Tweet
Mideast Mirror
April 26, 2005
Between democracy and the sword in Turkey
A recent hard-hitting speech from the Turkish chief of staff may
signal the return of the military to politics, says Mohammad
Noureddine in al-Khaleej
Under the Justice and Development Party's (AKP) rule, Turkey's
Islamists have been spared much of the Turkish military's traditional
hostility towards them. But in a recent speech, the Chief of the
Turkish General Staff claimed that Turkey was not an Islamic country
and he adopted many hardline positions on regional issues, notes an
Arab commentator on Turkish affairs. This may signal a turning-point
in relations between the military and the Islamists under Recip
Tayyip Erdogan's government and a move back from the democratic path
that Turkey managed to take in recent years.
AGE-OLD QUESTION: 'Has Turkey returned to the era of military
democracy?' asks Mohammad Noureddine in the UAE daily al-Khaleej.
Is the age-old question about who governs Turkey still relevant?
These and other issues have returned to the fore in the aftermath of
the wide-ranging speech made by the Turkish army's Chief of the
Turkish General Staff General Hilmi Ozkok at the military academy in
Istanbul last Wednesday, a speech that was 45 pages long.
Ozkok dealt with all political issues: He criticised the Islamists'
attempt to take over the administration, staked out positions against
Europe and the United States, took a hard-line stance on Cyprus, the
Armenians, the Iraqi Kurds, and the Greeks, culminating with the
claim that Turkey was not an Islamic country, was not part of the
U.S. Greater Middle East project, was a secular, civilized,
democratic state.
In 'normal' democracies, anyone reading Ozkok's 'contribution' would
have easily speculated that their author was the Prime Minister,
President of the Republic or Foreign Minister. The first surprise is
the fact that he is the foremost military figure in Turkey. The
second and more important surprise, is the fact that Ozkok has said
his piece two years after the wide-scale reforms introduced by the
AKP headed by Recep Tayyip Erdogan that have opened the door to
Turkey for EU membership talks.
Perhaps one of the most noteworthy of these reformist moves had to do
with the power of the National Security Council. These powers were
redefined so as to curtail the dominant role of the military
establishment in Turkey's political life. The reforms included
appointing a civilian Secretary General for the Council, severing its
relations with official civilian institutions, especially those
directly linked to the conservatives.
More than a year ago, it seemed as if Erdogan's attempt to 'capture'
the army's role had succeeded. Ozkok himself refrained from making
sharp political statements. In fact, a central role was attributed to
him in ensuring the success of reform, since he seemed to be among
the most open, reasonable, and democratic military figures.
This in turn led to the conclusion that Erdogan was lucky to have a
military leader with such an outlook. Had there been someone other
than Ozkok as head of the armed forces, Erdogan would not have
succeeded in ensuring the adoption of his reforms.
In addition to enormous popular support, among the factors that have
allowed the AKP to stand on its feet is the cover that the Bush
administration has provided it as a model to be emulated during this
phase in which Washington is calling for reform in the Islamic world.
U.S. policy thus demands that this model remains in place.
But Washington may have noticed that a new mood has developed in
Turkish public opinion opposed to Bush's policies among about 82% of
the Turkish public. Moreover, Ankara has resisted some of
Washington's policies regarding Syria and Iran. It also earlier
resisted U.S. use of Incirlik airbase in southern Turkey .
There are those who now believe that Washington has returned to its
old policy of relying on the military establishment, if not to topple
Erdogan, then to restrain his 'dissent' from U.S. aims, at least.
The first sign was a statement from the Commander of Turkish Ground
Forces Yasar Buyukanit on the 14th of March, in which he claimed that
Ankara lacks a policy towards Iraq. This was explained as a
transgression of authority on his part, since the expression of
opinions is left to the Army Commander and his Deputy. Moreover, his
statement was an intervention in political affairs.
However, some have interpreted Buyukanit's position as an attempt to
fill the political 'vacuum' resulting from confusion in Turkish
foreign policy towards Iraq and the region as a whole, including
Syria and Lebanon.
While the issue was set aside at the time, the Chief of Staff's
abandonment of his 'silence' last Wednesday has given rise to new
fears and suspicions that time may be running out for the Justice and
Development Party. If a few words by the Commander of Ground Forces
caused such a reaction, how much worse will the situation be when we
come to consider a full speech in 45 pages by the Chief of Staff
himself!
Ozkok's speech no doubt represents an important juncture in the AKP's
march since it came to power, especially in the period during which
Turkey is trying to join the EU. It is a speech that damages this
attempt; it harms the progress of political reform, undermines the
authority of Erdogan and his comrades, and revives old sensitivities
especially since Ozkok accused the Islamists of infiltrating the
system in an attempt to change the country's secular identity.
It is a speech that recalls the warning by the former Chief of Staff
Husseyn Kivrikoglu that the war against the Islamists would be
pursued even if it were to last a thousand years.
'Turkey and Erdogan are facing a new phase, Who will win: Democracy
or the sword?' asks Noureddine in conclusion.
April 26, 2005
Between democracy and the sword in Turkey
A recent hard-hitting speech from the Turkish chief of staff may
signal the return of the military to politics, says Mohammad
Noureddine in al-Khaleej
Under the Justice and Development Party's (AKP) rule, Turkey's
Islamists have been spared much of the Turkish military's traditional
hostility towards them. But in a recent speech, the Chief of the
Turkish General Staff claimed that Turkey was not an Islamic country
and he adopted many hardline positions on regional issues, notes an
Arab commentator on Turkish affairs. This may signal a turning-point
in relations between the military and the Islamists under Recip
Tayyip Erdogan's government and a move back from the democratic path
that Turkey managed to take in recent years.
AGE-OLD QUESTION: 'Has Turkey returned to the era of military
democracy?' asks Mohammad Noureddine in the UAE daily al-Khaleej.
Is the age-old question about who governs Turkey still relevant?
These and other issues have returned to the fore in the aftermath of
the wide-ranging speech made by the Turkish army's Chief of the
Turkish General Staff General Hilmi Ozkok at the military academy in
Istanbul last Wednesday, a speech that was 45 pages long.
Ozkok dealt with all political issues: He criticised the Islamists'
attempt to take over the administration, staked out positions against
Europe and the United States, took a hard-line stance on Cyprus, the
Armenians, the Iraqi Kurds, and the Greeks, culminating with the
claim that Turkey was not an Islamic country, was not part of the
U.S. Greater Middle East project, was a secular, civilized,
democratic state.
In 'normal' democracies, anyone reading Ozkok's 'contribution' would
have easily speculated that their author was the Prime Minister,
President of the Republic or Foreign Minister. The first surprise is
the fact that he is the foremost military figure in Turkey. The
second and more important surprise, is the fact that Ozkok has said
his piece two years after the wide-scale reforms introduced by the
AKP headed by Recep Tayyip Erdogan that have opened the door to
Turkey for EU membership talks.
Perhaps one of the most noteworthy of these reformist moves had to do
with the power of the National Security Council. These powers were
redefined so as to curtail the dominant role of the military
establishment in Turkey's political life. The reforms included
appointing a civilian Secretary General for the Council, severing its
relations with official civilian institutions, especially those
directly linked to the conservatives.
More than a year ago, it seemed as if Erdogan's attempt to 'capture'
the army's role had succeeded. Ozkok himself refrained from making
sharp political statements. In fact, a central role was attributed to
him in ensuring the success of reform, since he seemed to be among
the most open, reasonable, and democratic military figures.
This in turn led to the conclusion that Erdogan was lucky to have a
military leader with such an outlook. Had there been someone other
than Ozkok as head of the armed forces, Erdogan would not have
succeeded in ensuring the adoption of his reforms.
In addition to enormous popular support, among the factors that have
allowed the AKP to stand on its feet is the cover that the Bush
administration has provided it as a model to be emulated during this
phase in which Washington is calling for reform in the Islamic world.
U.S. policy thus demands that this model remains in place.
But Washington may have noticed that a new mood has developed in
Turkish public opinion opposed to Bush's policies among about 82% of
the Turkish public. Moreover, Ankara has resisted some of
Washington's policies regarding Syria and Iran. It also earlier
resisted U.S. use of Incirlik airbase in southern Turkey .
There are those who now believe that Washington has returned to its
old policy of relying on the military establishment, if not to topple
Erdogan, then to restrain his 'dissent' from U.S. aims, at least.
The first sign was a statement from the Commander of Turkish Ground
Forces Yasar Buyukanit on the 14th of March, in which he claimed that
Ankara lacks a policy towards Iraq. This was explained as a
transgression of authority on his part, since the expression of
opinions is left to the Army Commander and his Deputy. Moreover, his
statement was an intervention in political affairs.
However, some have interpreted Buyukanit's position as an attempt to
fill the political 'vacuum' resulting from confusion in Turkish
foreign policy towards Iraq and the region as a whole, including
Syria and Lebanon.
While the issue was set aside at the time, the Chief of Staff's
abandonment of his 'silence' last Wednesday has given rise to new
fears and suspicions that time may be running out for the Justice and
Development Party. If a few words by the Commander of Ground Forces
caused such a reaction, how much worse will the situation be when we
come to consider a full speech in 45 pages by the Chief of Staff
himself!
Ozkok's speech no doubt represents an important juncture in the AKP's
march since it came to power, especially in the period during which
Turkey is trying to join the EU. It is a speech that damages this
attempt; it harms the progress of political reform, undermines the
authority of Erdogan and his comrades, and revives old sensitivities
especially since Ozkok accused the Islamists of infiltrating the
system in an attempt to change the country's secular identity.
It is a speech that recalls the warning by the former Chief of Staff
Husseyn Kivrikoglu that the war against the Islamists would be
pursued even if it were to last a thousand years.
'Turkey and Erdogan are facing a new phase, Who will win: Democracy
or the sword?' asks Noureddine in conclusion.