MIT

التالى السابق

The bad Side of Turkey

REPORTS - منذ يومان

 Turkey' MIT and Narrative of Terrorism

South Eye | Report - Exclusive

In the shadows of global geopolitics, Turkey’s intelligence service, the National Intelligence Organization (MIT), has quietly emerged as one of the world’s most assertive practitioners of extrajudicial renditions. With over 118 operations reported in the last decade, MIT's reach spans continents, targeting individuals who are, more often than not, linked to the Gulen movement—a religious sect accused by the Turkish government of orchestrating the 2016 coup attempt but largely devoid of any documented ties to terrorism.

A Dark Playbook

Turkey’s campaign borrows heavily from the U.S. “war on terror” framework post-9/11, incorporating elements like secret detentions, asset seizures, and even torture. Reports, including those from the United Nations, suggest that Turkey's renditions have at times crossed legal and ethical boundaries, with detainees subjected to mistreatment, including cases of waterboarding.

This aggressive strategy highlights Turkey’s willingness to blur the lines of international law to achieve its aims. While the U.S. pioneered many of these tactics in its global counterterrorism efforts, Turkey has adapted them to fit a domestic and international narrative centered on combating the Gulen movement—a group classified as a terrorist organization by Ankara but not by most of the international community.

Turkey’s global pursuit is branded as its own “war on terror,” a justification reminiscent of the language that dominated international security dialogues after 9/11. However, the application of this rationale to target political exiles, academics, and other dissidents linked to the Gulen movement has raised significant concerns. Critics argue that the campaign is less about counterterrorism and more about consolidating power and silencing opposition.

The renditions are often shrouded in secrecy, carried out with the assistance of states willing to cooperate with Ankara or under the radar of those who might object. Many of these operations have been executed in countries with weak rule of law or where Turkey wields significant economic or diplomatic influence.

Turkey’s assertive extraterritorial operations have not gone unnoticed. They complicate Ankara’s relationships with Western allies, many of whom harbor members of the Gulen movement or other Turkish dissidents. In some cases, these renditions have caused diplomatic tensions, particularly when they involve alleged violations of international norms and human rights.

Moreover, Turkey's actions pose a broader challenge to the international community: how to address a state’s use of counterterrorism measures against individuals who may not meet the internationally accepted definitions of “terrorists.” This issue is compounded by the lack of accountability for such operations, as targeted individuals often disappear into a legal and procedural void.

For President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, this aggressive approach serves dual purposes. Domestically, it bolsters his image as a decisive leader willing to defend Turkey against its perceived enemies. Internationally, it sends a clear message that Turkey will not hesitate to assert its interests beyond its borders. Yet, this strategy is not without risks. It isolates Ankara from potential allies and tarnishes its reputation in international forums.

In many ways, Turkey’s renditions illustrate a broader trend in global politics: the normalization of extrajudicial actions under the guise of counterterrorism. As countries increasingly prioritize national security over international norms, the lines between legitimate state action and overreach continue to blur. For Turkey, this gamble reflects both its ambitions and the precariousness of its position in an ever-changing geopolitical landscape.

Central to this narrative is the Gulen movement itself. While Ankara has succeeded in framing it as a terrorist organization domestically, the lack of substantive evidence tying the group to acts of terror undermines its case on the global stage. This discrepancy has led to criticism that Turkey’s actions are less about security and more about suppressing dissent—a concern amplified by the sheer scale and reach of its renditions campaign.

As Turkey continues its relentless pursuit of perceived adversaries, the world watches with a mixture of apprehension and skepticism. In the balance lies not only the fate of those targeted but also the principles of international law and human rights. How the international community responds—or fails to respond—will shape the future of state sovereignty and accountability in a world increasingly defined by its contradictions.