Zaman: Bug
Today’s Zaman, your gateway to Turkish news: Bug, By Ekrem Dumanli, 30.05.2008
Unusual things are happening in Turkey. At a time when the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) closure case is being reviewed at the Constitutional Court, one of the 11 members of the court met with Turan Çömez. Who is Çömez?
He is a former AK Party member who left the party on unfriendly terms and has been making offensive remarks and statements directed at the leader of his former party. Is it proper that Constitutional Court member Osman Paksüt appeared in the same place as this person? It is at least politically incorrect.
Çömez held another meeting with Republican People’s Party (CHP) leader Deniz Baykal following the meeting with Paksüt. His political traffic is busy. Something serious took place amid these interesting developments. Paksüt and his wife asserted that they were being chased and that they were wiretapped; subsequently, they called the Ankara police chief to the scene. The allegation is fairly serious. However, some time later, the Paksüt family preferred to remain silent on the matter. Why? It has become apparent that there was no incident of chasing or wiretapping. Another police officer who was at the scene of the alleged incident asked whether Paksüt’s wife would use a parking spot; otherwise he intended to do so. The police do not even recognize the Paksüt family. Interior Minister Beşir Atalay, who initiated a thorough investigation into the incident, underlines that everything was under control in regard to the matter and that there remained no single question unanswered. In a press conference, he said everything is clear on the matter. Who cares? While the police were in charge of making an investigation into another incident, Paksüt’s wife made an inference based on the condition of a rear tire on her car, assuming that the car had been planted with a wiretapping device. In this way, she made a historical mistake. The incident has been adequately explained, and some circles are still busy with the fabrication rather than the true details of the case.
Let us move on to the case of Önder Sav. This gentleman made offensive remarks to a CHP member who stated his eagerness to perform the hajj at a party meeting in Elmadağ. A Cihan news agency reporter was also at the meeting. The audience, viewers and even the party management was aware of his presence at the venue. Recently, some papers reported this as ‘secret recording.’ Nothing could be said on this matter. The renowned Hürriyet daily and Vatan, which was recently sued by the chief of general staff for false reports, presumed that the news report prepared by Cihan was a secret record.
The Turkish people expect an apology from Sav. He has failed to make an apology; furthermore, CHP leader Baykal is also hesitant to take steps on this matter. Is it that difficult to apologize to the Muslims because you made offensive remarks in regards to the hajj and Islam? While Sav carefully avoided media attention following the incident, the CHP cried, ‘The party has been wiretapped.’ Here is another bugging scandal.
What was the case? A governor met with the CHP secretary-general at the party’s headquarters, where he put forward his opinions on how the CHP could win in the city where he served as a former governor. A transcript of the meeting was subsequently published by the Vakit daily. So? The party must have been wiretapped for the transcript to be published verbatim. If the allegation is true, the situation is grave. Let us deal with illegal wiretapping, and ask ‘Are you taking this country to fascism?’ We have to ask this question. But what if the essence of the issue is not related to wiretapping? What if the CHP and Sav seek to escape from massive criticism by relying on such actions and plan to put the ruling party in a difficult position? The person who made the speech is known; the speaking venue is known; the reporter who narrated the speech and the whole incident is known. While this is the case, some have accused individuals who had nothing to do with the case. This is not happening for the first time. Some rely on the famous legend of the religious community following every controversial incident to clear their part in the case. Where is the evidence? The owner of the allegation has to prove their assertion. Is it fair to accuse a party of wiretapping and then force it to prove that it did no such thing? What kind of logic can make this kind of inference? It is dishonest to wiretap people in illegal ways. But it is also dishonest to launch black propaganda against uninvolved circles, alleging that they should be held responsible for the wiretapping. This country suffers from fear of bugging; but this bug has taken captive not only some rooms but also some hearts that rely on prejudices and defamation.”
Leave a Reply