"Virtual" Disobedience

First there was a book draft. No, first there was a book. Ahmet Şık and Ertuğrul Mavioğlu, two journalists in Turkey wrote a book about Ergenekon, allegedly an organization that planned a coup eight years ago. Except for some reserves they have written about that attempt in great detail and in defense of the court case against alleged perpetrators.

A few years later police raided an Internet news portal's offices in Istanbul with suspicion that journalists working there might be co-conspirators with Ergenekon organization.

Ahmet Şıks Book on Internet

Ahmet Şık’s book on Fethullan Gülen’s movement and activities in Turkish bureaucracy which caused his arrest is being distributed on Internet. Original file was posted at Google Documents. A court in Turkey has ordered all copies must be destroyed or it would be considered as a terrorist crime raising International upheaval about press freedom in Turkey.

Here’s the book:

Dokunan Yanar

Is Social Media New Opium of the Masses?

Salazar governed Portugal with three F's: Fado, Fatima and Football. He manipulated public opinion in sentimental, religious and activism levels using these highly revered and powerful aspects of Portuguese way of life. Common arguments on the subject lead to underrating of either three F's or Portuguese public at large. It could be said that overly sentimental and pessimistic music collaborating with religious dogmas could occupy masses and redirect their social unrest into self-pity.

Turkey's Time Lost

Phone ringing woke me up today. It showed 7:35 am. When I hung up the phone I checked the time on my Mac. It was 8:40 am. What we should have done on March 27th that we didn't? Were we supposed to put the time one hour ahead? Were we supposed to put it one hour back? For some time my watch awaits me in another city, so I don't have a wrist watch, and no other mechanical clocks at home. I totally lost track of time in that half-asleep state of mind.

It took me some time to realize the time was supposed to be moved forward for one hour, but it wasn't due to an executive order in Turkey, but my Mac ignoring all-powerful executive orders put its time one hour ahead while my iPhone listened to the signal from my cellular provider and kept the "correct" time for the country.

On Libya and US Foreign Policy

I'm not an expert on Libya. Both politically or sociologically. But, in my humble opinion, the recent developments as I write this piece within a few hours of UN intervention against Qaddafi forces, it constitutes an interesting chapter in US Foreign policy since President Obama implemented serious changes from the beginning of his presidency.
His administration aimed at several objectives best summarized by Z. Brzezinksy in his article "From Hope to Audacity" published on Foreign Affairs:

•Islam is not an enemy, and the "global war on terror" does not define the United
States' current role in the world;
•the United States will be a fair-minded and assertive mediator when it comes to
attaining lasting peace between Israel and Palestine;
•the United States ought to pursue serious negotiations with Iran over its nuclear
program, as well as other issues;
•the counterinsurgency campaign in the Taliban-controlled parts of Afghanistan should be part of a larger political undertaking, rather than a predominantly military one;
•the United States should respect Latin America's cultural and historical sensitivities and expand its contacts with Cuba;
•the United States ought to energize its commitment to significantly reducing its
nuclear arsenal and embrace the eventual goal of a world free of nuclear weapons;
•in coping with global problems, China should be treated not only as an economic
partner but also as a geopolitical one;
•improving U.S.-Russian relations is in the obvious interest of both sides, although this must be done in a manner that accepts, rather than seeks to undo, post-Cold War geopolitical realities; and
•a truly collegial transatlantic partnership should be given deeper meaning, particularly in order to heal the rifts caused by the destructive controversies of the past few years

In the rest of his articles which is the most comprehensive and current study on the matter that I had a chance to read, Brzezinksi briefs every major area of US foreign policy including only Palestine/Israel conflict in the Middle East.
Every sign in US politics since the beginning of Middle Eastern revolutions, and even the stand-off in Wisconsin showed us that the administration was ill-prepared for such a major change in the region. The quick contamination of the Tunisian movement to the neighboring countries in the Middle East, even as far as Azerbaijan and Armenia in some extend, caught all western capitals unprepared for such a change even for the Information Age.
In his assessment of Iran-American relations, Brzezinski stresses that "The wider the agenda -- one that addressed regional security issues, potential economic cooperation, and so on -- the greater the possibility of finding acceptable quid pro quos. Or should Iran be treated as if it is fated to remain a hostile and destabilizing power in an already vulnerable region?" Given the fact that maintaining the stability in Middle East is the highest of all priorities (not only because of the "oil problem" but also because an instability in the region increases sensitivity among the G-7 economical relations) blossoming revolutions in every certain corner of the region should have been an incredible challenge for any policy maker, let alone the bureaucratic conundrum of the United States.
Hence the seemingly long reluctance on both the Libyan and Bahraini affairs. The US worked really hard in the United Nations in cooperation with France to get that 10-0 vote and keep the abstaining 5 abstaining.
In his article Brzezinski notes the deterioration of US relations with Europe due to the internal aspirations of the leaders of latter countries for the last decade or so. It now looks like the administration got the better end of the stick even to create better cooperation and collective unity among historical partners.
And then there is Libyan people. It's rather traditional to perceive any American International action with suspect at least. In the Libyan case, although the open cry for help by the people against Qaddafi forces was eminent and NATO action was backed with a concrete UN resolution and Arab League approval, many Middle Easterners started the chorus of Imperialistic attack against Libyan people immediately. The chorus spans even different and complex political divides of the countries in the region.
Yet Libyan crisis still holds the key to change the image and lebensraum of western politics once and for all. First intervention forces should avoid any action resembling an invasion. Second, both as an example to other dictatorial nations in the area, and maybe backed by another umbrella resolution to include likes of Yemen and Bahrain, UN should extend its protective sphere in all the countries affected by legitimate mass protests against undemocratic regimes.
If and only then the blood shed in Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain and Libya could come close to be shed not in vain and western civilization could regain the credibility it lacks for some time now.

Freedom, freedom of press, or otherwise

Ahmet Şık and Nedim Şener were sent to jail early this morning. Both investigative journalists with different backgrounds or ideologies, they had one common characteristic: pursuit of truth.

And truth is a dangerous subject matter in Turkey.

Nedim Şener is rather known in local and International media as an investigative journo and with his recent books on the background of Hrant Dink murder.
So, I will concentrate on Ahmet Şık and his work, and attempt to shed some light on why this case is becoming a stage in the series of actions by Turkish state to oppress opinion makers in the country.

Ahmet is another investigative journalist whose kind is rarely seen in Turkish media. He has an academical and scrupulous attitude towards his work, and in spite of common tradition in Turkish maid, he always works with the evidence and try to reach the truth no matter what the rewards or the dangers of doing so. He has co-written a book about Ergenekon in Turkey, about ultra-nationalistic and interventionist formations within the military. But he was also very critical on the details of Ergenekon indictment for lacking the real connections between the organization and latest crimes of hate and discrimination in the country.

Last, but of course not the least, he has a finished but not published book on the religious community of Fethullah Gülen and their connections within the state mechanism. And a draft of this book "surfaces" in the computers of other journalists accused of being Ergenekon members.

This morning he was arrested by a court claiming that, Ahmet Şık, a Marxist, was a member of an ultra-nationalist organization and "to arouse animosity and hate in public in general".

The only evidence so far known to connect Ahmet to this organization is a draft of a book found in an other journalist's computer who is yet to be convicted of any connection to this organization himself. Second accusation; "to arouse...." is an open-ended and undemocratic code in itself. One can prove that, say against myself, in many articles written by me, here on this blog. Freedom of expression does not cover only love letters. Writing in itself is provocative, and loses its purpose when stripped of its fervor. This article covers an area left behind since the latest changes in criminal law in Turkey, which traditionally served to oppress any and every kind of opposition in the country.

Many journalists in Turkey as well as many International organizations are considering these arrests as a violation of freedom of expression and slam Turkish government with requests to modernize laws concerning freedom of speech. I agree, but my point for the sake of this article is different.

I have just learned that all questions asked to him during interrogations and arraignment were concerning his writings. The facts about his work, his investigations, and the manner the investigations were handled by the prosecutor's office, leaves one but only one conclusion: Ahmet Şık was arrested for his opinions and for the dangers the status-quo perceived as a result of his investigative work. The court did not come up with one single conceivable evidence other than hearsay or opinions of other suspects.

And now, obviously, one could think "what about the previous arrests?" Just because they had more nationalistic views why wouldn't we give them the benefit of doubt?

As a rule of thumb, when a system loses its validity in judicial proceedings, and if a system does not function on presumption of innocence and starts chain-accusing people based on the actions of non-convicted others, one cannot speak of a fair jurisprudence.

And when there is no law to trust, there cannot be freedoms in the modern sense because they are dependent on who you are and where in time you are.

Let alone freedom of the press.