When free press is silenced in Turkey

[Faklon]

When free press is silenced in Turkey
December 29, 2014, Monday/ 18:48:12/ AYDOĞAN VATANDAŞ

Despite the destabilizing effects of several major geopolitical incidents for Turkey, such as the end of the Cold War and the 2003 war in Iraq, Turkey successfully continued to grow. While the 2007 global financial crisis badly damaged major economies around the world, Turkey was resilient.

There is no doubt that Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's leadership played a crucial role in this achievement. Relations with the EU led to an increase in the quality of Turkish democracy and sidelined the traditional role of the military in Turkish politics.

Turkey was on the right path.

After 2010, however, Erdoğan explicitly chose to turn away from the EU and the values and principles it represents. The reason for this significant move away from the EU has now become clear: Erdoğan grew aware that he could not establish his own regime while keeping the EU membership process on track.

Allying with the Muslim Brotherhood after the Arab Spring, Erdoğan imagined that he could re-activate Ottomanism and even resurrect the caliphate, which was abolished in 1924 by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder of Turkey.

On Dec. 19 The New York Times published an editorial that clearly explained Erdoğan's ambitions and mindset: “Turkey's president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, says mass arrests on Dec. 14 of journalists, screenwriters and television producers were necessary to eliminate agents of a ‘parallel state' bent on seizing power. But Mr. Erdoğan's efforts to stifle criticism and dissent show an authoritarian leader living in a parallel universe, one where being a democracy, a NATO ally and a candidate for membership in the European Union are somehow compatible with upending the rule of law and stifling freedom of expression.”

As a NATO and US ally, Turkey has become a country where owners of media companies can be threatened and media executives are arrested without any legal basis.

Turkey has become a country where a 16-year-old boy was arrested after criticizing the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) and Erdoğan during a speech at a student protest.

Turkey has become a country where there is no freedom of the press and expression but corruption, subjugation and indignation.

Turkey has become a country where those in power cannot be charged for their crimes but innocent people can be arrested on the basis of “reasonable suspicion.”

In sum, Turkey has become a country where the words of Erdoğan are considered law.

But what about the reactions of the US, where the First Amendment of its constitution forbids the making of any law that undermines freedom of speech and the press? Many believe that reactions from the American government were not as strong as the response from the EU.

One of the most important mistakes made by the US government in the past was its inability to distance itself from authoritarian regimes around the world because of geopolitical interests. This still remains one of the sources of anti-American sentiment all over the world.

Some believe that because of the needs of the US, specifically in the Middle East, where America has expended a lot of its time and energy over the last half century, Turkey is Muslim state that has strategic bases within its territories that the US could make use of in the future. On the other hand, the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the need for Turkey's support to fight the group led the US government to dampen concerns about Erdoğan's behavior.

Frankly speaking, by looking at the evidence so far, Erdoğan looks very reluctant to cooperate with the US against ISIL.

But the core question is, even if Erdoğan looks more cooperative, should the Obama administration keep quiet about the violations of human rights in Turkey? The Obama administration should not see Turkey through the prism of the Cold War, as it did before.

Erdoğan had a chance to help the Muslim world integrate with the Western world and promote democratic values. But he chose to consolidate his power to build his own regime, not democracy.

If the Obama administration keeps quite about Erdoğan's efforts to seize the media and silence the press, how then would the Muslim world trust President Obama and American administrations again when it comes to their claims of promoting democracy?

[Methmatician]

I wish they would legalise criticism of the government.

[Böri]

Turkey was on the right path.

After 2010, however, Erdoğan explicitly chose to turn away from the EU and the values and principles it represents. The reason for this significant move away from the EU has now become clear: Erdoğan grew aware that he could not establish his own regime while keeping the EU membership process on track.

Allying with the Muslim Brotherhood after the Arab Spring, Erdoğan imagined that he could re-activate Ottomanism and even resurrect the caliphate, which was abolished in 1924 by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder of Turkey.

This is like drama stories that make cry. Exaggeration. Turkey still want join EU but this isnt for money like in past. Because Turkey more rich now. Turkey want join EU because Turkey dont want leave Turks and other Muslims in Europe alone and for friendship and cultural exchange with Europeans people.

[Partizan]

I wish they would legalise criticism of the government.

Actually, if you see the discussion programs on TV from 1990's, Turkey was quite democratic before the Georgian prick Erdogan.