Category: Turkey

  • RESEARCH DOCUMENT /// Hungary 1956 : Reviving the Debate over US (In)action during the Revolution

    RESEARCH DOCUMENT /// Hungary 1956 : Reviving the Debate over US (In)action during the Revolution

    image001 5

    The toppled head of Joseph Stalin sits on Rákóczi út in Budapest on October 23, 1956. (Photo: Róbert Hofbauer, Fortepan, from Wikimedia Commons)

    Hungary 1956 : Reviving the Debate over US (In)action during the Revolution

    Eisenhower’s Caution Broadly Justified, Declassified Defense Department Study Finds

    But Swifter, More Imaginative Response Might Have Brought Different Results

    U.S. Officials Weighed but Rejected Many Options Including Tactical Nukes

    Posted May 10, 2017
    National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 591
    Edited by Dr. Ronald D. Landa
    Introduced by Malcolm Byrne
    For more information: nsarchiv, 202.994.7000

    Washington D.C., May 10, 2017 – The United States’ cautious response to the unexpectedly powerful popular uprising in Hungary in 1956 grew out of the Eisenhower administration’s policy of “keeping the pot boiling” in Eastern Europe without having it “boil over” into a possible nuclear conflict, according to an unpublished Defense Department historical study posted for the first time by the National Security Archive at The George Washington University.

    Eisenhower and his top aides, including Secretary of State John Foster Dulles – often seen as one of the most aggressive Cold Warriors – opted for the long view of encouraging a gradual erosion of Soviet domination of the socialist camp.

    The study, by Dr. Ronald D. Landa, is a follow-on to another recently posted here entitled, “Almost Successful Recipe: The United States and East European Unrest prior to the 1956 Hungarian Revolution.” Readers are encouraged to examine both documents together since they contain complementary information.

    Defending Eisenhower’s reticence to take stiffer action, including covertly assisting the Hungarian rebels or threatening to use tactical nuclear weapons on supply routes into Hungary, the study notes his concerns about inadvertently touching off a nuclear war with the USSR. At the same time, the author points out that Eisenhower “let the matter slide” by early in the crisis rejecting a recommendation that he convene a special meeting of the National Security Council to consider possible responses, which “undercut the urgency for action.”

    This study differs markedly from a number of Hungarian, American, and other historical accounts that take a harsher view of U.S. policy, accusing it of cynicism, hypocrisy, and plain obliviousness about the nature of the crisis. For one thing, it suggests that the U.N. decision to send an emergency force to the Middle East during the Suez crisis, more than the administration’s rhetoric about loosening Moscow’s ties with the East European satellites or hopes of liberation fostered by Radio Free Europe, was chiefly responsible for any expectations of Western military assistance that Hungarians had.

    Today’s posting is the third and final in a series Landa completed for the Historical Office of the Office of the Secretary of Defense during 2011 and early 2012. The National Security Archive thanks him for donating these materials.

    READ THE DOCUMENT

    Document 1

    2012-02-00

    The 1956 Hungarian Revolution: A Fresh Look at the U.S. Response (Draft, February 2012)

    Draft study by Dr. Ronald D. Landa, prepared for the Historical Office of the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

  • SECURITY FILES /// 5 Questions : Operation Euphrates Shield

    SECURITY FILES /// 5 Questions : Operation Euphrates Shield

    1. What are the technical details of the operation?

    The “Operation Euphrates Shield” is a military operation led by the Turkish Armed Forces (TAF) together with the Syrian opposition forces to eliminate DAESH from Jarabulus in the Syrian province of Aleppo. Along with the Turkish air and land forces, special TAF units and the National Intelligence Organization (MIT) are also taking part in this operation, which is partially supported by the international coalition against DAESH. Turkey trained and equipped the Syrian opposition forces of Sultan Murad Brigade, Sham Front, Faylaq al-Sham, Jaysh al-Nasr, Jaysh al-Tahrir, Hamza Division, Liwa al-Muattasim, Nureddin Zengi Brigade, 13th Division and Liwa Suqur al-Jabal for the “Operation Euphrates Shield” in advance. It is noteworthy that additionally to groups that were part of the Hawar-Kilis Operations Room, which had liberated Al-Rai from DAESH, the Nureddin Zengi Brigade, 13th Division, Jaysh al-Nasr and Faylaq al-Sham participated in the operation.

    Turkey has been striving for a long time to take control from DAESH of the 90-kilometer-long Azaz-Jarabulus region with the aim of securing its border line as in the case of the zone between Azaz and al-Rai that was already liberated from DAESH. In this manner, the “Operation Euphrates Shield” is in fact the second phase of a controlled effort to secure Turkey´s border with Syria. The operation began at 4 a.m., August 24 with Turkish artillery and howitzer strikes. Following these shellings, the Turkish Air Force and the International Coalition targeted several DAESH positions and helped to create a corridor for 25 TAF tanks and Syrian opposition forces to cross the border to Syria along with TAF Special Forces and other special units of the intelligence agency. Constitutively, the “Euphrates Shield” operation had two phases. The first phase aimed to liberate several villages and areas in the west and south of Jarabulus in order to be able to lay siege to the city. In the second phase, an offensive attack enabled the entrance of the aforementioned forces to the city center. The numbers of the Syrian opposition forces involved in this operation is estimated at 2,000-3,000.

    2. What is the importance of Jarabulus? Why did Turkey start this operation?

    Jarabulus is very important for all actors on the ground. The city has a logistic importance due to its position on the west banks of the Euphrates. In addition to this, its border crossing with Turkey will allow the logistic support of Turkey-supported oppositional forces. This border gate was considered DAESH’s last door to the world by virtue of the presence of illegal crossing points. Possible future operations towards south-west fronts are now easier since the city is secured by the Euphrates River on its east side and Turkey in the north. To create Turkey´s long-awaited security zone, DAESH could be attacked from the Azaz-Marea-al-Rai axis and from Jarabulus simultaneously.

    Jarabulus was taken by opposition forces on July 2012 and then captured by DAESH at the end of 2013. After the loss of Tal Abyad, DAESH held its last border gate at Jarabulus. Turkey arrested lots of people who tried to cross the border using illegal border-crosssings near the border gate of Jarabulus. In 2015, the PYD tried to take control of Jarabulus, so they could unite their self-declared cantons in Northern Syria. Jarabulus is important to Turkey for avoiding further threats to its border and for preventing the fusion of the PYD cantons.

    3. How will the regional dimensions be shaped after the operation?

    During his visit to Ankara, Joe Biden constantly emphasized that “The people of Turkey have no greater friend than the United States of America.” This could be understood as the USA expressing its wish to continue its cooperating relationship with Turkey. In this regard the U.S. demand that the PYD/YPG withdraw their forces back to the east side of the Euphrates could be interpreted as a positive step towards Turkey´s Syria policy. Furthermore, the weak response of the Assad regime could be seen as a result of the Turkish-Iranian talks. Added to this, the normalization process with Russia leads to the same enemy setting, namely of DAESH and PYD/YPG. The policy of Turkey from the very beginning to maintain the territorial integrity of Syria made it possible to reach an agreement on this base with the other sides. The common goal to fight against DAESH, which was created by the USA, now has developed into a fight also against the PYD/YPG to save the territorial integrity of Syria.

    On the other side, all developments until “Operation Euphrates Shield” on the northern countryside of Aleppo were in favor of the PYD/YPG. The SDF/PYD/YPG, which has gained the support of the US-led Internal Coalition lead, was able to make great progress against DAESH and the Syrian opposition. But with this operation, Turkey and the Turkish Air Force are now effective on the ground. This was the first time Turkish jets entered the Syrian airspace since the downing of a Russian jet. With this move Turkey also broke the aerial control of the International Coalition. As a result, this will also influence the situation on the ground in Syria. The PYD/YPG has made positive gains for its dream of a PYD corridor under the banner of the fight against DAESH, but now they have lost their role as the force fighting DAESH and given up their advantage as a result of the air support from the International Coalition. The opposition force will be able to advance against DAESH and to limit the countryside controlled by the PYD/YPG. After pushing back PYD/YPG and DAESH forces, the position of Turkey and the Syrian opposition will get stronger.

    4. How is the existence of the PYD/PKK in Northern Syria a threat to Turkey?

    The PYD gained dominance in the regions of Afrin, Ayn al-Arab and Jazira by creating a symbiotic relationship with the Assad regime during the Syrian revolution. Since 2003, they acted as the Syrian affiliate of the PKK. Finally, they took control of a region in the northwest and northeast of Syria with the aim of creating a corridor that went as far as Afrin. The PYD has been behind the ethnic cleansing of Turkmens and Arabs in the region in an effort to create a society dominated by its own population. The PYD also give the HPG logistic support for terrorist attacks in Turkey. The military alliance with the USA against DAESH gave them new power, as a result of which they declared the Northern Syrian Federation. In conclusion, the PYD is a threat to Turkey and to the territorial integrity of Syria.

    5. What are the next steps for Turkey?

    One can expect that Turkey will take steps to effectuate a safe zone after the “Operation Euphrates Shield,” which has been on its agenda for a long time. A buffer zone may be established, which covers an area between Azaz and Jarabulus of 90 km in length and 40 km in depth and which has been liberated from DAESH and PYD/PKK terrorist groups. Thus, while Turkey eliminates major threats to its national security, people who forcibly migrated from these areas, can now return to their homes safely. After “Operation Euphrates Shield,” Turkey will carry on the air support to opposition forces to enable them to progress firstly to al-Rai and then further south against DAESH. Turkey should take steps to secure its borderline as much as possible and provide the Syrian opposition forces the support to go deeper towards the southern countryside. With this change of the balance of power, Turkey can support the unification efforts of the Syrian opposition forces in Idlib and Aleppo and lead them toward becoming a powerful actor on the ground and at the negotiation tables with the regime. Turkey should also try to isolate the YPG and to win over other groups that are under the umbrella of the SDF. Finally, following this, Turkey should act together with local actors, groups and tribes to push the YPG towards the east of the Euphrates.

  • Turkish Writer Exposes Persecution of Jews in Turkey

    Turkish Writer Exposes Persecution of Jews in Turkey

     

     Harut Sassounian
     
     
    Israel National News published an extremely interesting article written by Turkish journalist Uzay Bulut on the discrimination and persecution that Turkish Jews have suffered since the establishment of the Turkish Republic in 1923.
     
    This is an important exposé since the Turkish government has gone to great lengths for many decades to deceive the international community that there is great tolerance for Jews in Turkish and that Jews lived in a democratic society which protected their civil and religious rights. The aim of this Turkish propaganda campaign was two-fold: To keep Israeli leaders and American Jews happy so they would support Turkish interests in Washington and enlist the political lobbying clout of American Jews in Washington to counter congressional efforts to recognize the Armenian Genocide.
     
    The Turkish government back in 1992 commemorated with a big splash the 500th anniversary of Jews fleeing from Spain and relocating in Turkey. Ankara co-opted many of the Jewish community leaders, including the Chief Rabbi, into propagating this false historical narrative. When I wrote an editorial back then exposing the lies of that celebration, I got a letter from the head of the commemorative events, asking why I wanted to cast a negative light on their celebration. Interestingly, that Jewish leader did not contest any of the facts in my article on the persecution of Jews in the Ottoman Empire throughout the centuries.
     
    Bulut’s article is significant because it describes the persecution of Jews not centuries ago but during our own times in ‘modern’ Turkey! The article begins with a news item from the Turkish Milliyet newspaper reporting that dozens of historic Jewish synagogues “run the risk of disappearing forever.” One of the main reasons why these synagogues are disappearing is that the majority of the Jewish community of Turkey has departed from Turkey fleeing from “systematic discrimination and campaigns of forced Turkification and Islamization.” Bulut reports that in 1923, at the beginning of the Turkish Republic, there were 81,454 Jews in Turkey. That number has dwindled to “fewer than 15,000.” The last of Jewish schools was shut down by the Turkish government in 1937, according to Bulut.
     
    Here is the list of the major episodes of Turkish persecution and discrimination against Jews and other non-Turkish minorities in recent decades, as compiled by Turkish journalist Bulut:
     
    — The Turkish Law of Family adopted in 1934 forced Jews and other non-Turks to abandon their ethnic names and adopt Turkish sounding names.
     
    — “Jews were deprived of their freedom of movement at least three times: in 1923, 1925 and 1927.” Bulut also mentions that “during the Holocaust, Turkey opened its doors to very few Jewish and political refugees and even took measures to prevent Jewish immigration in 1937.”
     
    — Hate speech and anti-Semitic comments are very prevalent in Turkish society and the media. Activities in support of Israel by the Jewish community were banned by the Republic of Turkey.
     
    — The Turkish government has assigned secret code numbers to individuals of Jewish, Armenian and Greek descent. That way the government can track them down and expose their background when necessary.
     
    — “Laws that excluded Jews and other non-Muslims from certain professions:” The Republic of Turkey banned these minorities from holding government positions. “Thousands of non-Muslims lost their jobs,” according to Bulut.
     
    — Prohibition of the use in public of all languages except Turkish. The “Citizen Speak Turkish” campaign in the first years of the Republic mainly targeted the Jewish community, according to Rifat Bali, the leading scholar of Turkish Jewry.
     
    — “The Jews of Eastern Thrace were targeted by pogroms from June 21-July 4, 1934. These began with a boycott of Jewish businesses, and were followed by physical attacks on Jewish-owned buildings, which were first looted, then set on fire. Jewish men were beaten, and some Jewish women reportedly raped. Terrorized by this turn of events, more than 15,000 Jews fled the region.”
     
    — The conscription of non-Muslims in the Turkish Army (1941-42). “On April 22, 1941, 12,000 non-Muslims (also known as “the twenty classes”), including Jewish men — even the blind and physically disabled — were conscripted. But instead of doing active service, they were sent to work in labor battalions under terrible conditions for the construction of roads and airports. Some of them lost their lives or caught diseases.”
     
    — “On Nov. 11, 1942, the Turkish government enacted the Wealth Tax Law, which divided the taxpayers in four groups, as per their religious backgrounds: Muslims, non-Muslims, converts (‘donme’), i.e. members of a Sabbatean sect of Jewish converts to Islam, and foreign nationals. Only 4.94 percent of Turkish Muslims had to pay the Wealth Tax. The Armenians were the most heavily taxed, followed by Jews. According to the scholar Başak İnce, ‘the underlying reason was the elimination of minorities from the economy, and the replacement of the non-Muslim bourgeoisie by its Turkish counterpart.’”
     
    — “During the 6-7 September 1955 government-instigated attacks against non-Muslim communities in Istanbul, Turkish mobs devastated the Greek, Armenian, and Jewish districts of the city, destroying and looting their places of worship, homes, businesses, cemeteries, and schools, among others.”
     
    — “Murders of Jews: Yasef Yahya, a 39-year-old Jewish dentist was brutally murdered on August 21, 2003 in his office in the Şişli district of Istanbul, many Jewish lawyers and doctors in Istanbul removed the signs on their offices in order not to have the same fate as Yahya.”
     
    This list of continued harassment and persecution of Jews and other minorities should be sent to the international media each time that the Turkish government misrepresents its record of mistreatment of the Jewish community in Turkey.
    It is a shame that the Israeli government does not whisper a single word of criticism in the face of such persecution of fellow Jews in Turkey. On the contrary, Israeli officials cowardly buckle under pressure from Turkey to deny the Armenian Genocide and ban this crime against humanity from Israeli TV and academic conferences.
  • International observers in Turkey to hold press conference on Monday

    International observers in Turkey to hold press conference on Monday

    press e media

    ANKARA, 14 April 2017 – The international observers monitoring the constitutional referendum in Turkey will present their preliminary post-referendum statement at a news conference on Monday, 17 April, in Ankara.

    The mission is a joint undertaking of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE).

    The statement will be delivered by Cezar Florin Preda, Head of the PACE delegation, and Tana de Zulueta, Head of the ODIHR Limited Referendum Observation Mission.

    The International Observation Mission comprises 63 observers from 26 countries, including 40 long-term observers and experts deployed by OSCE/ODIHR and 23 parliamentarians and staff from PACE.

    Journalists are invited to attend the press conference at 15:00, Monday, 17 April, in the Kingdom Conference Hall of the Holiday Inn Ankara, Kavaklıdere Mahallesi, Tunus Caddesi 7, Ankara

    Live stream of the press conference will be available at:

     

    For further information contact:

    Thomas Rymer, ODIHR, +90 535 891 9998 or +48 609 522 266, thomas.rymer@odihr.pl

    Nathalie Bargellini, PACE, +90 544 781 49 74 or +33 6 65 40 32 82, nathalie.bargellini@coe.int

  • EU wants Turkey’s Erdogan to be the next ‘Yanukovych’

    EU wants Turkey’s Erdogan to be the next ‘Yanukovych’

     

    Very interesting perspective from Pravda.
    Pulat Tacar
    EU wants Turkey’s Erdogan to be the next ‘Yanukovych’World » Asia » Turkey. The latest and breaking news from Turkey

    When discussing the recent scandal in the relations between Turkey and the European Union, many pay attention to the electoral aspect of this conflict – the forthcoming elections in Germany and France and a referendum in Turkey. However, it remains unclear why Turkish President Erdogan has decided to go to the length of the conflict.

    Many Russian and not only Russian political analysts or teachers of political science do not understand, for some reason, the difference between making and developing decisions in big politics. This is an aspect of paramount importance in understanding the very nature of democracy. For example, many say that we can not change anything in foreign policy, because it is the president, who makes decisions at this point. This is a wrong point of view, because there are many people, who analyze various issues, elaborate decisions and show influence on the president.

    Naturally, there are people, who make decisions, form medium and long-term policy in the European Union.

    Turkish President Recep Erdogan is a very smart and experienced politician, who has an amazing, and I would even say, phenomenal political instinct. Erdogan has a remarkable sense of danger, which allows him to stay in power for so long despite intricate intrigues in the Turkish policy. He has felt something and decided to aggravate the relations with the European Union.

    There are reasons to believe that Erdogan understood that the EU was going to launch the process that could be referred to as the “Ukrainization” of Turkey, in which Erdogan would have to play the role of the Turkish Yanukovych or even Ceausescu or Gaddafi.

    Let’s take a look at the recent history of the European Union. The machine of German and French capital constantly needs the process of EU expansion. When expanding the European Union, the German-French capital destroys productions on newly acquired territories and captures new markets at the same time.

    At first, Germany and France (as well as small countries of the “old” EU) destroyed production in Southern Europe. Spain still has Seat and Italy has Fiat, but there is practically no machine-building in these countries, nor are there shipyards in Greece). Afterwards, having seized and digested the economy and production sector of those countries, the German capital turned to Eastern Europe and the Baltic States.

    Turkey next after Ukraine

    The EU needs to constantly expand by destroying productions in new territories and conquering new markets. Otherwise, the EU will simply disappear in competition with Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Indian, and even Russian and American producers. The European competition will not be able to stand fair competition. Ukraine is the most recent victim of the German-French capital. The German capital has not been able to fully digest it, but the destruction of the Ukrainian national economy is only a matter of time, and the capital will need to expand further. Turkey appears to be next on the line.

    It is important to understand here that capital is not malevolent or insidious. It destroys the Ukrainian economy not because Germany wants the Ukrainians to live worse and worse. On the contrary, German masters of life want the Ukrainian “untermenschen” to live well under the German “ordnung”, gradually turning them into law-abiding and obedient Europeans. I think that when Ukraine recognizes the will of the people of the Crimea and people’s republics of Donbass, Ukraine will become a member of the European Union.

    Simply put, capital is indifferent to everything except its profit. It needs to capture new markets and destroy their production. German and French entrepreneurs naturally assume that selling Volkswagen and Peugeot vehicles in Ukraine is much more profitable than letting Ukraine make its own cars. Therefore, they have decided to let the Ukrainian Zaporozhye Automobile Plant die in peace.

    After digesting the Ukrainian economy that used to be Europe’s fifth largest economy in 1991, German planners and strategists will turn to Turkey as the next candidate for the “European integration.” Similarly, Turkey may become a member of the European Union, if Turkey lets European giants destroy its national industry and agriculture.

    Turkey’s future depends on relations with Russia

    Needless to say that Erdogan does not like the idea. Of course, Turkey is not Ukraine. Yet, Turkey already has its fifth column. This is the old Istanbul commercial capital, which has little to do with the manufacturing sector, but is very interested in Turkey’s accession to the European Union. Representatives of the Istanbul capital despise Erdogan, who relies on industrialists of Anatolia (the Asian part of Turkey).

    Yet, the Anatolian capital that has made Erdogan become the Erdogan he is today, can easily become the comprador capital in nature, because production has reached new stages, when financial services (for example, export services, export insurance, banking services, lending, etc.) play a more important role in terms of profit than production itself. To crown it all, no one knows who is stronger: the Istanbul trade capital or the Anatolian industrial capital.

    In addition, there is the so-called “military” sector of the Turkish economy that remains under the control of the military. First and foremost, it goes about heavy and mining industries, as well as shipbuilding and similar industries. There are many Europe-oriented people among the Turkish military, and those people may support those, who may wish to topple Erdogan like Yanukovych.

    One may say that Erdogan is a lot stronger than Yanukovych. Yet, Yanukovych managed to organize his supporters after the first Maidan in Ukraine and thus win both presidential and parliamentary elections in the country. In 2012-2013, many considered his removal from power absolutely impossible. Similarly, many think that it is impossible to topple Turkish President Erdogan.

    Erdogan understands that Yanukovych’s attempts to sit between two chairs – be nice to both the European Union and Russia – have taken him to the shameful fiasco. Probably, Erdogan correctly assesses the current situation and understands that he needs to be more sincere, more open with Russia. Hopefully, he understands that his political future and, most importantly, the future of Turkey depends on relations with Russia.

    Said Gafurov
    Pravda.Ru

    Read article on the Russian version of Pravda.Ru

  • Is Turkey Still a Democracy?

    Is Turkey Still a Democracy?

    An upcoming referendum and a vicious war of words with Europe could end up making Erdogan more powerful — and isolated — than ever. By david.kenner

    ANKARA, Turkey — In a half-destroyed temple overlooking the Turkish capital, there is a carved inscription of a text known as “The Deeds of the Divine Augustus.” It is the most complete surviving version of the funerary inscription of the first Roman emperor, Augustus. Following its hagiographic accounts of wars won, gladiatorial spectacles commissioned, and money showered upon the populace, it concludes with a line that would later be echoed by the founder of the Turkish Republic, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk: Augustus, it says, was considered by the people of Rome as the “father of the country.” Two millennia after Augustus, the conspiracies and political machinations of ancient Rome have nothing on modern Turkey. Today, the debate revolves around whether its current ruler, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is echoing Augustus once again — this time by gutting the country’s democratic institutions and concentrating all power in his own hands. On April 16, Turks will vote in a referendum over a package of constitutional amendments meant to concentrate more power in the office of the presidency, the position currently held by Erdogan.

    Trending Articles Hawaii Court Stops Trump’s Second Travel Ban Challengers argued the revised order was still a Muslim ban — citing Trump’s own words — and a federal judge agreed.

    The vote serves as a stand-in for the country’s views on Erdogan’s 14 years of rule. The rest of the world, meanwhile, is staging its own informal referendum on Erdogan. Over three days of meetings last week in Ankara, government officials defended the amendments as commonsense measures to ensure administrative stability and reform an undemocratic constitution devised by the country’s former military dictators. The opposition leaders spearheading the “no” campaign in the referendum, meanwhile, warned that the country was sliding into authoritarianism — in some cases, comparing Erdogan’s style of governance to dictators like Saddam Hussein. It’s too soon to predict whether Erdogan will win the upcoming referendum, but his government is already proving incapable of making its case to the West. The referendum has already sparked a new rift between Turkey and several European states. Both Germany and the Netherlands, which are both approaching their own elections amid rising anti-immigrant sentiment, recently banned demonstrations by Turkish officials seeking to drum up the “yes” vote among expatriate Turks. Erdogan responded by accusing both countries of NazismErdogan responded by accusing both countries of Nazism, warning that the Netherlands will “pay the price” for its decision. The spat with Germany and the Netherlands is just one example. On a range of issues — from the state of Turkey’s democracy to the Turkish role in Syria to Turkey’s extradition request for the U.S.-based cleric Fethullah Gulen, whom it accuses of planning last summer’s coup attempt — Western countries have refused to adopt Ankara’s views. Ankara is partially responsible for its own alienation. Consider last week’s trip to Turkey organized for more than a dozen American journalists from outlets such as the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal by Ankara Mayor Melih Gokcek. The event was billed as a chance to meet with the country’s top officials, including President Erdogan, to hear their narrative of the coup attempt and why the United States should extradite Gulen. The meetings, however, failed to materialize, and reporters were treated to a four-hour meeting with Gokcek himself. The majority of reporters left the meeting in protest. During the talk, Gokcek failed to present a single piece of evidence implicating Gulen in the coup and instead laid out his own conspiratorial worldview. “A recent earthquake in the gulf [off Turkey’s western coast] was triggered by the United States and Israel with a ship.… With a little bit of energy, they tried to trigger the fault line,” Gokcek said. The Ankara mayor, a member of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), has warned before that foreign and domestic enemies were causing earthquakes in Turkey. He also mused that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton had founded the Islamic State, citing the statements of U.S.

    President Donald Trump as corroboration. “I investigate a lot,” he said, when asked for further evidence. “I have the largest intelligence service in the world. You know what it is? Google.” Other officials made the government’s case more successfully. Several argued for a “yes” vote by pointing to the instability of governing coalitions — the republic has had 65 governments in its 94-year history — as a key factor in blocking much-needed reforms and empowering a cadre of unelected bureaucrats and army officers. “I genuinely believe that the current system is not sustainable.… [It] is prone to crises and conflicts,” said Deputy Prime Minister Mehmet Simsek. “I would fully recommend that instead of just focusing on fears and theories about President Erdogan, just look at the text.”“I would fully recommend that instead of just focusing on fears and theories about President Erdogan, just look at the text.” The constitutional amendments would concentrate executive power in the hands of the president, a position that until now has been largely ceremonial. The amendments would give him the power to appoint and fire ministers, as well as design state budgets. The president would be able to serve two five-year terms and, unlike now, continue to serve as the head of a political party. With the changes going into effect in 2019, this would potentially allow Erdogan to stay in power until 2029.

    Government officials, however, contend that the package would actually enhance the separation of powers in Turkey by dividing parliament’s existing powers with the office of the presidency. Parliament would maintain the power to approve the president’s budget, ratify international treaties and declarations of war, and overrule a presidential decree through legislation. The legal merits of the constitutional changes aside, government officials also portray a “yes” vote as a victory against their domestic opponents — most prominently, the supporters of Gulen and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which has waged a decades-long insurgency against the state. “I’m convinced that April 16 may serve as a closure,” Simsek said. “Because Turkey’s efforts against the religious cult [the Gulenists] are largely done. The cases are at the court; it’s up to the courts to decide. And the PKK, their strategy once they got emboldened with gains in Syria, it backfired, because Turkey is no ordinary country.” But “closure” is precisely what Turkey’s opposition fears. They think it means they would lose any remaining political influence they have held on to since last summer’s coup attempt, and Erdogan’s subsequent domestic crackdown, by entrenching his position as the country’s preeminent political figure. “We don’t want one-man rule, which is an authoritarian regime,” Kemal Kilicdaroglu, the leader of the largest opposition party, told Foreign Policy from his office in parliament. “The authority to enact laws will be given to one man with this draft change, and we find it very dangerous.”“The authority to enact laws will be given to one man with this draft change, and we find it very dangerous.” Kilicdaroglu, the head of the Republican People’s Party (CHP), is leading the campaign for the “no” vote. But he argues that he is doing so while the playing field is tilted against him. The state of emergency governing Turkey since last summer’s coup attempt has had a chilling effect on public debate, he said, preventing civil society and business associations from expressing their opinion on the referendum for fear of the government. He also contended that the vast majority of Turkey’s media is sympathetic to Erdogan after a crackdown on the press over the past year. Amnesty International recently reported that more than 160 press outlets have been shuttered since the coup attempt and more than 120 journalists are currently imprisoned, making Turkey “the biggest jailer of journalists in the world.” “There is no press freedom in Turkey,” Kilicdaroglu said bluntly. Erdogan, he said, had brought the country “to the edge of the abyss.” The second-largest opposition party, the Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP), has the most reason to fear a post-referendum government crackdown. Thirteen of the pro-Kurdish party’s parliamentarians are currently imprisoned, accused of links to the PKK. The party’s co-leaders, Selahattin Demirtas and Figen Yuksekdag, have both been jailed, and Yuksekdag was stripped from her seat in parliament after being convicted on terrorism charges. Among those arrested was the party’s spokesman, Ayhan Bilgen. At the HDP headquarters in Ankara, Osman Baydemir, a former mayor of the majority-Kurdish city of Diyarbakir, has been thrust into the role. “If you come here next month, I’m not sure who you will meet as a party speaker. I hope Ayhan Bilgen gets out of jail.… But it looks like, unfortunately, I will go to prison, too,” Baydemir said. “This is actually Figen Yuksekdag’s room we are using now. I’m pretty sure that in just this hour, at just this time, [Turkey’s security services] are listening to this room.” However the referendum turns out, the war between Erdogan and his domestic and international foes only seems poised to escalate. As Turkey’s president accuses his antagonists in Europe of Nazism, his political enemies at home are only too happy to throw equally bombastic accusations back at him. “Erdogan’s political style looks like Saddam Hussein’s or Bashar al-Assad’s style,” Baydemir said. “They want to make a one-party state — this is like the example of North Korea.” ADEM ALTAN/AFP/Getty Images