The difficult struggle of the conscientious objection movement
The difficult struggle of the conscientious objection movement
On 15 May, The World Conscientious Objectors Day, the mothers of real war victims who gave their lives as soldiers, guerrillas and children who stepped onto the land mines and blown to pieces are brought together by the Vicdani Ret Hareketi (Conscientious Objection Movement). It was the first time such a meeting was organized in which the terrible consequences of war was exposed to people. Probably, it was the most important activity of the Conscientious Objections Movement which, until recently, was based, especially, in Europe. One of the most prominent members of the VRH, Ercan Aktas, talked about why they could not succeed to explain and expose the realities of the dirty war to the wider public. In his self-critical speech, he also mentioned how, compulsory military service manages to influence the young minds from the childhood and help create a militarist society.
Q : When has the Conscientious Objection Movement started to operate In Turkey ?
A :It started after Tayfun Gonul and Vedat Sincer had written an article in the periodic magazine “Sokak” in 1989. Later on, in 90s, Anti - War association was established in Izmir. The association’s influence expanded and reached to the other parts of the country. In 1994 it also started to work in Istanbul. The number of members is growing gradually since then, but I can say that beginning of the movement was in 1989
Q : Is the Conscientious Objector Movement in Turkey different than the Europe or was it established by following the footprints of the western movement?
A : The Conscientious Objection Movement which was established long ago, has got strong and serious roots in Europe and in the beginning it influenced the movement in Turkey. Until the mid 90s the arguements and discussions remained very limited and continued among a small number of people. But after second half of 90s, and especially beginning of 2000s it started following a different path which was revised and more suitable for the situation in Turkey. Although the activities of the movement are somehow different now, but in the begining European movement made a big influence.
Q :Did the Turkish army’s dirty war have an impact on the development of the movement?
A : The dirty war affected it of course but it was not realized in the beginning. Because the whole process went so slowly and the war came to a near halt after some time, then it was understood how big the damage was. Conscientious objection and anti – war movement, in the beginning, did not take the dirty war into account so much. So the whole movement took a different route. The war continued, conflicts and fighting carried on, but the movement could not face the reality of the country then, because, it was under the influence of the European movement. After the national tourism festival of 2004, all these things become more obvious. There had been the trial of Osman Murat and the news of the process of that trial and the arguments about it, had been written in newspapers. So the case was heard. Though, it made a relative impact then. The progress of the movement after that trial was much more important. Later on, in 2007, “Facing the war” campaign was run for six months. During the campaign, the arguments got livelier and the reality of war was recognised. But later on, it slowed down and became silent. We have not fully recovered yet.
Q :What is the reason for that? What do you put down it to?
A : After 2007, during the conflict, anti-war association and conscientious objection movement could not get together and discuss the important matters. There was a period of inactivity which lasted until last year. Developments of the anti-war and C.O movements were still under the influence of European movement and did not get much affected by the ongoing conflicts and war in Turkey. So we were unable to improve suitable politics for the situation. In fact, the movement, vaguely, compromised with the state. State’s message was clear that it could accept the right of the conscientious objection as long as it is not a political issue. “Do not make it political and do not make it a propaganda material” the establishment said. And the movement, somehow unconsciously, agreed with it. Today, although we could not manage to bring unity and firmness to the movement, but we are more conscious and have more voice in anti war propaganda. Of course, for the activities we organized, the state took us to law courts, for the article 318, which is about propaganda against the military service in order to oppress us and limit our movements. But there is no turning back now.
Q : When you look back, how do you see the early days of the movement?
A : Before, there was a limited area in which we could operate and we expressed ourselves within those limits. But being confined to a limited area of movement could also meant that the reality of the situation in Turkey was not understood properly. There was a completely different reality in Turkey, but we could not see and analize it correctly. We only acted and started campaigning when some people, Mehmet Taran or Halis Han for example, were in prison and solidarity was given to them in order to get them released from the prison as well as to bring the points of conscientious objection to public attention and argument. But after our friends were released from the prison, we stopped campaigning and our activities. So there was no consistency. It meant that our connections to reality was loose. The conflict was going on, people were killed especially towards the end of 2009 it was so obvious. In Ordu, Edirne ,Izmir there were serious lynch cases. Even in parliament, in crown courts, in universities, people were lynched but among ourselves we could not read the situation. So we did not know what to say.
A NEW ERA AFTER THE SELF CRITICISM
Q : After all these self criticism, has the movement managed to improve better?
A : Within the anti – war association, in 2009, a different argument emerged. We called ourselves anti-war movement activists, we told people that we objected the war and we were against every forms of militarism. While we tried to express our views, we realized that we could not read the reality correctly. Especially in the wake of lynches, some of our friends in the movement criticized the activities. They said ” parliament, MGK (national security council – head of the army), people on the streets, anti-war alliances all speak their minds and Kurdish people who are subject to this oppression are trying to resist and we are doing anything about it”. We realized that after all these arguments, we did not reach any agreement. Simultaneously, Socialist democratic youth federation have also started to discuss the issue of conscientious objection. So far, in general, Turkish left groups did not support the idea. They thought that it was a pacifist movement, in fact they thought it was a way of avoiding the struggle. For the first time, a different approach was taken within the left wing groups. We were happy of course.
Some of the friends in SDGF suggested that we should have got together and a different name was proposed : “conscientious objection for peace”. And we held meetings under that name. During this process, other leftist groups, anarchists, even some Islamist activist groups were interested and supported the idea. And the attendance of the meetings grew. In 24 December 2009, we held the conscientious objection conference in Bosphorous University. Afterward, it became a platform for wider discussions. We decided that we would start different activities and 15 May 2010 would be the date for summit. In this process, we are going to try to improve or arguments against militarism and war which ruins us. We would expose the reality of war. As Human resources are the most powerful dynamics of a war, we could not allow it without a shout.
Meanwhile, the number of the dubious deaths of the soldiers had risen. We knew that outside, some people fought against this oppression and lost their lives but inside the army the rising death tolls was something new. The research on the soldiers who took part in the gun battles showed that the most common feature of them was the fact that they all come from poor families. And the majority was Kurdish. Lately, In Antep. A young soldier who had some socialist ideas was said to have committed suicide. But after the post mortem examinations, it was understood that the bullet which killed him was shot from his back.
We tried to bring those deaths to public attention. In a militarist society which has been designed and engineered by the armed forces, I think it is really important that the conscientious objection movement must grow and expand to wider society.
Q : While there are a big number of people who have chosen the professional army career. do you think that, it is a conscious and deliberate decision to force the compulsory military service upon the rest of the society?
A : Since the day the Turkish Republic was founded, this method was established by the armed forces and this prototype was forced to every generation so far. The process of creating this prototype starts within the family. Boys are given toy handguns and rifles. In schools militarist education is thought systematically. In the mornings, before entering the classrooms, children are asked to stand up in a soldier-like fashion and to sing military marches. In higher classes national security lessons are thought. The aim of all of these methods is to create a prototype society which, the ruling class can approve. In the end of this process, boys, who reach the age of 20 are sent to military services by a cheering and singing crowd. Every body, since the childhood, is educated and prepared for a militarist and male dominant society. Before entering the military base, in which the soldiers are trained during the military service, are asked to leave their heart and the mind and the conscience outside the gates. The sad thing is that it is not only the army who asks this things, but it is also our families, and friends. The whole society wants it, as we were all educated this way.
Everybody must have heard of the stories of the men who finished their military service. The stories are about how insults, humiliations and violence were forced upon them and accepted without showing any sign of disobedience. But unfortunately, as you could easily recognize, these stories are told with pride and honour. This is to bring the humanity to its lowest level. It is about to humiliate and oppress a human being beyond imagination. If you had asked someone, why he had had to accept such nonsense, he would have replied that because it was a national duty, the debt he owed to his country. In fact, we do not have this kind of debt, we do not owe such a service to our country. But we can not question about this matter and make any remarks. Why can’t we ask? The answer is simple : we don’t have such a right. That is why saying no to military service requires determination and courage.
Q : What is the real problem, in your opinion? Is it the existence of such an army or is it the fact that the military institution’s intervention in politics outside its function and duty?
A : Every state organizes itself through organizing the army. It does so, in order to enable the ruling class to control the people. To oppress and control the different sections of the society, to control the markets and the necessary goods, ruling class needs an army. So the army is organized according to the needs of the ruling class and never for people like us. Keeping a strong army means a militarist culture. It is continuously monopolized and oppresses the people. It means that any section of the society who are pro better conditions for the work force and freedom are controlled and oppressed by the army. In that sense we need to think of a world without an army. It might look utopic but the real peace can take place in a world only when there is no army. Our request for peace at the moment is an empty rhetoric since we have such an army which has to create its own enemy.
In 1915 It was against the Armenians, in1920-1930s the army was used to suppress the Kurdish revolts. Later on against the shi’ate muslims in Turkey, then socialists, now against Kurds again the army is doing its functions. When there is an army, there will always be an enemy. In order to survive an army always has to find or create an enemy. That is why it is almost impossible to bring peace to the world while there are too many armies around.
In Turkey, problems, interests, conflicts, should be solved by people. The whole society has to discuss those issues and find solutions. Only then, people comes face to face with its own history. The problems in this society has become gangrenous. This is a society who can not look into its own history. It is a society kept in constant fear. We need a change. In order to make a change, we need to lift and scrap the army’s oppressive influence. Only then, all these different ethnic groups, religious beliefs and different sections of the society come together and discuss the problems. Then, they can organize their lives without forceful intervention.
Q : When has the Conscientious Objection Movement started to operate In Turkey ?
A :It started after Tayfun Gonul and Vedat Sincer had written an article in the periodic magazine “Sokak” in 1989. Later on, in 90s, Anti - War association was established in Izmir. The association’s influence expanded and reached to the other parts of the country. In 1994 it also started to work in Istanbul. The number of members is growing gradually since then, but I can say that beginning of the movement was in 1989
Q : Is the Conscientious Objector Movement in Turkey different than the Europe or was it established by following the footprints of the western movement?
A : The Conscientious Objection Movement which was established long ago, has got strong and serious roots in Europe and in the beginning it influenced the movement in Turkey. Until the mid 90s the arguements and discussions remained very limited and continued among a small number of people. But after second half of 90s, and especially beginning of 2000s it started following a different path which was revised and more suitable for the situation in Turkey. Although the activities of the movement are somehow different now, but in the begining European movement made a big influence.
Q :Did the Turkish army’s dirty war have an impact on the development of the movement?
A : The dirty war affected it of course but it was not realized in the beginning. Because the whole process went so slowly and the war came to a near halt after some time, then it was understood how big the damage was. Conscientious objection and anti – war movement, in the beginning, did not take the dirty war into account so much. So the whole movement took a different route. The war continued, conflicts and fighting carried on, but the movement could not face the reality of the country then, because, it was under the influence of the European movement. After the national tourism festival of 2004, all these things become more obvious. There had been the trial of Osman Murat and the news of the process of that trial and the arguments about it, had been written in newspapers. So the case was heard. Though, it made a relative impact then. The progress of the movement after that trial was much more important. Later on, in 2007, “Facing the war” campaign was run for six months. During the campaign, the arguments got livelier and the reality of war was recognised. But later on, it slowed down and became silent. We have not fully recovered yet.
Q :What is the reason for that? What do you put down it to?
A : After 2007, during the conflict, anti-war association and conscientious objection movement could not get together and discuss the important matters. There was a period of inactivity which lasted until last year. Developments of the anti-war and C.O movements were still under the influence of European movement and did not get much affected by the ongoing conflicts and war in Turkey. So we were unable to improve suitable politics for the situation. In fact, the movement, vaguely, compromised with the state. State’s message was clear that it could accept the right of the conscientious objection as long as it is not a political issue. “Do not make it political and do not make it a propaganda material” the establishment said. And the movement, somehow unconsciously, agreed with it. Today, although we could not manage to bring unity and firmness to the movement, but we are more conscious and have more voice in anti war propaganda. Of course, for the activities we organized, the state took us to law courts, for the article 318, which is about propaganda against the military service in order to oppress us and limit our movements. But there is no turning back now.
Q : When you look back, how do you see the early days of the movement?
A : Before, there was a limited area in which we could operate and we expressed ourselves within those limits. But being confined to a limited area of movement could also meant that the reality of the situation in Turkey was not understood properly. There was a completely different reality in Turkey, but we could not see and analize it correctly. We only acted and started campaigning when some people, Mehmet Taran or Halis Han for example, were in prison and solidarity was given to them in order to get them released from the prison as well as to bring the points of conscientious objection to public attention and argument. But after our friends were released from the prison, we stopped campaigning and our activities. So there was no consistency. It meant that our connections to reality was loose. The conflict was going on, people were killed especially towards the end of 2009 it was so obvious. In Ordu, Edirne ,Izmir there were serious lynch cases. Even in parliament, in crown courts, in universities, people were lynched but among ourselves we could not read the situation. So we did not know what to say.
A NEW ERA AFTER THE SELF CRITICISM
Q : After all these self criticism, has the movement managed to improve better?
A : Within the anti – war association, in 2009, a different argument emerged. We called ourselves anti-war movement activists, we told people that we objected the war and we were against every forms of militarism. While we tried to express our views, we realized that we could not read the reality correctly. Especially in the wake of lynches, some of our friends in the movement criticized the activities. They said ” parliament, MGK (national security council – head of the army), people on the streets, anti-war alliances all speak their minds and Kurdish people who are subject to this oppression are trying to resist and we are doing anything about it”. We realized that after all these arguments, we did not reach any agreement. Simultaneously, Socialist democratic youth federation have also started to discuss the issue of conscientious objection. So far, in general, Turkish left groups did not support the idea. They thought that it was a pacifist movement, in fact they thought it was a way of avoiding the struggle. For the first time, a different approach was taken within the left wing groups. We were happy of course.
Some of the friends in SDGF suggested that we should have got together and a different name was proposed : “conscientious objection for peace”. And we held meetings under that name. During this process, other leftist groups, anarchists, even some Islamist activist groups were interested and supported the idea. And the attendance of the meetings grew. In 24 December 2009, we held the conscientious objection conference in Bosphorous University. Afterward, it became a platform for wider discussions. We decided that we would start different activities and 15 May 2010 would be the date for summit. In this process, we are going to try to improve or arguments against militarism and war which ruins us. We would expose the reality of war. As Human resources are the most powerful dynamics of a war, we could not allow it without a shout.
Meanwhile, the number of the dubious deaths of the soldiers had risen. We knew that outside, some people fought against this oppression and lost their lives but inside the army the rising death tolls was something new. The research on the soldiers who took part in the gun battles showed that the most common feature of them was the fact that they all come from poor families. And the majority was Kurdish. Lately, In Antep. A young soldier who had some socialist ideas was said to have committed suicide. But after the post mortem examinations, it was understood that the bullet which killed him was shot from his back.
We tried to bring those deaths to public attention. In a militarist society which has been designed and engineered by the armed forces, I think it is really important that the conscientious objection movement must grow and expand to wider society.
Q : While there are a big number of people who have chosen the professional army career. do you think that, it is a conscious and deliberate decision to force the compulsory military service upon the rest of the society?
A : Since the day the Turkish Republic was founded, this method was established by the armed forces and this prototype was forced to every generation so far. The process of creating this prototype starts within the family. Boys are given toy handguns and rifles. In schools militarist education is thought systematically. In the mornings, before entering the classrooms, children are asked to stand up in a soldier-like fashion and to sing military marches. In higher classes national security lessons are thought. The aim of all of these methods is to create a prototype society which, the ruling class can approve. In the end of this process, boys, who reach the age of 20 are sent to military services by a cheering and singing crowd. Every body, since the childhood, is educated and prepared for a militarist and male dominant society. Before entering the military base, in which the soldiers are trained during the military service, are asked to leave their heart and the mind and the conscience outside the gates. The sad thing is that it is not only the army who asks this things, but it is also our families, and friends. The whole society wants it, as we were all educated this way.
Everybody must have heard of the stories of the men who finished their military service. The stories are about how insults, humiliations and violence were forced upon them and accepted without showing any sign of disobedience. But unfortunately, as you could easily recognize, these stories are told with pride and honour. This is to bring the humanity to its lowest level. It is about to humiliate and oppress a human being beyond imagination. If you had asked someone, why he had had to accept such nonsense, he would have replied that because it was a national duty, the debt he owed to his country. In fact, we do not have this kind of debt, we do not owe such a service to our country. But we can not question about this matter and make any remarks. Why can’t we ask? The answer is simple : we don’t have such a right. That is why saying no to military service requires determination and courage.
Q : What is the real problem, in your opinion? Is it the existence of such an army or is it the fact that the military institution’s intervention in politics outside its function and duty?
A : Every state organizes itself through organizing the army. It does so, in order to enable the ruling class to control the people. To oppress and control the different sections of the society, to control the markets and the necessary goods, ruling class needs an army. So the army is organized according to the needs of the ruling class and never for people like us. Keeping a strong army means a militarist culture. It is continuously monopolized and oppresses the people. It means that any section of the society who are pro better conditions for the work force and freedom are controlled and oppressed by the army. In that sense we need to think of a world without an army. It might look utopic but the real peace can take place in a world only when there is no army. Our request for peace at the moment is an empty rhetoric since we have such an army which has to create its own enemy.
In 1915 It was against the Armenians, in1920-1930s the army was used to suppress the Kurdish revolts. Later on against the shi’ate muslims in Turkey, then socialists, now against Kurds again the army is doing its functions. When there is an army, there will always be an enemy. In order to survive an army always has to find or create an enemy. That is why it is almost impossible to bring peace to the world while there are too many armies around.
In Turkey, problems, interests, conflicts, should be solved by people. The whole society has to discuss those issues and find solutions. Only then, people comes face to face with its own history. The problems in this society has become gangrenous. This is a society who can not look into its own history. It is a society kept in constant fear. We need a change. In order to make a change, we need to lift and scrap the army’s oppressive influence. Only then, all these different ethnic groups, religious beliefs and different sections of the society come together and discuss the problems. Then, they can organize their lives without forceful intervention.
