In the previous articles I criticized two NYT writers for their ignorant and irresponsible columns about the failed coup attempt in Turkey. At the end of the day, however, both writers were and are able to publish such mis- or dis-information basically because their newspaper does not demand that they actually know any particular subject which they choose to write on. The fault lies ultimately with their editors — the same editors who have no problem publishing ghost-written editorials signed by Fethullah Gülen (1).
The same cannot be said for the last writer that I want to discuss. Steven Cook is a doyen of the circuit of think-tanks on Turkey-U.S. relations. As a Fellow with the Council on Foreign Relations and a highly respected, long-time go-to guy for all issues related to Turkey, Cook is expected to know what he is talking about. Unlike the rantings of lunatics like Michael Rubin or Daniel Pipes, people take what he says seriously. He addresses a respectable audience in the U.S. foreign relations community and “chattering classes.” But if you look more closely at Cook’s writing on Turkish issues, if you can get past the fancier rhetoric and the longer sentences, and are then able to boil the content down to its essence, it becomes clear that Cook is only marginally more informed — or informative — than NYT reporters. More importantly, Cook’s writing is motivated by the same fears.
This is amply illustrated by several articles that Cook produced in the days after the 15th July failed coup. Only hours after the junta’s failure became apparent, Cook published a piece for the Washington Post (2) which is, as one would hope and expect, largely accurate from a factual standpoint. The interpretations are a different matter.
Cook begins that article in a disturbingly nostalgic way. You see, Turkish coups just aren’t what they used to be, and nowadays the plotters are more like the Keystone Cops. One could argue that, at the point when Cook wrote the article, the extent of the junta’s plans would not have been entirely clear to U.S. observers, but that is not enough to justify Cook’s tone. Steven Cook also chooses to gloss over the events of 2007-2008, triggered by yet another midnight memorandum from the Turkish military, and culminating in the narrowly failed Constitutional Court case to shutter the AKP. In brief, he does not see it as a failed coup attempt, though it certainly came very close to it. Similarly, he also neglects to mention that the Balyoz and Ergenekon cases — though later rightfully thrown out because of all the procedural tampering and evidence fabrication undertaken by Gülenist police and prosecutors — were based on some very real coup intentions and plotting within the top officer class.
Cook also goes along with the disconcerting traditional phraseology of apologists for the Turkish military when he vaguely refers to the “excesses of Turkey’s civilian leaders,” which are often mentioned but rarely elaborated upon. In the end, despite initial indications “that the military had finally returned to its old form,” alas, “it was not to be,” laments Cook while noting that President Erdoğan “looked shaken upon returning to Istanbul from his vacation.” That last comment about President Erdoğan’s “vacation return,” given how narrowly he escaped being kidnapped or murdered, is utterly inexcusable and unbecoming for a person of Cook’s stature.
Actually, all of the initial paragraphs in Cook’s article are extremely offensive to the Turkish citizens who not only lived through but even gave up their lives opposing the coup. The central sections of the article are largely a historical explanation which contains more questionable interpretations, but I want to skip these and go directly to the end of Cook’s article.
In his concluding paragraphs, Cook mounts a stereotypical attack on President Erdoğan’s political decisions. Lurking between the lines is the tired cliché that Erdoğan is some sort of dictator. But like Roger Cohen and Thomas Friedman, the two other writers whom I have mentioned in my previous articles, Steven Cook, too, is actually focusing on the Turkish people. In trying to explain President Erdoğan’s political successes, Cook is at least partially aware that just referring to Erdoğan’s “charisma” dehumanizes Turkish voters by implying that they are not behaving rationally. So he also mentions that Turkish voters have benefitted materially from the AKP’s policies over the past fifteen years.
But in the end, Cook is not able to formulate a rational explanation for why the Turkish people opposed the coup. Apparently, the Turkish masses were not “swayed” by the junta, whose troops they “swarmed.” They are personified by Erdoğan, who Cook claims “will now hunt down opponents — real or imagined,” and the result will be to “consolidate Turkey’s elected autocracy.”
Those last two words about an “elected autocracy” should cause some eyebrows to be raised. Cook is openly stating that the Turkish masses cannot be trusted to make democratic choices. Clearly, if they keep electing an autocrat, they must be under the influence of their emotions, not their intelligence. It seems to me, though, that the misapprehension is in Cook’s own mind. Last but not least, he does not seem to see the Gülenists as a key factor in understanding the Turkish situation. Cook does mention Fethullah Gülen in those concluding paragraphs, but he doesn’t seem to be aware of why the Turkish people, and not just President Erdoğan, see Gülen as a threat. Over the past decade or more, the Gülen congregation has been increasingly recognized as a “dark force” in Turkish politics, and since December 2013 has been in open conflict with the Turkey’s governing party. This is not a secret; it is known to everyone in Turkish society regardless of where they stand vis-à-vis the AKP, and is fundamental to the current political reality of the country. But Cook, who is supposed to be closely following Turkish political events, is either not aware of this reality or cannot bring himself to accept it.
NOTES
(1) http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/04/opinion/fethullah-gulen-turkeys-eroding-democracy.html; http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/opinion/fethullah-gulen-i-condemn-all-threats-to-turkeys-democracy.html.