Scenarios in Washington, facts in Ankara
For days Turkish politics has focused on the “scenario” discussed at a Washington-based think-tank, Hudson Institute. Let’s first note that there is nothing abnormal with a Washington-based think tank discussing such a scenario.
I spent 1999 and 2000 at the Washington-based “intellectual research center” Wilson Center and the think tank United States Institute of Peace. I for one cannot find anything abnormal in discussing various scenarios. Such institutes exist for such studies.
They conduct investigations, publish reports, write articles, come up with opinions and discuss scenarios at workshops.
Scenarios discussed may be outrageous. This may even be on purpose. However, they believe discussing outrageous scenarios may facilitate the production of interesting and creative ideas.
In a country like Turkey, which is inundated with a centrist political culture and almost everything is “state-focused” and “official,” it is impossible to comprehend the raison d’etre of such think tanks and their work styles. From our official mindset, the way American think tanks work it is very suitable to come up with conspiracy theories.
Depending on the Washington-based think tank, a discussion over a scenario can be a serious “simulation exercise,” or it may devolve into something silly.
So, isn’t there anything wrong with the meeting held at the Hudson Institute, which caused so much hoopla?
There is. It appears, the Hudson Institute focuses on “silliness” rather than serious discussions.
However, the real issue is directly linked to Turkey itself. The “scenario” discussed at the Hudson Institute is on what is taking place right now in Turkey to a great extent.
What are the main points of the scenario that was discussed at the institute?
1. A Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) attack in Beyoğlu that will kill a lot of people.
2. The assassination of the chief judge of the Constitutional Court.
3. A “body” within Turkey that doesn’t want the United States to capture and extradite to Turkey PKK leaders based in northern Iraq, fearing such a development would boost support for the Justice and Development Party (AKP).
What is so strange with the United States discussing such developments to debate how it would react?
Wasn’t there a huge explosion in Ankara? Didn’t the chief of general staff appear on the television right after the blast and say that similar attacks could happen in other big cities?
Wasn’t a chief judge of a court in the Council of State shot down? Isn’t there a public debate on whether to launch a comprehensive cross-border operation into Northern Iraq? Aren’t tens of thousands of troops deployed near to the border with Iraq?
Aren’t there discussions on how much it would help the AKP if the United States captured and extradited PKK leaders to Turkey at almost every coffee shop around the nation? Aren’t the same people discussing how certain “influential bodies” in Turkey would not want such a development?
Did Zeyno Baran have to go very far to get inspiration for the “scenario discussion” she held at the Hudson Institute?
Didn’t Deputy Chief of General Staff Gen. Ergin Saygun last year pick the Hudson Institute to make a speech even though the institute was not that respected or taken too seriously? Wasn’t Turkey’s military attaché in Washington ,Major. Gen Bertan Nogaylaroğlu, present at the scenario discussion?
After the meeting, didn’t Zeyno Baran write in Newsweek magazine that there was a 50-50 chance in a military coup in Turkey in 2007?
Wasn’t there a “military intervention” in Turkey on the midnight of April 27 of this year?
Is Ahmet Necdet Sezer, whose term of office ended on May 16, still in office and vetoing everything that comes his way?
The proper question would be why are Turkey’s top military officials constant visitors of the Hudson Institute that is perceived as pro-military coup?
In the 1990s, there was a fad in Turkey where civilian leaders wanted to go to the Washington Institute and make speeches. One characteristic of the Washington Institute is that it is one of the most openly pro-Israel think tanks in Washington.
The second half of the 1990’s was when Turkey was forming special relations with Israel and Turkish prime ministers who went to Washington made sure they held a speech there.
At the same time, the Office of the Chief of Staff and the Washington Institute had signed an agreement whereby a Turkish military officer would be sent there.
The following are the most respected think tanks in the United States and do not hold definite ideological positions, unlike the Hudson Institute, the American Enterprise Institute and the Washington Institute:Carnegie, Brookings, CSIS, Wilson Center and CFR (Council on Foreign Relations).
In the above think tanks, silly things like that happened at the Hudson Institute do not take place. Former President Turgut Özal, who was the first to understand the importance of think tanks in the United States, talked at these think tanks.
Did you now Richard Perle, from the republican and right wing think tank Nixon Center, and Morton Abramowitz, former US ambassador to Ankara and former Carnegie president, held a discussion about Turkey the other day? Perle noted the special place of the military in Turkey and argued that the European Union was weakening the military and Turkey’s strength against terrorism. Perle also said Turkey should intervene in northern Iraq. Did you know, Abramowitz couldn’t stop himself from saying: “I have no intimacy with Islam. However, as I listen to these, even I am considering becoming an AKP supporter.”
Do you know that the “nationalists” in Turkey find a lot in common with the right wing in Washington and that this means the “nationalists” are not as “national” as first believed?