While he noted that the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) would not alter its traditional stance with the chief's office changing hands, something that normally results in only small changes in style, it is obvious that even this change in style will have tremendous results.Let us start by listing the preliminary signs of the change we have seen since Başbuğ's appointment. Only days after assuming office Başbuğ ordered a garrison commander to pay an official visit on behalf of the military to two retired generals in prison who are suspected of being members of the Ergenekon terrorist organization, and by doing so, he made a show of solidarity with them. I think his predecessor, retired Gen. Yaşar Büyükanıt, had banned such a visit as it might lead to links being established in the minds of the public between Ergenekon and the TSK. It seems Başbuğ does not care a straw about such links.
The second remarkable act by Başbuğ was his meeting with nongovernmental organizations in his visit to some eastern provinces, although he discriminated against some "unıÜüaccredited" NGOs. Moreover, we must regard his mingling with the locals in Van as a novelty and a first of its kind in this area.
We can list as his final act his removal of a ban on some media organizations, a discriminatory practice that has been in place for 11 years. We should also record as a novel practice initiated by Başbug a public relations move he launched by inviting the representatives of newspapers and television stations that comply with the criteria he set for the media organizations.
We can assume from his actions -- some of which are positive and some not, in my opinion -- spanning a brief period of 20 days since his appointment, that Başbuğ's term as chief of general staff will be controversial.
I must note that a statement by Başbuğ that his order for an official visit to the retired generals held in prison on charges of being leaders or members of a terrorist organization has nothing to do with an effort to influence the judicial process is far from persuasive. I must add that as we follow the investigation and judicial process surrounding the Ergenekon terrorist organization, this visit will always be in our minds.
On the other hand, his visit to some eastern provinces, meeting with representatives of some local NGOs, and even mingling with local people can only be appreciated. Nevertheless, we are entitled to note that we would prefer it if he had not discriminated among NGOs.
Başbuğ's partial abolishment of the TSK's discrimination against some media organizations cannot be defended from any aspect. It seems that as an indication of the importance he gives to developing good relations with the government, Başbuğ preferred to ease accreditation rules for media organizations close to the government such as the Yeni Şafak and Star newspapers and the Kanal 7 television station, which were formerly unaccredited by the TSK. In other words, Başbuğ made a very political move. Now we can expect the government to respond to this gesture accordingly.
The General Staff's ban on several media organizations including Zaman, Today's Zaman, Taraf, Bugün, Birgün and other newspapers and TV stations is still in place. Başbuğ cites as the sole criterion for this ban "compliance with press ethics" as defined by the Press Council. He claims that they will follow up the performance of the media organizations with this criterion in mind and that they may expand or narrow the scope of accreditation accordingly.
By perpetuating discrimination and prohibition against a part of the public while providing public services and by explaining this attitude with a purely controversial justification, Başbuğ prefers, we can say, to maintain the pro-ban attitude with an arbitrariness that does not appear to be befitting of his office. Indeed, the banned newspapers include the Zaman daily, which is a corporate member of the Press Council and whose editor-in-chief is an individual member. If a newspaper that is a member of the Press Council violates press ethics, it is the Press Council's duty, not that of the General Staff, to remind the newspaper of these principles. In categorizing newspapers as "those that abide by press ethics and those that do not," Başbuğ is going too far.
This attitude is as absurd as our lecturing a soldier who was promoted to such an important post as chief of general staff on the principles and the ins and outs of the military profession. It is equally absurd to try to conceal the arbitrariness of this ban with a blithering on "non-compliance with press ethics," and it is not persuasive. Perhaps the General Staff is the final authority for assessing whether or not a media organization complies with press ethics.
What Başbuğ is trying to convey should be the military criteria for the press. The criteria set by the army, an organization functioning under a chain of command, for the press as well as other discriminatory practices may be acceptable to the media organizations that comply with them. But these media organizations that claim to be the strongest supporters of freedom of the press at every occasion should not try to obscure the fact that the freedom they advocate functions only within the limits of the army's press criteria.
