(English) Conference on Civilian Control on Military-2004

Comments of Dr. Onur Oymen on

First Expert Report on

Governance and the Military:

Perspectives for Change in Turkey

15 September 2004

This morning, I would like to share with you, some ideas and experiences on the report presented to us. But before doing so, I would like to make a brief comment on the title of the conference. In the logo, there is a reference to the aspiration of Turkey to be a member to the European Union. It would be better to refer to the EU membership process of Turkey, since we are no more an aspirant, but a formal candidate.

Civilian control of the military was high on the agenda of international relations, particularly since the end of the Second World War. Samuel Huntington, in his book titled the soldier and the State, published in 1957 argued that a balance should be found between the civilian control of the military and the military professionalism. This question is broadly debated in Europe after the end of the Cold War. Organization of European Security and Cooperation (OSCE), referring to Paris Charter of 1990, has adopted a document on this issue in 1994. Some rules are set forth in paragraphs 7 and 8 of this document. Turkey, as other members of the OSCE, is supposed to fulfil these rules, and has made remarkable progress in the way of achieving the actual standards of the Western societies in this area.

The civilian control of the military is not an issue raised in relation with Turkey alone. The international community is expecting civilian control of the military everywhere. During the enlargement processes of NATO and the EU, candidate countries have been persistently asked to put their military under the authority of elected politicians. Therefore, we are not surprised to read in the reports of the EU Commission some comments and expectations about civilian-military relationship in Turkey.

I read the report submitted to the seminer carefully. I took note of the references made in the report to several documents of the EU. Although there are some debatable arguments in the report, my main observation would focus mainly on the missing points. Indeed, while studying the report, I have noticed that some important events or developments in civilian-military relationship in Turkey have not been mentioned or adequately stressed.

I noticed particularly that there is no reference to the origins of civilian-military relationship in Turkey in the Republican era. Indeedi civilian control of the military is not a new issue for us.

I would like to remind you that the backbone of our constitutional system may be summarised by the following words of Kemal Atatürk that have been engraved on the wall behind the rostrum of our Parliament: “Sovereignty belongs to the people without any condition.” This is the civilian control of the military. This was the basic philosophy of the founding fathers of the Turkish Republic. From the beginning the highest decision-making body in Turkey was the Turkish Parliament composed of the Parliamentarians elected by the people. It is the parliament, who can take the most important decisions. For example, according to Article 92 of our Constitution, only the Parliament can decide on sending Turkish troops abroad or receiving foreign troops to Turkey or declaring war.

Constitutional Court has the right to cancel the laws in case of incompatibility with the constitution. But even this highest court is not authorized to cancel the decisions of the Turkish parliament. Obviously there is no organization or mechanism which gives the military the right to check, revise, or block the decisions taken by the Parliament. There is even no mechanism of consultation between the Parliament and the military. Only the committees of the Parliament like the Defence Committee or Foreign Affairs Committee, can invite, if they so wish, the reprersentatives of the military to answer the questions of the Parliamentarians.

The seperation of power between the Parliament and the military was clearly established in Turkey right after the War of Liberation. The law adopted on 19 December 1923, just two months after the proclamation of the Republic, already stipulated that those officers, who are willing to run for elections, should resign from the army, or take their retirement at least two weeks before the elections. Still there were a few officiers who were elected as member of parliament before the adoption of that law.  In 1924, Atatürk said “To keep the army outside the political life is one of the basic objectives that the Republic always cared. And the Republican armies maintained their reputation as the protectors of the security of our motherland as a result of this policy we have followed so far.” He said that political and military functions are not compatible with each other and invited the commanders previously elected to the parliament to choose either politics or military service. As a result of this request a number of commanders have resigned from the Parliament in November 1924. A few commanders, who choose the political career, resigned from the army. This is our background, this is our history.

Having this experience in the past, I wonder whether we need today, in Turkey, a lesson from our foreign friends, on the civilian control of the military.

Today, the members of the Turkish Armed Forces, as followers of Atatürk’s principles, observe carefully this basic rule. For example, before first of March 2003  decision of the parliament on the Government request to invite American troops to Turkey to open a front against Iraq, Turkish armed forces have not made public their views on that matter.   General Hilmi Özkök, the Chief of General Staff said that they do not want to influence the decision to be taken by the Parliament, and he said he would respect any decision of the Parliament. Parliament rejected the motion of the government. I am proud to be a member of this parliament who voted for peace and not war.

In the report submitted to our seminar, a number of references have been made to the National Security Council (NSC). We have made some constitutional and legal amendments last year in the Parliament to clarify further the advisory nature of the NSC and we limited to the absolute minimum, the area of competence of NSC. This year, for the first time, an eminent diplomat and not a military is appointed as the Secretary-General of the NSC.

Does it mean that before the adoption of these amendments, Turkish military were imposing their will on the government? Does it mean that they were governing the country through NSC?

Two important facts should be known. First, NSC is chaired by the President and composed of the Prime Minister and several ministers, Chief of General Staff and four generals. The number of civilian members is higher than the military and all decisions are taken by unanimity. Therefore, NSC cannot adopt any recommandation to the government unless the civilian members give their consent. Second, no recommandation of the NSC is applicable unless formally approved by the government. In practice, it is hard to say that all previous recommandations of the NSC, have been fully implemented. Therefore, it would be wrong to believe that the NSC is above the government and can impose its will on the Council of Ministers as a State within the State.

It is true that Turkish Armed Forces have intervened a few times in our political life. We deplore more than our foreign friends that the military had to intervene in the political system in Turkey and took over the government for a short period. I would like to share with you our sadness, because during interventions a lot of people have suffered, including the politicians, the academicians and the journalists. The chairman of my party was detained as well during a military intervention. Therefore, we wished to continue our political life uninterrupted. But in no case, the purpose of the commanders was to take over the government to establish a military dictatorship, as was the case in recent history of some European countries.

As it is recognised in the reports submitted to this seminer, shortly after the military take-overs, the government was returned to the elected representatives of the Turkish people. We wished that no such interventions had taken place and the Turkish democracy had continued uninterrupted. But unfortunately, some anti-democratic practices, or inadmissably high level of terrorism, prepared the ground or, some would say, forced the military to intervene. But there is no case in our republican history, where military took over the government to establish a dictatorship. In the eighty years of our Republican history, we have no period of military dictatorship. The late Professor, Bülent Tanör, a well-known leftist constitutional expert, wrote in one of his books that the military intervention of 1960 was anti-democratic in its form, but democratic in its substance. Indeed, right after the intervention, the military leaders invited the leading professors of the country to prepare the most liberal constitution we have ever had in our history. Therefore, we should not qualify the military as having intentions to destroy the democracy in Turkey, and an ambition to establish a dictatorship.  But those were things of the past. Today, almost a quarter of century after the latest coup d’état, Turkish democracy continues to progress in the right direction.

It is true that sometimes, we read some comments in Turkish and foreign press about statements of the Turkish commanders. Some people interpret these statements as interference to the political life. We have cases where some Turkish politicians complain, directly or indirectly to the press about such statements. On this particular point, the question to be asked is whether the reason of these complaints is a matter of principle, that is to say you are against any statement of the military or you are dissatisfied with the content of a particular statement.

In my previous functions, I attended at least 30-35 meetings of NSC as a non-voting participant. I will share with you my general impressions. The Turkish military is sensitive mainly on two issues: The security of the country, particularly against the threats of terrorism, and the preservation of the basic pillars of the democratic society, with a special emphasis on secularism. As a matter of fact, not only the military but also the President of the Republic, the great majority of the political parties, the judiciary, and a great number of academicians are also sesitive on these fundamental questions. Those, who try to undermine secularism, those who favor anti-secular movements in Turkey are those who criticize most the armed forces. They try to present the statements of the commanders particularly on secularism as an attempt against the democratic rules.

We observe a similar bias in Europe. We notice, sometimes, that when a statement of a commander is in line with the expectations of foreign countries or organizations from Turkey, there is practically no reaction to such a statement. On the contrary, when the content of the statement is critical to the policy of foreign governments or organizations we hear often claims that the military is violating democratic rules. Therefore, sometimes we came to the conclusion that what disturbs our foreign friends, is not always the fact that the military makes public statements, but the substance of their statement.

Another point mentioned in the report, is the role of the military in the preparation of national defence policies and strategic documents of Turkey. The impression given by the report is that only the military is in charge of strategic matters, and nobody else in the Parliament, or in the government, including the Ministry of Defence has a say on such issues.

I must tell you that this impression is not correct. If you read the minutes of the Turkish Parliament, you will find a number of substantial interventions on strategic matters, particularly, during the discussions on the budget of Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the General Assembly and the Budget Committee. In the Parliament, we discuss in detail all aspects of our defense policy and matters related to defense procurement. I personally intervened several times on these issues, and made public statements.

You should not believe that nobody in Turkey, except the military, has an idea about strategy. We have a number of strategy experts in our country and academicians who publish their views and participate in public debates on strategic matters. Many scholars published books and articles on strategic issues. As a personal note, I can tell you that my own Ph.D. is on defence policy questions. On the top of that a full department in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is in charge of national defence and security-related issues, and together with the Policy-Planning Department of the Ministry, their contribution to the preparation of any strategic document adopted by the government is probably above your expectations.

The Minister of Defence is presented in the report as a politician, who has practically no role or influence in strategic matters. The reality is that it is the Minister of Defence, who expresses and defends the views of Turkey in NATO, and other relevant international fora on security and defense related matters. He is supported not only by the Turkish General Staff, but also by the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The question highlighted in the report is why Turkish General Staff is subordinated to the Prime Minister and not to the Minister of Defence. This situation has been interpreted as being not compatible with the democratic rules. This criticism could be plausible, in case the military was not subordinated to the government at all. But since the military is legally and in practice, attached to the Prime Minister, it would be hard to claim that they are out of the control of the civilian authority. The gandarmerie, which is logistically a part of the military, is subordinated to the Minister of Interior. Furthermore, the governors of the provinces have the right to ask the support of the military in case of the security threat exceeds the ability of the local police or gandarmerie.

I wonder whether the rules and practices of all EU countries are identical on this subject. We know that Chiefs of General Staffs have access to presidents and prime ministers in many countries and their advice is duly taken into consideration in the preperation of strategic documents. It is also true that political leaders refrain form engaging themselves in the micro management of military matters. I remember our experience in NATO Council during the Kosovo operation where the political body of the alliance was dealing with major decisions and general orientation of the military leaving day-to-day operational decisions to the military. Even in the initial phase of the general planning we used extensively the knowledge and experience of the military.

When it comes to the public statements of military leaders on politico-military matters, I believe that it would be unfair to single out Turkey. I remember for exemple a number of statements of Greek commanders on Turkish-Greek relations, and on issues related to politics many years after Greece’s membership to the EU.

I also remember how political leaders ask the support of their armed forces in times of crisis. The visit of General de Gaulle to General Massu, the commander of French Forces in Germany in Baden Baden, to ask his advice and eventually support to control the crisis created by student revolts in 1968. I remember as well the President of United States sending troops to California to control the riots.

I would finally refer to the Defence Budget and Procurement Policies of Turkey that has been presented in the report as being conducted in less democratic way compared to other European countries. While preparing their proposals to the government, the military takes as a srarering point a basic document called National Policy Paper, prepared with the participation of all relevant ministries and agencies of Turkey and adopted by the government. The political evaluation of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is particularly taken into consideration in this policy paper. The procurement programs take also into consideration the force targets discussed in NATO military committees and presented to each allied countries as targets to be reached.

On defense budget planning, the general principles for all ministries are also applicable for the ministry of defense. The Prime Ministry, High Planning Board, and Ministry of Finance prepare the draft budgets. And the budget of the defence ministry is submitted to the government, together with the budgets of other ministries, and after the approval by the government, is sent to the Planning and Budget Committee of the Parliament. It is later submitted to the General Assembly. All spendings of Ministry of Defence is subject to control by the Auditing Court and the Parliament.

The representatives of the Ministry of Finance in the Ministry of Defense are responsible for the control of the accuracy of the spendings ante factum. A recent amendment to the legislation increased the transparency of the control system of the military budget.

I am of the opinion that if the authors of the report are willing to distribute it to relevant bodies of the Union and to the press it would be highly advisable to revise it by taking into consideration these and other informations and comments.

Having said all these, I would like to repeat once more our attachment to the basic rules of democracy, that is to say the supremacy of public will. We believe that today the role of the military in Turkey is compatible with European standards. Some relatively minor differences in practice should not lead us to think that the real political power base in Turkey is the military. The highest political authority in our country is the parliament and the government is responsible to the parliament.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are ready to listen the comments and criticisms of our friends in every field, including this subject. We are willing to improve our standards in every field, but the “civilian control of the military” issue should not be presented in front of Turkey as an argument to delay our full membership process.