EurasiaNet Eurasia Insight - Appointment of New Military Chief Sparks Speculation on Military-Government Relations in Turkey

EURASIA INSIGHT

APPOINTMENT OF NEW MILITARY CHIEF SPARKS SPECULATION ON MILITARY-GOVERNMENT RELATIONS IN TURKEY
Mevlut Katik 8/10/06

Print this article Email this article

The appointment of a reputed hard-liner as Turkey’s new chief of the general staff has sparked speculation about the military’s continued support for reforms and European Union accession.

Gen. Yasar Buyukanit, who previously served as the military’s land forces chief, was confirmed as the new head of the Turkish armed forces in late July. He will formally assume his new duties at the end of August.

The appointment comes at a sensitive time for Turkey, which is grappling with geopolitical uncertainty connected with the deepening violence in neighboring Iraq, Iran’s nuclear program and the ongoing fighting in Lebanon. Domestically, Turkey is also gearing up for the selection of a new president, followed by parliamentary elections. Buyukanit is widely viewed as a proponent of a harder line on security issues, especially toward Kurdish militants, than the outgoing chief-of-staff, Gen. Hilmi Ozkok. In addition, Buyukanit is said to be an uncompromising secularist, seemingly placing him at odds with Turkey’s moderately Islamist government, led by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Given Buyukanit’s reputation, some political observers have wondered whether his elevation to the top military spot is a harbinger of military-AKP discord.

Buyukanit had been in line for the promotion, but in the weeks leading up to the announcement, rumors circulated that some members of the Justice and Development Party, which dominates the government, were trying to block the appointment. The appointment has been traditionally announced by the Supreme Military Council, but in this case, President Ahmet Necdet Sezer’s office released the news days earlier than expected.

The departure from protocol was designed to dispel speculation about behind-the-scenes political maneuvering, some observers suggested. Erdogan insisted that the manner of the appointment represented nothing out of the ordinary. "The media does not understand the appointment process," the Zaman daily quoted Erdogan as saying. "We are not a government that acts on impulses. We use our authority within specific guidelines."

Since the founding of the Turkish republic in 1923, the military has viewed itself as the guardian of the country’s secularist tradition. This stance has prompted Turkey’s generals to repeatedly involve themselves in politics. The EU membership bid, engineered by the AKP government, is forcing Turkey to make significant changes to the country’s social traditions and political culture. EU requirements, for example, demand the military’s subservience to civilian authority.

Ozkok emphasized moderation and worked with the AKP government to implement EU-mandated measures. The extent to which Buyukanit will continue Ozkok’s policies remains uncertain. Some worry that Buyukanit will reinforce already considerable resistance to EU integration by nationalist elements. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. For instance, if Buyukanit moves to toughen Turkish military tactics toward Kurdish militants, Turkey could experience a rise in tension with the EU on civil rights issues.

Buyukanit can also potentially exert considerable influence over the national debate about religion’s role in society and politics. Judging by the results of the early August meeting of the Supreme Military Council, Turkey’s generals remain intent on keeping faith out of public life. In announcing promotions and command rotations, the council also disclosed that 17 officers had been dismissed for holding religious views that could damage the military’s esteem. As the head of a moderately Islamist political party, Erdogan has favored a more lenient stance on public expressions of faith. The religious issue stands to figure prominently in both the upcoming presidential selection process and the parliamentary vote.

Known as a general with a penchant for outspokenness, Buyukanit has avoided making politically charged statements in recent days. On August 9, he struck a pragmatic note in announcing a five-year plan to streamline the Turkish military. "Turkey’s geopolitical location, combined with the fact that the country lies in the very center of various crisis areas, necessitates the army to assume various roles both in times of war and peace," the New Anatolian daily quoted the general as saying.

Some political analysts predict Buyukanit will defy expectations and will essentially maintain the policies staked out by Ozkok.

"The Turkish army, which understands trends in the world, is tied to democracy and is pro-EU. It does not tolerate hot-headed and personal outbursts that do not reflect tradition," political analyst Mustafa Unal wrote in a commentary posted on the Zaman online web site August 2. "I don’t believe Buyukanit will disrupt the tradition of the army. He will not treat EU accession and the civil administration differently than Hilmi Ozkok."

Commentator Cem Oguz, writing in the New Anatolian, praised the outgoing Ozkok for acting as a "unifying, constructive and rational figure." He went on to write that Buyukanit seems "as rational and far-sighted as Ozkok."

Editor�s Note: Mevlut Katik is a London-based journalist and analyst. He is a former BBC correspondent and also worked for The Economist group.

The Central Eurasia Project aims, through its website, meetings, papers, and grants, to foster a more informed debate about the social, political and economic developments of the Caucasus and Central Asia. It is a program of the Open Society Institute-New York. The Open Society Institute-New York is a private operating and grantmaking foundation that promotes the development of open societies around the world by supporting educational, social, and legal reform, and by encouraging alternative approaches to complex and controversial issues.

The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the position of the Open Society Institute and are the sole responsibility of the author or authors.