Voice of Revolution - Issue No.12 (April 2000)

• European Union and Turkey

The acceptance of Turkey's candidate membership status by the European Union, coupled with the new millennium hype, led to a crude ideological propaganda about " jumping in to a new epoch", "taking the Turkish step in the road to civilisation", etc.

This fierce campaign designed to hunt the "ordinary people" and to make them to put up with what is happening has expanded with its influence on the intellectuals who always consider themselves superior to the "ordinary people" .

They all approved Turkey's candidate membership to the EU; some consciously, knowing where the interests of capital lie; some fed up with the situation, believing that "there is nothing to be done about it"; and some calculating opportunistically the political benefits of joining the EU.

Some of the "leftists" abandoned their opposition to Turkey's entrance to the EU, debating around an obsolete question "which Europe?"; while those who reduced the Kurdish question to the issue of execution of Ocalan, the PKK leader, had approved this development long ago and entered a period of expectation. The Islamists, on the other hand, began to utter words "wearing turban is free in France; the EU will put an end to the repression on religion", forgetting their years of sharp opposition to the institutions such as the EU, Common Market and Customs Union in order to get vote.

Kemalist pro-state circles, nationalists, etc. were all for the EU. A firm and clear opposition to the EU was raised only by those who think with the perspective of the labour front and the working class.\par \pard\frmtxlrtb There is nothing to be surprised about this.

Turkish intellectuals have traditionally been seeking for concepts like democracy, human rights, civilisation, culture, humanity, etc. not in social movements but in the area of international relations. Their stance on the question of EU showed once again that, as part of the "globalised" world, they have broken their links with class struggle and all intellectual means related with it.

European Union is an imperialist union

The "leftist" propaganda, reflecting the EU as a result of the revolutionary history of Europe and creating the opinion that the values represented by this concept are valid even today, does not deal with the issue in terms of its economic, political and military consequences, or the burden it will put on the labour movement. It goes even further to say that it is a sign of "backwardness" to discuss this issue using the concepts like "imperialism" , "class struggle" , etc. Europe is considered to be the home of "enlightenment" , "humanist sensitivity" and the "ethical and aesthetical values" , thus spreading the illusion as if entering the EU would mean the entrance to a different world surrounded by all these concepts.

According to this propaganda, on the issue of Turkey's membership, there were fundamental differences of opinion between the conservatives and the left-liberals in Europe. And it was thanks to the latter that Turkey's candidate membership was accepted. It is for this reason that the membership criteria were attached to the standards of democracy and human rights. The opposition of the European right wing was based on "Islam" , "nationalism" and "post-modern racism" , but they kept silent to the call of the left-liberals to Turkey, for the time being, with their reservations.

Such analyses are completely idealist and are designed to create a public opinion accepting the candidate membership of Turkey as an unrejectable value; thus masking the reality. They talk about religions, cultures, leftists, conservatives, liberals, etc., with no mention to banks, monopolies, farmers, workers, the antagonism between labour and capital, imperialists, bloody inter-imperialist conflicts, or any material relations which made it possible for Turkey's candidate membership suddenly came on to the agenda. Nor is there any mention of material forces of history and material interests and relations which determine politics and ideologies. As if Turkey's candidate membership was approved as a result of a struggle between two different ideas: on the one hand, reactionaries stuck in religious conflicts, and, on the other, the progressive forces who have overcome this way of thinking. And what we need to do is just follow the path opened by these progressive people who won this struggle.

No matter how some people consider it as a "stale" slogan, with all its freshness proven by facts, it must be reaffirmed that the EU is an imperialist union.

The state of democracy and human rights in the member states of the EU which is considered as an assurance of democracy and human rights, in fact befits imperialism. The bourgeoisies of these countries, who are well aware of the fact that "globalisation" is not a reality but an objective, are working to fulfil this plan in the widest possible scope in the history of capital. Therefore, both human rights and democracy are useful to the extent that they meet the requirements of this objective. One must be really naive to believe that they are the defenders of human rights, only listening to the amply used concept of "human rights" , and overlooking their calculations for Turkey.

There is no doubt that a country cannot be described as imperialist because of anti-democratic practices, torture and human rights violations. The determining elements of imperialism are different from these: monopoly of finance capital, capital export, maximum profit, capital gaining an international character, the division of the world among imperialist powers, etc. The assertion that the world is going through "a capitalism which is no longer imperialist" has to say something about all these facts as well.

Imperialism is still the concept for understanding and describing international relations in our present world.

We can see that fundamental tendencies of European capital and of those circles putting these into practice have been the same for a century, irrespective of them being liberals or conservatives. The main character of European capital is the fact that it is monopolist and imperialist.

We know that the aggressive and provocative "divide and rule" politics in the Balkans, for example, are not designed by "obsolete" kings or feudal armies but by the poresent "civilization" . Only the regional compradors may believe that the French "socialists" or the English gentilmen are more fair and more humane than the US imperialists. And with its banks, monopolies, international consortiums, armies, secret services, etc. the EU is an imperialist institution. Therefore, the idea behind Turkey's entrance to the EU would certainly not be "to have it met with civilisation" .

A society can establish its own institutions specific to itself only through its own dynamics. Especially if these are rights and interests concerning the majority of that society they can be obtained through the forces of that majority. In the present day, democracy and human rights are needed and can be demanded and achieved almost only by the workers and working masses. In order to see this fact one must look at the country and the world from within the struggle between labour and capital. However, many intellectuals in Turkey have the idea that Turkey has exhausted or never had its dynamics; thus believing that a system which respects democracy and human rights can be achieved through the interference of the outsiders. This obviously means that they have no belief in social, intellectual, political forces, and, most importantly, the working class of the country.

Ideologies and politics depend on social material forces. There are no independent liberalism, leftism or conservatism. Considering Europe as an arena of class struggle means unity with the workers'movement in Europe and a united struggle against the European monopolies and their institutions.

What is behind Turkey's candidate membership?

The "energy corridor" is the phrase which has been in use for a long time, describing the region Turkey is a part of. The Middle East and Central Asia, with their rich oil and gas reserves, have been the centre of attention for all imperialist powers, especially the US, since the mid-1970s. Therefore, Turkey's candidate membership to the EU must be considered in this geo-strategic context.

The developments prior to this must be considered in the same context: the capture of Ocalan, the rapprochement between Israel-Syria and Turkey, and the creation of a friendly atmosphere with Greece, leaving to one side the self-declared Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.

The issue of candidate membership, an old dream of Turkey, came on to the agenda as part of a specific plan. Western imperialists, especially the US, believe, at present, that it would be beneficial for them if Turkey becomes a relatively stable country in the region, free from its internal and external problems, at least, in order for it to play its role in this "energy corridor" .

Schematically, Greece and Syria were the first remembered neighbours with which Turkey had problems up until recently. While the main problems with Syria were related to the issue of the PKK, especially Ocalan's residence in this country, Greece was on the agenda because of the Cyprus question, Aegean shores, the Turks living in the Western Thrace, etc.

As a result of an international operation (the capture of Ocalan) Syria no longer seemed the subject of the most serious problem of Turkey, the Kurdish question. Moreover, having taken part in a covert alliance with Turkey and Israel, this country was posed as a "close friend" of Turkey. In terms of the plans of the US, the leading power in the region, the solution of the problems between Israel and Syria, under the control of the US, will mean the completion of the improving relations between Israel and Turkey with an Arab participation. The rapprochement between these two countries seemed like a "co-operation against terrorism" in the beginning. With extensive military, economic and technological agreements, it was later clear that these developing relations were meaningful in the context of the "new design for the Middle East".

Other neighbours of Turkey are not considered to be important, for the time being. Iran, for example, is being kept in the list of problematic countries. Despite Turkey's immediate material interests that is also the case with Iraq. Russia, on the other hand, is considered as a country with which a controlled tension should continue. This is because the concept "energy corridor" implies to conflicts with this country. Bulgaria, on the other hand, is just a joker in this big game.

As to the concept of "internal stability" , it mainly involves imperialist solutions with regard to the Kurdish question. A limited recognition of cultural rights would, for the time being, mean the solution of this question. In this way it would be possible to engage in this plan, around the issue of Europe, one of the parties to this question, which has been one of the main elements of social opposition for a period of time.

The main target of this plan, however, is the working people of Turkey. If we leave aside its contradictions with the US, the EU, as an imperialist formation, aims to have an effective position in this "energy corridor" , also fighting for advantages for its own capital groups. This is where Turkey becomes important.\par The reason for the persistance of the US in Turkey's membership to the EU is obvious: Turkey is situated in a geo-strategically important region (Balkans, Caucasus and the Middle East). For the US, its membership to the EU would mean to get greater chances of destabilising its rivals (the EU) from within. The role of Turkey here would be the Trojan horse of the US. Obviously, the EU is aware of this fact and would try to invalidate these plans with a more active policy. In other words, the determining factor for the process of Turkey's membership to the EU and the pace of this process will be the general contradictions between the US and the EU and their struggle for hegemony in the region, rather than whether Turkey meets the "Copenhagen criteria" or not.

* * *

Obviously it is not just a technical question from which route the Central Asian oil and gas reserves will be transferred to the world market. These vital and expensive sources of energy cause some political and economic problems both in the countries they are extracted and their route countries. Therefore, in accordance with the nature of inter-imperialist relations, these problems are being solved through use of arms.

The present war which seems to be a regional war is in fact an inter-imperialist war, and it tends to expand, involving more countries in it. Since the collapse of the USSR and the formation of a weaker Russian Federation, Turkey has been trying to have a stronger influence in the Caucasus. To achieve this, it has been involved in many kinds of legal and illegal organisations, coups and conspiracies in the regional countries, mainly in Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia and Checnia.

In order to realize its ambition which is expressed in the slogan "A Strong Turkey from the Adriatic to the Chinese Wall" , Turkey has been a part of the plan designed to break the influence of Russia in the region. In fact, this is a plan drawn both by the European and US imperialisms independently from each other, a plan they are trying to put in practice, both with their own ends. Turkey, on the other hand, wants to be part of this process and to be able to walk with the two sides as long as changing balance of power allows it to do so.

Turkey took part in the plans of the imperialists in the Balkans, Sudan, Iraq, etc. through the official channels, the political and military organisations it is affiliated to; and from time to time, it tried to work for its own account, using illegal methods.

As is stated by many analysts in the bourgeois media, one can say that "one of the reasons why Turkey has become important for the West is the influence it has in the Caucasus and the Central Asia" .

This influence, which Turkey thought it could establish on the basis of religion and nationality in the beginning, was achieved at an unexpected time because of the geopolitical developments. The Muslim countries of the Caucasus and the Central Asia began to establish closer links with Turkey when it became a suitable door for them. Contrary to the supposed, this has nothing to do with having the same religion or nationality, a factor they even expressed their dislike especially in the past. However, when the developments in Russia showed that they could have a more independent stance, they began to orientate towards the game played by Turkey. For example, Aliyev, the president of Azerbaijan, now utters the slogan "a single nation with two states" , whereas he used to say, not long ago, "speaking the same language does not mean we have the same nationality" as a response to Turkey's nationalist demagogy which was designed to mask its real intentions.

Europe and the US want to use this improving relationship between Turkey and the regional countries in accordance with their own interests. Therefore, they need to take Turkey to a firmer integration process, which is why Turkey's (candidate) membership came on to the agenda.

This new status, rather than bringing developments in terms of democracy and human rights to Turkey, might as well lead to more fierce oppressions and violence, as direct attacks on the workers and working people in general in the form of privatisation, liquidation of social security system, etc. are an important component of this process.

·         Democratic centralism, responsibility and discipline

As is known, the party of the working class is formed as a centralised party. However, this centralisation of the structure of the party is not any ordinary centralisation. It co-exists with democracy, which, although, may be restricted under certain conditions, never disappears completely.

Centralism within the party gets its legitimacy from the unavoidable necessity of the workers acting as a separate class. As for democracy, its source comes from the fulfilment of the centralisation of the movement through the workers, awakening, organising and leading their organisations.

Although there may be differences in the conditions of its implementation, the worker's party, be it in the form of a narrow illegal communist party or a broad mass party, is not merely a centralist but a democratic centralist party.

* * *

Centralism means that, based on a discipline required by taking responsibilities, lower organs are subject to the higher ones (and the minority, to the majority), and the organisation as a whole (through the centralisation of information and everything else) to the central organ. So, what is the situation in our organisations in this respect? In our organisations, there certainly are not any open tendencies against centralism or any unwillingness for it. However, it cannot be denied that, in terms of centralism and discipline, degenerated understandings of the "market" of bourgeois and petty bourgeois "socialism" have a destructive influence on the understandings and relations within our organisations and circles.

As to democracy, although there are exceptions caused by responsive and habitual weaknesses, there is no lack of democracy as a result of pressure from the central organs. However, as is the case with centralism, the degenerated understandings we have mentioned before also have a destructive effect on the understanding and practice of democracy in our organisations, distorting centralism and degenerating it to a level of individualistic, irresponsible and crude "democracy". Democracy is a means for sharing information and experience, forming a common will, and strengthening the voluntary base of responsibility and discipline. However, disregard for responsibility and discipline, and impairment of centralism lead to the development of an interest in our organisation towards the degenerated form of democracy of that "market".

An individualistic irresponsibility rejecting to share, not being responsible for anything or to anybody, no recognition of any values such as complying with higher organs, etc. can never go together with a workers' organisation; there can never be such a "democracy". The degenerated understanding of "democracy" is a nonsense of marginal circles out of society; and it is considered "devine" because it "serves" to destroy democratic centralism of the working class.

Democratic centralism and a centralised structure in an organisation is the safeguard of the working class' struggle and its ability to fight. Centralism is necessary for known reasons. But it never means the denial of democracy. On the contrary, by connecting it with the interests of the movement and with the life of the party, it creates the opportunity and the grounds for a class base. Centralism may become firmer, and democracy relatively restricted, in an organisation from time to time. However, this does not have anything to do with the requirement of centralism itself, but rather with the conditions of class struggle.

The level of implementation of democracy in our organisation is obvious to anybody. Despite some remnants of various bad old habits and some individual bureaucratic attitudes, we can say that there are no tendencies to prevent democracy or any signs of these tendincies becoming a line.

Another sign of expression of prospects for democracy in our organisation is the revival of the principles of "openness", although not fully, and of "the election of all representatives". One of the reassurances of the development of democratic habits is the efforts of our leading organs to encourage the masses to take an active part in decision making and in organisational life both physically and mentally.

However, on the other hand, we cannot deny the fact that in our organisation there are obstacles and problems for democracy as well as centralism. These pose themselves in "decentralist" orientations and "democratist" actions which weaken the movement and the organisation, which deprive our work of the spirit and dynamism to embrace the masses, and which, because of its long standing effect, have created habits particular to their nature (These are also reflected in the understanding and attitude of central organs). Everybody can realise that these are the reasons which weaken democracy which can develop on the basis of responsibility and discipline.

"Decentralist" and "democratist" line cannot be and are not defended in our party. However, their reflections cannot be ignored or underestimated as they do not only weaken the work and organisation but also pose a threat since they are the "reflections" of bourgeois currents which are organised in society as "socialist" currents.

Some of these reflections are as follows: Making promises in relation to work but not fulfilling them; talking more than the work done; complaining instead of carrying out the work; not acting seriously and energetically in response to the calls of the higher organs of the party; not utilising seriously and responsibly the instruments of the organisation, especially its publications, in accordance with their functions; arbitrarily changing the agenda of the organisation and its organs; instead of trying to learn from activities, occupying the organisation with so-called criticisms; instead of concentrating on the party centre, its publications, responsible organs and on advanced workers, shifting interest towards learning from other "organisations" and participating in party life with what they have learnt from them; or instead of establishing the hegemony of party line and fulfilling its requirements, submitting to what is backward and primitive in the name of "democracy", etc. In addition to these, we see wrong doings such as carrying out "work" for the sake of "work" without thinking what it would serve; using the superiority of having done their "work" to exclude others; remaining isolated from the masses; while being indifferent and "self-centred" towards the rights of the working people and of lower organs, having a liberal and "democratist" position towards the higher organs and the necessity of centralism, etc.

Such understandings and actions and those people and organisations who have them do not obviously get their inspiration from our party, from the working class and its conscious representatives. Otherwise, their approach would be different and they would concentrate on fulfilling their responsibilities efficiently in their own area instead of "dealing with" the issues which do not concern them.

A person free from these understandings would believe from heart that the party members work at least as hard as him, and that if a member in a certain area did not do his job, the responsible organ would take the necessary measures. He does not use his activities as a base for criticising the others; on the contrary, he tries to learn from his comrades, and if there is anything to be "discussed" he raises the issues he is concerned about on the proper platform set by the responsible organs. For the revolutionary proletarian this is the most characteristic aspect of party principles and ethic.

The source of inspiration for these destructive understandings and actions is, though they seem the opposite of each other, on the one hand, the sectors of petit bourgeoisie which are ready to compromise with capital as they are more against the working class (the leadership of the Freedom and Solidarity Party, ODP); and on the other, the sectors which have disintegrated, become irresponsible to the strata they have broken away from, become like sects with the idea of "martyrdom" and serving the sect and the leader (the leadership of the Revolutionary Left, Communist Party of Turkey-ML, etc.).

Undoubtedly, "decentralist" and "democratist" understandings and actions are based on capital and emerge as an influence of liberal "socialism", the "rising trend" of the day (the influence of aristocratic and terrorist "socialism" bears mainly liberal appearances today). The role these understandings and actions play in workers' organisations is different from the role they play in those organisations from which they stem. In workers' organisations they have a destructive effect for the work and the organisation; they disorganise the movement and cause degeneration. Therefore, it is not a coincidence that from our circles where there are widespread "decentralist" and "democratist" understandings and actions emerge degenerated elements who forget that our party is the party of the working class, and that the task that result from their participation in the class is no more than assisting the workers. These are people who even attempt to "destroy" the organisation the more it approaches to the workers. "Persistence" in "decentralisation" and "toy democratism" and such attempts like "destroying" the organisation come from the same class origin.

These understandings, actions and habits may not cause any problems in terms of those currents and the sectors they stem from. However, they are alien to the working class party, and their existence means capital "sowing discord" among the workers, using the most degenerated and marginal elements of petit bourgeoisie. Destructionist understandings and actions such as freeing party members from responsibilities, pulling them into an individualist competition and provoking them against higher organs, etc. can never be allowed in the ranks of the revolutionary working class party.

"Decentralism" and "democratism" and an escape from responsibility and discipline lead to a decline to the level of irresponsibility and primitiveness of an amateur "revolutionary". They also mean the weakening of the movement and the organisation and the elimination of its capacity and ability to struggle. We must admit that they mean a "difference between words and deeds" and a shame for revolutionary communists and workers.

Tolerance for even a small sign of these things would inevitably result in degeneration of the organisation, its cadres and militants. Moreover, it would spread and have a negative effect on young generations. It is not possible for the workers to trust such organisations. This is one of the reasons why some of the workers who joined our organisations are not with us today.

Centralism and discipline, and a democracy based on these principles are the pillars of a workers' organisation, determining its combination and structure. "Decentralism" and "democratism", on the other hand, means the denial of party principles and discipline, which, as Lenin says, "is the same thing as disarming the proletariat in favour of the bourgeoisie".

Bearing all this in mind, one cannot say that we do not have any bad examples of centralism caused by inexperience or bad habits, or that we are not concerned about democracy in our organisation. This is because our party sincerely advocates the idea that democracy is the best instrument for the character building of its cadres and for an active participation of party supporters and the workers in the development and implementation of the party line. Our stance against the violation of centralism and discipline, in other words, our fight against "decentralist" and "democratist" understandings and actions is a reassurance of the existence and development of democracy in our organisation. We do not want our organisation to become a "discussion club", a "hobby", or an ordinary "organisation", but the organisation of the working class.

For this reason, our party has always advocated inner party democracy and never rejected centralism; on the contrary, it has always followed the policy of "democratic centralism" (Lenin). Whether it is a narrow illegal or an open mass party, if our party is to be a real working class party, it has to make it a practical and implemented policy, the policy of tightly embracing centralism, strengthening democracy and consolidating the structure of democratic centralism.

Whatever the conditions may be, among the revolutionary communist party members, activists and young functionaries who form the backbone of the movement; individualistic irresponsibility and undisciplined behaviour, "decentralist" and "democratist" understandings, behaviours and actions can never be allowed. The problem of our organisation is not extreme centralism or suppression of democracy, etc., but "decentralist" and "democratist" tendency and actions which destroy democracy as well as centralism and discipline.

Therefore, if our organisation is to be the real class organisation; we must especially see the importance of eliminating "decentralist" and "democratist" understandings and actions in the organisation, and of making hegemonic the principle of democratic centralism and discipline among revolutionary communist militants and the young and mature functionaries who form the backbone of the movement.

Our party can never ignore the necessity of centralisation and discipline in the organisation. This is because, this necessity is imperative and is a basic organisational principle for our organisation to develop with the ability to struggle, as well as for many other revolutionary tasks.

For example, in an organisation with liberal "democratist" individualism not recognising any discipline, "self-centred" "leftist" irresponsibility, which is another form of individualism, being effective one way or another; it is not possible at all to carry out any serious organisational work, to raise cadres responsible to the class and people, real revolutionaries with character, or specialists and professional leaders who are good at their tasks. Obviously, this kind of achievements require an environment where responsibility and discipline are dominant; where everyone fulfils their tasks according to a division of labour and co-operation; and where democracy and centralism guide organisational life.

Our party and organisation cannot achieve anything so long as "decentralist" and "democratist" understandings, habits and actions take place in its life and activities. This is because, "decentralist" "democratism" leads to organisations degenerated and isolated from the workers. But it also leads to the destruction of the dynamics of the workers and working people, being bound to spontaneity, as well as the elimination of the opportunities for revolutionary development and centralism.

The facts show that the workers' and peoples' movement is opening a new phase and taking a new direction. Despite all shortcomings, our party's position in this movement is clear, and this is an opportunity both for the movement and for our party. However, these possibilities cannot be utilised fully without taking a firm stance against these "decentralist" and "democratist" understandings and actions, and without ridding the functionaries and party militants of their influence.

The way forward for overcoming the weaknesses and shortcomings in our work, and for us to assist the workers' movement with a more advanced position is to wage a result producing fight against the "decentralist" and "democratist" liberal influence in our ranks. Our organisations have to launch this fight as an educating and purifying struggle.

If our party is to fulfil the tasks required by the coming period and to succeed in assisting the movement to advance, using its dynamics, it must overcome these understandings and renew the understanding and style of work and organisation of its functionaries on the basis of democratic centralism and discipline in work.

* * *

It is not a coincidence that we have dealt with the question of democratic centralism and discipline in this article. One of the conclusions we drawn from our analysis is that in the same way as the link between "decentralist" and "democratist" understandings and actions and the backwardness of amateurness, there is a link between democratic centralism, discipline and responsibility in the organisation and working professionally, centralising all the work and activities in the hands of a group of professionals.

Therefore, the question of renewal of the understanding of task and of the democratic centralist structure of the organisation is one of the most important questions related to the task of raising our work to the level of professionality and of reconstructing the organisation which consists, generally, of professional revolutionaries. In this new period of struggle that the workers' movement and our organisation are entering, our main task, especially the central organ, is to re-launch the fight against "decentralist" and "democratist" understandings and to establish firmly the principles of democratic centralism and discipline in the organisation.

·         EMEP held its Second General Congress

The Second Congress of the Party of Labour (EMEP), which was founded in 1996 by the most combative sections of the workers' movement in Turkey, was concluded in Ankara on the 5th of March 2000. The Congress was spread to almost a six-month period. Among the seven thousand participants of the Congress were the representatives of workers' organisations, trade unions, combative and democratic mass organisations, and progressive intellectuals.

Prior to the General Congress, district and city conferences and congresses were held, where altogether 20 thousand workers, working people, women and intellectuals discussed the developments in Turkey and in the world.

On the 3rd of March, the two-day General Conference began with the participation of 750 delegates who had elaborate discussions on the developments taken place in the country and in the world, and on the problems of the worker's movement.

The decisions taken in this Conference were later approved by the Congress which also agreed on making some additions to the Party Constitution and Programme. The amendments to the Programme highlighted the importance of the struggle against imperialism and, following Turkey's candidate membership, against the European Union. Also, the internationalist character of the Party was emphasised as a separate paragraph in the Programme. The amendment in the Constitution, on the other hand, made the necessity of undertaking responsibilities in activities one of the conditions for party membership.

The Activity Report presented to the Second General Conference dealt with the following issues:

On the international situation:

Imperialism brings reactionarism. Its ideologues claim that the world has globalised, and that in the globalised world wealth and democracy will spread. In fact, globalism means the world uniting around the big capitalist countries led by the US. According to the advocates of globalism, "nation states" and "national economies" no longer count, and it is a narrow-mindedness to defend these old values. However, the only "success" of globalism is, in fact, the unbelievably high level of monopolism as a result of the mergers of companies, and the magnitude of international speculative capital. The claims about the nation states and national economies having become less important are no more than mere ideological distortions designed to pull underdeveloped countries into a new type of colonialism.

The intensification of the plunder of the world by developed countries is increasing the internal and regional conflicts in the underdeveloped parts of the world, resulting in the emergence of new areas of crisis, and increasing the dangers in the present areas of crisis.

For instance, the question of oil and gas fields and their pipelines makes the regions of Central Asia, Caucasus and the Balkans very sensitive, sharpening internal and international conflicts in the region, and growing the gap between classes. We see the growth of problems between Checnia and Russia, between Iran and Iraq, between Iran and Azerbaijan, between Azerbaijan and Armenia, between Turkey and Armenia, and between Turkey and Russia. Even if on the surface the problems seem like the question of Nagorno-Karabakh, "the massacre of the Armenians" or the "Kurdish question", behind them are the contradictions emerging from the transport of natural resources to Western imperialists.

When these kinds of natural resources, which are being plundered by the imperialists, lessen, there will be more poverty in these regional countries, and the imperialist competition will become more fierce.

Our Party considers the struggle against globalisation as a universal one and as the most important aspect of anti-imperialist struggle.

During the conferences, the question of Turkey's candidate membership to the EU was one of the topics discussed in depth.

"Turkey's adventure to enter the EU began in late 1950s. It goes hand in hand with the imperialist interests in the region from the north-east border of Turkey to the Chinese Walls. Opposition to the EU by the working class of Turkey is a requirement both of their patriotism and of their anti-imperialism. The reason why the EU needs Turkey is because of its huge market with a population 65 million, and the role it could play for them in their competition for the control of the Middle East, Caucasus, Central Asia and the Balkans."

On the struggle for the solution of the Kurdish question on the basis of equal rights and the brotherhood of peoples:

The Kurdish question has become an international question as a result of, among other things, the developments that have taken place in the world in the last 15 years. It has also become a question involving both imperialist countries, mainly the US, and the neighbour countries of Turkey. For this reason, there is an unbreakable link between the solution of this question and the struggle against the imperialist countries fighting for hegemony in the region and against the reactionary forces in the region.

In addition to these developments, with the South-East Anatolia Development Project becoming more attractive for the imperialists, the Kurdish question has become inter-linked with the imperialist plans for the plunder of regional resources. Contrary to the claims of the Turkish state and the PKK leadership, that, with the capture of Ocalan, a period has come to an end in terms of the solution of the Kurdish question; it must be emphasised that their method of solution is, in fact, without a solution. In our opinion, the solution of this question depends on the voluntary unity of the Kurdish and Turkish workers and on the change of class structure in the region as a result of this.

Our Party believes that the struggle for the solution of the Kurdish question is one of the main tasks of Turkish workers. It deals with the question in the context of the struggle for national and social emancipation, a struggle which also comprises an anti-imperialist struggle on the one hand, and the poor Kurdish peasants' demand for land against imperialism and the land lords.

On the situation in the country:

It was emphasised that the only way out of the chaos in Turkey is the workers and working masses undertaking the destiny of the country.

"The aim of our Party is to assist and develop the workers' movement in order for them to take their future into their own hands. It has been trying to do so under the conditions where, in the last ten years, the working people have been excluded from politics, and where politics is considered to be the job of a bourgeois elite stratum. One of the main problems of the workers is their disorganisation; only the 8-9 per cent of the workers are organised in trade unions. It must also be said that, in this period, the working class of Turkey put forward more radical demands with a greater mass basis.

"However, with the exception of the period 1989-91, the workers' actions could not gain any stability in the last ten years. Instability and discontinuation in struggle has been preventing the working class and new advanced elements from coming to the fore and the advanced sections of workers from expanding. Trade union democracy has been trying to stop the actions. Having realised that the attacks of capital are conducted by a united centre, the main organisations of workers and public employees came together and set up the united platform of labour in last summer. This is a very important step. EMEP will make all the necessary efforts to have this platform organised all over Turkey."

Among the main themes emphasised in the Congress were these: factories will be the main basis of party work; a style people can identify themselves with should become dominant; persistence in an understanding that believes in the people and the workers; and that, with all this, EMEP, as a party in which the working class learns to take part in politics, will march forward in the path to socialism with more confidence, and learning from the experience of the struggle in the country and of the international socialist movement.

Hundreds of trade unionists who participated in the Second Congress, which was held in a period of privatisations and liquidation of social security institutions, pointed out the need of the Labour movement for the Party and the support the Party has given to the movement.

In the Congress a good example of international solidarity was set with the participation of many workers, trade unionists and representatives of political parties and mass organisations from Europe. Among them were the Liverpool dockers, Workers Communist Party of France (PCOF), Russian trade union confederation "Defence", Organisation of Young Socialists of Switzerland, Karlsruhe Region Chair of DGB of Germany, Communist Party of Greece, United Communist Party of Albania, Teachers Union of Cyprus, and Association for the Solidarity of Labour of Germany. Also, the President of Democratic Popular Movement Party of Ecuador, Henri Alleg of France, and many other mass organisations sent their messages to the Congress.

·         News up-date from Turkey

Newroz in Turkey

Tens of thousands of people participated in Newroz celebrations in many cities, including Istanbul, Ankara and Diyarbakir. Newroz is a Kurdish festival celebrated on 21 March. For hundreds of years, it has been a symbol of Kurdish rebellion against oppression. In the last decade, the Turkish state has been trying to change the essence of this traditional Kurdish festival into an official one.

The governerships of Istanbul and Malatya banned Newroz celebrations, claiming that such celebrations would incite "crime and separatism". Despite the ban, Newroz celebrations took place in Istanbul, with police carrying out an extensive ID control and arresting many so-called "suspicious" people. In Ankara, five thousand people joined the march and rally for Newroz, showing no interst to official celebrations.

In Diyarbakir, the biggest Kurdish city in the Southeast of Turkey, Newroz celebration was held, away from the city centre and with 50 thousands participants. In the celebrations in Urfa, another Kurdish city, many people were arrested, and police stopped the distribution of EMEP's (the Party of Labour) Newroz leaflets.

The common slogans of these celebrations were "peace now", "for the voluntary unity of peoples based on equality", "no to the EU", "for a united struggle of the Turkish and Kurdish workers", etc.

International Working Women's Day

The International Working Women's Day was celebrated with a big participation in many cities, especially in Istanbul and Ankara. In Istanbul, 10 thousand people marched, while in other cities tens of thousands of women joined rallies and press releases. In all these activites, the common chants were "long live 8 March", "long live peace", "freedom to the workers, peace to the world" and "men and women united for the struggle for jobs, bread and freedom".