[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 10]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 13564-13566]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PAUL WOLFOWITZ SHOULD LEARN FROM THE TURKISH MILITARY ABOUT DEMOCRACY

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BARNEY FRANK

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, June 3, 2003

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, before we went on recess, I 
came to the floor of the House to express my deep dismay at the 
disregard for fundamental democratic principles shown by Deputy 
Secretary of Defense

[[Page 13565]]

Paul Wolfowitz. In an interview he gave on May 2 aimed for broadcast in 
Turkey, Secretary Wolfowitz repeatedly criticized the Turkish military 
for not having intervened in parliamentary deliberations with 
sufficient strength when the question of Turkish participation in the 
war in Iraq came up. I believed then and now that this appalling call 
on the Turkish military to violate fundamental democratic norms was 
particularly disturbing because there are few things more important to 
the stability of the world than the effort now going on in Turkey to 
show that people who are religious Muslims can preside over a fully 
democratic regime. While many of us would like to hope that this could 
be taken for granted, the recent history of the Middle East argues to 
the contrary and that is why supporting the Turkish government in its 
effort to implement democracy is so important.
  Secretary Wolfowitz in his interview criticized the Turkish military 
for not speaking out to influence the Parliament, and when the 
interviewer pointed out to him that the Turkish military had in fact 
done that, he repeated his criticism by saying that they had not done 
it with enough strength. Telling a military in a democratic government 
that it should more strongly be expressing its views to elected 
officials demonstrates a misunderstanding of democracy in general, and 
a particular insensitivity to the implications of such statements in a 
country--Turkey--where there had been a history of military coup that 
many are trying to overcome.
  Subsequent to my comments, I learned of a statement made by General 
Hilmi Ozkok, Chief of the Turkish General Staff, in which he responded 
to those who had been critical of the military. While his comments pre-
date the interview given by Mr. Wolfowitz, this reads as if he were in 
part responding to the Deputy Secretary, and in fact he may have been 
doing so because it would not surprise me if Mr. Wolfowitz had made 
these criticisms directly to the Turkish military before going public 
with them.
  The contrast between the interview with Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz--
the relevant portions of which I am going to re-print here--and the 
statement by General Ozkok is striking, and I am sad to see the head of 
the Turkish General Staff showing a far better understanding of the 
role the military should play in a democracy than the Deputy Secretary 
of Defense of the United States. As General Ozkok points out, ``the 
military did not think it would be beneficial to share its views on 
such a critical issue with the press and public. It expressed all its 
views clearly and openly, however, at the state summit, the National 
Security Council, and in all of the meetings; which were chaired by our 
Prime Minister, government members and pertinent organizations and 
institutions.''
  General Ozkok goes on to say ``the Iraqi issue is a vital and 
multifaceted issue. The military is concerned with the security 
dimension of this issue and expresses its views and puts forward 
suggestions on this aspect only. As all of you will appreciate, a 
decision on such an issue calls for political, economic, social and 
judiciary dimensions as well. We as the military do not think we know 
best. Consequently we could have paved the path to misinterpretations 
if we had issued statements to the public on the security aspects 
only.''
  Most crucially, referring to the MGK--the National Security Council 
of Turkey which consists of five military and nine civilian members--
General Ozkok says ``as you know, the MGK issues recommendations to the 
government according to the Constitution, not to the TBMM (the 
Parliament)  .  .  . if the MGK had issued a recommendation at the time 
the motion was being taken up at the TBMM (the Parliament) and before a 
decision was made, it would have meant putting the pressure on the TBMM 
to pass the motion. This would not have been democratic and not in line 
with the Constitution.''
  Mr. Speaker, I wish Paul Wolfowitz understood this fundamental aspect 
of democracy as well as the head of the Turkish General Staff. I ask 
that the sadly contrasting views of the role of the military in a 
democracy expressed by Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz and General Ozkok be 
printed here.

       CNN Turk. Which traditional alliance are you talking about?
       Wolfowitz. Well I think you know which ones I mean but I 
     think particularly the military. I think for whatever reason 
     they did not play the strong leadership role on that issue 
     that we would have expected. But I think the bigger 
     disappointment has to do with the general failure of the 
     Turkish public reflected also in the government, about what 
     the stakes were in Iraq and that here you have a neighbor 
     with an overwhelmingly Muslim population where the people 
     were suffering under one of the worst dictators in the world. 
     And one would have thought that Muslim solidarity would have 
     led people to say let's help the Americans liberate these 
     people and that isn't what happened.
       Okay, that's past. We are now in the present and future. 
     The present and future is there's a spectacular opportunity 
     in Iraq to help these newly liberated people achieve their 
     real potential and I think that's what we need to work on 
     together, Turkey and United States and I think what Turkey 
     needs to do is look into its democratic soul and say, yes we 
     believe in democracy, we believe in democracy for Muslims and 
     Arabs. There's an opportunity now, whatever happened in the 
     last few months, there's an opportunity now to work with the 
     Americans to build that in Iraq. Let's seize that opportunity 
     and do everything we can as Turks to support it.
       CNN Turk. But if you make a prognosis of what went wrong 
     earlier, since you mentioned for example the military the 
     traditional institution which had strong connections to the 
     United States did not play a leadership role, so for the 
     future to repair the relationship and bring it back to its 
     original level that means that you have to need a leadership 
     role to be played by those who haven't played it. What kind 
     of a role the military might have because after all the 
     military is not working in Turkey's parliament political 
     parties [inaudible]? And they have been criticized by getting 
     involved in politics.
       Wolfowitz. I'm not suggesting you get involved in politics 
     at all. I mean, I think, all I'm saying is that when you had 
     an issue of Turkey's national interest and national strategy 
     I think it's perfectly appropriate, especially in your 
     system, for the military to say it was in Turkey's interest 
     to support the United States in that effort.
       CNN Turk. Didn't they say that?
       Wolfowitz. I don't know. My impression is they didn't say 
     it with the kind of strength that would have made a 
     difference. But look let's not dwell too much on the past.
                                  ____


 Statement by General Hilmi Ozkok, Chief of the Turkish General Staff, 
                               in Ankara

       The first question I will answer to is why the military is 
     silent. I am asked this question very frequently. I would 
     like say openly that the military is not silent; however, the 
     military did not think it would be beneficial to share its 
     views on such a critical issue with the press and public. It 
     expressed all its views clearly and openly, however, at the 
     state summit, the National Security Council [MGK], and at all 
     the other meetings; which were chaired by our prime minister, 
     government members, and pertinent organizations and 
     institutions. In addition, the views of the Turkish Armed 
     Forces [TSK] were expressed clearly to all the heads of 
     state, who visited me or called me on the phone.
       It goes without saying that we had our reasons for not 
     issuing statements to the press and public. The Iraqi issue 
     is a vital and multifaceted issue. The military is concerned 
     with the security dimension of this issue and expresses its 
     views and puts forward suggestions on this aspect only. As 
     all of you will appreciate, a decision on such an issue calls 
     for political, economic, social, and judiciary dimensions as 
     well. We, as the military, do not think we know best. 
     Consequently, we could have paved the path to 
     misinterpretations if we had issued statements to the public 
     on the security aspect only. This is the reason for our 
     silence.
       I suppose that people are curious as to the stand of the 
     TSK. I have to say openly that the view of the TSK is the 
     same as the government and as reflected in the motion 
     submitted to the Turkish Grand National Assembly [TBMM]. 
     Everything in this process evolved in line with a democratic 
     process and as should be in a modern country. We should get 
     used to this.
       Another issue concerns the reason why an advisory decision 
     was not adopted at the last MGK meeting. I did not hear that 
     such a wish was submitted to the MGK. The MGK consists of 
     five military and nine civilian members. The MGK meeting was 
     being held at the time the government motion was taken up at 
     the TBMM and a decision was not made yet. As you know, the 
     MGK issues recommendations to the government according to the 
     Constitution, not to the TBMM. At the MGK meeting on January, 
     the MGK made a clear suggestion as noted in the press 
     statement released on that meeting. If the MGK had issued a 
     recommendation at the time the motion was being taken up at 
     the TBMM and before a decision was made, it would have meant 
     putting the pressure on the TBMM to pass the motion. This 
     would not have been democratic and not in line with the 
     Constitution.
       In reply to another issue on the agenda that concerns 
     whether the military feels uneasy about the motion, I say: 
     No. We did not feel uneasy about the motion. This question 
     was raised after a newspaper headline said that the military 
     is uneasy. This report belongs to the journalist and his 
     source, if there is any. As you know, the General Staff 
     denied this report the same day.
       When I became the chief of the General Staff, I issued a 
     statement saying clearly that only I can issue statements on 
     behalf of the TSK, and under my orders the deputy chief of 
     the General Staff and the secretary general. It would have 
     been better if this report was not reflected as the view of 
     the TSK.
       I have to say openly that the TSK has a single coordinated, 
     thoroughly studied, rational, and collective view.

[[Page 13566]]

       Another issue concerns turning the Iraqi issue into an 
     issue of yes or no to war. I would like to express my views 
     on this issue. There are reports that 94 percent of the 
     population said no to war. This is wrong, 100 percent of the 
     population said no to war and is against war. The military, 
     in turn, is the one who is the most against the war because 
     it knows the extent of the violence in a war.
       It is obvious that we will sustain great damages if a war 
     begins, regardless of Turkey's stand. We will sustain 
     political, economic, and social damages in addition to the 
     damage to our security.

  [Second and final part of statement by General Hilmi Ozkok, chief of 
the Turkish General Staff, in Ankara--recorded on 5 March]

       The current reality is that Turkey does not have the 
     possibility or the capability to prevent the war single-
     handedly. In actual fact, this is the duty of the entire 
     world and not of Turkey alone. The entire world is exerting 
     efforts to prevent this war. We are obliged to continue our 
     efforts in that direction. My wish is that a war will be 
     prevented. We, however, could base our calculations on a 
     supposition, the supposition that a war would not break out. 
     We had to calculate what had to be done in the event of a 
     war. On this issue, our choice was, unfortunately, not 
     between what is good and what is bad, but rather what is bad 
     and worse. We will either remain totally outside the war, or 
     we will assist those waging the war, thus participating in 
     the process. These two modes of action have, for months, been 
     systematically studied in coordination with all the 
     establishment and institutions. Let us reduce the issue to a 
     simple level. If we do not participate at all, we shall still 
     sustain the same damages to be caused by a war. It will, 
     however, be impossible to be compensated for these damages, 
     and we shall not have a right of say in the aftermath of the 
     war. If, however, we choose the second alternative and assist 
     those waging the war, we believe that then part of the damage 
     might be compensated, we shall be able to extend humanitarian 
     aid to the refugees in north Iraq without participating in 
     the war, the war will be shorter because a northern front 
     will be opened, the pain and suffering will be less, we will 
     not be faced with unexpected developments, and the number of 
     dead will be less.
       We were going to return after having fulfilled our duty 
     without firing even a single bullet. Had we been forced to 
     intervene in unexpected developments, then those waging the 
     war would not have opposed this intervention. All these 
     factors and other issues were noted in a document and, to a 
     certain extent, were guaranteed. The economic aid was 
     requested not as the price for our cooperation, but as a 
     partial compensation on the part of those waging the war for 
     the damage we will be sustaining. We were not after a payment 
     for the assistance we would be extending.
       The Turkish Grand National Assembly [TBMM] has not endorsed 
     the government motion which was in harmony with this 
     reasoning. The TBMM is the representative of the nation. 
     Sovereignty belongs unconditionally to the people. We only 
     have respect for this decision. My wish is that this mode of 
     action, which we chose in a bid to avoid war, will not force 
     us to take certain actions with those waging the war as the 
     opposition.
       As for the question on what will happen now that the motion 
     is not endorsed, may our lofty people be tranquil. The 
     Turkish Republic is a great and strong state with rooted 
     traditions. Every complicated problem has a simple solution. 
     All the authorized organs and institutions are assessing the 
     issue in line with the new situation. A solution that will 
     best safeguard and implement our national interests will 
     certainly be found.
       Now I would like to address the leaders in north Iraq. We 
     are the slaves of our geography. We have no other place to 
     go, nor do we have other friends and neighbors to befriend. 
     Our peoples are connected with family ties. We were next to 
     them during their most troubled times. They are well aware of 
     this fact. We never deceived them, we never lied to them. 
     Together we accomplished work that was beneficial for both 
     sides. Those who forget the past will become the bad 
     architects of the future. What has happened now to cause this 
     anti-Turkey atmosphere and all these bitter statements? The 
     Turkish flag is being burned. We are a noble and honorable 
     nation that did not burn the flags of the countries that 
     occupied our country even when we defeated them. I remind 
     them about our right for legitimate defense derived from our 
     national interests, and I hope that they will be moderate and 
     cooperative. Those who prefer to replace peace with clashes 
     will also have to shoulder its outcome and its 
     responsibility.
       Esteemed media members, my last word is directed to you. 
     Please make sure that in this critical period, your reports 
     are correct, that your assessments are based on sufficient 
     facts, and that you do not make errors that might damage our 
     national interests. I extend my deepest respect to all of 
     you. I thank you all.

                          ____________________