Turkey’s Berlin Wall cracks from its foundations (2)
Hasan Cemal
Veteran Journalist Hasan Cemal, whose most recent book, “Türkiye’nin Asker Sorunu” (Turkey’s Military Problem), hit the shelves last week, has said that there is a serious struggle for democracy and the rule of law, a struggle for change and a struggle between old and new in Turkey, leading to cracks in its foundations.
Video
Photo
Audio
mments
“The status quo forces do resist.
here and how do they do that? Look at the high judiciary. Both the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Board of Judges and Prosecutors [HSYK] are products of the Sept. 12 military coup. As [Kenan] Evren put it, this is a regime that aims at keeping alive its own bureaucratic oligarchy. Now this system has cracked from its foundations,” he said in the second part of our Monday Talk interview. “Turkey’s Berlin Wall has been hit in various places, it has even been shaken and started to fall down. Knowingly or unknowingly, the European and American press cannot put the pieces of the puzzle together. Prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the Western and American press had a better understanding of the democratic struggle that the dissidents put up against the authoritarian regime. Why don’t they want to understand this in Turkey?” he asked.
Elaborating on military-civilian relations in Turkey, Cemal answered our questions.
When it comes to military-civilian relations, you give a lot of credit to the Ergenekon investigation, but there are people who say it is nonsense. There is, for example, Gareth Jenkins, who argues in that direction in addition to some Turkish observers. What do you say about them?
The status quo forces are trying to protect themselves in Turkey. There is the military, there is the bureaucratic oligarchy. People who are against a first-class democracy and state of law in Turkey are trying to protect themselves. I would say that if anybody would like to get an idea about this, they should read Özden Örnek’s diary. I would have translated it into English and some other major languages and told them to read it.
Would that be enough?
If they read it, and if they still question Ergenekon, I don’t have anything to tell them. We can’t stop people from saying things within the context of freedom of speech in a democracy. But they should also have a look at the recent history of Turkey, like the May 27 [1960], March 12, 1971 and Sept. 12, 1980 coups and the Feb. 28 [1997] process. Then they can start reading Örnek’s diary and [Mustafa] Balbay’s diary. They will see schemes against the [Justice and Development Party] AK Party government, which came to power with 35 percent of the vote. Those schemes continued up until 2009, when there was the Cage plan in March and the action plan to finish off the AK Party and the [Fethullah] Gülen movement. The murders of Hrant Dink, Father Santoro and the Malatya massacre have been qualified as “operations” in the Cage plan. What are these operations? Operations that are planned to imply that there is a surge in reactionaryism. If there are still people who say that all of this is false and specially produced information, then I have nothing else to say.
That’s what I was going to ask.
If all of these were special fabrications, then we wouldn’t even have the “T” of the Taraf daily, they would have razed Taraf to the ground. As the chief of General Staff put it, if some of the documents were just a “piece of paper,” we would not see Taraf anywhere today. Considering the recent past of Turkish political history, nobody should try to water down the Ergenekon trial because that would not be convincing. I should also say that there is justifiable criticism because of absurdities in the Ergenekon trial as far as the judicial processes have been concerned, and as in the examples of Balbay and [Tuncay] Özkan, the detention periods have been transformed into punishment. But just because of those examples, nobody should underestimate the importance of that trial. The Ergenekon process and trial are significant because the activities of supporting juntas and coups have been put on trial for the first time in Turkey, and it shows that people who say “Hey military, don’t mess with politics” have been right. I can no longer stand elaborations in Turkey related to Turkish politics in the foreign press, like this is what The Post said or that is what The Times said. That era is over. We are the ones who live in this country, and we see what is happening from the inside out. There was an article in The Wall Street Journal in which Bernard Lewis said something, and others said something else, which emphasized a scenario that Turkey will be like Iran in 10 years. Comparing Iran and Turkey is an effort that would either consciously serve the interests of the coup supporters, or it is an unconscious act.
Why do you think that way?
Turkey’s political, social and economic development and past are not comparable to Iran. We see that the number of people who wear headscarves has increased and therefore we say that Turkey will become like Iran. This viewpoint undermines the intelligence of Turkish people. I’m angry at that. These are products of some neocon supporters. The views of those people are news and they should, of course, be given, but I don’t attach importance to them. Has the role that the military played in coups in Turkey opened the way for democracy or not? Has the role that the military played made the Kurdish problem better or worse? Has the role played by the military made polarization worse in the country or not? The headscarf issue has become a tool in dividing the country. When you are against every sign of religiousness and take the understanding of secularism to the extreme, then you are bound to have radicalism and polarization in Turkey.
‘Prime minister casts too great a shadow over the press’
You write in your book that on the morning of April 28, 2008, the Turkish press, which had given the military’s memorandum big headlines, did not have any signs reminiscent of El Pais. With that you recall the opposition of El Pais to the military and which threatened the military in Feb. 1981 in Spain. If there is a memorandum again in Turkey, how do you think the Turkish press would react?
It would have a much more democratic attitude. The reaction would be more democratic in both individual columnists and newspapers. A lot of newspapers would have the headline “Hey military, don’t mess with politics.” Compared to 2007, more commentators would speak up on television and present a democratic attitude.
If the military comes under civilian rule, can we call this a complete democracy? Would civilianization mean democratization?
We should always take this into consideration: You can establish a civilian structure, in which [Prime Minister Recep] Tayyip Erdoğan comes with the support of the military, and he might have been elected, but he could end press freedom. I believe Erdoğan has too great a shadow over the press. I criticize Erdoğan, evaluating him from the viewpoint of democracy. And I see that he has authoritarian tendencies that come with the power he has as a single-party government. This is important. Still, his pluses are more than his minuses, but his shadow over the press is too great.
A Wall Street Journal news article was saying recently that there is a bloodless civil war in Turkey. Do you agree with this evaluation?
Bloody or bloodless civil war is not pleasant. In Turkey, there is a serious struggle for democracy and the rule of law. It is, in a way, a struggle for change, a struggle between old and new. The status quo forces do resist. Where and how do they do that? Look at the high judiciary. Both the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Board of Judges and Prosecutors [HSYK] are products of the Sept. 12 military coup. As [Kenan] Evren put it, this is a regime that aims at keeping its own bureaucratic oligarchy alive. Now this system has cracked from its foundations. Turkey’s Berlin Wall has been hit in various places, it has even been shaken and has started to fall down. Knowingly or unknowingly, the European and American press cannot put the pieces of the puzzle together. Prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the Western and American press had a better understanding of the democratic struggle that the dissidents waged against the authoritarian regime. Why don’t they want to understand this in Turkey?
Why?
Islamophobia, prejudices related to Islam play a big role here. In Turkey, they see that people who come from an Islamic political background are in power through elections. Is the struggle that they are engaged in a struggle to bring down the wall that obstructs the way of democracy, or are they trying to make Turkey like Iran? Are they going to put forward their secret agendas following the fall of the wall, and is this why they are trying to change the structure of the high judiciary? Since their minds are busy with those questions, they can’t see the realities. Those who do that intentionally and in a sneaky way come from the circles that dislike Turkey’s foreign policies related to the Middle East and Israel. They comprise some of the Israeli lobby and neocons, remnants of the [George W.] Bush regime and their tentacles in Turkey. They systematically disseminate the information that Turkey will be like Iran and that what is going on is not a struggle for democracy and law. This is in a way a product of [Erdoğan’s] “one-minute” outburst [in Davos]. These circles are also under the influence of Kemalism. If there is no military in Turkey, they say there won’t be democracy, and Turkey would be divided and there would be Islamic fundamentalism. … Indeed the neocons and some Israeli lobbies do not give a damn if there is a first-class democracy or not in Turkey or if Turkey enters the European Union -- because a first-class democracy in Turkey makes the country a regional actor, and then Turkey wouldn’t care what Israel says, even what the European Union says.
***
‘Prime minister needs to do some delicate balancing’
What do you think about Turkey’s relations with Iran? Is Turkey over-engaged with Iran? Turkey tried to have good relations with Iran even during the time of Khomeini and in spite of Khomeini. Turkey’s policies toward Iran are generally good, but they need some balancing. Relations are good with Syria, too; it is going well. Even when Apo [Abdullah Öcalan] was in Syria, Turkey had good relations with Syria. In 1987, when Apo was there, then Prime Minister [Turgut] Özal went to Syria; in 1991-92 then-Prime Minister [Süleyman] Demirel went there. Turkey did not sever its relations with Syria. The government’s policy to have relations with Hamas is also a correct policy. That is the line which the United States is taking and at which Europe has arrived. Some articles in the foreign press about Turkey are due to Turkey’s increased weight. The West has to put away its Cold War spectacles. There is [in Turkey] also an attitude that shows too much concern as in “Oops, the prime minister said ‘one minute’! What is the United States going to do, what is the Israel lobby going to do?” Why do we care? They can do whatever they want to do. However, the prime minister needs to do some delicate balancing regarding Iran and Israel. He has some harsh words. But this also has a direct influence on the man in the street in the Islamic world because television channels like Al Arabiya and Al Jazeera transmit messages.
There is also a part of society in Turkey that is at a distance from the power struggles, not against the headscarf, not radical Kemalists, and they genuinely fear that their lifestyles might be threatened. Aren’t there things the government can do to address those fears?
These are genuine fears. There are uneasy feelings. And there are things that the government needs to do. Therefore, the government needs to open up to the outside world. There need to be some gestures. There are things that seem as though the government’s only criterion for appointments is to have officials whose wives wear headscarves. Is this intentional? Aren’t there people who can do the same job in Turkey even if their wives are not covered?
What about the United States and Turkey?
Turkey is a country with a population of around 70 million, and the further it takes its democracy and the rule of law, it will grow economically, and its area of political influence would grow, too. It would attract investments from various places, be it Russia, Arab countries or the Gulf. Without doubt, Turkey should not exclude Israel, and it should have good relations with the United States, and it should continue its way on the European Union path. But when Israel continues to have inhuman policies in Gaza and does not change its policies on Palestine, Turkey would be right to criticize it. Because as long as Israel continues to have those policies, it will make the world unstable; it will lead to the growth of radical Islam. Therefore, the United States, Europe - - and some countries already do that - - should pressure Israel to change its policies. Barack Obama has started doing it as well.
Submission to CC Connor Re: IRC9/907 - Taxi industry (Contract Drivers) Contract Determination 1984 – Application for a variation of a CD on Wednesday, July 15, 2009.
Dear CC Connor,
With due respect I would like to request you to step aside from hearing the matter mentioned above due to the following reasons that I will now briefly outline. So with your kind permission I will continue:
1. In NSW IRC Matter No 2383 of 1993 the bailors made a harsh, unjust, oppressive, immoral, wrongful and illegal application to pass the costs of fuel and wash to bailee drivers. The NSW Transport Workers Union leadership knew that they can not agree with such a harsh, unjust, oppressive, immoral, wrongful, illegal and unprecedented proposal from and in favour of the bailors. The TWU lawyer said, "we reserve the right to oppose at a later date" and they allowed to shift a huge financial burden to bailee drivers with your direct assistance.
2. In the Anthony Denton vs Lewis Lim case you deliberately dismissed the case in favour of the bailor who decided not to appear in front of you to face the music. You said in brief, (and I paraphrase) "if I make a decision with the bailor being absent, it will not assist the bailee; therefore I dismiss the matter"! In other words, you have rewarded the bailor and short changed the bailee driver against his direct wishes and interest! The bailee concerned was there present in the court and you had ample opportunity to consult with him and to do so for the sake of justice, fairness and objectivity, but you failed to do that.
3. In addition, on another point, the taxi cab including the vehicle, two-way radio, gps, camera and all other equipments belong to and are the responsibility of bailors and not the responsibility of any bailees! Yet, despite repeated requests you have passed the responsibility of the E Tag to bailees drivers! During that decision you said, (and I paraphrase) "absence of an E Tag shouldn't disadvantage bailee drivers". Now, the Sydney Harbor Bridge and many other toll ways have removed their cash payment system and this is disadvantaging bailee drivers all the time and this disadvantage extends back even at the time you made your original decision on this issue. Clearly, you did not conduct any so called disadvantage test prior to making your habitual anti-bailee deliberation on that occasion too.
4. Similarly, in another matter you said that you will deliver superannuation for bailee drivers identical to the courier drivers' award that you had delivered earlier. Alas! Here too, you failed to deliver on your promise and in accordance with your responsibilities!!
Most importantly, you have witnessed the huge rumblings of the rank and file bailee drivers, who are legitimate stakeholders in these matters, and their well presented objections in many other taxi related matters. You personally have adopted a manner, attitude and technique to block out valid stakeholders, the bailee drivers and their elected representatives.
Therefore as I believe you are not a fit and proper person due to your blatant prejudice against bailee taxi drivers and you have an undeniable bias towards bailors and their representatives, that have appeared in a number of matters listed before you in the past and present. I am repeating my original request that you step down to hear this matter mentioned above for the sake of fairness and justice.
Faruque Ahmed Veteran Taxi Industry Activist Mobile: 041 091 4118, Email: union_faruque@yahoo.com.au
Mr. Faruque Ahmed P O Box – 349 Alexandria – NSW 2015
Dear Mr. Ahmed
Thank you for your letter dated 29 May 2009 to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (the ACCC) regarding the conduct of Cabcharge Australia and the NSW Taxi Council in placing "Safe Swiping" and "Warning Stickers" in NSW taxis.
By way of background it may be appropriate to outline the object of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (the TPA) and the role of the ACCC. The main purpose of the TPA is to promote competition and efficiency in markets within Australia and to protect consumers from unlawful anti-competitive conduct and unlawful market practices.
I understand from your letter that you are concerned with the potential increase in market power of Cabcharge Australia in the market for portable EFTPOS units in taxis as a result of the proposed installation of "Safe Swiping" and "Warning Stickers" by Cabcharge Australia and the NSW Taxi Council in relation to an initiative of NSW Police. Further, I understand that you are concerned that the above practice will cause the public to believe that only Cabcharge portable EFTPOS units will prevent any "skimming" activity by the taxi driver of cards provided for payment.
In assessing any complaint, staff of the ACCC would generally determine whether or not the matter falls within the jurisdiction of the TPA, whether or not there appears likely to have been a breach of the TPA, and if so, whether the impact of the conduct is so serious and widespread that it is appropriate that the ACCC should take some action. The ACCC generally takes enforcement action in circumstances where there are broad flow on benefits for industry and consumers alike.
I have carefully assessed the details of your complaint, and have concluded that in this particular instance there appears to be no evident likely breach of the TPA. In particular, the program you have described appears to be an initiative taken by NSW Police to educate and inform the community about the risks of credit card fraud in an industry which, though predominantly consisting of honest traders, is nevertheless particularly susceptible to fraudulent activity. Cabcharge Australia does not appear to be advantaged by the initiative and on the basis of the information you have provided, it does not appear that a substantial lessening competition is likely to occur as a result of the arrangement.
I have recorded details of your complaint in the ACCC national database. This information will be used in the context of the ACCC monitoring to determine whether there is a pattern of behaviour by a particular trader or in a particular industry that requires attention. The ACCC closely studies the patterns of complaints received to ensure that our enforcement and education actions are focused on the areas of greatest concern to Australian consumers.
Thank you for contacting the ACCC and bringing this to our attention. Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please do not hesitate to contact the ACCC's Infocentre on 1300 302 502.
Yours sincerely
Candice Sng ACCC Infocentre Information Research & Analysis Branch
Mr. Graeme Samuel Chairman ACCC Level 7, Angel Place Sydney NSW 2000 Ph: (02) 9230 9133 Fax: (02) 9223 1092
29 May 2009
Subject: Removal of anti-competitive laws, regulation, policies and practices under the auspices and control of the NSW Ministry of Transport.
Dear Sir
I draw your attention to the actions of the NSW Taxi Council Pty Ltd and to Cabcharge Australia Pty Ltd. I provide a number of copies of recent relevant material from those companies.
The first is a copy of an article from the NSW Taxi Council Pty Ltd's bi monthly magazine called "Meter". The April- May 2009, Pg 3, article is headed, "Safe Swiping."
The second and third copy I provide is the recent information sent out to current Cabcharge Australia Account Holders.
As you would be aware there is a direct link between the NSW Taxi Council Pty Ltd and Cabcharge Australia Pty Ltd. The former is housed in the latter's own building called "Cabcharge House", at 152 Riley St, East Sydney NSW 2010.
To the best of my knowledge the holders of significant amounts of Cabcharge shares are on the Board of Directors of the NSW Taxi Council (NSWTC) e.g. Howard Harrison the current CEO of the NSWTC.
Cabcharge owns the largest taxi Network in Australia which is Combined Communications Network (CCN) which in turn owns Taxis Combined, ABC Taxis and various other taxi networks across Australia.
I allege that in this latest attempt to have placed in NSW taxis the proposed "Safe Swiping" or "Warning Stickers" that there is an attempt being made by Cabcharge and the NSW Taxi Council in combination, to further create a majority market share and domination in the processing of both credit and debit cards, primarily to the benefit of Cabcharge Australia Pty Ltd.
This wrongful, anti competitive, pro monopoly action is currently being sought via manipulation of the NSW Crime Stoppers Department, which is attached to NSW Police, to then influence and coerce the NSW Ministry of Transport to have allowed for placement in taxis these so called "Safe Swiping" or "Warning Stickers" into all NSW taxis.
This alleged manipulation and coercing by the NSW Taxi Council Ltd, as described above is fundamentally based on sparse or non existent evidence or of any substantial supporting data in relation to alleged "skimming" of credit and debit cards by NSW taxi drivers.
In the current media frenzy being generated by the mainstream press in general, regarding the use of "skimming" on ATM machines in the main (none has been shown for taxi drivers), the NSW Taxi Council Ltd is attempting to gain a further stranglehold on the profit derived from the 10% markup imposed on those passengers who present for payment either a credit or debit card to a taxi driver for a taxi fare so the 10% profit goes back to Cabcharge Australia P/L.
As you and your department would be aware all taxis in NSW and Australia wide, have fitted for use Cabcharge Australia P/L EFTPOS units, which in addition to processing Cabcharge cards can also process all other credit cards that are approved by Cabcharge Australia P/L itself, for acceptance for payment of fares. Here I refer to Visa, Mastercard, Amex and JCB.
In addition all banks and other financial institutions that are linked up to the EFTPOS payment system also have their debit (savings account) cards accepted for payment through the Cabcharge P/L, EFTPOS linked payment terminals and it's associated software system.
There is a convoluted system in place in relation to the compulsion for all Taxi networks, Australia wide, to be approved for operation by the various state or territory based Ministry's of Transport and in turn for the almost compulsory need then, for those Taxi Networks to be affiliated with a so called industry representative body or employer group, which is also state based.
The practice then is for that state based Taxi Council Ltd to form an offshoot representative arm with a different title such as the NSW Taxi Industry Association (NSW TIA) to then be an industrial organisation that is registered for representation of that employer (bailor) group (this is the Taxi Council Ltd who claim to represent bailors and plate owners) with the Industrial Commission. These Taxi Council who claim and give all the appearance of representing bailors and plate owners, including non active plate investors, are manipulated to serve the interests of Cabcharge Australia P/L.
The Chairman and Board of Directors of the various state Taxi Councils are beholden to Cabcharge Australia Pty Ltd and Cabcharge allows them to gain or strongly influences their ability to successfully succeed in any bid to gain and hold any position on the Board of Directors of any state or Territory based Taxi Council in the first place.
Cabcharge Australia P/L and it's CEO also have direct influence over who remains as a Board member or a Director of any given state Taxi Council Ltd or any given individual taxi network.
It's influence as you would be aware is enormous.
The veiled, nefarious machinations of Cabcharge Australia P/L and it's CEO is behind all significant bodies and changes or proposed changes in the taxi industry.
Cabcharge Australia is just that, it is Australia wide and it has undue influence and the ability to give or gain approval for any aspiring Board of Directors seeking person for any state or Territory based Taxi Council.
Cabcharge Australia creates an originator, feedback, and most importantly a control mechanism by in turn firstly controlling who is allowed to get onto and to stay on with any given Taxi Council, Australia wide. This even extends to individual taxi networks.
What is deliberately left out of their equation is the right to choose by the independent business owner and operator, the bailee driver including the lessee driver, who are running their own business when they take on bailment of another business entities (the bailor's) vehicle. This then so that the bailee (including lessee) can then go about conducting that bailees (and lessee’s) own business.
That is the nature of any bailment arrangement and Cabcharge Australia P/L, and in the main it's CEO, exploits the lack of grasp of the fundamental uniqueness of bailment and by extension it's implications and chain of accountability and it's chain of obligations by the parties involved, by persons in positions of power such as Commissioners or Judges of the Industrial Relations Commission or Court or of any other taxi industry impacting, government instrumentality. This obfuscation and deliberate muddying of the waters or lack of specific clarity on the full "fallout" of the industrial (remuneration) linked decisions or for approval for operation in some instances, is very much played to advantage by Cabcharge Australia P/L and it's CEO.
Cabcharges Australia and it's CEO's strategy, is the considered assessment of the possible outcome, of any given industrial (remuneration) decision or approval to operate decision, to be slanted as much as possible in Cabcharge’s favour. This has historically been shown to be very much their forte.
Meanwhile the general taxi catching public, Australia wide, and certain sections of regulatory bodies and instrumentalities and members of the media strongly sense something is profoundly wrong with the taxi industry as a whole. That the checks and balances are simply not there. That someone is winning massively while others are extremely voiceless and exploited.
The taxi catching public goes on paying somewhat inflated amounts for a service and suspects but cannot accurately pinpoint or deconstruct why it is that bailees, lessees and even plate owners, some of who may also drive, are getting very little profit or return.
I now go back to the reality of a taxi driver who goes out operating their own business. That business is primarily plying for hire for taxi fares from passengers although at times parcels and other small goods are separately carried and the carriage of those goods is paid for.
The choice as to the means or system via which the processing for the payment of the cost involved (the fare) when payment for that fare is via a card, is entirely at the discretion and is rightfully and legally the choice of the taxi driver. All taxi drivers Australia wide, as said, are operating his or her own business.
As you would know there is an accepted practice of a 10% surcharge placed on any taxi fare that is paid for via any credit or debit card. The 10% profit is partly retained by the bailee driver (including any lessee driver) BUT only if they have available and make use of a non Cabcharge EFTPOS unit which directs the card payment to those bailee (and lessee) drivers own accounts.
At least 3 companies in Australia make these portable EFTPOS units available to drivers. GM Cabs, TaxiEpay and (Gary) Schmidt Meters with the latter 2 based in Melbourne but operating Australia wide as are all of them. I understand there is also an Alex Taxis from South Australia offering a portable EFTPOS unit to taxi drivers.
Should a driver not use one of these non Cabcharge EFTPOS portable units then they are required to use the in built Cabcharge unit, if offered a card for payment.
These proposed "Safe Swiping" or "Warning stickers" are attempting to influence the public to have the belief that only Cabcharge units will ensure any supposed "skimming" activity by the driver does not take place. In reality they are an attempt to manipulate the public to do the "policing" on behalf of Cabcharge Australia to gain a further market stronghold.
This attempt at anti competitive practices is being put forward ostensibly by the NSW Taxi Council on behalf of the protection of the NSW taxi catching public by supposed "skimming" of their card details by some unknown, vague and unsubstantiated element within the taxi industry, that are supposedly the drivers (including bailees and lessees or even active plate owning drivers).
Not surprisingly to some, this attempt at the hoodwinking of the Crime Stoppers Commission to then influence the Ministry of Transport, would if allowed to be "rolled out," only serve to greatly benefit Cabcharge Australia Pty Ltd and deny choice to drivers conducting their own business.
What is in fact happening here is that the NSW Taxi Council Ltd is trying to legitimise Cabcharges domination and market share by stealth and without any valid basis.
I supply 2 pages sent out to all Cabcharge Account Holders recently on this subject of the proposed "Safe Swiping" or "Warning Stickers".
By supplying these to your department I believe this is supportive of my assertions here. The proposed actions of the NSW Taxi Council is wrongful and should be opposed, the actions of Cabcharge Australia P/L are equally abhorrent and warrant intervention.
Please investigate and respond to me at your earliest convenience.
