A War of Words

In other countries, members of the military hierarchy hardly ever make public statements on their own. In the United States and England, the countries that are fighting in Kosovo, military statements have been issued by the civilian spokesmen of their defense bodies, while giving the military the opportunity to express their views on war tactics when necessary. The general secretary of NATO, Javier Solana, and spokesman James Shea are civil servants, despite the fact that NATO is a military alliance.

The situation is different in our country. The chief of General Staff gave a briefing to the media last week to answer questions relating to the Kosovo issue. I started a debate together with one or two politician-turned-authors about whom should be authorized to send troops to Kosovo. While Greece, which had dragged its feet on the NATO intervention in Kosovo, is flying its flag in the streets of Pristina now that peace has arrived, the Turkish troops, who were in the forefront during the war, have yet to depart to serve in the peacekeeping force. As far as I can see, I was the only person who interpreted this as resulting from the West's wanting it to be this way. However, since I was not invited to the press briefing, I had to listen to the General Staff's statements on television.

The General Staff made its public statement, which was unexpectedly strong, when an essay entitled "Report on Fethullah Gülen Prepared by the Military to be Submitted to the National Security Council [MGK]" was being leaked to the media. The report, which was prepared from a certain point of view, not only insults Fethullah Gülen and his community but furthermore questions the religion of Islam and its principles of belief. And what statements! Salman Rushdie's novel, which created great turmoil in the world at the time it was published, is innocent next to the allegations made in the so-called report.

It was an unexpected development that on the one hand the General Staff not only rejected the report but on the other hand made an unexpectedly harsh public statement in order to express its distress about this report. It called the report a fraud, claiming that it was an attempt to portray the military forces to be the enemy of religion. As a matter of fact the media has carried the statement to the public in a manner befitting its importance.

Recently, many "reactionaryism reports," almost every of which was attributed to various organs of the state, have been published by the media. The context, style and method of presentation of these reports do not have any "official" significance. However, the media is insistent that the source of these reports, which do not convey the necessary seriousness, is the various organs of the state. The so-called "MGK report," one of the many supposedly official reports that surfaced in the media, was swiftly denied by the military. One may reach the conclusion that since this report was disowned by the military, the other alleged reports might as well have been merely fabrications.

However, as they view the signs in evidence these days, people are becoming confused. When the subject is Islam, the most important organs of the state might adopt a strange style that we have never encountered until today. After all this, when it is claimed that there are "official" reports, at first glance many people believe that these reports were prepared by the military, although even this inflammatory report was certainly denied by the General Staff later.

At this point it is necessary to give two examples.

The first example is a text entitled "On the Merits of the Case," which was presented to the Constitutional Court by the chief prosecutor during a case filed for closure of the Welfare Party (RP). When the text is examined, it can be seen that the chief prosecutor is accusing the party he wanted to close, and in addition to this he is questioning the principles of Islam and the Koran in regards to its suitability to the era, to the principles of democracy and to secularism. When one reads the text, one gets the impression that a real Muslim cannot be a democrat. In the peculiar atmosphere of these days, the chief prosecutor's view, which was not examined in regard to this special aspect and which was prepared by a judicial body, might be a very dangerous beginning.

The second example is a book that was published in the past. In the "Anthology of Alawi-Bektashi Poems," the Koran is being questioned because it is "God's word" as the Muslims believe in it. In the same book Islamists and Turks are being accused of carrying out a mission of "destroying" and "terminating" in history. The book, the author of which was a member of the Supreme Court, was written with separatist and divisive intentions. The book's most noteworthy characteristic is its publisher, a state institution -- the Ministry of Culture. With this book it has published, the state is destroying the base it rests on and is inciting people to separatism and divisionism.

The separation between powers, which is one of the most basic principles of democracy, has been trampled upon in Turkey for a long time. Politicians, since it is very easy for them, prefer blaming the conditions of the period. When the words, "conditions of the period," are uttered, the military comes to mind first. Although it may seem pleasant at first glance to be in the center of everything and to be in a place where orders and instructions are issued, encountering problems is inescapable sooner or later in environments where the authorities and responsibilities are mixed up with each other. The style of denial used by the General Staff gives the idea that the country is rapidly going towards such an environment.

If a military alliance like NATO selects a civilian general secretary and spokesman, and announcements are being made by civil servants of the defense bodies of the United States and England, this can only be the result of their past experiences. We are supposedly imitating Western democracies, but instead of adopting a contemporary style in which the military prefers to communicate with civilians via civilian intermediaries, we see nothing wrong in taking the easy "oriental" path on which civilians conceal their own mistakes by hiding behind the military. The civilians are soon hurt when it is understood that they are not administering the country well, and even the most basic problems are brought to the attention of the General Staff.

It is an advantage for us that we have learned that the reports floating around are fake and that they are not dependent on reality. I hope we will leave these days behind, in which we are getting the answers to political questions from the military and that we will become mature enough to get the military-related answers from the civilians.

TURKISH DAILY NEWS