Tweet
Turkish Daily News
Oct 20 2006
Aðar was not intimidated
Friday, October 20, 2006
When the DYP leader ventured outside the official stance and proposed
an alternative way to solve problems, he was criticized by all. Most
expected him to retract his statement, claiming he was the victim of
a misunderstanding. However, nothing intimidated him.
Mehmet Ali Birand
True Path Party (DYP) leader Mehmet Aðar is displaying very
interesting progress.
He is an individual who spent most of his life being a part of the
"deep state" and the state institutions that are included in it. His
name is mentioned in all books on the fight against the Kurdistan
Workers' Party (PKK). His name is synonymous with the police and
military forces.
For some time after becoming the DYP leader, he was seen in the
shadow of his own past. I don't know what happened, but in recent
times he has been transforming himself.
First he said: "When I become prime minister, military officers
will not be able to speak out." What he really meant was that he
would govern the country so perfectly that the military would have
nothing to speak about. However, it was interpreted differently.
And then came his remark on allowing all PKK members, apart from
the leaders and those involved in murder, to get involved in domestic
politics.
These comments were not things we would have expected the old Aðar
to make. The statements pointed to a fact no one else was courageous
enough to voice.
It didn't take long for reactions to come. The first harsh response
surprisingly came from Republican People's Party (CHP) leader Deniz
Baykal. However, everyone was interested in what the military would
say. We didn't have to wait too long for that, either. Chief of
General Staff Gen. Yaþar Buyukanýt made a very harsh but indirect
statement. He openly admonished Aðar.
We all expected Aðar to accuse the media of taking his statements
out of context, arguing that he was misunderstood. That was something
the old Aðar would do. Some political leaders of the past would
mistakenly make a statement that would anger the military. We all
knew how they used to backtrack on their statements after being
reprimanded by the military. We would not have been surprised if Aðar
had pleaded misunderstanding.
However, that's not what happened.
Aðar surprised most everybody by refusing to correct what he said.
He said he was misunderstood; however, he said this not to deny what
he said but to clarify his statements. He for the most part stood
behind his remarks.
Instead of trying to make Aðar sorry for what he said, we should
point out how important it is for an individual like Aðar to say that
there is a need for alternative policies. If he is acting this way
despite his knowledge of Turkey's red lines, wouldn't it be better
for us to listen rather than castigate him?
Fine-tuning of red lines:
We love drawing red lines.
We say, "These lines cannot be crossed," but we always ignore the
fact that in time, with changing realities, these lines may shift.
Then one day we face such a development that we don't know what to
do. Those who are usually blamed are "politicians who care about
nothing but votes" and those traitors in our midst. We also start
believing in conspiracy theories accusing foreign powers of being
against us. We never blame the red lines themselves.
Aðar crossed some red lines, but no one is accusing Aðar of being a
traitor. His past alone gives him enough credibility. Actually, what
Aðar is doing is fine-tuning the red lines, and what is even stranger
is the fact that the government is secretly supporting what he is
doing. If we consider what Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoðan and
Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul are saying openly and what they are
saying between the lines, we can see that the support they are giving
is substantial.
Red lines also affect the judicial system. You can see this from
the reflexes of our judges and prosecutors. Just look at their
decisions and the charges they come up with. On certain issues, like
Kurdish nationalism, PKK terrorism, Cyprus or Armenian genocide, if
you say something different from the official stance, you will be
made sorry. No matter how much you argue there is freedom of
expression, no one will listen to you.
As seen by the public, there are some efforts to change the guilty
verdict given to the two soldiers in the Þemdinli trial. Some are
trying to fine-tune the red line drawn in Þemdinli.
No one can decide on anything. No one is issuing a directive
ordering this. There are only some prosecutors who believe they need
to act after hearing certain statements.
State can file a complaint but...:
In my article on Wednesday there was a section on how states cannot
file a complaint against another state. Former Justice Minister
Hikmet Sami Turk called me to make a correction. I looked at the
article again and realized that he was right. I failed to explain
myself properly. According to Article 33 of the European Convention
on Human Rights, states can file complaints against one another.
That's where my mistake begun. I failed to note how hard it is for
Turkey to file a complaint against France.
I would like to apologize to my readers.
This is what I should have said: A state can file a complaint
against another state because of a law, arguing that there is a
violation of the convention. However, that state also needs to
understand the political cost of its action.
For example, if the bill criminalizing denial of the Armenian
genocide becomes law in France, Turkey can file a complaint against
France at the European Court of Human Rights. However, Turkey also
needs to assess the process that will follow. Filing a complaint is
nothing like a boycott, leaving French firms out of state tenders or
breaking off political dialogue. It involves a huge political clash
with no apparent end in sight.
Some may say "Isn't that exactly what we want? Shouldn't we
initiate a huge political clash with France in exchange for them
hitting us where it hurts the most?"
In terms of public sentiment, that argument might make sense.
We can truly hurt France politically. However, we also must
consider one fact: This process will result in placing France and
Armenia on the same block in the genocide argument and may take the
matter to a whole different level. In other words, the matter may
grow into something we may not like.
This is why states usually prefer not to file complaints against
each other. The clashes last too long and cause irreparable wounds.
States have to act more pragmatically.
This is, of course, a matter of choice, and signs coming from
Ankara imply filing a complaint may be among the actions it is
considering.
--Boundary_(ID_IViO9L6WD6NeaXDGY0 Znfw)--
Oct 20 2006
Aðar was not intimidated
Friday, October 20, 2006
When the DYP leader ventured outside the official stance and proposed
an alternative way to solve problems, he was criticized by all. Most
expected him to retract his statement, claiming he was the victim of
a misunderstanding. However, nothing intimidated him.
Mehmet Ali Birand
True Path Party (DYP) leader Mehmet Aðar is displaying very
interesting progress.
He is an individual who spent most of his life being a part of the
"deep state" and the state institutions that are included in it. His
name is mentioned in all books on the fight against the Kurdistan
Workers' Party (PKK). His name is synonymous with the police and
military forces.
For some time after becoming the DYP leader, he was seen in the
shadow of his own past. I don't know what happened, but in recent
times he has been transforming himself.
First he said: "When I become prime minister, military officers
will not be able to speak out." What he really meant was that he
would govern the country so perfectly that the military would have
nothing to speak about. However, it was interpreted differently.
And then came his remark on allowing all PKK members, apart from
the leaders and those involved in murder, to get involved in domestic
politics.
These comments were not things we would have expected the old Aðar
to make. The statements pointed to a fact no one else was courageous
enough to voice.
It didn't take long for reactions to come. The first harsh response
surprisingly came from Republican People's Party (CHP) leader Deniz
Baykal. However, everyone was interested in what the military would
say. We didn't have to wait too long for that, either. Chief of
General Staff Gen. Yaþar Buyukanýt made a very harsh but indirect
statement. He openly admonished Aðar.
We all expected Aðar to accuse the media of taking his statements
out of context, arguing that he was misunderstood. That was something
the old Aðar would do. Some political leaders of the past would
mistakenly make a statement that would anger the military. We all
knew how they used to backtrack on their statements after being
reprimanded by the military. We would not have been surprised if Aðar
had pleaded misunderstanding.
However, that's not what happened.
Aðar surprised most everybody by refusing to correct what he said.
He said he was misunderstood; however, he said this not to deny what
he said but to clarify his statements. He for the most part stood
behind his remarks.
Instead of trying to make Aðar sorry for what he said, we should
point out how important it is for an individual like Aðar to say that
there is a need for alternative policies. If he is acting this way
despite his knowledge of Turkey's red lines, wouldn't it be better
for us to listen rather than castigate him?
Fine-tuning of red lines:
We love drawing red lines.
We say, "These lines cannot be crossed," but we always ignore the
fact that in time, with changing realities, these lines may shift.
Then one day we face such a development that we don't know what to
do. Those who are usually blamed are "politicians who care about
nothing but votes" and those traitors in our midst. We also start
believing in conspiracy theories accusing foreign powers of being
against us. We never blame the red lines themselves.
Aðar crossed some red lines, but no one is accusing Aðar of being a
traitor. His past alone gives him enough credibility. Actually, what
Aðar is doing is fine-tuning the red lines, and what is even stranger
is the fact that the government is secretly supporting what he is
doing. If we consider what Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoðan and
Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul are saying openly and what they are
saying between the lines, we can see that the support they are giving
is substantial.
Red lines also affect the judicial system. You can see this from
the reflexes of our judges and prosecutors. Just look at their
decisions and the charges they come up with. On certain issues, like
Kurdish nationalism, PKK terrorism, Cyprus or Armenian genocide, if
you say something different from the official stance, you will be
made sorry. No matter how much you argue there is freedom of
expression, no one will listen to you.
As seen by the public, there are some efforts to change the guilty
verdict given to the two soldiers in the Þemdinli trial. Some are
trying to fine-tune the red line drawn in Þemdinli.
No one can decide on anything. No one is issuing a directive
ordering this. There are only some prosecutors who believe they need
to act after hearing certain statements.
State can file a complaint but...:
In my article on Wednesday there was a section on how states cannot
file a complaint against another state. Former Justice Minister
Hikmet Sami Turk called me to make a correction. I looked at the
article again and realized that he was right. I failed to explain
myself properly. According to Article 33 of the European Convention
on Human Rights, states can file complaints against one another.
That's where my mistake begun. I failed to note how hard it is for
Turkey to file a complaint against France.
I would like to apologize to my readers.
This is what I should have said: A state can file a complaint
against another state because of a law, arguing that there is a
violation of the convention. However, that state also needs to
understand the political cost of its action.
For example, if the bill criminalizing denial of the Armenian
genocide becomes law in France, Turkey can file a complaint against
France at the European Court of Human Rights. However, Turkey also
needs to assess the process that will follow. Filing a complaint is
nothing like a boycott, leaving French firms out of state tenders or
breaking off political dialogue. It involves a huge political clash
with no apparent end in sight.
Some may say "Isn't that exactly what we want? Shouldn't we
initiate a huge political clash with France in exchange for them
hitting us where it hurts the most?"
In terms of public sentiment, that argument might make sense.
We can truly hurt France politically. However, we also must
consider one fact: This process will result in placing France and
Armenia on the same block in the genocide argument and may take the
matter to a whole different level. In other words, the matter may
grow into something we may not like.
This is why states usually prefer not to file complaints against
each other. The clashes last too long and cause irreparable wounds.
States have to act more pragmatically.
This is, of course, a matter of choice, and signs coming from
Ankara imply filing a complaint may be among the actions it is
considering.
--Boundary_(ID_IViO9L6WD6NeaXDGY0 Znfw)--