Recent events in Turkey seem contradictory and a throwback to the violence of an earlier decade. It seems that the relative peace that followed the end of conflict between Kurds and the government that cost many lives may not have been lasting, as it was once hoped. It was hoped that the PKK , the propagator of most of the violence, would stay in exile in Iraq and that even the Kurds would begin to grow tired of an organization that proposed to speak for them, yet only brought more violence upon them. At the same time, the Turkish government had begun making concessions on human rights issues and Kurdish rights, to include cultural issues. Part of the motivation may have been that both sides were weary along with the realization by the Turkish government that if they were interested in fostering better international relations and a better public image, they had to change their ways, especially if they were ever to join the European Union. It was also an opportunity to move forward to a modern democracy and economy. Turkey has steadily become a major tourist destination; this influx of foreign currency stimulates the economy. During this time, however, while the Turkish government was improving Kurdish relations, they were consistently against any sort of concession that might lead to separatism.

Yet, all is not well. The PKK has broken their cease-fire and are believed to be operating out of bases in northern Iraq, much to the Turkish government?s chagrin. While most of the skirmishes and attacks have been aimed at Turkish government or military targets or have been confined mostly to Kurdish areas, a few have been in major tourist areas, lending a black eye to Turkish tourism. While the situation is nowhere near the level of violence that once permeated Turkey, the government is taking no chances in letting that situation recur and has pledged to stamp out this terrorist activity. Too much is at stake. While the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) has given the Turkish authorities more gravitas to defend their stern anti-terrorism policies, they also walk a fine line between policies that may be deemed too repressive, which would damage their human rights improvement record, and maintaining order and the needs of the state.