How Many More Watergates?

The Watergate scandal shook the US system in 1972. Since then, it has been intensely discussed and is included as a topic in any course on politics. The scandal involved President Richard Nixon's men illegally wiretapping offices of rival party members in the Watergate block and stealing documents as well as engaging in several other illegal activities.

In our country, it seems a new Watergate scandal has been uncovered almost every week in recent years. (I do not say, "occur" because we only talk about those that are unearthed). This has grown so routine that it is no longer regarded as something that can be published or broadcast as a news story.

The document prepared by the General Staff which Turkey's bold paper, Taraf, reported on with the headline "Plan to finish AK Party and Gülen" is horrifying if its authenticity is verified by officials. It is a scandal that corresponds to 1,000 Watergates. However, if you inform a Westerner journalist who knows our country of this scandal, s/he will most probably respond with, "The army's efforts to manipulate politics and society through controversial methods, including human rights violations in Turkey, is nothing new." It is a routine piece of news.

However, findings discovered during a probe into the Ergenekon network, which reveals the connection between the defendants of a bloody provocation network that does not respect legal or moral limits and some members of key state organizations, would lead to the resignation of several government officials and numerous high-ranking bureaucrats even in the most moderate democracies of the West. Now, consider how we stack up against democratic countries. How can we find the justification to get offended by French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who do not want to see Turkey as an EU member?

The most concise definition of how the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) is viewed in Europe and the US is that it is a hard power inside and a soft power outside. The General Staff is in perfect professional harmony with its counterparts in Western organizations such as NATO and the US. There are excellent professional and personal relations among commanders. The West regards the Turkish military as a considerably useful factor in its plans and projects around the world. If need arises in Somalia, it would be the Turks who will go there. Turks go and become successful. If something is planned for Afghanistan, Turkey will do that in an excellent manner. Without firing a bullet, they earn the respect of the local people. This is perfectly OK.

But when it comes to domestic affairs, things change. The TSK shows its stern face. Since the establishment of the Turkish Republic, the TSK has been acting as a party to religious, ethnic and ideological disputes and as an authoritarian representative of the state that seeks to solve problems by force. But perhaps for the sake of the usefulness of the TSK in international campaign, US-led NATO generally tends to ignore its domestic misbehavior. This is the deal that has been made silently between the West and the TSK and which has been governing Turkish democracy for the last half of a century,  rife with coups and other obstructions.

I have as of late had the impression that the TSK, led by its new chief of general staff, Gen. İlker Başbuğ, has finally started to change its hard-line course and tried to be a soft power in domestic politics, thereby refreshing hopes. This hope of mine has not completely gone away. However, the plan, dated April 2009, implies that at least some people in the General Staff headquarters are still governed by old habits. This scandal is a major test of Başbuğ's loyalty to democracy and the rule of law. I hope the chief of general staff passes this test by acting in the way expected of him.

The mentality that drafts such plans and that paves the way for such plans is not capable of seeing that the plans damage national interests, let alone that they are illegal and immoral. How can they reconcile this plan with the country's EU bid, which is frequently reiterated as a state policy in National Security Council (MGK) meetings? How can they find a compromise between the Copenhagen criteria and a plan to set illegal traps for a political party that assumed office through legitimate democratic elections and against a peaceful civil society organization? What human rights document ratified by the Turkish Republic or what international organization of which Turkey is a member can regard such an evil act as legitimate?

How can they think Turkey's interests are promoted by devising conspiracies to advertise the Gülen movement, inspired by Turkish scholar of Islam Fethullah Gülen and regard as the most distinguished element of Turkish civil society around the world, as a terrorist organization? Why do they want to destroy a movement that, in addition to its contributions to social peace and education in Turkey, promotes Turkey in many countries around the world with schools it opens, spreads the love of Turkey and Mustafa Kemal Atatürk to the world and makes sure that Turkey gains international credit and adds to peace in respective countries? How can those who try to do this claim that they love Turkey? Is it heedlessness or misguidance, or the worst of it, treason?

One is urged to ask this question while examining the details and boldness of the plan. Have they also made plans to destroy the movement beyond Turkey's borders by contacting the secret services of foreign countries or defaming or libeling their schools or trying to ensure that negative news stories are published in foreign media organizations or by presenting them as targets for the foreign public?

I would not be surprised if they have.