GOVERNANCE AND THE MILITARY: PERSPECTIVES FOR CHANGE IN TURKEY Papers of a project managed by the Centre for European Security Studies (CESS) in the Netherlands, in co-operation with the Istanbul Policy Center (IPC) Sami Faltas and Sander Jansen, editors 2006 HARMONIE PAPER 19 Governance and the Military: Perspectives for Change in Turkey Editors: Sami Faltas and Sander Jansen Copyright © 2006 by CESS All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. First published in May 2006 by The Centre of European Security Studies (CESS) Lutkenieuwstraat 31 A 9712 AW Groningen The Netherlands Director: Peter Volten ISBN-10: 90-76301-21-2 ISBN-13: 978-90-76301-21-1 The Centre for European Security Studies (CESS) is an independent institute for research, consultancy, education and training, based in the Netherlands. Its aim is to promote transparent, accountable and effective governance of the security sector, broadly defined. It seeks to advance democracy and the rule of law, help governments and civil society face their security challenges, and further the civilized and lawful resolution of conflict. CESS is international, multidisciplinary and collaborative. Its work is part of the European quest for peace and security both within and outside Europe. CESS encourages informed debate, empowers individuals, fosters mutual understanding on military and other security matters, promotes and sustains democratic structures and processes and supports reforms that favour stability and peace. PREFACE This book presents papers of the project Governance and the Military: Per- spectives for Change in Turkey 2004-2006, launched by the Centre for European Security Studies (CESS) in Groningen, the Netherlands, in co- operation with the Istanbul Policy Center (IPC). The aim of this project is “to contribute to an increased understanding in Turkey of the appropriate role of the armed forces in a democracy and thereby to help the country to come closer to complying with the political EU (Copenhagen) criteria for membership.” Of course, we also hope the project and this book will contribute to a better understanding in Western Europe of the progress Turkey has made in the field of civil-military relations, and the challenges it faces as it prepares for EU membership. The Matra programme of the Netherlands foreign ministry is sponsoring this project. We are grateful for this support, which has been essential to the launching and continuation of the project. The European Commission, though not a sponsor, has encouraged us by its lively interest in the project. Of course, the opinions voiced in this book do not necessarily reflect the positions either of the Netherlands government or of the European Commission. This volume comprises the final report, compiled by David Greenwood, of the international task force convened by our project, plus four of the working papers written for the task force by Turkish and Dutch experts, and a paper written by a Dutch student during an internship in Istanbul. Several of the authors have asked us to emphasise that their papers represent work in progress. They were written in 2004/2005 for the benefit of the project, but they are in need of further elaboration and discussion. The task force report is also available as a separate CESS publication, in Turkish and English, at www.cess.org. This book is also available there as an electronic file. Sami Faltas and Sander Jansen Groningen, April 2006 3 4 CONTENTS Introduction 7 Sami Faltas and Sander Jansen Chapter One: 21 Turkish Civil-Military Relations and the EU: Preparation for Continuing Convergence. Final Expert Report of an International Task Force David Greenwood Chapter Two: 69 EU Conditionality Concerning Turkish Civil-Military Relations Margriet Drent Chapter Three: 87 The Past and the Future of Civil-Military Relations in Turkey Arma ğan Kulo ğlu and Mustafa Şahin Chapter Four: 105 Higher Organisation of Defence: a Comparative Overview of Six European States: The Case for an Integrated Defence Organisation Jos Boonstra Chapter Five: 129 Transparency-Building in the Defence Sector and the EU Reforms in Turkey Nilüfer Narlı Chapter Six: 155 The Role of the Military in Turkish Politics: An Analysis of Public Statements Made by the Turkish General Staff Bastiaan Konijnenbelt 5 6 INTRODUCTION Civil-military relations in Turkey are changing as the country prepares for EU membership, and they will continue to change as accession draws closer. The contributors to this book have all been involved in the international project on governance and the military in Turkey, which ran from June 2004 until the end of May 2006. In this introduction, we will bring together some of the principal points they will make in the following chapters and add some observations and comments of our own. We will first ask ourselves how civil-military relations came to figure on the accession agenda. This will lead us to conclude that the expectations of the EU regarding civil-military reforms in Turkey are not as clear and consistent as one would wish. We will recommend that the EU develop a document outlining its principles of democratic governance in the security sector. Next, we will argue that most discussions on civil-military relations in Turkey, including our own, suffer from four weaknesses. First, a lack of information. Second, a static perspective. Third, too much emphasis on institutions and too little on behaviour. Fourth, a failure to draw essential players and the wider public into the debate. We will explore ways of overcoming these afflictions. 1. Why Civil-Military Relations Are on the Agenda Civil-military relations are not dealt with in any detail by the acquis communau- taire , the mountainous pile of treaties and agreements that bind the members of the union together. However, the European Union has taken the position that candidate states must organise their civil-military relations in a certain way in order to comply with the political criteria for accession adopted by the Copenhagen European Council in 1993: • Stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities; • The existence of a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union; • The ability to take on the obligations of membership including adherence to the aims of political, economic & monetary union. 7 As Margriet Drent argues in this book, these Copenhagen criteria leave much room for interpretation and hence for disagreement. They do not mention civil- military relations or democratic control of the armed forces by name. Much less do they provide clear guidance on the requirements that civil-military relations or democratic control of the armed forces must meet in order to pass the Copenhagen test. Nor do we find this information in any other EU document. 1 This lack of EU guidelines for civil-military relations is not difficult to explain. The EU does not interfere in the way its members organise their defence. Besides, it is not uncommon for the union to make demands of candidate members without spelling out what would constitute an adequate compliance. For example, democracy is a fundamental requirement for EU accession, but there is no single, authoritative and comprehensive EU document that explains in concrete terms what the union means by democracy. Nevertheless, in our opinion the absence of clear EU guidelines in an area like civil-military relations is regrettable, because it complicates the difficult process of enlargement. According to Drent, certain notions about what the EU considers acceptable, and more particularly what it does not consider acceptable in civil- military relations can be inferred from statements of the European Commission and the European parliament and from the Accession Partnership document. Indeed, the Regular Reports of the European Commission review and assess Turkish civil-military relations under the heading of ‘political criteria’. They demand further alignment as a condition for accession. 2 The European Parliament has also addressed the issue. In its response to the Commission’s 2004 Regular Report on Turkey, the European Parliament called on the government in Ankara, among many other things, to further reduce the political power of the army through sustained reforms. 3 However, some of the EU’s most important policy documents on Turkish accession say little about civil-military relations. The EU’s Negotiating Framework for Turkey (2005) stresses the importance of the Copenhagen political criteria, but makes no explicit mention of civil-military relations or democratic control of the armed forces. 4 The Turkey: 2003 Accession Partnership that the Council of the EU adopted on 19 May 2003 also stresses compliance with the Copenhagen criteria. Its only reference to civil-military relations is “adapt the functioning of the National Security Council in order to align civilian control of the military with practice in EU Member States.”(2003/398/EC) The next version of the Accession Partnership with 1 With the partial exception of the European Commission’s regular reports, as we shall see 2 E.g. the 2004 Regular Report on Turkey’s Progress towards Accession, SEC (2004) 1201, pp.11ff. 3 P6_TA(20040096), article 37 4 europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/docs/pdf/negotiating_framework_turkey.pdf 8 Turkey, adopted on 23 January 2006, has more to say on the subject (2006/35/EC). The second item of its Short-Term Priorities (to be accomplished within one or two years) is called ‘Civil-military relations’, and it reads: • Continue to align civilian control of the military with practice in EU Member States. Ensure that civilian authorities fully exercise their supervisory functions, in particular as regards the formulation of national security strategy and its implementation.