Tag: Işık Koşaner

Turkey’s military defanged: Is it good for democracy?

By Alexander Christie-Miller, Correspondent / August 5, 2011

Istanbul

When Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan accepted the resignations of his four most senior military officers on July 29, he savored a victory unprecedented in Turkey’s modern history: Whenever the government and army had squared off before, politicians had been the ones to go.

Related stories

* Turkey coup plot: What’s behind the tumultuous identity crisis

* Turkey coup plot: 12 officers charged as government takes on military

* Turkish leaders meet to dispel coup plot tensions

But amid celebration of the military’s defeat as a waymark of democracy, little scrutiny has been given to allegations that fabricated evidence and the framing of suspects played a role in its downfall.

The military’s chief of general staff, Isik Kosaner, said in his parting statement that it was “impossible” to continue serving due to his inability to protect the legal rights of some 250 officers detained for a range of alleged antigovernment plots.

Many of them have been held for more than a year without trial, and publicly available papers relating to the plots reveal significant inconsistencies.

RELATED: How Turkey’s military upheaval will affect NATO

The main document detailing an alleged 2003 coup plot code-named “Sledgehammer,” included in an indictment leaked by both prosecution and defense, refers to an organization that was not founded until two years later.

And the timing of many of the arrest warrants and charges has fueled claims that the probes are politically motivated. They are often filed in the lead-up to Supreme Military Council meetings such as this week’s, meetings at which the government and army have clashed over military promotions.

Separately, scores of journalists, academics, and others are involved in mass trials for involvement in an alleged deep state network. Hundreds of Kurdish politicians and activists have also been detained as part of a sprawling antiterror investigation.

“This is not about whether you’re pro-military or antimilitary, it’s about the rule of law,” says Asli Aydintasbas, a columnist at the daily Milliyet newspaper. “Do we want to live in a country where political opponents are eliminated by trials that are unconvincing? I find it very disturbing.”

But many Turks have scant sympathy for a military that for decades brutalized its own people and overthrew four governments as self-appointed guardian of the secular state forged by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.

“I’m not going to say that the deficiencies in due process is the main aspect in [the Sledgehammer] case,” says Sahin Alpay, a columnist for Today’s Zaman newspaper. “It’s helping to put an end to the political role of the armed forces.”

Confrontation between AKP, military

Turkey’s long history of military intervention in civilian rule began in 1960, when the army overthrew Prime Minister Adnan Menderes, who was then tried before a kangaroo court and executed.

After seizing power again in 1971, it staged a third coup in 1980, detaining 650,000 people. Of them, 230,000 were tried, 14,000 stripped of citizenship, 50 executed, and 171 killed in custody.

via Turkey’s military defanged: Is it good for democracy? – CSMonitor.com.

August 6, 2011
Admiral Mullen Discusses Critical Military Engagement in Turkey

Admiral Mullen Discusses Critical Military Engagement in Turkey

Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 7 Issue: 160

September 8, 2010

By Saban Kardas

Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, visited Turkey last week. Although the official purpose of Mullen’s visit was to congratulate his Turkish counterpart General Isik Kosaner, recently appointed as the Chief of the General Staff, this introductory visit had no fixed agenda. Mullen had a chance to gauge Turkey’s position on many of US policies in the surrounding regions. In his meetings with Turkish military and civilian leaders, Mullen exchanged opinions on US withdrawal from Iraq, the Iranian nuclear issue and the international military presence in Afghanistan, as well as reiterating US support for Turkey on various issues such as its struggle against the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and sales of military equipment for the Turkish armed forces (Hurriyet, Cumhuriyet, Radikal, September 5).

On the issue of Iran, Mullen downplayed recent disagreements, arguing that both Turkey and the US share the common objective of preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. However, as Ankara’s earlier diplomacy on the Iranian nuclear standoff attested, such blanket mutual understanding was not enough to eliminate major differences of opinion over how best to deal with Iran (EDM, June 1). Ankara’s objections to a tougher US position and insistence on a diplomatic solution culminated in Turkey’s vote against a US-brokered UN Security Council resolution authorizing a new round of sanctions in June. Coupled with other crises, such as the problems encountered in Turkish-Israeli relations, this development further strained bilateral relations, prompting many US politicians and interest groups to question the strategic partnership with Turkey. In this tense environment, in August the Republicans blocked President Barack Obama’s nominee for the next Ambassador to Turkey, Frank Ricciardione. The vacant post highlighted how tenuous Obama’s Turkey policy remained, as well as the impact of Ankara’s recent policies on US domestic politics.

While for Washington a combination of diplomatic efforts and punitive sanctions is needed to deal with Iran, Ankara still believes that constructive diplomacy must be prioritized. Earlier in August, Mullen had raised tensions in the region, following his statement that military options against Iran remain on the table, which invited a harsh reaction from Iran, placing Turkey in a difficult diplomatic position (AFP, August 3).

In this context, Mullen adopted a rather balanced tone in Ankara and said that he had no plan to question Turkey over the Security Council vote and emphasized that he welcomed Turkish leaders’ statements that they would comply with UN sanctions against Iran. Nonetheless, this last point underscored continued differences over Iran. The Turkish government has reiterated on many occasions that it would implement only sanctions authorized by the UN, not the stricter set of measures being introduced by the US and the European countries.

Mullen also referred to ongoing discussions within NATO pertaining to the formation of a missile defense system against Iran, which will be part of the agenda of the upcoming NATO summit in November. Turkey is one of the possible locations for radars and interceptors. However, the Turkish position on this issue remains unclear, and it is unlikely to welcome such a proposal considering Ankara’s sensitivity to Tehran’s concerns.

Turkey’s contribution to the international military effort in Afghanistan was also discussed. Praising Turkey’s critical role in ensuring Afghanistan’s security through its provision of troops and training to Afghan security personnel, Mullen requested that Turkey maintains its military contribution after its command over international troops in Kabul and the surrounding area expires in October. Turkey has contributed to the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) since its inception immediately after the US invasion of the country in 2001, and has assumed the command of ISAF on many occasions. Although the US has pressured Turkey to increase its troop levels, Ankara has refused to do so, on the grounds that non-military means should be used to address the root causes of the conflict. Washington has come to acknowledge Ankara’s concerns on this issue, but wants to ensure that Turkey maintains at least its current level of commitment to ISAF.

An additional area discussed during the bilateral talks was Turkey’s specific role in US withdrawal plans from Iraq. Ever since the Obama administration announced its withdrawal plans, there has been speculation that Turkey would serve as one of the exit routes for US troops and military equipment (EDM, March 9, 2009). Denying such reports, Mullen stressed that he was not in Ankara to negotiate the terms of the US military exit from Iraq through Turkey. Since the transfer of military units will require authorization from the Turkish parliament, it is unlikely that Washington will seriously consider this option. Indeed, a recent statement from the Turkish foreign ministry also ruled out such an option, though welcoming the possibility of moving non-combat elements through the country. If an agreement is reached, Turkey would be ready to create a safe zone for the transfer of technical equipment (Sabah, September 3).

The visit by Mullen underscores the extent to which US-Turkish relations are characterized by military-strategic issues, and how the United States needs Turkey’s cooperation at best and at the very least its acquiescence for the successful execution of its military engagements in the regions surrounding Turkey. Therefore, Turkey is a key part of discussions on major US military campaigns, which serves as a constraint on Washington and prevents it from severing ties with this critical ally over its independent policies. Turkey, in contrast, relies on US assistance and the transfer of military technology, which curbs any tendency on its part to pursue unilateral policies. Aware of this mutual interdependence in military-security affairs, civilian and military bureaucrats from both sides have intensified their efforts to maintain the pace of cooperation. Recently, Turkish foreign ministry officials visited Washington to reiterate Ankara’s determination to maintain strategic ties with the US. This message will perhaps be repeated during the visit to the US later this month by Turkish President, Abdullah Gul, and Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, as part of the UN General Assembly.

https://jamestown.org/program/admiral-mullen-discusses-critical-military-engagement-in-turkey/

September 9, 2010
Turkish Civilian-Military Relations Overhauled

Turkish Civilian-Military Relations Overhauled

Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 7 Issue: 156

August 12, 2010

By Saban Kardas

The recent Supreme Military Council (YAS) meeting served as an additional showdown between the Justice and Development Party (AKP) and the country’s military leadership. When the four-day long YAS meeting ended on August 4, it failed to fill key posts, raising questions about the future command structure of the Turkish military, as well as the overall direction of the civil-military relationship.

A prime function of the YAS was to discuss the status of military personnel expecting appointments or retirements in the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK). The established traditions regarding the promotions and appointments in the Turkish military’s upper echelons, which are based on tenure and seniority, have been implemented strictly. Although the government and the president have the final say in appointment and promotion decisions, traditionally, the civilian authorities endorse the list suggested by the top military brass.

The AKP government’s active interference in appointments this year has been an important exception to the rule. In the words of one Turkish security analyst and close observer of military affairs, Nihat Ali Ozcan, it was “the biggest crisis ever encountered by the Turkish armed forces in its history” (Hurriyet Daily News, August 4).

The ongoing investigations into different coup plots in which several active and retired military officers are charged over their involvement in plans to overthrow the government eventually affected the promotions. On the eve of the YAS meeting, a court summoned 19 officers, and various retired officers, to testify in a probe, including the current First Army Corps Commander, General Hasan Igsiz. None of the suspects surrendered to the police, and appealed against their arrest.

The government refused to consider the promotion of military officers, implicated in the coup plots. Particularly, the government objected to Igsiz’s appointment as the commander of the Land Forces, who was implicated in two investigations. His alleged involvement in a campaign to defame the government through setting up various web sites, known as “Internet Memorandum,” angered Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Moreover, the government delayed the promotion of 11 high ranking officials for whom arrest warrants were issued in the ongoing coup investigation, known as “Sledgehammer.” These various cases are connected to a probe into an alleged gang, Ergenekon, seeking to dismantle the incumbent government.

Reportedly, the current Chief of the General Staff (CGS), General Ilker Basbug, insisted on Igsiz’s promotion, raising tension between the government and military. There was a consensus that the current Land Forces Commander, Isik Kosaner, would replace Basbug as the new CGS. However, in the absence of an agreement on who would replace Kosaner due to President, Abdullah Gul, and the government’s refusal to sign Igsiz’s appointment, the decision was postponed.

Thus, when the results of the YAS were announced on the fourth day, it left the two key posts, CGS and Land Forces commander, unfilled. Naval Forces Commander, Admiral Esref Ugur Yigit, and Air Forces Commander, General Hasan Aksay, remained in their posts for another year, while Necdet Ozel was appointed as the new head of the Gendarmerie General Command (Anadolu Ajansi, August 4). Several efforts were made to address this crisis, through various meetings between the president, top government officials and military headquarters.

To complicate matters further, General Atilla Isik, who was expected to assume the Land Forces command instead of Igsiz, announced his request for retirement on August 5. The Turkish press speculated that Isik was protesting the government’s interference with the military’s inner workings over the appointment. Arguably, Basbug sought to mobilize force commanders to submit their resignations to protest against the government. Through such moves, it was further argued that Basbug was seeking to shape the future line of command, by opening the way to promote officers close to him. In particular, Basbug was allegedly seeking to block the new Gendarmerie commander Ozel’s succession of Kosaner as the CGS in 2013 (Bugun, August 6). Isik dismissed such speculation, and denied the allegations that he offered to resign due to pressures from within the military (www.ntvmsnbc.com, August 6). Nonetheless, this development delayed the resolution of the appointment crisis.

On Sunday, Erdogan announced a breakthrough, saying that the government and military had reached an agreement. Following president Gul’s approval, the standoff over the new command structure ended. Kosaner was appointed as the chief of staff, while the current EDOK commander General Erdal Ceylanoglu, who was appointed as the Commander of the First Army in the YAS meeting, was appointed as the new commander of the armed forces. Aegean Army Corps Commander, Hayri Kivrikoglu, became the Commander of the First Army. Ceylanoglu assumed the command of the armed forces, instead of the more senior General Ozel. Although this practice contravened the established rules, it secured Ozel’s path to become the CGS in 2013, replacing Kosaner (www.ntvmsnbc.com, August 9).

For supporters of the Erdogan government, this development marks a step towards greater civilian control over the military. In their view, even the fact that the current military leadership insisted on the promotion of officers under investigation highlighted its disregard for the ongoing judicial process and civil supremacy. They see the government’s insistence on shaping the top command chain, despite the military’s opposition, as a strong vindication that civil-military relations will be normalized, and the military will have to learn how to obey the rule of civil law. For critics and opposition parties, however, the government is interested in curbing the power of the military in order to consolidate its power in Turkish politics. By pointing to the timing of the court orders, they argue that the government is using the ongoing legal process to sweep the anti-government officers from office.

However, underlying this crisis is a power struggle between the military and the Erdogan government, and it appears the government has won in the latest showdown. Nevertheless, it may be too early to suggest that it signals an outright victory. Depending upon the outcome of controversial legal cases, civil-military relations may evolve in a different direction than desired by the government and its supporters.

https://jamestown.org/program/turkish-civilian-military-relations-overhauled/

August 13, 2010