Historic testimony given by Hilmi Özkök

Özkök, one of the most important figures who can provide insights into the coup attempts in 2003 and 2004, has been both a witness and a victim of the attempts. As all would agree, he saved the country from an imminent coup. We could list the main points of his testimony, which he began to give on Thursday, as follows.

Özkök confirmed that a military meeting or seminar took place on Dec. 3, 2003, and admitted that the term “military warning” was spelled out during it. This was the meeting exposed in Özden Örnek’s journals, which were published by Nokta Newsweekly. Özkök said: “It is true; there was reference to a ‘military warning’ at that meeting. It was one of the potential options [considered]; it was not an official proposal.”

Through this statement, Özkök confirmed that a military intervention was considered at the meeting. Even if this was not spelled out clearly, the views raised at the meeting qualify as a military warning. Those journals as well as other developments show that the issue of the seminar has not been concluded. We could even argue that there was growing rage against former military chief Özkök, who said, “I would like to thank you for making suggestions, but I will not issue a warning.” He was even warned that his fate would be the same as that of Rüştü Erdelhun, who opposed a military coup on May 27, 1960; Erdelhun was tried along with Prime Minister Adnan Menderes, and the death penalty was sought for his alleged offenses. The casualties in the war on terrorism were used as elements of warfare against Erdelhun, and the general was held responsible for the casualties.

What we need to focus on here is what Özkök could have done to prevent a possible coup d’état and what he said about his efforts to that end. The defendants in the trial attempt to put him in a difficult position, arguing that he did not do what he needed to do vis-à-vis the coup attempts and implying that he was also part of the coup-plotting process. In his testimony, Özkök noted that he had referred a memo on Ergenekon from the National Intelligence Organization (MİT) to the General Staff’s intelligence department for review and evaluation. With respect to CDs that contained documents pertinent to the Ayışığı (Moonlight) and Yakamoz (Sea Sparkle) coup plots, he defended himself in his testimony as follows. “The presentations on those CDs were referred to as Ayışığı and Yakamoz. They [the coup plots] could have been disinformation; they could have been true as well. For this reason, I did not share them with my subordinates. As chief of staff, I had to remain calm. Sometimes in a joking manner but sometimes as a serious statement, I indicated that I was aware of these matters. Our positions are extremely important and crucial. For instance, there are 300,000 people under the command of the Land Forces Command. I could not have done anything by relying on a document of which I had no idea whether it was authentic.”

Özkök stressed that he did not resort to legal action because he did not believe the CDs and coup documents had been obtained through legal means. This saves him from legal liability; however, he also said something else. Going back to those days, we see a lonely man at the headquarters of the General Staff. He is the commander of just four commanders and a deputy chief of staff. He stands against those four commanders, who control their respective armies. The media is controlled by those commanders. They are trying to undermine his image by calling him out on his democratic views. One does not need to be a genius to predict the probable attitude of the judiciary. It is sufficient to take a look at what happened to the prosecutor who drafted the Şemdinli indictment, in which military superiors were accused of terrorism-related charges. In such an environment, Hilmi Özkök tried to do the best he could. He sent a clear message to the commanders that he was watching their actions. He attempted to disunite them. He did not hesitate to indicate his adherence to democracy. And, now, he makes history again by testifying in court on behalf of the nation.