‘Days of military coups are over’ says foreign observer

Stressing that Turkey is “one of the most important countries in the world,” Graham Fuller, a historian at Simon Fraser University and a former vice chairman of the National Intelligence Council (NIC) at the CIA, said many developing countries lack strong civil institutions.

“The military was better equipped than any other institution,” he said while moderating the panel “A New Turkey: What Does it Mean for the Region and US?” at a Capitol Hill luncheon on Feb. 25 organized by the Texas-based Turquoise Council of Americans and Eurasians (TCAE).

“In the process of democratization, these hands on power are slowly pulled away,” Fuller added. “Turkey happens to be well advanced in this process when we look at other states in the region.”

Ömer Taşpınar, a fellow at the Brookings Institution and a professor at the National War College, said the “days of military coups are over” in Turkey, and there is a “new elite” who would like to “share the pie.”

According to Taşpınar, there is a power struggle, but it is not a struggle between Islam and secularism. Instead, it is one between the supporters of the status quo, which is represented by Kemalist ideology, and those who want to go beyond the supporters of the status quo.

Joshua W. Walker, a Transatlantic Academy fellow, said the days of military coups d’état “seem to be gone” in Turkey. “But I don’t think days of military intervention are gone,” he said indicating that the Turkish military “lost its honest broker role,” and that “there is a civil war within the military.”

Regarding the opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) and the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), Walker termed them “parties that say no,” a reference to the way the two react to change. “Where do we look for stability?” he asked. “The only place there is stability is the AKP [the governing Justice and Development Party].”

Another speaker at the panel, Joost Lagendijk, senior advisor at the İstanbul Policy Center of Sabancı University and former member of the European Parliament, said there is still support and sympathy for the AK Party in Europe but that there are also “growing question marks.”

He talked about fears that “one system that we don’t like is being replaced by another system that we also might not like.”

About the difference between European and American viewpoints on civilian-military relations in Turkey, Lagendijk said this is because Turkey wants to be a member of the European Union. He said the United States sees relations with Turkey in a much more strategic way. But he said that behind the scenes there is probably some pressure from the US military on the Turkish military to keep its hands out of politics.

Lagendijk also said the EU had reacted to the Turkish military’s e-memorandum of 2007, which warned the civilian government, but that the US State Department had not.

One speaker touched on the Ergenekon case, an investigation into a deep state-related structure that attempted to overthrow the government, and said that some of the media organizations try to “whitewash” it.

Orhan Kemal Cengiz, president of Turkey’s Human Rights Agenda Association, said the Ergenekon case is the “beginning of the end of state impunity in Turkey.”

Another topic the speakers expounded upon was Turkish foreign policy. Fuller said Turkish foreign policy steered by Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu has been in the “greatest shift since the founding of the Turkish Republic.” Fuller added that Turkey, which had repressed its Muslim identity and did not establish ties with the Arab world but established relations only with the West, has 360-degree vision in that regard and a “more independent” viewpoint.

According to Ian Lesser, an expert from the German Marshall Fund of the United States, the question “Who lost Turkey?” is misleading. He said the problem in Turkish foreign policy is about not being able to “prioritize.” Lesser found Turkey’s position similar to the Non-Aligned Movement.

He added that the problem area between the United States and Turkey is in regards to Iran and Armenia. He said that American officials told Turkey to relay “harsh messages” to Iran in its relations with the country, but added that there are doubts that Turkey will do that.

Lagendijk said Turkey-EU negotiations are dependant on a solution to the division in Cyprus. According to Lagendijk, there is a 50-50 chance of solving the Cyprus problem. He added that 2010 should be a year for Turkey to realize EU reforms.

Regarding the normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia, Lagendijk said normalization would increase the EU’s ability to pressure Armenia on the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. An Azerbaijani diplomat objected to this argument, saying that Armenia is currently occupying Azerbaijani territory, but Lagendijk countered, saying Azerbaijan’s policy has not worked for the past 15 years. Lagendijk was also critical of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who conditioned improved relations between Turkey and Armenia on a breakthrough between Armenia and Azerbaijan.