|
The continued influence enjoyed by the army in
Turkish society and politics will soon become an
issue that could hamper the country's movement
toward EU membership. This is the main implication
of a report discussed at an academic seminar in
Brussels today.
BRUSSELS, (RFE/RL) -- The conventional
view in Turkey is that the country's army has been a
bulwark of Westernization and democracy. The army
has intervened in politics, but never questioned
democracy -- only politicians.
For the EU, however, there is only one way a country
that aspires for membership can organize the
relationship between its government and the army.
The country's civilian government must be in full,
undisputed control of its military, with the army at
the receiving end of a strictly one-way chain of
command.
That the Turkish government and military do not
appear to fully appreciate the seriousness of the
EU's views on the matter is the main conclusion of a
report drawn up by the Dutch-based Center for
European Security Studies.
Presenting the report in Brussels, its author, David
Greenwood, said that in December 2004, when an EU
summit approved entry talks with Turkey, it had also
found the military's powers unacceptable.
"The EU said that while Turkey was clearly en route
to alignment with European policy and practice, the
Turkish high command continues to enjoy greater
authority and greater autonomy in security matters
than is normal in EU member states; and the extent
of legislative oversight and wider democratic
oversight of the military in Turkey remains
inadequate," he said.
Greenwood said he has observed a tendency toward
complacency among the Turkish military in the wake
of that decision, which was reaffirmed by the
opening of talks in October last year.
Guarding the State From The Politicians
The army in Turkey enjoys the status of the guardian
of a unitary and secular state. It has thwarted
attempts by Islamic radicals to assume power. Many
in Turkey argue that the revival of the Kurdish
insurgency in the southeast and neighboring Iraq's
slide towards civil war mean the army must not be
weakened.
Greenwood noted that Turkish and EU interpretations
of recent reforms differ, too. When Turkey made the
army's chief of staff answerable to the prime
minister, Ankara argued this gave the head of
government direct political control over the army.
The EU sees privileged access for the chief of staff
to the highest level of civilian government,
bypassing the defense minister.
Turkey made its National Security Council, which
provided the interface for the military to influence
government policy, an advisory body. The EU feels
the military's unofficial influence over security
policy and spending remains strong.
Greenwood said his contacts with the Turkish
military leader suggest the army's future
intervention in politics "appears highly unlikely."
However, he noted, the EU is not convinced.
"In the European Union [...] the history is, we
felt, read rather differently," he said. "And many
across the [EU] believe that the Turkish high
command remains able and might in certain
circumstances be willing to contemplate intervention
again in that sense is out of line with what is
considered the norm across the EU.”
In the end, it is the EU's views that matter.
However, Greenwood said, the EU has no formal
blueprint for how civil-military relations should be
shaped.
'Reform Fatigue'
Turkish officials have attempted to argue that the
situation is unique to the country. That view
appears to be shared by some of the country's
academics.
Metin Heper, the dean of the economics faculty at
the University of Bilkent in Ankara, argued that the
Turkish army is unique in its dedication to
modernization and democracy. He said the army has
never questioned democracy and has always set its
interventions a self-imposed deadline.
Ali Karaosmanoglu, chairman of the university's
international relations department, noted that there
is "reform fatigue" in the army and it must be given
time before further changes.
"This is particularly important for several
reasons," Karaosmanoglu said. "First, previous
reforms in civil-military relations have been
successful thanks to a continuous and effective
dialogue between the government and the DGS, this
dialogue should be maintained without interruption.
This is important for the success of the coming
reforms."
This is an issue that exposed deep and visceral
divisions between Turkish and European attitudes.
Greenwood sharply criticized what he described as
widespread "deference" among Turkish lawmakers and
society at large to the army.
"One of the important messages, I think, is that in
the European Union when a voice says, 'But the
military have accepted this,' the answer comes, 'And
so they damn well should!' The military have
acquiesced in this? Well of course they have --
because they are servants of the state, they are
subject to overall civilian executive direction," he
said.
Greenwood went on to say that the very use of such
deferential language, often used by what he called
"distinguished Turkish voices," signifies that
crucial EU values have yet to be fully understood in
Turkey.
www.rferl.org
Top |
® 