Exonerating those who drew the borders is harder than changing the borders

In Anatolia, the debate over this issue has taken on a different shape.

Departures from the “cafe capital” Ankara for the purpose of a tour, visit or vacation ends up being more than just a tour, visit or vacation. It’s also an opportunity to take the pulse of the public. Every time I visit Anatolia, I see that debate topics and crises that change according to the agenda contribute vastly to social enlightenment.

People are closely following the tension that developed with Israel after the attack on the Mavi Marmara, the escalating terror incidents, the scandals in the higher judiciary and the constitutional amendment referendum.

People are carefully observing how political actors and public opinion leaders are approaching critical issues. There is a dynamic sensitivity towards the attitudes and manners of presidents of other countries as well as the leaders of international organizations.

Both the nature of the questions I asked as a journalist as well as people’s responses to my counter-questions concerning how they viewed those questions indicated a major change of shell. In line with speed in which information becomes social, there are more people in Anatolia that ask questions, inquire more, criticize more and also conduct self-criticism.

A wise friend of mine explained the situation in these words: “We were a little late in learning that there is a lot more to what we see when we look out the window. It is for this reason that we are telling the younger people to avoid being blindly adamant about issues that they are not fully informed about so that they do not suffer the pain we suffered. But they were brought up more consciously than us anyway.”

The people have a stronger perception of the tutelage over democracy. They have seen how the high judiciary was systematized to safeguard the tutelage. The terror organization’s subcontracting work is not even being debated.

But what about changing the Iraqi border to end terrorism?

The varying opinions of political party spokespersons in Ankara is what inflamed the debate. Citizens who were formerly aligned with the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) and the Republican People’s Party (CHP) which were vehemently opposed to the idea have now shifted to a more moderate line. The reason for this has to do with the clarification over the concerns about the identity of those who drew the borders.

The fact that not only Turkey’s southeastern border but the borders of the entire Middle East were drawn by the French-British alliance is something that is unjustifiable and indefensible for the CHP and MHP. The information that borders were drawn up with the purpose of producing a problematic area so as to prevent a global power from emerging out of the region is causing a rise in antipathy towards France and the UK.

Even though there is public support, it seems difficult for the borders to be redrawn through peaceful methods. What seems even more difficult is acquitting those who use the terrorist organization as a subcontractor and those who draw up borders to produce problems.

There seems to be a broad consensus to ensuring that there is no interruption in the rising trend, which Turkey had experienced during the periods of the late prime ministers Adnan Menderes and Turgut Özal but then was interrupted.

It is from this perspective that people are viewing the Constitutional Court’s approach towards the referendum package.

Freedom of press and using freedom

The restrictions on press freedom and whether this freedom is used in the public interest is a longstanding debate in Turkey. The Doğan group, which encountered problems with the Finance Ministry and was handed down several tax penalties, tried to create the perception internationally that its freedom had been restricted.

Last week, the process of concluding all the cases against the group and paying off the penalties was accelerated. The lawyers of the largest media group in Turkey asked the court to accelerate the process to finalize the cases while making complaints about the freedom of press.

Indicating that they were upset with the news about the lawsuits, the Doğan group’s lawyers claimed the purpose of the news reports were aimed at damaging the reputation of the media group. “I wonder if they’ve finally felt the pain of publishing disreputable news, which they have been doing for years?” asked a doyen journalist.

But the actions in dispute alone are enough to damage their reputation. For example, the lawsuit which was handled last Friday was concerned about allegations of accounting fraud during the sale of company shares to German Axel Springer.

The lawsuit that was handled two days before that was about “paper trafficking.” The Plaintiff, the Capital Markets Board (SPK), accused the Doğan group of damaging its smaller partners on the İstanbul Stock Exchange (İMKB). The Doğan group, which is being accused of bringing in paper which it bought for one dollar abroad to İstanbul through a front company in the Jersey and Virgin islands, admitted that it obtained unfair and fraudulent gains through the front company saying, “We are not the only one who does this, other bosses do it as well.”

They might even see this article as an effort to bring them into disrepute. However, in order for the outcry about “the press in Turkey being oppressed” to be credible, freedom must not be used for fraudulent purposes.