Weekly Nokta discloses an internal army report which classifies media outlets as “trustworthy” or “precarious” and bases the General Staff’s accreditation process accordingly. 53-page report evaluates individual journalists as “pro-army” or not.
Source: BIA News Center
08/03/2007
(Istanbul) - Weekly news magazine Nokta’s recent issue discloses a series of Turkish army (TSK) reports which examine and classify media outlets and journalists as “pro-Turkish Army” or “con-Turkish army”. (’Olumlu’ and ‘Olumsuz’ as seen in the chart beside)
Ahmet Şık’s article shows how army officials use the accreditation process based on “journalists’ approach to armed forces”. Reports include statistics regarding number of published articles dubbed as “positive” or “negative” and journalists as “trustworthy” or “precarious”.
Following the publication of the report on March 8 in Nokta and cited in several newspapers, General Staff made a declaration saying that an investigation has begun into the incident.
Upto now, there’re no specific details regarding the investigation.

Classification
Prepared by General Staff Public Relations Department and approved by General Staff General Secretary Salih Zeki Çolak, the report titled “Accredited Press and Media Outlets” dates back to November 2006.
Accreditation is defined as follows:
“In light of the examination which classify media outlets as trustworthy or precarious made with regard to the Turkish Armed Forces’ (TSK) indispensable principles, a list of accreditation including those trustworthy is compiled”.
(…) “Participation of media outlets with low levels of trust in events organized by the TSK has been limited and those deemed as trustworthy have been encouraged”. (…) “By not accrediting precarious media outlets, their reputation in public’s eye has been attenuated”. (…) “Despite counter interpretations, the accreditation process serves as an examination of media outlets’ trustworthiness by the TSK”.
(more…)

Pro-Kurdish DTP leader Ahmet Türk has been condemned to six months in prison for referring ex-guerilla leader Öcalan in a respectable manner. Three other local party administrators have been arrested for “making propaganda of the terrorist organization.

Source: BIA Nerws Center
08/03/2007 Erol ONDEROGLU
(Ankara) - Legal cases and convictions curb administrators and members of the pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party (DTP).
Lastly, DTP chair Ahmet Türk has been condemned to six months imprisonment on allegations of “praising a crime or a criminal” in a speech.
“In the current situation where we try hard to silence the weapons, increasing isolation of Mr. Öcalan further deepens social concerns” said Türk, addressing a local crowd in Diyarbakır. Referring the late Kurdish guerilla group PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan as “Mister” constituted the above-defined crime, according to the court.
The decision disclosed was given “considering the repeating referrals of Türk to Öcalan with a respectable appellation and his potential as a party leader to influence public”.
The speech in question was made on January 18, 2006 as a press conference at the end of a meeting of all local mayors adhering to DTP.
On another account, three district administrators of the party have been arrested by court order following Batman Public Prosecutor’s complaint. They face allegations of “making the propaganda of the terrorist organization”.
(more…)

by Saul Newman

Max Stirner’s impact on contemporary political theory is often neglected. However in Stirner’s political thinking there can be found a surprising convergence with poststructuralist theory, particularly with regard to the function of power. Andrew Koch, for instance, sees Stirner as a thinker who transcends the Hegelian tradition he is usually placed in, arguing that his work is a precursor poststructuralist ideas about the foundations of knowledge and truth (Koch 1997). Koch argues that Stirner’s individualistic challenge to the philosophical bases of the State goes beyond the limits of traditional Western philosophy, presenting a challenge to its transcendentalist epistemology. In light of this connection established by Koch between Stirner and poststructuralist epistemology, I shall look at Stirner’s convergence with a certain poststructuralist thinker, Gilles Deleuze, on the question of the State and political power. There are many important parallels between these two thinkers, and they may be viewed, in different ways, as anti-State, anti-authoritarian philosophers. I want to show the way in which Stirner’s critique of the State anticipates Deleuze’s poststructuralist rejection of State thought, and more importantly, the ways in which their anti-essentialist, post-humanist anarchism transcends and, thus, reflects upon, the limits of classical anarchism. The paper looks at the links between human essence, desire and power that form the bases of State authority. So while Koch focuses on Stirner’s rejection of the epistemological foundations of the State, the emphasis of this paper is on Stirner’s radical ontology – his unmasking of the subtle connections between humanism, desire and power. I will also argue that this critique of humanist power that both Stirner and Deleuze are engaged in can provide us with contemporary strategies of resistance to State domination.
It must be understood, however, that while there are important similarities between Stirner and Deleuze, there are also many differences, and, in many ways, it may seem an unusual approach to bring these two thinkers together. For instance, Stirner was, along with Marx, one of the Young Hegelians, whose work emerged as a supremely individualistic critique of German Idealism, particularly of the Feuerbachian and Hegelian kind. Deleuze, on the other hand, was a twentieth century philosopher who, along with Foucault and Derrida, is regarded as one of the chief ‘poststructuralist’ thinkers. While Deleuze’s work can also be seen as an attack on Hegelianism, it follows different and more diverse paths, from politics and psychoanalysis, to literature and film theory. Stirner is not generally regarded as a ‘poststructuralist’, and, apart from Koch’s groundbreaking article (Koch 1997) and Derrida’s work on Marx (Derrida 1994), he has received virtually no attention in the light of contemporary theory. However, and this is perhaps the problem with labels like ‘poststructuralism’, there are several crucial planes of convergence between these two thinkers – particularly in their critique of political domination and authority - that one can tease out, and which would be denied if one stuck to such labels. It is precisely in this rejection of the tyranny of ‘labels’, essential identities, abstractions and ‘fixed ideas’ - this attack on authoritarian concepts which limit thought - that Stirner and Deleuze achieve some sort of common ground. This is not to ignore the differences between them, but on the contrary, to show how these differences to resonate together in unpredictable and contingent ways to form, in Deleuze’s words, ‘planes of consistency’ from which new political concepts can be formed.
(more…)

The Kemalist and nationalist circles are complaining about the fact that a headscarfed First Lady will lead to a regime crisis in the country

The Present Ahmet Necdet Sezer’s term of office will end in May and the presidential election process will start in April. Who will be the ruling party, AK Party (Justice and Development Party)’s candidate and who will be the new president is one of the heatedly discussed topics in Turkey nowadays.
Today’s state structure was mainly invented by the military rule that came after the coup d’état of 1980. The current distribution of powers on the one hand gives important powers to the President like vetoing the laws, vetoing the appointments of high bureaucrats and diplomats, assigning the Chief of General Staff. On the other hand, s/he is totally irresponsible and unaccountable. As a responsible and accountable person, the Prime Minister has to share the executive powers with the President.

The Regime Crisis
AK Party is coming from the political Islamist tradition yet they identify themselves as “Conservative (not Muslim or Christian) Democrat” and the party itself resembles a wider coalition that includes politicians from right to central left. They are in favor of economic and political liberalization which boils down to Turkey’s European Union membership in practice.
However, the party is being heavily criticized by Kemalists and nationalist circles for encouraging reactionary attitudes and not preserving national interests. The secularist President Ahmet Necdet Sezer vetoed some reform laws of AK Party like laws on reforming the education system. Kemalist and nationalist circles are concerned about the possibility of the Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan becoming the new President. The disaster scenario for them is the following: If Erdogan or one of his men becomes the President and AK Party will be the only ruling party after the parliamentary elections in November, there will be a serious regime crisis. Also the idea of having a headscarfed first lady is a symbolic part of the disaster. In the previous Parliament, the presence of a headscarfed deputy led to huge protests from Kemalist and nationalist politicians.
(more…)