Çiçek: Başbuğ’s speech was objective

I asked Çiçek to share his overall assessment about the speech. I was not able to follow the speech. I read the blueprint on the Internet at a later time. First of all, I want to say that it is a very detailed document prepared after diligent work. It has academic value.

The scientific references are quite striking. Besides, I thought it is very realistic; a speech that covers realities of Turkey, an objective one indeed.

’Scientists should interpret this’
What are the important messages in the document?

Before that, I want to say that I am not sure if politicians are those who should first make comments on this speech. I think scientists should interpret and analyze it. This would be more beneficial to all, including politicians. As for the messages, Başbuğ’s speech covered a lot.

By looking at the media coverage I can say that everyone highlighted it at his or her own discretion. Some prioritized the emphasis on religious sects, others focused on the definition of the "People of Turkey," yet others underlined bringing the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, down from the mountain.

Gen. Başbuğ stressed Atatürk’s definition of the Turkish nation, especially the "People of Turkey" part. "If you take ’Turkey’ out and put ’Turk’ in its place, it will be an ethnic definition," the chief said. What do you say about this?

Atatürk’s definition is a very well thought one. And the Turkish Armed Forces’ interpretation is what Gen. Başbuğ said the other day. Atatürk introduced Turkish identity as a supra identity. He didn’t make an ethnic definition. Başbuğ emphasized this. In fact, this is not a new approach. The general stressed the importance of it. Başbuğ called for legal regulations in order to bring the terrorists down. What do you think about it?

Now, this is a very sensitive issue. The general expressed the military’s intention but didn’t give any details. What kind of a legal regulation is being asked? He only mentioned it at the beginning of a paragraph. If the General Staff is working on it, this would be discussed in the National Security Council or the Counter-Terrorism Committee. Başbuğ can bring this forward and necessary assessments are made. However, let me say once again, this is a very sensitive issue.

Could you elaborate the sensitivity part a little?

Terms and terminology are quite important. Two days ago we were at the funeral ceremony for soldiers killed by terrorists. For instance, we didn’t use the term "repentance law" but the public opinion adopted it. Or that there is no amnesty, but the term is being used. These things cause a sensitivity. This is what I mean.

As the issue of de-arming terrorists is mentioned, the amnesty issue automatically arises. Could there be such arrangement in law?

As I said, there is no detail in the general’s speech. And Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan announced before the March 29 local elections that there wouldn’t be an amnesty. I also repeated many times that an amnesty was not on the agenda. But as you know there is this Article 221 in the Turkish Penal Code, regulating effective repentance. This article is very functional and critical.

So far many have benefited from this. But terrorists up in the mountains do not know about the article and group leaders prevent them from learning about it. Why? Because the administrative body doesn’t do anything, or allow anything, without guarantee first. They are, in a way, taking terrorists in the mountain hostage. We are exerting efforts to spread information on this article.

And we should continue to do so. Even the Northern Iraq Regional Administration should read and understand this article very well. If the PKK’s disarmament is at issue, knowing this article is important.