Overthrow of Attempted Coup by “Ataturkists” to Close the History Page of Military Coups in Turkey: Eduard Abrahamyan
Interview with Eduard Abrahamyan, expert on NATO strategy, intelligence, security and strategy researcher at the Leicester University (United Kingdom), fellow at Policy Forum Armenia, based in Washington, DC.
Mr. Abrahamyan, what happened last night in Turkey and why? Which were the main reasons for the occurrence?
Attempted coup has been recorded, which is being implemented, as it was stated, by about 50 high-ranking officers. Former coups in Turkey have been initiated by top military command. However, the reality of yesterday’s coup seems to be quite different. The army has been initially split, and the rebel military was not only to operatively isolate the political elite, but also a few influential officers, like for instance, chief of General Staff of Turkey. Infirmity of coup plotters, isolation from the society was attaching attention, generally, absence of motivation of plotters regarding the society or foreign policy issues.
On the other hand, such outbreak wasn’t unexpected. Economic hardship, intensification of control mechanisms towards the society has developed a negative prejudice for years. Besides that, the leading AKP, its political elite was weakening subjectivity of the military in Turkey’s domestic policy for years, and was doing it purposefully.
It’s worth reminding at least the case of detaining Ergenekon high-ranking military and officers of military intelligence or constitutional amendments, which occurred at a loss of subjectivity of militariness. A very crucial circumstance should be realized in this issue. Attempted coup was recorded under the economy crisis, against the background of actual partisan war with PKK Kurds inside the country, a week after the Warsaw NATO Summit, and in the context of a new phase of Russia-Turkey rapprochement.
At the same time, it should also been taken into consideration, that Turkey-USA relations are still contrastive, which manifests tendencies to become critical, at least from 2003. Within NATO, possessing big military-political resources, however, Turkey has become or was forced to become a rather passive state. Erdogan’s Turkey gradually obtains the status of an “unreliable” for NATO allies.
Moreover, according to Western analysts, Putin-Erdogan rapprochement will lead to the fact, that this time together with Bulgaria it’ll collapse NATO’s Black Sea programs.
AKP alienated Turkey from the West and made it a more Islamist state, which can’t but raise concerns in the USA. It’s interesting enough, that at early hours of attempted coup the U.S. Department of State appeared with rather generalizing statements, adopting a rather passive position. At the same time, accusations were heard addressed to Erdogan’s political opponent Fethullah Gülen, who took a shelter in the USA and is for more secular Turkey.
Statements by the military, initiating the coup are noteworthy enough. They said this was an attempt to restore democracy and human rights, and this was an attempt to raise the honor of the humiliated military, i.e. the last attempt of Ataturkists—to make Turkey, existent in the 1980s, more secular. What would happen if this military won? It’s difficult to say. It’s not excluded, though, that as a rule, it would be followed by what has been followed almost after any military coup since 1960—reconceptualization of USA-Turkey relations. However, those times and organizers were different, thus, currently it’s difficult to make anticipations based on former likewise occurrences. However, if organizers of the coup were “Ataturkists”, in this case “return” of Turkey to NATO’s safe club of allies would be possible, which lacked in the period of Erdogan and wouldn’t be recorded.
In your opinion, what is anticipated after this foiled attempt?
Probably, the era of Turkey’s being a powerful and sovereign subject of military institute will be concluded. In its relations with Turkey the USA was traditionally grounded by that very sovereign institute. Thus, by collapsing this attempted coup, Erdogan finally will eliminate that subjectivity of militariness. As for USA-Turkey relations, they’ll probably remain within the framework of unsatisfactory inertness and contrast. However, it’s not excluded that the USA may make use of this situation and attempt to intensify the control towards Turkey through other resources and military-political tools.
At the same time there is threat for worsening of USA-Turkey relations, as Erdogan and his supporters accuse Gülen and his supporters of attempted coup, and the country, which provided asylum, is considered “non-friendly.” Accusations against the political opponent have always been recorded, however, presently it’s possible, that they will be more actively raised in the context of USA-Turkey relations. If such a turning point is recorded, it’s not excluded that the USA will more frequently remind Erdogan of the role of the USA and NATO in Turkey’s security issues. Overthrow of attempted military coup of the so-called “Ataturkists” may close the history page of Turkey’s military coups.
Mr.Abrahamyan, under this situation in Turkey, what should Armenian diplomacy beware of and how should it act?
Armenian diplomacy, as compared to the Foreign Ministries of Georgia, Greece, Bulgaria and other countries, didn’t show operability in this issue. It acts isolated and alienated at the times of sharp regional developments. Armenian diplomacy should have had scenarios how should Armenia act in case of this or that prominent development in Turkey. Deep and comprehensive analysis, researches should have been provided what challenges may Armenia face, if, for instance, military coup, splitting of the country and etc. was recorded.
Armenia should have had alternative possibilities to reach absent relations with Turkey to the level of regular consultations without mediators. However, it should also be realized that Armenia is incapable of independent foreign policy initiatives, thus, under this condition, I don’t observe possibilities of Armenian diplomacy to assess the reality operatively and precisely.
By Araks Martirosyan
