Since then two more direct military interventions have taken place, one in 1971 and the other in 1980. All these three direct military coups were staged during the Cold War. This is important to note. The one in 1997 is called a “postmodern” coup as it managed to overthrow the government through a military-orchestrated social and media campaign. So, even in 1997, the military was not in a position to take over the government through a conventional military coup.Looking into these cases, I would argue that the circumstances of the Cold War made it easy for the military to get the support and approval of Turkey’s Western friends, including the US. In a way, the Cold War conditions and the role Turkey was assigned enabled the Turkish military to go ahead with its decision to intervene. Once they staged a coup, they believed that Turkey’s Western allies could do nothing but back it provided that the new military regime was prepared to work with Western allies.
This expectation was largely true. Turkey’s Western friends did not want to lose Turkey during those years of East-West conflict. For Turkey’s allies, the priority was not democracy but keeping Turkey on their side vis-à-vis the Soviet bloc. Thus during the Cold War the nature of the regime in Ankara did not matter so long as those who were in power in Ankara remained committed to the alliance.
It was not surprising, therefore, that the first statement issued by the junta in 1960 and in 1980 declared their loyalty to NATO and the Western alliance. At the end, there were no serious problems in the aftermath of the coups between Turkey and the US and NATO; on the contrary, it appeared that the relationship improved further during those years.
This was so because Turkey’s strategic allies were ready to work whoever was in power in Ankara, be they the military or the civilians.
Moreover, during the Cold War a disciplined society under a military regime was even seen as a guarantee against a possible communist takeover. In the 1960s and 1980s many in the West believed that authoritarian politics was instrumental in controlling social disturbances, believed to be provoked by the international communist movement. During those years, Samuel Huntington was publishing books that advocated “authoritarian models” including military regimes to control speedy social change and demands for political participation. Terms like “authoritarian friends” were very popular in Washington, D.C. We know how it was implemented particularly in Latin America.
Thus Turkey’s friends preferred a strong government and disciplined society in the Cold War era as a protection vis-à-vis a possible communist takeover.
All these worked to the advantage of the military junta. They managed to sell the coup as a key to stability and security in Turkey and for the region. To suppress the communists in the face of a worldwide communist plot or to eliminate the Islamist danger after the Iranian Revolution of 1979 were the grounds on which the military regime was justified in the West.
Things, though, have changed for quite some time. Theories of “order” to be achieved through an authoritarian government have long gone. It is now believed that long-term stability and security depend on the presence of a popular and legitimate government with democratic credentials. In the post-Cold War era, we experienced how regional and international peace, stability and security are linked to the way in which a government behaves toward its own people. In Yugoslavia, Haiti, Iraq and Afghanistan, we have all learnt that undemocratic tyrannical regimes do not only threaten their own people but constitute the greatest threat to regional and international peace, stability and security.
Turkey is no exception. With its potential to disturb the region stretching from Europe to Central Asia, an undemocratic Turkey is a major source of concern for regional countries as well as global actors.
Imagine the implication on regional and international peace of a Turkey where a military coup has taken place and, as planned in the latest coup plot Sledgehammer, 200,000 are arrested only in and around İstanbul, the Kurdish elements are violently suppressed, the religious/conservative groups are crushed and a war is launched with Greece.
In such a case not only domestic but regional and even international peace, stability and security would be in danger. Thousands would escape into northern Iraq, just the opposite of the massive exodus of the Iraqi Kurds under Saddam Hussein in 1992. Thousands more would knock on the doors of European countries in search of security.
In short, an undemocratic Turkey under a military regime in this post-Cold War era would threaten international peace and security prompting a response from the UN under Chapter 7. Is the international community ready for this?
