The Memorandum

On February 28, 1997 General Staff ordered a notice to the government on the rising reactionary and separatist activities in the monthly meeting of the National Security Council. After the notice, the coalition government led by Islamists was dissolved and a new coalition government was formed by secularist parties (the post-modern coup d’état). Then, state held activities against Kurdist and especially Islamist groups started to take place. In 2000, a deputy from the Islamist party (Virtue Party) made public the existence of a memorandum that suggests a set of activities against certain newspapers, journalists, and political parties. General Staff accepted the existence of the memorandum. On March 9, 2007, the weekly magazine Nokta brought out another memorandum which was produced within the General Staff again. The title of the document is as follows: The Reevaluation of Accredited Press Organs. Memorandum evaluates certain press organs and journalists in terms of their credibility and it classifies them as anti-TAF (Turkish Armed Forces) or pro-TAF.
According to the memorandum, journalists who do not have credibility must not be invited to any TAF press activities because of the fact that they can make disinformation campaigns, they can collect secret information on TAF and convey it to separatist groups, and finally they can attack military staff or facilities. In other words, “some” journalists can be a spy of the terrorists or even a suicide bomber. It would seem that the main criterion of the credibility is just making criticism of TAF. Because journalists criticized TAF for adopting a soft stance and journalists criticized TAF for not fully supporting Turkey’s EU membership and democratization reforms, are both labeled as anti-TAF journalists.
(more…)

Turkish Commander Requested Turkish Cypriot Prime Minister to prove his Turkishness

The leading government party in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), the Republican Turkish Party (RTP) held its party conference on March 18, 2007. The commander of the Cyprus Turkish Peace Forces Lieutenant General Hayri Kivrikoglu protested the Prime Minister and head of RTP Ferdi Sabit Soyer and refused to shake his hand in a meeting held that evening. Kivrioglu asked him why they held a party conference on the memorial day of martyrs, why they did not play the Independence Anthem (the Turkish National Anthem), or did not hang th poster of Ataturk and Turkish flags in the party conference. Finally, Kivrikoglu requested Soyer, the Prime Minister to prove his Turkishness.
The Prime Minister was shocked to hear a commander from Turkey question his Turkishness in his country. He replied that there were posters of Ataturk and Turkish flags in the conference and he underlined the fact that playing the Independence Anthem in party conferences is not compulsory. Soyer protested Kivrikoglu and stated that nobody could question their Turkishness, they do not need authorization from any circles because they are the representatives of the people of TRNC. According to TRNC Constitution, the state is to follow Ataturk’s principles and all deputies have to swear that they will follow Ataturk’s principles as well.
(more…)

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…)

“You left your loved ones, your children, your grand children. You left these people who salute you here; you left my arms. You didn’t leave your country” -Rakel Dink

Tens of thousands of people gathered in Şişli this morning for Hrant Dink, ethnic Armenian writer who was assassinated on January 19, 2007.
The first ceremony took place in front of the offices of Agos,the newspaper Dink founded and where he was murdered by a young extremist. Mourners, dressed in black and carrying signs reading “We are all Armenians”, crammed the square outside the offices.
Many roads have been shut to allow the mourners to proceed.
The funeral then left for the Armenian Orthodox Church Santa Maria, where Patriarch of the Anatolian Armenians, Mesrob II conducts the religious ceremony. On the other hand, the funeral march reached to the Balıklı Armenian Cemetery where Dink will be laid to rest. Thousands walked the 8 km. road chanting “We’re all Hrant”.

“You’re torn apart from your loved ones, from your children, from me but not from your country” said his wife Rakel Dink addressing to the crowd. Here is Rakel Dink’s complete speech:

Hrant’s companion was given to me. Today I’m here with great sorrow and dignity. Me, my kids, my family and you; we’re all in deep sorrow. This silent love holds us, gives us a aggrieved joy. John 15:13, the Bible says nobody has a greater love than the one who gives one’s life for one’s friends.
Dear friends, today we mourn and salute my other half, my love, father of my children, your brother. We’ll be marching silently without disturbing those near us, without chanting slogans, without banners. With this silence, we’ll cry aloud today. Today is the day when deep darkness would reach out to light.
(more…)

The last article of Hrant Dink, Turkish-Armenian writer, that appeared on his newspaper Agos the day he was assassinated.
by Hrant Dink
Source: Agos Newspaper
January 19, 2007

In the beginning I was not concerned about the investigation initiated by Şişli Public Prosecutor under the pretext “insulting Turkish identity”.
This was not for the first time. I was familiar with a similar case from Urfa. I was being prosecuted since three years because of my statement at a conference in Urfa in 2002 where I said that “I was not Turk but an Armenian and a citizen of Turkey” and there was again the accusation of “insulting Turkish identity”. I was completely unaware of the trials, I was not interested at all. Some of my lawyer friends from Urfa were dealing with the case in my absence.
I was completely indifferent too when I gave my interrogation to Public Prosecutor in Şişli. In the end I was trusting to my article and my good will. If Public Prosecutor evaluated the whole of the series of my articles and not this single sentence which alone did not make any sense at all, then he would easily understand that I had not an intention of “insulting Turkish identity” and this comedy would end, I thought.
I was completely sure that after the interrogation I would be not be sued at all.
I was sure of myself
But to my surprise, the case came up in court.
Still I didn’t lose my optimism. So I even told to lawyer Kerinçsiz who accused me during a live Tv program that “he should not be so eager that I would not be punished due to this case and that in case of punishment I would leave the country.” I was sure of myself, I really did not have the will or intention to “insult the Turkish identity”. Everyone reading the whole of the series of my articles would understand this.
(more…)

Turkish-Armenian Writer Hrant Dink Assasinated
Prominent Turkish-Armenian writer and journalist Hrant Dink has been shot dead today while he was leaving the offices of the newspaper Agos which he founded and worked. He was subjected to criticism and harrasement by nationalists.
Source: BIA News Center
19/01/2007 BİA (Istanbul) - Turkish-Armenian writer and journalist Hrant Dink has been shot dead today while leaving the newspaper where he worked.
Dink, 53, was subjected to prosecutions and harrasement by nationalists concerning his views on the Armenian genocide claims and Turkey’s approach to the issue.
He was a public figure in Turkey - one of its most prominent Armenian voices. Despite all harrasement, he always insisted that he’s a Turkish citizen will fight for his right to free speech.
The police is looking for a young man as described by eye witnesses in relation to the murder. Friends tell Dink was receiving threats.

His life

Dink was born in 1954 in Malatya. When his parents divorced after moving to İstanbul in 1961, Hrant and his two brothers were placed in an Armenian orphanage in Gedikpasa.
He was influenced by the socialist movement in his youth. Following his graduation from İstanbul University he married to Rakel who he had met in the orphanage.
While working in the publishing house he established with his brothers, Dink also managed with his wife the Tuzla Armenian Children’s Campus where poor children were placed. The campus was confiscated by the state after 21 years of its establishment.
Dink began his writing career with book reviews for magazines published by ethnic Armenians in Turkey. Criticizing the closeness of the Armenian community, he moved on to establish Agos, a newspaper in Turkish and Armenian in 1996.
Hrant Dink promoted a culture of solidarity and peace between erthnic Armenians and Turks. He also called on the Armenian diaspora to evaluate the events of 1915 without a fixation on genocide but couldn’t avoid being punished for insulting Turkishness at home.(EU)

What was Foucault’s main concern? Why did he deal so much with power? Did he try to provide a definition of power or to explain the nature of power?
I think, Foucault never began his inquiry with the question concerning what the power is. Rather, he preferred to begin with the questions of “how” and “what happens” namely: How is power exercised? and What happens when individuals exert power over others? He did this, in order to let us take a critical distance towards the very existence or the metaphysics or the ontology of power. In the text ‘Power and Subject’ he writes that, “to begin the analysis with a ‘how’ is to introduce the suspicion that power as such does not exist.” Only such a critical approach can make visible how and through which mechanisms power operates, without reconstituting power as a metaphysical and essential category. Foucault’s concern, and also what is revolutionary in his inquiry, is the making visible of power relations. This approach lets how individuals are produced as subjects within power relations become visible as well. Therefore, Foucault’s analysis, which reaches towards the very roots of power relations, can let us face the contingency of claims about objectivity and rationality of truth regimes; of normalizing discourses and of mechanisms which are producing the self. Such an inquiry allows us to take a critical position against effects of power linked with knowledge. Thus, it is this inquiry which provides us the means to struggle against the privileged and uncontrolled knowledge of expertise and against any forms of subjection.
(more…)