19.04.2007
Officially speaking, yes; the military leadership has declared many times that Turkey’s EU membership was a strategic target for Turkey and as such they support accession. Yet, the mindset of the higher command as revealed through their public speeches throws significant doubt on the “official stance.” The latest example of this can be seen in what the chief of general staff said in a press conference last week.
To hold a “press conference” to express the military’s view on political issues is obviously not a democratic practice. So the military’s conduct of its public affairs does not help Turkey’s EU endeavor but underlines the fact that the form of civil-military relations in Turkey is not compatible with EU standards. Beyond this, the views expressed in press conferences or other speeches constitute more substantial obstacles for Turkey-EU relations. In the latest press conference, Gen. Büyükanıt talked about how Kemalism was not properly taught at universities, what qualities the president to be elected should have and who is behind Massoud Barzani. Not only domestic politics but also foreign policy issues were comfortably commented upon. The US, Turkey’s ally in NATO for more than 50 years, was behind Barzani’s claims over Diyarbakır and the EU was plotting against Turkish territorial integrity, according to Gen. Büyükanıt. A sense of insecurity and distrust with allies and friends in the West is also displayed by the frequently repeated discourse that throughout its entire republican history the Turkish state has never before encountered such a threat as the one it is facing today.
Under the influence of this mindset that views almost every actor in international relations as an adversary plotting against the very existence of the Turkish state, it is extremely hard to expect to understand the logic of cooperation that marks European integration. An exaggerated notion of threat obscures a proper understanding of the contemporary dynamics of international relations as well as Turkey’s bilateral and multilateral relations with the outside world.
Remember Gen. Büyükanıt’s speech at the War Academies in October 2006 in which a TESEV report on “security sector reform” and the European Commission’s Ankara representative were strongly criticized. Commenting on the TESEV report, Gen. Büyükanıt pointed to activities that aim to weaken the military “under the façade of the EU.” This discourse of “façade” is often used by state elites who are disturbed by the content, process, and outcome of either the EU process or democratization. President Sezer just the other day said that democracy was a façade manipulated by anti-regime forces.
In this attitude, we see frustration from the plurality of views and social forces brought about by the EU process and democratization. They are rightly and hopelessly aware of the fact that due to these two dynamics, social and political actors and processes have left the control of the state and state ideology, Kemalism. The Turkish military, the stronghold of Kemalism, is naturally aware that the EU process, coupled with the democratization of politics and the liberalization of the economy, is eroding Kemalism as a state ideology. How then can we expect the military to support this process which also stands poised to eliminate their power within the system wholeheartedly?
In his October speech responding to the comments of the Ankara representative of the European Commission on religious education, cultural rights and universities, Gen. Büyükanıt asks why the EU is disturbed by the social influence of the military in Turkey. Gen. Büyükanıt hints that he knows the answer by raising another question: “Is it because the military upsets the secret agenda of those who make these comments?” It seems clear that in his October speech Gen. Büyükanit accused the EU or at least the EU representative of having a “secret agenda” on Turkey.
Gen. Büyükanıt’s speech last week reveals at least one element of the EU’s “secret agenda,” which is “creating minorities in Turkey.” Believing that creating minorities is part of the EU acquis, Gen. Büyükanıt was certain: “This (adapting the EU acquis) will divide Turkey into pieces.” How can we expect the military to support a project and process (the EU) that is thought with certainty to divide the country? Regardless, whether the military is in favor of the EU or not is rather irrelevant since it is the political authority that makes the decisions and conducts the negotiations. The best we can ask from the military is what Diogenes wanted from Alexander the Great: “Stand out of my sunlight.”
Officially speaking, yes; the military leadership has declared many times that Turkey’s EU membership was a strategic target for Turkey and as such they support accession. Yet, the mindset of the higher command as revealed through their public speeches throws significant doubt on the “official stance.” The latest example of this can be seen in what the chief of general staff said in a press conference last week.
To hold a “press conference” to express the military’s view on political issues is obviously not a democratic practice. So the military’s conduct of its public affairs does not help Turkey’s EU endeavor but underlines the fact that the form of civil-military relations in Turkey is not compatible with EU standards. Beyond this, the views expressed in press conferences or other speeches constitute more substantial obstacles for Turkey-EU relations. In the latest press conference, Gen. Büyükanıt talked about how Kemalism was not properly taught at universities, what qualities the president to be elected should have and who is behind Massoud Barzani. Not only domestic politics but also foreign policy issues were comfortably commented upon. The US, Turkey’s ally in NATO for more than 50 years, was behind Barzani’s claims over Diyarbakır and the EU was plotting against Turkish territorial integrity, according to Gen. Büyükanıt. A sense of insecurity and distrust with allies and friends in the West is also displayed by the frequently repeated discourse that throughout its entire republican history the Turkish state has never before encountered such a threat as the one it is facing today.
Under the influence of this mindset that views almost every actor in international relations as an adversary plotting against the very existence of the Turkish state, it is extremely hard to expect to understand the logic of cooperation that marks European integration. An exaggerated notion of threat obscures a proper understanding of the contemporary dynamics of international relations as well as Turkey’s bilateral and multilateral relations with the outside world.
Remember Gen. Büyükanıt’s speech at the War Academies in October 2006 in which a TESEV report on “security sector reform” and the European Commission’s Ankara representative were strongly criticized. Commenting on the TESEV report, Gen. Büyükanıt pointed to activities that aim to weaken the military “under the façade of the EU.” This discourse of “façade” is often used by state elites who are disturbed by the content, process, and outcome of either the EU process or democratization. President Sezer just the other day said that democracy was a façade manipulated by anti-regime forces.
In this attitude, we see frustration from the plurality of views and social forces brought about by the EU process and democratization. They are rightly and hopelessly aware of the fact that due to these two dynamics, social and political actors and processes have left the control of the state and state ideology, Kemalism. The Turkish military, the stronghold of Kemalism, is naturally aware that the EU process, coupled with the democratization of politics and the liberalization of the economy, is eroding Kemalism as a state ideology. How then can we expect the military to support this process which also stands poised to eliminate their power within the system wholeheartedly?
In his October speech responding to the comments of the Ankara representative of the European Commission on religious education, cultural rights and universities, Gen. Büyükanıt asks why the EU is disturbed by the social influence of the military in Turkey. Gen. Büyükanıt hints that he knows the answer by raising another question: “Is it because the military upsets the secret agenda of those who make these comments?” It seems clear that in his October speech Gen. Büyükanit accused the EU or at least the EU representative of having a “secret agenda” on Turkey.
Gen. Büyükanıt’s speech last week reveals at least one element of the EU’s “secret agenda,” which is “creating minorities in Turkey.” Believing that creating minorities is part of the EU acquis, Gen. Büyükanıt was certain: “This (adapting the EU acquis) will divide Turkey into pieces.” How can we expect the military to support a project and process (the EU) that is thought with certainty to divide the country? Regardless, whether the military is in favor of the EU or not is rather irrelevant since it is the political authority that makes the decisions and conducts the negotiations. The best we can ask from the military is what Diogenes wanted from Alexander the Great: “Stand out of my sunlight.”
No comments:
Post a Comment