Fikret Bila

I asked Çiçek to share his overall assessment about the speech. I was not able to follow the speech. I read the blueprint on the Internet at a later time. First of all, I want to say that it is a very detailed document prepared after diligent work. It has academic value.

The scientific references are quite striking. Besides, I thought it is very realistic; a speech that covers realities of Turkey, an objective one indeed.

’Scientists should interpret this’
What are the important messages in the document?

Before that, I want to say that I am not sure if politicians are those who should first make comments on this speech. I think scientists should interpret and analyze it. This would be more beneficial to all, including politicians. As for the messages, Başbuğ’s speech covered a lot.

By looking at the media coverage I can say that everyone highlighted it at his or her own discretion. Some prioritized the emphasis on religious sects, others focused on the definition of the "People of Turkey," yet others underlined bringing the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, down from the mountain.

Gen. Başbuğ stressed Atatürk’s definition of the Turkish nation, especially the "People of Turkey" part. "If you take ’Turkey’ out and put ’Turk’ in its place, it will be an ethnic definition," the chief said. What do you say about this?

Atatürk’s definition is a very well thought one. And the Turkish Armed Forces’ interpretation is what Gen. Başbuğ said the other day. Atatürk introduced Turkish identity as a supra identity. He didn’t make an ethnic definition. Başbuğ emphasized this. In fact, this is not a new approach. The general stressed the importance of it. Başbuğ called for legal regulations in order to bring the terrorists down. What do you think about it?

Now, this is a very sensitive issue. The general expressed the military’s intention but didn’t give any details. What kind of a legal regulation is being asked? He only mentioned it at the beginning of a paragraph. If the General Staff is working on it, this would be discussed in the National Security Council or the Counter-Terrorism Committee. Başbuğ can bring this forward and necessary assessments are made. However, let me say once again, this is a very sensitive issue.

Could you elaborate the sensitivity part a little?

Terms and terminology are quite important. Two days ago we were at the funeral ceremony for soldiers killed by terrorists. For instance, we didn’t use the term "repentance law" but the public opinion adopted it. Or that there is no amnesty, but the term is being used. These things cause a sensitivity. This is what I mean.

As the issue of de-arming terrorists is mentioned, the amnesty issue automatically arises. Could there be such arrangement in law?

As I said, there is no detail in the general’s speech. And Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan announced before the March 29 local elections that there wouldn’t be an amnesty. I also repeated many times that an amnesty was not on the agenda. But as you know there is this Article 221 in the Turkish Penal Code, regulating effective repentance. This article is very functional and critical.

So far many have benefited from this. But terrorists up in the mountains do not know about the article and group leaders prevent them from learning about it. Why? Because the administrative body doesn’t do anything, or allow anything, without guarantee first. They are, in a way, taking terrorists in the mountain hostage. We are exerting efforts to spread information on this article.

And we should continue to do so. Even the Northern Iraq Regional Administration should read and understand this article very well. If the PKK’s disarmament is at issue, knowing this article is important.

Obama’s praise of the founder of modern Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, in his speech at the Turkish Parliament on Tuesday was interesting. He underlined that Atatürk’s greatest legacy was a democratic, laic and strong Turkey. This was key evidence that the "moderate Islam" discourse had dropped dead.

From a transitive discourse of "moderate Islam" to a "democratic, secular Turkey" approach, Obama’s remarks at the news conference he held with Turkish President Abdullah Gül at the Çankaya presidential palace were also critical. Obama talked about a new "partnership model" based on not religion or religious and ethnic identities but on common ideals and citizenship ties.

As Obama revealed this new partnership model, he said: "We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation; we consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values. É I think Turkey was Ğ modern Turkey was founded with a similar set of principles," after adding that Turkey is a Western country with a Muslim majority.

Obama also explained why he wanted to have an overseas trip to Turkey. As he described Turkey a bridge connecting the East to the West, Obama said this is because of not the bridges over the Bosphorus but because of history, culture, civilization and trade. The American president underlined that Turkey remains in the midst of regional developments and that its being a big country stems from such a position. He added that this is the reason he chose to make his first official overseas trip to Turkey.

The PKK and al-Qaeda

In the Turkish Parliament, Obama once again recognized the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, and al-Qaeda as terror organizations. His remarks received applause in the General Council except from the pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party, or DTP, parliamentary group.

He emphasized the continuation of counter-terrorism cooperation between the U.S. and Turkey.

Obama drew attention to the fact that Turkey has recently taken critical steps toward democracy as he pointed out that Kurdish broadcasts in the state-owned Turkish Television and Radio Corporation, or TRT, are met with respect by the world.

Obama in his speech totally excluded terror and fully supported democratic initiatives, adding that not fears but freedoms and democracy will take nations to the future.

Armenia and the genocide issue

Obama chose his words very carefully while talking about Armenia and the so-called genocide. He said his views on the record and that he has not changed them. But he is hopeful for Turkey-Armenia talks that have started under Gül’s leadership. The U.S. president gave the impression that he would wait for the result of the process.

As President Gül answered related questions posed by American reporters, he effectively shared Turkey’s approach to leave this issue to historians and to form a joint commission. Obama in his speech at the Turkish Parliament conveyed the message that the countries should confront their past. Otherwise, history would be a burden.

He stressed the contributions from minorities to the richness of a country. In this sense, Obama recalled his request to reopen the Halki (Heybeliada) Seminary. "I say this as the president of a country that not very long ago made it hard for somebody who looks like me to vote, much less be president of the United States," said Obama, giving the message that confronting the past and freedom, equality and democracy are the best solution.

In Parliament, the texture of the U.S. lobby that was present among guests of the U.S. Embassy in Ankara was interesting.

Leading names representing almost all views were invited by the embassy. Newspaper owners, editors-in-chief, Ankara representatives and columnists of different views were among the guests of the U.S. Embassy. Pro-secular faculty members, Kurdish academics and writers were there, too. The U.S. Embassy tried to include all colors in the spectrum and carefully brought almost all into the same picture.


Fikret Bila is the Ankara representative of daily Milliyet, in which this piece appeared yesterday. It was translated into English by the Daily News staff

For three days as of the day when the accident happened, both the authorities and TV channels failed to give the correct information and there was no correct information except from our injured colleague, İsmail Güneş’s, phone conversation with 112 emergency services. We have to keep villagers, rangers, soldiers, policemen, volunteers and reporters, who tried so much to reach the accident site and rescue the victims, separate. Each of them endeavored in good faith, in the name of humanity, under harsh conditions and by risking their lives from time to time.

News channels’ efforts and race to deliver the news in live broadcasts is certainly a professional reflex. However, risks of live broadcast should have been taken into account while broadcasting the news about such a big and fatal crash. Unfortunately, risks were not taken into account. Whomever they reached, regardless of whether he was related to the crash, was interviewed via phone in a live broadcast. This negligence brought about the broadcast of incorrect information and led the audience, especially the next of kin of the victims, to being misinformed and wrongly hopeful.

For example, only a few hours after the crash, TV channels reported in a live broadcast that victims escaped from the accident lightly, only one person broke his leg and Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu and the other victims were being taken to hospital in ambulances. Some of the news was delivered according to the statements of local reporters or people at BBP’s provincial and local headquarters. Even a debate whether Yazıcıoğlu was taken to Göksun State Hospital or Kayseri’s Erciyes University Hospital was reported. It was certain that Yazıcıoğlu was wounded but which hospital he was taken to was open to question.

A reporter in a live broadcast earnestly stated that he had spoken with the head doctor of Kayseri Hospital a minute ago, the preparations for an operation were completed and doctors were waiting at the entrance of the emergency services. He added that he just did not know whether Yazıcıoğlu was being taken to hospital by car, aircraft or plane. Likewise, news that no one died but one had broken legs was broadcast, attributing the statement to Kayseri governor. News delivered in live broadcasts created great chaos.

Broadcast from accident site

Again, phone connections with villagers and rangers, who reached the wreckage first, caused the broadcast of conflicting news. One of those, who were at the accident site, said he counted five bodies but could not see Yazıcıoğlu’s body among them. While one stated that there were three bodies, another said there were four bodies. This information was considered as a sign that Yazıcıoğlu was alive. In line with the news, the BBP headquarters delivered statements, increasing the hopes.

During midday Friday, CNN-Türk reported that nobody, including Yazıcıoğlu, survived the crash. The channel stood by the report. As opposed to this, NTV reported that five bodies were found while one was missing. NTV continued to broadcast the news until the late hours Friday. Although the Civil Defense confirmed Saturday evening that six people lost their lives in the crash, neither the governor, the interior minister nor the prime minister made any official statement. Yazıcıoğlu’s death was also uttered by Republican People’s Party, or CHP, leader Deniz Baykal at evening hours late Friday. Until that hour, once again no official source did, or could, give any statement to explain the situation.

Prime Minister Erdoğan, who was in a live broadcast on NTV the same evening, refrained from making definite statements but said no hope was left. In one part of the broadcast, he offered his condolences for Yazıcıoğlu.

Despite Erdoğan’s condolence, the news that four bodies were found and two people were missing was broadcast until midday Saturday. This created hope at BBP headquarters once more. During former President Süleyman Demirel’s visit to the headquarters, there was still hope and Demirel touched upon the hope.

Saturday afternoon, BBP headquarters announced that Yazıcıoğlu was dead and nobody survived the crash. At 5.00 p.m. late Saturday, Interior Minister Beşir Atalay stated that five bodies, including that of Yazıcıoğlu, were brought to Kahramanmaraş but journalist İsmail Güneş was still missing. Atalay’s statement proved that any information, which was delivered in those three days, was inconsistent.


Fikret Bila is a columnist for the daily Milliyet in which this piece appeared yesterday. It was translated into English by the Hürriyet Daily News & Economic Review's staff

Thus his party has chosen to carry out its entire election campaign on this understanding of "honesty in politics." This understanding is right and should not be limited to the CHP. Mehmet Sevigen’s decision to resign from his party positions is correct. Although, as Sevigen had put it, there was no a direct money relation, it was unethical for him to accept revenue sharing partnership after brokering a transaction. Not putting out any money for this partnership does not remove his intention to take his part. In fact, Sevigen, himself, did acknowledge that his behavior was not ethical either.

It’s obvious that Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu has also been a factor in Sevigen’s resignation.

Kılıçdaroğlu did make his opinion public at the first day and implied that Sevigen had to resign. If Sevigen would do the opposite, he would seriously harm both the images of Kılıçdaroğlu, of Baykal and of CHP. The CHP should protect the criterion represented by Kılıçdaroğlu not only as a tool of image but also as a policy and fight against all unethical behavior without discriminating political parties. It should interrogate those who associate the politics with his or her business affairs.

While announcing his resignation, Sevigen preferred to put the blame on the newspaper and its editors who brought the issue to the attention of the public opinion. It was not a good approach of him. If Sevigen had a compliant of the newspaper he could separately check it on. But trying to find excuses will not eliminate the committed mistakes.

The real reason of his resignation is being not ethical. He also admitted it. If the newspaper would not report it, would his revenue sharing initiative be ethical? No. It would still be unethical. Reporting an incorrect behavior will not change the fact that it was incorrect. It’s not the news that makes it incorrect.

The real problem in Turkey is that politics and business could not be separated from each other with a thick wall. Unfortunately, politics are used for business. In recent times, Turkish public opinion is being tried to be convinced that it’s normal. There are efforts to change the ethical values on this issue. Many say "What’s wrong with this," or "shouldn’t they make money, so does everyone," to defend such moves. However, in contemporary democracies those who enter politics clear off their business activities. They appoint trustees for their companies. But in Turkey, totally the opposite occurs. Ministers establish new companies. Their children do quickly enter into business and are quickly being promoted.

The political power turns into the business. The politicians are rejecting this reality but it is the fact. In any business affair conducted with the partnership of a politician, the political influence will naturally show itself though utmost attention and sensitivity is paid for the opposite. In fact, those who make partnerships with the politicians or their children by offering alluring proposals have the same in their minds. They are aware of its business gains and benefit from its advantages. To argue the opposite is nothing different than burying one’s head in the sand. That’s why the commitment of Kılıçdaroğlu to fight against corruption or using political influence for economic gains should not only set a model for the CHP but for all of the political parties.

I’ve been working for the Milliyet daily over 23 years. Unless I was personally insulted or unless the problem with the newspaper is not a public issue, I’ve neither talked about myself, nor the owner of the Doğan Media Group Aydın Doğan nor the Milliyet daily specifically. My readers know this.

And even today, there is an exception here. For this reason, first I beg the forgiveness of my readers and then want to talk about Mr. Doğan and the Doğan Group because the problem is a public issue.

A silent agreement
There is a silent, an unspoken agreement between Mr. Doğan and me. He knows that I call him when the tax-payer champions are announced. If Mr. Doğan is not the champion I get upset and he knows this. If he is the champion, I call and congratulate him. If he is not, Mr. Doğan calls me and gives the details of why he didn’t top the list. So there is such a tacit agreement between us.

I am a former controller with a doctorate degree in finance. I worked for the state and believe that paying taxes is an honor for a businessman. To scrutinize the financial documents and ask about the money not paid to the Treasury when due is a sacred duty of a controller, this is how I believe.

Tax terror
So I was intrigued by the tax fine announced for the Doğan Media Holding the other day. The group was accused of tax evasion and an unbelievable fine was decided for the company, 800 million Turkish Liras.

To fine 800 million liras for a company means an impoundment of the company. In other words, it means confiscation of that firm. When I searched for the reason, I came up with the following information:

25 percent of the Doğan Publishing Holding shares were sold to German Axel Springer Group and Doğan paid the tax.

In the light of the information submitted to the Capital Markets Board, or SPK, the sales process evolved as follows.

Doğan Publishing informed the SPK about the talks launched for selling shares to the Axel Springer Group on Nov. 11, 2006. After certain progress was made in talks, the Doğan Group talked to the SPK again on Dec. 22, 2006 and submitted the information that the final stage of the sales was reached and that they were about to have a handshake.

And finally, the Doğan Publishing Company informed the SPK on Jan. 2, 2007 that the shares were transferred to Axel Springer and the money was received.

The company then paid the tax, resulting from the sale, in April 2007. All transactions were made in accordance with the trade and finance rules.

What’s the problem then?
The problem is this: A tax controller made necessary checks and fined Doğan Publishing Holding 800 million Turkish Liras. He explained the reason as; "You paid the tax as of Jan. 2, 2007 but the due amount occurred as of Nov. 11, 2006, the start of talks. In this case, you tried to attempt tax evasion. And this is the amount of fine!"

Without the sale process finalized and the money received, the taxation is inapplicable. According to the Turkish Trade Law, the sale of shares is actualized on the day of the transfer of shares. And the taxation process begins. Having talks do not mean shares will be sold. Tax cannot be paid for unsold shares.

On the day of the share transfer, the tax amount is determined according to the law and is paid. In this case, Doğan Publishing Holding fulfilled obligations in line with the rules and paid the due tax. But to announce the company as a tax evader is a public issue and the press should tackle this.

So there are two possibilities. Either the tax controller was given a political directive to bankrupt the Doğan Group and acted against law. Or he’s decided to out-Herod Herod and is trying to butter up the government. In any case, this is not tax control but tax terror.



Fikret Bila is a columnist for the daily Milliyet in which this piece appeared yesterday. It was translated into English by the Hürriyet Daily News & Economic Review's staff