Security expert Ülker: Civilian authorities should work overtime to revise old system


National security expert Mesut Ülker has said that the civilian authority in the country should work overtime to revise the system which nurtured the tutelage of the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK), and the recent showdown between top military brass and the government at this year’s Supreme Military Council (YAŞ) meeting sent strong signals that the civilian authority has started to check the armed forces.



Today's interactive toolbox


Video Photo Audio

Send to print Send to my friend

Post your comments

Read comments






“Now the civilian authorities should work overtime to revise the old system and to make it more democratic,” Ülker told Today’s Zaman in our Monday Talk interview.

The decisions announced late on Wednesday following the approval of President Abdullah Gül confirmed that 11 generals suspected of plotting a coup were denied promotion. The man at the center of the recent controversy is 1st Army Corps Commander Gen. Hasan Iğsız, who was recommended to be the next land forces commander by outgoing Chief of General Staff Gen. İlker Başbuğ. His promotion was vetoed by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on the grounds that he was allegedly involved in a conspiracy and smear campaign against the government.

According to Ülker, military personnel are usually respectful of rules and they will be ready for the change when it is made. And since there is much-needed wind beneath civil society’s wings demanding that change, the government should use the opportunity to enact it.

“War is too serious a matter to entrust to military men,” Ülker said, quoting French wartime leader Georges Clemenceau.

He answered our questions regarding this year’s YAŞ meeting and its implications.

What is unusual about this year’s YAŞ meetings and related developments?

Until now, the civilian authorities in the country would only put their signatures on the decisions of the high-ranking military officials and then the prime minister would present it for the president’s approval. But especially in the second term of the ruling Justice and Development Party [AK Party], which was first elected in 2002, responsibilities regarding the civilian-military relations have been reviewed. The government expressed its desire to use its legal authority and responsibility. The issue has been to have all institutions act within their areas of responsibility. What we see in the constitutions after the 1960 military coup has been a breach in the area of responsibility, especially on the part of the military. Even though the laws do not sometimes lead to this breach, in practice it has been different, and this has been evident in the YAŞ meetings. According to the law, YAŞ is headed by the prime minister, but prime ministers so far, until very recently, have been putting their signatures of approval on the decisions made by the top military commanders, as I said. Now this practice has been questioned. Secondly, it appears that Article 65 of the Law on TSK Staff, which stipulates that a member of the military who is imprisoned or is being tried cannot be promoted, is being implemented. We also see pressure by civil society on the civilian authorities to push for change on the issue.

How strong do you think that demand by civil society is given that there appears to be two camps in society?

Civil society, which demands change, is very strong. The demands of civil society are going to become more vivid in the coming days because the political channels are more open to such demands than before. And there is a struggle between the supporters of change and the status quo. It is obvious that the Constitution, which was designed following a military coup, is now very restrictive on the development of the society. That’s why we see increasing demands from society for a healthy constitutional change following the referendum on the constitutional amendment package. Now what we see regarding the YAŞ meeting and the decisions taken there is that the civilian authority is using its rightful power.

Some commentators are making this situation seem as if the government is interfering with the decisions made at the YAŞ meeting. What is your evaluation regarding that claim?

This is not an accurate perception or presentation. The president, the prime minister and the Cabinet have the authority to select the chief of General Staff and the force commanders. It is not legally possible for the government to interfere with the promotion of the lower-ranking military staff. The government has a rightful and lawful desire to select the people whom it will work with because responsibility for Turkey’s security falls on the shoulders of the government, the civilian authority. But because of the structural problems in the Turkish system, there have been several areas which the military interferes in. For example, geographical areas outside the jurisdiction of municipalities fall under the care of the gendarmerie, and as a result, we can say that about 80 percent of Turkey’s territory is governed by the military. This situation points to a lame democracy.

This specific issue that you mentioned has not been opened to public discussion yet.

Because some people are manipulating the situation. In that regard, we should take the Ergenekon case quite seriously. Some shady elements have power over the main arteries of democracy in Turkey to protect their own interests, and they have preferred doing it through the military. The shady elements desire to have a government which cannot be managed by the civilian authority.

‘There should be no crisis’

Regarding the YAŞ meeting and related developments, do you expect a crisis?

Not at all. The military authority has at times interfered in the civilian authority’s area. But when there is an objection to this by civilians, the military personnel can retreat because this has been indoctrinated in their education system. People in the military have complained from time to time that the civilian authority should have been more forceful in using its own rightful authority. We can ask why they have kept interfering in civilian affairs. The reason is that they have not been questioned about it; indeed, they have been expected to interfere in civilian affairs. The difference today is that they are questioned

Third Army Commander Gen. Saldıray Berk, who currently stands accused of being a member of Ergenekon, was appointed to the Training and Doctrine Command of the Land Forces. Is this because he is protected from prosecution? Shouldn’t he be suspended?

When there is so much controversy about somebody, suspension should be a consideration. The procedure for this is that the chief of General Staff should suggest it and then the defense minister should approve it. Unfortunately, the General Staff has been resisting this ever since the revelation of the military document [detailing a plot to illegally undermine the government] with the “wet signature” of Col. Dursun Çiçek. I don’t think the government is concerned about Berk, who is appointed to a post which does not involve operational authority. The important thing is to have the system work within the limits of democracy, and also have the military to provide security.

After almost each Kurdistan Workers’ Party [PKK] attack there are revelations in the media about how the military failed to prevent them, resulting in the deaths of Turkish soldiers. And the perception in the public is that either the military is inept or the news is not true; at least there is a suspicion about the military’s functioning. What would you say about this issue?

Following the Cold War, the TSK’s renewal has been an ongoing work. As a member of NATO, the TSK is doing that. But as we mentioned before, there are state traditions in Turkey regarding the TSK’s role in society. For example, Article 35 of the TSK’s Internal Service Code has served as the legal basis for coup perpetrators since it talks about “protecting the regime.” But the TSK has no option other than to stay within its military limits because the civilian authority is going to press for it. And if Gen. Işık Koşaner becomes the chief of General Staff as expected, his democratic vision will help to direct the TSK’s efforts into the area of security much more.

Do you expect an approach from him like that of former Chief of General Staff Gen. Hilmi Özkök?

Gen. Özkök was unique and he had wisdom. Gen. Koşaner can be called a lower-profile Hilmi Özkök.

‘General Staff fails to inform public’

What would you say about the percentage of military personnel who want the TSK to only be concerned with security in Turkey and not politics or civilian affairs?

We know that the new cadres, the young officers, desire that. And, when there are leaks to the media about the military’s security failures, it is not accurate to assume that they are only leaked by the younger officers. There are probably senior military personnel who have uneasy consciences and leak some materials to the press. Those leaks come out to improve the TSK. One recent example of this is the information coming from a retired Vice Adm. Atilla Kıyat.

What is your evaluation of the Hantepe attack, in which -- although allegedly being broadcast by unmanned aerial vehicles [UAVs], or Herons -- security forces failed to take action against the terrorist group? After the revelations, the General Staff seems to have launched an investigation into who leaked this information to the press rather than investigating the issue itself.

The General Staff has constantly been fed by threat perceptions. They fail to inform the public effectively. They don’t provide the necessary information. As a result, there is a false image about the TSK as if it is too far from the public, just like there is also an image of the government in fight with the TSK. Neither of these images is true. There could be negligence in the military and the military might be acting in a way so as to hide what happened from the public.

Let me ask more openly, couldn’t there be people in the military who might be collaborating with the PKK for various purposes?

Of course there could be. This would be revealed after a legal process. And there could be bad apples in each basket.

Do you think those bad apples would be separated?

Yes, they would, and that’s why the Ergenekon investigation is so important.

‘Bad apples will be separated’

Can you imagine a Turkey which tries its bad apples, no matter whether they are high-ranking military people and ministers or prime ministers?

Yes, I can. The country’s institutions are going to be improved, and we will see this after the referendum especially, and then in the process of creating the new constitution. Military personnel are usually respectful of rules; they either give orders or take orders. But the military coups have pushed the TSK outside its duties as threat perceptions have been at the forefront. The TSK has felt itself responsible for protecting the regime. But they will retreat when the new rules are set. In that regard, threat perceptions should definitely be reviewed because security is provided regarding those perceptions. The security sector should be also under democratic control.

You had said in one of your interviews that the TSK was an unbounded force.

Yes. There are a lot of issues in that regard, be it the review of the OYAK [military-run Turkish Armed Forces Assistance Center] security system, which is a big economic machine, and the military canteens, in which 10 percent of its expenditures are under the sole control of the commander. There is also a need to look at the Mehmetçik Vakfı [Turkish Soldiers Foundation]. We need a transparent system with accountability. Under Turkish laws, the General Staff is responsible to the prime minister but the amount of that responsibility is decided by the chief of General Staff. And the Defense Ministry serves as a buffer in between. However, the TSK has its hands on the Defense Ministry as the Defense Ministry undersecretary is a military person. Now the civilian authorities should work overtime to revise the old system and to make it more democratic, and as I said before, the TSK is ready for it. There is a saying: “War is too serious a matter to entrust to military men.” It belongs to Georges Clemenceau, who reflects a Clausewitzian view. Today’s pains are labor pains. Apparently, the civilian authorities do not desire to work with a worn-out institution, and they are trying to make this transition without breaking any eggs in the basket.

‘Terrorism and the Kurdish problem should be separated’

“In Turkey’s efforts to fight terrorism, security concerns are stressed too much. However, while blood is shed, it will be too hard for any government to deal with the Kurdish issue based on democratic values. In that regard, Turkey could use the examples from the Western experience and their strategies in fighting terrorism and separatism. There could be joint projects in solving the problem if there is sincerity in the approach.”

Mesut Ülker

He graduated from the Air Forces Cadet School in 1983 and worked in the Turkish Armed Forces’ (TSK) education and strategy making units. He retired from the TSK’s National Security Academy, which is an academic platform for high-ranking civilian bureaucrats on national security issues, in 2007. Currently an independent national security expert, he has given conferences and seminars internationally and writes articles in various periodicals.