The most innocent members of this group are those who think a democratic Turkey will no longer remain under the West’s control. According to their predictions, this type of Turkey will become a more conservative country and change its conventional foreign policy. For those who think this way, an optimal Turkey is a Turkey that is managed with military tutelage even if it doesn’t comply with modern world standards. Circles that ignore society’s demands and the change the country and world has undergone do not try to hide this perspective.For example, not too long ago Avi Primor, director of the Center for European Studies, expressed concern about Turkey’s democratization in Le Monde Diplomatique and painted a picture of the kind of Turkey he desired. He noted that he was concerned about the diminishing influence of the military over politics and said: “The last fans of the Ottoman Empire have many times tried to regain influence and prevent modernity and secularism, but it has always been the military which puts them in their place. Under the pressure of the EU, the influence of the military on state affairs has been gradually restricted. So, with the diminishing of military influence and increase of Islamization, Turkey is gradually moving away from Europe.”
Isn’t it strange to express such concerns at a time when Turkey is displaying the highest performance in its EU endeavor? Even though those who long for the semi-democratic old Turkey do not explicitly mention them, we should not forget about the other factors that have a role in shaping these thoughts.
Among these factors, the main ones are fear of Islam and the belief that Islam is not compatible with democracy. According to them, if Turkey is a bit more modern and democratic than other Muslim countries it’s because of the military tutelage. Values such as democracy and human rights exist because of the military, which acts without regard for the public will. You can try and explain that people want democracy and that military interventions impair this desire as much as you want; it doesn’t matter.
Recently, Soner Çağaptay has been singing this chorus as well. Every step Turkey takes towards democratization reflects onto its mirror as a move away from the West and a step towards Islam. For him, the Ergenekon case, which the EU sees as “an opportunity to democratize,” is the “end of contemporary Turkey.” He sees it as the AK Party’s way to suppress its opponents, and Fethullah Gülen’s conspiracy to suppress the army.
It seems the detention of several generals in relation to the Sledgehammer coup plan has alarmed Çağaptay, the director of the Turkish Research Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), which is one of the most pro-Israeli think tanks in America. In articles he wrote for the Foreign Policy journal and Newsweek magazine he explained who was really behind the arrests and held the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) and the Gülen movement responsible. Incriminating prosecutors, judges and police without any evidence, Çağaptay put forward false and incorrect information that Gülen had supported the Welfare Party (RP) and that the case against him contained accusations of fraud, in order to be able to consolidate his thesis. In his mind, he had exposed those who were “having a witch hunt and planning conspiracies against innocent commanders.”
But finally after the Gendarmerie Criminal Department confirmed the authenticity of the signature, the General Staff agreed that the document signed by Dursun Çiçek, which aimed to eliminate the AK Party and the Gülen community, was in fact real. This was evidence that the Gülen movement was not a conspirator but rather the victim of filthy conspiracies, discrediting Çağaptay’s thesis. Under these conditions, who is going to explain the similarity between the targets in the document and the targets in Cağaptay’s writings, which constantly attack the AK Party and Gülen? Or is WINEP’s Turkey program one of those places like Erzincan where the plan is put into practice? Does the agreement, which foresees training military officers, made between the General Staff and the department, have a role in Çağaptay’s stance? Is it a coincidence that Brig. Gen. Bertan Nogaylaroğlu, who participated in the program, also participated in the Hudson meeting, in which terrifying scenarios such as the assassination of the Constitutional Court president and a bomb explosion in Taksim were discussed and where Turkish participants argued against handing over Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) leaders to Turkey because it would benefit the AK Party?
How much money does the General Staff spend on Çağaptay’s program every year? What will reputable media organizations, which gave space to Çağaptay’s conspiracies, do for those innocent people who were targeted?
