to Campbell that it is inconceivable that the CIC, which reported directly to Campbell, would have produced a draft Iraq dossier without his approval or knowledge. Had Freedman been in a position to quote from whatever instructions Campbell issued after his meeting with Scarlett, he would surely have made the link, which is in any case pretty obvious.
But then, given that "we have a very detailed account in the Hutton inquiry report of the construction of the dossier, almost line by line", it is not clear why Chilcot and co went through the motions of asking Campbell about it at all.
Once again it is the media, rather than the inquiry, putting new information into the public domain. Previously, this has happened through leaks. This time, it is through freedom of information (FOI). The point was made on Newsnight on Wednesday that FOI disclosures since previous inquiries were (at least partly) responsible for the setting up of the current Iraq inquiry. Chilcot is in danger not only of looking very foolish for failing to realise that he needs to start with a blank sheet of paper but of being left behind by new FOI disclosures, of which this one will certainly not be the last.
Renewed efforts to name the killer of policewoman Yvonne Fletcher threaten to reignite tensions with Colonel Gaddafi
Abdelbaset al-Megrahi is a household name in Britain and the US these days – even if he wasn't before being released from his Scottish jail on compassionate grounds amidst international controversy last summer. But is the only man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing about to be joined by another – as yet anonymous – Libyan suspected of murdering policewoman Yvonne Fletcher 26 years ago?
It is a story that refuses to go away. In an ITN film about Fletcher's killing outside the Libyan People's Bureau in London's St James Square in 1984, Oliver Miles, then Britain's ambassador in Tripoli, has revealed how the UK government was warned not to allow a demonstration by opponents of the regime to go ahead. It was ignored. The diplomats inside, presumably including whoever fired the fatal shots, were allowed to leave the country after a tense 10-day siege. Others were deported to Libya.
Progress has been made in recent years. Libya admitted "general responsibility" for Fletcher's death in 1999 and paid £250,000 in compensation to her family, paving the way for diplomatic relations with the UK to be restored – an early stage of Muammar Gaddafi's return from the cold. It transpired later that it had also been quietly agreed that if any Libyan was ever charged, they would stand trial in Libya, not in Britain. (Megrahi and the only other Lockerbie suspect, who was acquitted, were tried at a special Scottish court in the Hague).
Optimism has grown in the last few weeks after Scotland Yard detectives were allowed to return to Libya to pursue their inquiries for the first time in three years. Daniel Kawczynski, a Conservative MP, has now dropped his plan to use parliamentary privilege to name the suspect in order, he says, not to hamper the investigation.
Possible suspects were identified in the Guardian long ago, though there were unconfirmed rumours that some of them were executed in Libya. In 2007 a draft report by the Crown Prosecution Service named Abdel-Qader Baghdadi and Mohammed Maatouq, members of a Libyan revolutionary committee, as possible conspirators to murder. It is unclear whether one of them could be accused of the actual shooting, but it is certain that both are now senior figures in Tripoli. "It is inconceivable for Gaddafi to give them up," one Libyan exile told ITN.
To anyone who has followed the twists and turns of the Lockerbie saga – this is a familiar pattern: of flat denials, stonewalling, promises of cooperation, limited cooperation – followed by a special deal (like the early release of the terminally ill Megrahi) that reveals hard-headed realpolitik on both sides.
The late Robin Cook, who oversaw the 1999 rapprochement when he was foreign secretary, put it well: "The aim of our foreign policy must be to strengthen our security by deepening our alliances and promote our prosperity by widening our commercial links. That means that sometimes we must be willing to build a working relationship with governments even if they do not share all our values."
Relations between Britain and Libya are flourishing these days: thus the wish in London and Tripoli to put past embarrassments behind them – and the anguish when, as the anniversary of Megrahi's release approached last month, more damaging publicity is generated. US politicians are still asking difficult questions about whether the whole episode was designed to help BP or other UK businesses secure lucrative contracts.
Neither side wants to see controversy re-ignited over the Fletcher affair. "We can't leave it to cosy talks between British and Libyan officials," warns Kawczynski. But that has been the story so far.
Militant groups in Gaza Strip say they have joined forces to step up attacks against Israel as leaders meet for peace talks
Militant groups in the Gaza Strip said last night they had joined forces to step up attacks against Israel, possibly including suicide bombings.
The statement was made as Israeli and Palestinian leaders met in Washington for the first day of direct talks yesterday, and agreed that a peace deal could be achieved within a year.
George Mitchell, the White House envoy who joined the negotiations, said the two leaders decided to begin framing an agreement on all major issues – such as borders, Jerusalem, Jewish settlements and security – that will "establish the fundamental compromises necessary" to flesh out a comprehensive peace deal.
A spokesman for the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, said 13 militant groups would work together to launch "more effective attacks" against Israel. Asked if this included suicide bombings, he said: "All options are open."
Hamas has claimed responsibility for two separate shooting attacks in the West Bank this week that killed four Israeli settlers and wounded two.
Several armed gunmen held an open-air news conference in Gaza where Abu Ubaida, a spokesman for Hamas's military wing, vowed that militants would "respond to the negotiations that aim at selling out (Palestinian) land".
The 13 armed groups also include the Islamic Jihad, the Popular Resistance Committees and a splinter armed group from Abbas's Fatah movement.
"We declare that the actions of resistance have gone into a new and advanced stage of co-operation in the field at the highest levels in preparation for more effective attacks against the enemy," Ubaida said.
Hamas was responsible for dozens of suicide attacks against Israelis during a Palestinian uprising that broke out in 2000 and eased five years later.
Hamas is a rival of Abbas's Fatah group, which governs the Israeli occupied West Bank. A rift between the two rivals deepened in 2007 after Hamas took Gaza by force from Fatah. The rift with Hamas makes it more difficult for Abbas to sign a final peace deal with Israel.
Hamas said Abbas's security forces rounded up hundreds of its activists in the West Bank since the Islamist group claimed responsibility for killing the four Israeli settlers near the city of Hebron on Tuesday.
Israeli military says soldier is accused of stealing from the Mavi Marmara after it was towed to an Israeli port
An Israeli soldier has been charged with looting the lead ship in a Gaza aid flotilla attacked by Israeli naval commandos at the end of May.
The Israeli military said in a statement that the soldier was accused of stealing equipment from the Mavi Marmara after it was towed to an Israeli port. The statement, released late yesterday, said the soldier's actions "directly contradict the Israeli military's moral standards".
Nine Turkish pro-Palestinian activists were killed when commandos opened fire on the ship. Both sides say they acted in self-defence.
The raid provoked an outcry and forced Israel to ease its blockade of Gaza, aimed at weakening Gaza's Hamas rulers and preventing the shipment of weapons.
Binyamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas try to breach the wall between them, with the help of Barack Obama's delicately balanced diplomacy
As Turkey gets ready to vote on amendments, political wrangling means that the constitution will remain undemocratic at heart
On 12 September, Turks will vote on a set of constitutional amendments proposed by the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), which has been in power for eight years. Since the vote falls on the 30th anniversary of the 1980 military coup, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the prime minister, is portraying the referendum as an opportunity to reject the military regime's legacy.
Turkey's constitution has been amended repeatedly since the coup. But its anti-democratic core remains intact – and, unfortunately, the current proposals do not dramatically alter that.
Most of the previous amendments relied on agreements between governing and opposition parties, and were not put to a popular vote. This time, the AKP acted on its own and was barely able to garner from its own ranks the requisite majority for a referendum. Far from being an occasion for popular condemnation of the coup on its anniversary, the referendum is a mark of the AKP's failure to gain widespread support for its project.
With another general election due next year, civil-society groups preferred that priority be given to lowering the 10% electoral threshold for parties to enter parliament, thus broadening political participation. The new parliament would then work on constitutional reform.
That, however, was out of the question: the AKP benefited from the rules put in place for the 2002 and 2007 general elections, in both cases converting pluralities of the popular vote into large parliamentary majorities.
In 2007, the AKP government briefly seemed interested in a new constitution, having weathered threats of a military coup just before the elections. A distinguished group of academics was assigned to produce a draft. But, before any public debate could occur, the AKP decided to amend only two articles of the constitution, in order to allow female university students to wear headscarves on campus.
The amendment won parliamentary approval, but was subsequently rejected by the constitutional court. Moreover, in a case brought to the constitutional court, the AKP's support for the amendment was used as evidence that the party was violating Turkey's secular constitution. In the end, the party was found guilty and subjected to a fine. From the AKP's point of view, the constitutional court – and the judiciary in general – had replaced the military as the last bastion of Turkey's secularist establishment.
The AKP then drafted a set of constitutional amendments that would change the composition of the constitutional court and of the supreme council of judges and public prosecutors, the body that handles the nomination and promotion of judges and prosecutors. Other proposed changes were added for democratic window-dressing. Indeed, the AKP insisted on submitting the entire package to a single "yes/no" vote, despite repeated calls from civil-society groups and opposition parties to allow for votes on each amendment separately.
One new "democratic" amendment would create an ombudsman's office – long demanded by the European Union – but without a guarantee of autonomy. Likewise, an affirmative-action clause for women is little different from a provision in the current constitution. State employees would be granted the right to engage in collective bargaining, but would have no right to strike. The authority of military courts would be curtailed to some extent.
Most important among such amendments is the repeal of Provisional Article 15, which has provided immunity from prosecution to all actors of the military regime established by the 1980 coup. Whatever symbolic value this may have is overshadowed by the fact that the statute of limitations already precludes any legal action on this issue. Opposition proposals to sharpen this provision were rejected by AKP leaders.
So much for the fig leaf. The key amendments sought by the AKP would increase the number of seats on the constitutional court and the supreme council, but without changing significantly the way appointments to these bodies are made. The president – directly elected since another AKP-initiated amendment was approved by a referendum in 2007 – thus maintains the predominant role, which underscores the AKP's confidence that it will continue to control the presidency in the years ahead.
But Turkish voters care less about these amendments than about jobs, social security and the continuing loss of lives in the never-ending war with the PKK Kurdish rebels. The AKP has largely squandered the goodwill that first brought it to power on a wave of voter revulsion at the old political elite's rampant corruption. It has now created its own elite and shares the same political culture. People will base their votes in the referendum not on the substance of the amendments, but on how they feel about the AKP's eight years in power.
Nationalist rightwing and statist left-of-centre groups are campaigning against the amendments, Islamist-leaning groups support them, and Kurdish groups advocate a referendum boycott, wishing to support neither the secularist establishment nor the current government. Moreover, the socialist and the liberal left are divided over whether some progress is better than none, with opponents arguing that half-hearted changes to the constitution would preclude eventual real reform.
With the campaign dragging on for months, the referendum has thoroughly polarised Turkish politics. Win or lose, that is unlikely to change.
• Haldun Gülalp is professor of political science and director of the Centre for Global Studies at Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul
• Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2010.
