×
The military’s manifesto
Paylaş
LinkedinFlipboardLinki KopyalaYazı Tipi
It was described as the "annual evaluation speech." It did not have any reference to the "current events" of the country. Apparently, the top general will be holding a news conference next week, when he will reveal what the military thinks on current issues.
Will the pertinent "Ergenekon gang" house-office searches, detention waves and incredible accusations against some of the country’s very prominent personalities be among those current issues? Or, will the continued "spring operations" against the separatist Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, gang in rural Southeastern Turkey be among them? Or, will the operation on the pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party, or DTP, and detention of scores of DTP executives be among them?
Or, will U.S. President Obama’s visit and his sugarcoated daring instructions to the Turkish government and Parliament on a wide range of issues from opening the Armenian border to reopening the Greek Orthodox Halki seminary and recognizing all rights of the minorities so that this country might deserve to have an "model partnership" with the U.S and avoid an endorsement by the U.S. president of the Armenian claims of genocide be among those current issues? We have to wait and hopefully learn next week what the top general believes are the "current issues" of Turkey. For now we have to suffice with the "annual evaluation speech," which in fact was nothing further than a "face make up effort" to salvage the prestige of the military under attack at home and abroad of still having a major say in the policymaking mechanism of this country.
What General Başbuğ did yesterday was indeed a briefing on the "manifesto" of the military from how the military perceived religion to secularism, Islamic brotherhoods in a secular democracy, democracy, relations between the civilian government and the military, separatist terrorism, national identity and "cultural" secondary identity and some such top discussion subjects. Was such an effort by the top general of the country necessary? Well, what is wrong in the military explaining to the Turkish public what it thinks and where it is regarding some key concepts, some fundamental discussion topics in the Turkish society? But, at the same time, why in a democratic republic would the top general of the country gather some 1,000 "opinion leaders" of the country and deliver them a briefing on what the military thinks on certain important issues? As Başbuğ himself said, if the top commanders of the country were indeed top advisers of the government on security matters, why on earth did the top general not go to the prime minister or open up such a discussion at the National Security Council and brief the government rather than going public?
Yes, there are some diehard anti-military people in Turkey. The top general, of course, was right in complaining about a systematic effort to discredit the Turkish military in the eyes of the Turkish people. Mind you, most of those diehard anti-military "opinion leaders" were the "guests" of the top general yesterday. Did Başbuğ aimed at delivering a direct "Come on, try to learn what the Turkish military is and what it is not before unleashing a salvo on us next time"? Or, after so many coups and interventions in politics, are the "opinion leaders" of Turkey foolish enough to believe that the Turkish military is so committed to democracy that if the secular republic is "seriously endangered" and political Islam is indeed about to take over the "democratic secular republic," just for the sake of "not hurting democracy," it will refrain from some odd action once again? The thin line was indeed underlined in Başbuğ’s speech: "There is a strong correlation between democracy and secularism." Indeed, the biggest heritage of Atatürk, as Obama underlined also, is the secular democratic republic.
The civilian elements in Turkey who are opposed to an Islamist takeover of the country but who are at the same time staunchly against a military coup must tread well the emphasis in Başbuğ’s statement. The military is not against religion. But, religion cannot be held hostage to the interests of some brotherhood organizations that have no place in a secular democracy. The military is devoted to a secular democracy. Yet, there can be no democracy in Turkey in the absence of secularism. There is a national identity and cultural sub-identities. National identity cannot be opened to discussion and sub-identities must all be confined within the cultural sphere.
Or, will U.S. President Obama’s visit and his sugarcoated daring instructions to the Turkish government and Parliament on a wide range of issues from opening the Armenian border to reopening the Greek Orthodox Halki seminary and recognizing all rights of the minorities so that this country might deserve to have an "model partnership" with the U.S and avoid an endorsement by the U.S. president of the Armenian claims of genocide be among those current issues? We have to wait and hopefully learn next week what the top general believes are the "current issues" of Turkey. For now we have to suffice with the "annual evaluation speech," which in fact was nothing further than a "face make up effort" to salvage the prestige of the military under attack at home and abroad of still having a major say in the policymaking mechanism of this country.
What General Başbuğ did yesterday was indeed a briefing on the "manifesto" of the military from how the military perceived religion to secularism, Islamic brotherhoods in a secular democracy, democracy, relations between the civilian government and the military, separatist terrorism, national identity and "cultural" secondary identity and some such top discussion subjects. Was such an effort by the top general of the country necessary? Well, what is wrong in the military explaining to the Turkish public what it thinks and where it is regarding some key concepts, some fundamental discussion topics in the Turkish society? But, at the same time, why in a democratic republic would the top general of the country gather some 1,000 "opinion leaders" of the country and deliver them a briefing on what the military thinks on certain important issues? As Başbuğ himself said, if the top commanders of the country were indeed top advisers of the government on security matters, why on earth did the top general not go to the prime minister or open up such a discussion at the National Security Council and brief the government rather than going public?
Yes, there are some diehard anti-military people in Turkey. The top general, of course, was right in complaining about a systematic effort to discredit the Turkish military in the eyes of the Turkish people. Mind you, most of those diehard anti-military "opinion leaders" were the "guests" of the top general yesterday. Did Başbuğ aimed at delivering a direct "Come on, try to learn what the Turkish military is and what it is not before unleashing a salvo on us next time"? Or, after so many coups and interventions in politics, are the "opinion leaders" of Turkey foolish enough to believe that the Turkish military is so committed to democracy that if the secular republic is "seriously endangered" and political Islam is indeed about to take over the "democratic secular republic," just for the sake of "not hurting democracy," it will refrain from some odd action once again? The thin line was indeed underlined in Başbuğ’s speech: "There is a strong correlation between democracy and secularism." Indeed, the biggest heritage of Atatürk, as Obama underlined also, is the secular democratic republic.
The civilian elements in Turkey who are opposed to an Islamist takeover of the country but who are at the same time staunchly against a military coup must tread well the emphasis in Başbuğ’s statement. The military is not against religion. But, religion cannot be held hostage to the interests of some brotherhood organizations that have no place in a secular democracy. The military is devoted to a secular democracy. Yet, there can be no democracy in Turkey in the absence of secularism. There is a national identity and cultural sub-identities. National identity cannot be opened to discussion and sub-identities must all be confined within the cultural sphere.
Paylaş
LinkedinFlipboardLinki KopyalaYazı Tipi
