~ Hannah Arendt.
Okay, now it's time to get serious. The domestic battle between AKP and the Turkish military is now scraping the bottom line, threatening to wreak havoc on Turkey's economy, so Erdogan had to make an evening appeal to "unity," from the TimesOnline:
Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish Prime Minister, has appealed for national unity in a television address tonight. The speech was recorded on Saturday, a day after the army threatened to intervene in the presidential poll process.
The Turkish stock market plunged 8 per cent this morning and the Turkish lira lost 4 per cent of its value in response to the political tensions gripping the country.
[ . . . ]
In his televised address to the nation, Mr Erdogan said: “Unity, togetherness, solidarity, these are the things we need most. We can overcome many problems so long as we treat each other with love”. He made no direct reference to the political standoff, but said: “Turkey is growing and developing very fast ... We must protect this atmosphere of stability and tranquility,” . . .
A few points . . . First of all, to speak of "friends" or "friendship" in the context of politics is to display one's naivete because there are no "friends" or "friendship" in politics. Secondly, to speak of "love" in the context of politics is to show just what a genuine jackass you truly are.
Here's looking at you, Kerdogan.
Thirdly, what "atmosphere of stability and tranquility" could Erdogan possibly be refering to? In Turkey, both stability and tranquility resemble democracy in the fact that neither exist. I can't help but think that this hyper-emotional appeal on Erdogan's part is a sign of the level of desperation to which he's succumbed. After all, it's got to be pretty scary when the Turkish General Staff is able to muster hundreds of thousands of demonstrators against your candidate . . . and that's what this is really all about, isn't it? It has as much to do with democracy as a tapeworm has to do with democracy.
The NY Times wants to pin the blame for all this on the lifestyles of the poor and religious, which is interesting because the AKP does enjoy the support of most people in Anatolia. Remember the 2003 parliamentary decision which kept the US from entering Iraq along a northern front? That was probably the first time that anything resembling a democratic decision was ever made in Turkey, and the US administration, great democracy that it is, certainly didn't like that, did it?
Britain's The Independent has a pretty good rundown on the situation. The European Parliament is issuing yet another warning to Turkey in the face of the crisis. HO-HUM. This is all the EP is good for; why am I not surprised? Der Speigel is engaged in hand-wringing over the fact that Turkey may be blowing it's EU chance with the threat of another coup, and they give a rundown of the opinions of the major German papers. I don't quite get Der Speigel's angle, though; I mean stuff like this never bothered anyone in the past.
Funny, the US appears to be staying out of things for the moment.
Over at Xymphora, via Lukery's place there are a couple of posts related to the situation in Turkey. On today's post, I agree with Xymphora's statement that the recent demonstrations in Turkey are "purported" pro-democracy demonstrations. Remember, there is no democracy in Turkey. But it's correct, too, that these demonstrations are pro-Paşa and nothing more.
In fact, I would not be surprised if the Paşas encouraged these demonstrations, just as they encouraged the pro-democracy, pro-secular demonstrations in the wake of the Council of State attack last may. Does anyone remember Hilmi Ozkok calling for those demonstrations? It's ridiculous; I mean, here's the Turkish military which pretends to be the sole defender of the Turkish state, and they're calling on the people to defend them.
I guess that goes along with the fact that the current constitution is a legal fraud in which the state is protected from the people. It's also a legal fraud because the writing of said constitution was overseen by Paşas.
However, there is a murky area that Xymphora fails to realize here, as well as in the Saturday post, and that is the implied, simple, black-and-white implication that the Paşas are actually secularist. Who was it that brought about Turkish-Islamic Synthesis? That synthesis never would have come about without the permission of the military and, in fact, it didn't.
The Paşas have an attitude that's best expressed as follows: "If there will be Communism in Turkey, WE will bring the Communism." Same thing with Islamism. Same thing with anarchism. Same thing with Presbyterianism. It doesn't matter; it's all about internal political control of Turkey itself. And that is where it comes to the real point, protection of the ruling (military--always) elite.
It seems that Xymphora makes a contradiction between this post and Saturday's, by the fact that the Saturday post states: "The 1996 Susurluk car crash is ancient history," whereas in today's post there is the following statement:
". . . but the real point is to protect the establishment/military/"deep state"/Zionist/organized crime interests that have been running Turkey for so many years."
Okay, so for how many years exactly? Since 1996? Then how is Susurluk ancient history? Also, since Mehmet Agar is running as a DYP candidate and has been shooting off his mouth right and left for the last several months, AND since he was the Interior Minister (in charge of the national police at the time of Susurluk), AND since very few have spoken, or written, about the fact that his gû still stinks from Susurluk, how is Susurluk ancient history?
Since, after the Council of State attack last May, the head of the parliamentary commission that investigated Susurluk--Fikri Saglar--as well as former IHD head Akin Birdal both stated that the Susurluk scandal needed to be cleared up, brought out into the open and, basically, exorcised, if anyone ever hoped to see democracy in Turkey? See Bianet for more.
(Trivia: Akin Birdal (ethnic Turk) underwent a very serious assassination attempt by a member of the Susurluk clique, the notorious assassin "Yeşil" for his work with IHD. So when Birdal says stuff about the Susurluk clique, he knows what kind of danger he faces.)
Notice that the Bianet article references Veli Kucuk? Name ring a bell? He was named as making threats to Hrant Dink during one of Dink's trials and Dink's whole family knew what that meant. Then Kucuk was linked to Alparslan Arslan--the shooter at the Council of State--as well as to the handlers of Dink's murderer, Ogun Samast.
In other words, Susurluk is far from ancient history.
AKP itself is far from clean, and in the Kurdish context, it's not much better than the Turkish General Staff. AKP has it's own people in the ATC, the most interesting of which is Cuneyt Zapsu, someone very close to Erdogan. Erdogan got himself in a bit of trouble a number of years ago, for reciting an inflammatory Islamist poem in public, and he went to prison for it. Then he comes out of nowhere and becomes the prime minister? Interesting? Well, there's someone behind that too, someone with a worldwide network of his own--Fethullah Gulen.
It would appear that Gulen has his own moles in the Turkish general staff, as well as people in the US that are involved in the battle.
As to Xymphora's mention of the "Kurdish problem in Iraq," is that the same as the "Kurdish problem in Turkey," as in "the problem of Kurdish existence?" To my knowledge, there is no Kurdish problem anywhere; rather, there are Iraqi problems, Turkish problems, American problems, Israeli problems, etc., but no "Kurdish problems."
On the whole, however, it's good to see that a non-Kurd is trying to take a serious look at a serious situation, instead of simply regurgitating the "official" story.