The military has not hidden its concerns with the EU accession preparations with regard to political reforms. The Turkish military’s deep disturbance with the West was displayed as recently as the April 12 press conference of Chief of General Staff Gen. Büyükanıt. In this press conference Buyukanit stated that the military “knows who makes Barzani talk against Turkey,” implying that the United States was behind Barzani. In the same press conference, believing that “creating minorities” is part of the EU acquis, Gen. Büyükanıt declared, “This [adapting the EU acquis] will divide Turkey into pieces.”The view that the AK Party government has given too many concessions to the West and the EU in particular seems to have strong advocates in the military. Introducing revolutionary political reforms, supporting a solution to the Cyprus question along the Annan plan and encouraging foreign capital and privatization all have been regarded as selling out Turkey by nationalist forces whose concerns seem to be shared by the military. The latest intervention then expects to halt the process of Turkey’s integration with the world, including the EU, calculated as weakening Turkish independence and unity.
The common characteristics of those who support the military’s recent intervention are their anti-Western, anti-EU and anti-democracy views. They speak an anachronistic language of imperialism of the West plotting against the Turkish economy, territorial integrity and the “regime.” This was displayed by those who spoke at the meetings in Ankara on April 14 and Istanbul on April 29. They appear as the strongest ideological opponents of the West, of the EU and of the values and institutions of political modernity. They fear the West, Westernization and globalization. They also fear those people in Turkey who do not fear the West, Westernization and globalization.
EU representatives strongly condemned the military’s latest intervention in politics as unacceptable in a democracy that is conducting accession negotiations. The military’s memorandum will certainly be interpreted as an incidence of Turkey lacking a fully fledged democracy and rule of law, preconditions for the accession process as outlined in the negotiation framework document. The reason for this is very obvious: the Copenhagen political criteria refer to the “stability of institutions” guaranteeing democracy, human rights, rule of law and minority rights. But today we are in a situation in which the military openly threatens the civilian government and the Parliament with taking control. The Constitutional Court, which is to decide on a procedural dispute on the election of the president, is now under the shadow of the military’s obvious coercion.
After all this how can we describe this country as a properly functioning democracy with a notion of the rule of law? This event also shows that reforms undertaken with the EU perspective are fragile and reversible, and, thus, no one can claim the existence of the stability of institutions guaranteeing democratic institutions and values.
The damage has already been done. The Turkey skeptics have now been given a perfect case to disqualify Turkey as a democratic European state which can claim a place in the EU. My guess is that this was one of the objectives of the writers of the military memorandum anyway...
