Turkish press split over authenticity of controversial army document

Debate over an anti-government document that has gripped the nation for the past 10 days has become refocused on the authenticity of the signature it bears, with Friday’s headlines showing the divide over the issue.

While some have declared the signature definitely genuine, others are equally adamant that it is a fake. Both sides insist their stance is based on evidence.

The document, first published by daily Taraf about 10 days ago, outlines a plan to dismantle the ruling Justice and Development Party, or AKP, and the conservative Gülen movement. Initially, the debate centered on the authenticity of the document itself, allegedly the work of the Office of the Chief of General Staff. Now the controversy is over the signature on the text, which supposedly belongs to Naval Col. Dursun Çiçek.

On June 19, daily Star’s front-page headline read: "Signature is done by his hand." The Gendarmerie Criminal Laboratory has examined the signature published in the newspapers and compared it to Çiçek’s signature on four documents he had previously signed. The laboratory’s preliminary report, which is being sent to the prosecutor, said: "The signatures have similarities. Claims that it is a product of Dursun Çiçek’s hand are being investigated."

Style different
Daily Habertürk took the opposite stance with its front-page headline, "’Document is false, find its writer,’" on June 19, reporting that the criminal report was finished and the General Staff was prepared to declare that the document is 99 percent fake. According to daily Habertürk, preliminary investigations determined that the language of the document was not in accordance with the style used by the General Staff.

The paper added that the "military believed the document was prepared outside the General Staff and asked the Police Department to find the writer of the document." Daily Milliyet agreed with daily Habertürk, writing, "the experts said the usage of abbreviations in the document does not comply with the usual style used by military documents." Experts also noted that the document includes the word "Ergenekon," a term that the General Staff has never used, the paper reported. If the headlines are to be believed, the result of the preliminary report about the signature differed from paper to paper.

The conservative, pro-government daily Yeni Şafak disagreed with daily Milliyet, running the headline, "It is 90 percent certain that the signature belongs to the colonel" on June 19. The daily noted that the preliminary report prepared by the Gendarmerie Criminal Laboratory, which analyzed four different signatures by the colonel, said, "The signature 90 percent belongs to Dursun Çiçek."

Taking a different perspective on the issue, daily Radikal considered three different scenarios. The first scenario was written on the assumption that "the document was real" and said the military does not have a good record on coups and coup attempts. It also noted Çiçek was not interrogated by the Ergenekon case prosecutors, which increases the possibility of a cover up.

The second scenario, in which "the document is not real and the Gülen movement prepared it," relies on the previous confessions of Ali Balta, a petty officer and member of the Gülen movement, who has admitted to preparing false documents written on behalf of the major general. "That shows the Gülen movement has prepared false documents before," the daily said. The third scenario assumes the document was false and ultra-nationalists prepared it to manipulate society.