State-to-State Terrorism and International Law

It is regrettable to express that in our world, the EU(D) and Israel, which are among the leading "Defiant Terrorist States" in quotation marks, "the real politics where the strong are right, not the right one" is an accepted reality. If you want, look at the organizational behavior of the silent majority of the free world public opinion. The Free World, that is, the West, playing the three monkeys, even reluctantly digested this situation. How do I know this judgment, there is no need to reveal such a historical background. You have seen what happened to the elected President Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela, which has the world's largest fossil fuel reserves. As you know, it has been five years since Egypt's first elected president, Mohammed Morsi, and his government were removed from office by the US-backed General Sisi in a military coup. The same thing, the coup attempt in Venezuela with the help of the USA, and the similar situation in the civil war tensions that followed it, were clearly put in the middle. Now I ask you, how should we understand the former US President Donald Trump and EU Council President Donald Tusk's recognition of the National Assembly Speaker Juan Guaido, who attempted a coup, as the country's "Interim President"? Those who can understand the support of Canada, Brazil, Paraguay, Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, Costa Rica, Chile and Argentina to this legitimate and illegal decision of the EU (D) like the crocodile walk that Bursaspor footballers make after every goal they throw, should come.

Yes, dear readers, let's do some nostalgia. “Bipolar World” was one of the most distinctive features of the Cold War era. I don't know what it means to you when you look at the Cold War period as a whole, but in my mind, Right-Left conflicts, a disintegrated Soviet Union (SB) – EU(D) Polarization, the USA-led North Atlantic pact “NATO” – the SB-led “Warsaw Pact” countries have superiority over each other. years of war. Although NATO may seem like a military organization, it was actually a political organization. It aimed to encircle the European countries under the rule of communists in the Soviet Union and the eastern bloc and to prevent the participation of other countries in the regimes in these countries. NATO's ultimate goal was to overthrow socialist regimes. You remember, don't you? Although it is said to be a defense pact, it was actually intended to attack these countries as soon as the opportunity arose. As a reflection of McCarthyism in the US country, it aimed to suppress the leftist thought within NATO countries. For example, after Turkey's membership in NATO, instead of the desired peace and tranquility in the country, a polarization was experienced under the name of struggle against communism. The Fight Against Communism Associations and the work of the Homeland Front, which reached the village, brought neighborhoods, streets, towns, towns and villages face to face in cities. One of the most colorful people of those years was the Soviet Prime Minister Nikita Khrushchev, who was appointed as the first secretary of the Communist Party after the death of Stalin in 1953 and later ruled the state. In fact, if he were alive now, he would be one of the people who could be put before President Trump. How nice would that be. Remember, can you remember his visit to America, his veto at the United Nations by taking off his shoes and hitting the podium? Did he just veto, "You passed us in making sausages, we passed you in going to the moon," he said to US President Nixon! When he visited the American Labor Unions and saw the auto industry, he couldn't help himself and said to the president of the American auto unions, "You capitalist servants!" she cried! The late Necmettin Erbakan used to use the same jargon in our country, "You imitators of the West, you installers," he said in our memories. Again, "You will work for the growth of this army, if you do not work, you are from the potato religion" is another description. Necmettin Erbakan Hodja used body language well and never allowed possible interference with his speech. 1959 was also the last year of the Democrat Party government in Turkey. When Khrushchev learned that the then-prime minister Menderes had made an agreement with the Americans to establish a ballistic missile base with nuclear warheads in Turkey, he went out of his mind again, "You are turning your lands into weapons warehouses by selling them for money, you are creating a war zone in the Middle East in the future by accepting missile bases!" he shouted to Menderes! Now I'll ask you, wasn't that the case? What a great vision indeed. However, Menderes sighed in Moscow when the USA had to increase the price of the dollar from 2.80 TL to 9.02 TL on August 4, 1958, under the pressure of international financial circles. This rapprochement brought its end with the 1960 Military Coup. Today's Putin-Erdogan rapprochement and the 15 July 2016 FETO coup should be read in this way. Today, I can easily say that Putin does not see the operative gains he has achieved in the field enough, 

He reads the cooperation that developed in a phase where n is moving away from the EU(D) as a geopolitical partnership against both Pacific and Atlantic powers. It evaluates this situation as a historical opportunity for both the Republic of Turkey and the Russian Federation.

Let's continue from where we left off, Nikita Khrushchev, "We will destroy you with rockets from the Soviet Union to the moon, haa!" He was a political figure who, in his words, knew how to speak the hearts of all of America. Indeed, with this statement, there was a panic similar to the one created by the terrorists of the "Twin Towers" on September 11, 2001 in America... The "Berlin Wall" was built shortly after the summit meeting held in Vienna with the US President John F. Kennedy in 1961. had been He had struck immediate instruction to East Germany. In fact, in a way, this stance was defeating the subtle language of capitalist diplomacy, the tactless popular language of the Soviets. President Trump has now taken up this jargon. In my opinion, President Trump is the Nikita Khrushchev of the capitalist world today. Nikita Khrushchev, who commanded the Soviet troops in the "Siege of Stalingrad" in 1943 as the political representative of Josef Stalin, convinced Fidel Castro to place medium-range missiles in Cuba in 1962. Whether you call it a cultural revolution, the "De-Stalinist Movement" initiated by him also led to important developments in the socialist countries of Eastern Europe. Uprisings occurred in Poland and Hungary. These tensions in Eastern Europe led to the strengthening of opposition to Khrushchev.

Now, let's repeat our argument that we tried to describe above. Just thinking about how things would turn out if Khrushchev was in front of President Trump makes one go somewhere. From my point of view, Khrushchev was a far-sighted, playful, cheerful man, and the only power that prevented the USA, which had attempted to dominate the world, was the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics". Is there no need for such a power or similar associations? Undoubtedly there is! In this respect, when you look at the Erdogan-Putin partnership, you can feel a similar situation.

The Rise of Challenged State Terrorism in the Post-Cold War Era

Now let's come to our main question, those who have been thinking since last week, I invite you to think about something, dear readers. Let's ask our question again, is the legal framework set by universal and international law sufficient against state terrorism? Sir, what is ordered? Let's say. It's not enough at all and everything is so vague.

We examined the Cold War, or rather the bipolar world, now let's focus our attention on the post-cold war period. Unfortunately, it has been seen that the main reason for terrorism is ideological competition and contrary to the comments that it will lose its effect after the cold war, it has an increasing trend. With the democratization and transition to a free market economy that started with the end of the Cold War, the expectations that the problem of international terrorism would disappear did not materialize. On the contrary, terrorism spread over a wider area and continued to have deadly effects. In this case, it can be said that terrorism will continue to exist and even increase its influence in the future. It is undoubtedly considered that terrorism will continue to be a threat to international peace and security as long as ideological rivalries, religious extremism, inequalities in the distribution of economic resources, ethnic conflicts and micro-nationalist-based hostilities exist. It has been widely seen that states that have displayed flags in this area for a while sponsor terrorism, control or direct terrorist acts through intelligence services behind closed doors. Recall that such states have directly used terrorism as a means of combating and committed terrorist acts through their own organs, or have organized, equipped, supported or controlled "unofficial agents", mercenaries or mercenaries. They ensured the realization of terrorist acts by using armed gangs. This way of thinking is still widely used today as a doctrine by defiant terrorist states. The man in the street now knows that a state's significant assistance and encouragement to terrorists in weapons, technical assistance and transportation is considered as active support. Even the “Deaf Sultan in Egypt” knows that if the state does not actively support terrorists in its country, but does not make an effort to prevent terrorists who continue their activities in its country or to remove them from the country, and rejects requests to end such activities, there will be tolerance against terrorism. . Don't get me wrong, I use this term in the sense of "No one has heard", "Everyone has heard". Although the states generally control their own country's territory, they also have a terrorist effect on them and export them. 

He reads the cooperation that developed in a phase where n is moving away from the EU(D) as a geopolitical partnership against both Pacific and Atlantic powers. It evaluates this situation as a historical opportunity for both the Republic of Turkey and the Russian Federation.

Let's continue from where we left off, Nikita Khrushchev, "We will destroy you with rockets from the Soviet Union to the moon, haa!" He was a political figure who, in his words, knew how to speak the hearts of all of America. Indeed, with this statement, there was a panic similar to the one created by the terrorists of the "Twin Towers" on September 11, 2001 in America... The "Berlin Wall" was built shortly after the summit meeting held in Vienna with the US President John F. Kennedy in 1961. had been He had struck immediate instruction to East Germany. In fact, in a way, this stance was defeating the subtle language of capitalist diplomacy, the tactless popular language of the Soviets. President Trump has now taken up this jargon. In my opinion, President Trump is the Nikita Khrushchev of the capitalist world today. Nikita Khrushchev, who commanded the Soviet troops in the "Siege of Stalingrad" in 1943 as the political representative of Josef Stalin, convinced Fidel Castro to place medium-range missiles in Cuba in 1962. Whether you call it a cultural revolution, the "De-Stalinist Movement" initiated by him also led to important developments in the socialist countries of Eastern Europe. Uprisings occurred in Poland and Hungary. These tensions in Eastern Europe led to the strengthening of opposition to Khrushchev.

Now, let's repeat our argument that we tried to describe above. Just thinking about how things would turn out if Khrushchev was in front of President Trump makes one go somewhere. From my point of view, Khrushchev was a far-sighted, playful, cheerful man, and the only power that prevented the USA, which had attempted to dominate the world, was the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics". Is there no need for such a power or similar associations? Undoubtedly there is! In this respect, when you look at the Erdogan-Putin partnership, you can feel a similar situation.

The Rise of Challenged State Terrorism in the Post-Cold War Era

Now let's come to our main question, those who have been thinking since last week, I invite you to think about something, dear readers. Let's ask our question again, is the legal framework set by universal and international law sufficient against state terrorism? Sir, what is ordered? Let's say. It's not enough at all and everything is so vague.

We examined the Cold War, or rather the bipolar world, now let's focus our attention on the post-cold war period. Unfortunately, it has been seen that the main reason for terrorism is ideological competition and contrary to the comments that it will lose its effect after the cold war, it has an increasing trend. With the democratization and transition to a free market economy that started with the end of the Cold War, the expectations that the problem of international terrorism would disappear did not materialize. On the contrary, terrorism spread over a wider area and continued to have deadly effects. In this case, it can be said that terrorism will continue to exist and even increase its influence in the future. It is undoubtedly considered that terrorism will continue to be a threat to international peace and security as long as ideological rivalries, religious extremism, inequalities in the distribution of economic resources, ethnic conflicts and micro-nationalist-based hostilities exist. It has been widely seen that states that have displayed flags in this area for a while sponsor terrorism, control or direct terrorist acts through intelligence services behind closed doors. Recall that such states have directly used terrorism as a means of combating and committed terrorist acts through their own organs, or have organized, equipped, supported or controlled "unofficial agents", mercenaries or mercenaries. They ensured the realization of terrorist acts by using armed gangs. This way of thinking is still widely used today as a doctrine by defiant terrorist states. The man in the street now knows that a state's significant assistance and encouragement to terrorists in weapons, technical assistance and transportation is considered as active support. Even the “Deaf Sultan in Egypt” knows that if the state does not actively support terrorists in its country, but does not make an effort to prevent terrorists who continue their activities in its country or to remove them from the country, and rejects requests to end such activities, there will be tolerance against terrorism. . Don't get me wrong, I use this term in the sense of "No one has heard", "Everyone has heard". Although the states generally control their own country's territory, they also have a terrorist effect on them and export them. 

is breast-feeding. On the other hand, the United Nations creates a collectively favorable ground for the struggles to prevent the threat posed by international terrorism. The fight against international terrorism has many advantages, both legally and politically, to be carried out under the umbrella of the UN. In the current system, it is also considered that the United Nations Security Council's participation in the use of force and other efforts to combat international terrorism will help to establish a network of legally legitimate and broadly supported measures against the said threat. Against this new appearance of global terrorism, new solutions should be sought within the framework of international law.

It is not enough to consider terrorism only as a security problem and try to find a solution. The struggle to be waged must be carried out in a multi-faceted way, by using political, economic, diplomatic, military and intelligence tools, dear readers.

Footnotes

[1] Ahmet Hamdi Topal, The Use of Force Against State-sponsored Terrorism in International Law. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis,  Ankara, 2004, p. 79

[2] Esat Arslan, ATA TV., Visionary Program, 15 May 2008, 20:00-21:00.