Mr. Smith did not mention US human rights policy vis-à-vis Turkey. But I believe his assessment is generally true, at least when it comes to the official American stance on the antidemocratic, abusive and excessively interventionist habits of the Turkish military. Let alone doing walk-the-walk, Washington has not even done much talk-the-talk on this front.
Turkey has long been a member of several Western-led pro-democracy bodies such as NATO, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and is a signatory of several treaties upholding human rights. Yet the Turkish military usually gets away with its increasingly evidenced democratic malpractices. One recent piece of documentation came last week when the country's top authorities on forensics concluded that the signature under a despicable internal strategy memo belongs to a senior officer who works at the Turkish military's General Staff headquarters.
The authenticated document reveals that at the highest echelons of the military, dirty plots had been cooked as early as last April to topple Turkey's elected government. Plans also include going after a peaceful faith-inspired movement (inspired by Fethullah Gülen), which they think is conspiring to undermine secularism along with the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party), by secretly planting and afterwards confiscating weapons in the group's student houses to ensure that it can be treated as a terrorist organization. This not only constitutes a crime against the Turkish Constitution and humanity but also contradicts all of Turkey's international obligations and Western allegiances.
According to a letter attached by a whistleblower from the military who mailed the original memo to civilian prosecutors, the document was prepared upon the orders of a top general and is the end product of group work. The letter also discloses zealous efforts to destroy all the related controversial documents at the military headquarters after a copy of the memo initially surfaced before public eyes a few months ago. Cover-up operations still go on, and so far no serious action has been taken to hold perpetrators responsible within the military's internal discipline system. So much for an institution famous for its discipline!
Now, what does this all have to do with the US? Well, here we have a military doing a lot of joint work with the Pentagon (within the framework of NATO and bilateral cooperation) supposedly in the name of securing freedom and democracy. And here we have an American president, Barack Obama, who declared a “model partnership” with Turkey on the basis of “common values,” such as respect for democracy, the rule of law and human rights. Those inspirational words do not and will not mean much, unless the status quo in Turkey, that is a governing system still susceptible to the political clout of the military despite many reforms thanks to the European Union membership process, stops resisting democratic “change,” a popular theme of Mr. Obama.
Does the US have any moral responsibility in doing something about the Turkish military's actions? Yes, because first and foremost the US claims to be the champion of democratization and human rights in the world. But the US military-industrial complex lobby and their collaborators from Turkey have been very instrumental in downplaying the Turkish military's sins in Washington. The Pentagon constantly blocks any public criticism of the Turkish military, not to mention some pragmatic diplomats who contend it is not in the interest of the US to intimidate the Turkish military in any way because they are the powerbrokers.
Well, that might have been the case in the Cold War days when Turkey did have a less than adequate democracy and almost non-existent civil society. But that has lately been changing. It is high time strategic planners in Washington adapt to the new circumstances. Forget about democracy, even if what they care about more is stability in the country, they must take into account the growing grudge among large sections of the public about the military's continuing political ambitions and ugly tactics.
So, provided they finally have the political will, what can the US government do to help the Turkish military reach its desired Western democratic standards? A lot. For example, I earlier argued that NATO should be used as a platform for pushing the democratic modernization of the Turkish military. And why not utilize OSCE mechanisms as well? After all, as Assistant Secretary of State Phil Gordon said in his testimony at Wednesday's hearing: “The Helsinki Final Act says that promoting democracy and respect for human rights is fundamental to achieving sustainable security in Europe and Eurasia. It links security among states to respect for human rights within states.”
What does it take for the US to do this? Sticking to “guiding tenets” that Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Michael Posner articulated for the Helsinki process would be more than enough: “A commitment to principled engagement; a determination that all -- including ourselves -- are responsible for upholding universal principles of human rights and humanitarian law; and a fidelity to the truth.”
Personally, I especially look forward to seeing the “telling the truth” part implemented when dealing with the Turkish military…
Benzer Haberler 
