Yesterday, Yeni Safak’s Editor-in-Chief İbrahim Karagül was asking in his column to whom money is transferred to through the crown princes of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Saudi Arabia, how it is being done and to what end preparations are being made for?
The fact that the UAE funded 3 billion dollars for the coup d'etat on July 15 is not a conspiracy theory; it was stated by the official authorities in Ankara, and was not refuted by the UAE. In that case, it would be too naïve to think that similar funding was not made before July 15 and is not continuing today. Especially these days…
It is not an easy thing for the image of a person who wants to rule his country for 30 to 50 years to simultaneously present a modern and reformist method of governing, and to abandon children in Yemen to their death, silencing dissidents by torture and doing worse to a journalist, to meet on a common ground.
That is why they might need to push the boat out a little bit as well as accelerate PR campaigns and also corner those who destroyed his image that said he was the “the bright leader of the future”.
Which methods do they resort to for funding?
Well, how do they transfer money for these things and where do they transfer it? What kind of a system works here? I can say that I might have gotten some clues about this issue thanks to some people I know, who try to understand these issues and follow the traces, drawing my attention to several different matters.
First of all, we should know that for the funding system to work the target areas are often selected from European and the U.S. territories.
Because the steps that have been implemented in these places have more potential to draw the attention of the international community.
According to my source, it takes place sometimes through aid given to think-tanks, sometimes through gathering some embedded journalists as the Americans call it, sometimes through going to the people who are public figures and active in politics, and sometimes through funding an effective media organ. All these methods work very well.
A good example which fits perfectly this context would be the report which was published in the German media about Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) which says that he is working with a consulting firm in Germany to create a good image for him.
Let’s take a pause at the “Foreign Policy” journal
Another striking example, which also concerns us more, is from the U.S.
What I am going to talk about here is centered on an interview conducted with Can Dündar who is the first person to come to the minds of those who are planning to write an anti-Turkey article.
The article is titled: “To be a journalist in Turkey means you’re ready to sacrifice everything.” When you read it closely, you see that there is a much more different reason behind writing it than the other critical articles that appear in the Western media, and you see so clearly that the purpose is to put the idea into the minds of the people that “You are blaming Mohammed b. Salman for the Khashoggi murder, but Erdoğan is carrying out the actual murder here”.
When you read it, you say that “this is really a funded article.”
The effort to shift all the attention directed towards MBS to Tayyip Erdoğan is obvious here. As a part of the process, to improve the image of one, they are trying to put pressure on those actors who damaged his image. This is exactly what has been done.
That is why we are talking about a “funded article.”
Pay attention to the interviewer
We should stress some other points here about the Foreign Policy magazine. First thing is about the woman who conducted the interview with Can Dündar, Sarah Wildman. When they talk about this journalist’s career they say, “Over the last ten years she has been living in Paris, Vienna, Madrid, Washington, Jerusalem and Berlin with the support of scholarships and support she got from religious communities, and she covered many stories thanks to that.”
To tell the truth, I was thinking that there are not so many people in our profession who covered stories living with the support of various scholarships and religious communities!
The second issue is the articles this magazine published regarding Turkey in the near past.
An example of this is an article which was published on June 15, 2016, one month before the July 15 coup attempt on.
Bush’s vice president, who has been known as the leader of the Neocons and Dick Cheney’s National Security advisor John Hannah, was stating in his article which was quoted by the Turkish media in those days: “Sooner or later, a day of reckoning is likely to come. The United States should start preparing now to mitigate the damage.”
Can “respectability” be attracting more money?
One should be very naïve to believe that it is a coincidence that one of the few articles in the U.S. right before the coup that mentioned “There will be a coup in Turkey” was published in this magazine.
Or, can it be possible that a small portion from the 3 billion dollars spent by the UAE to fund the July 15 coup attempt actually went to the journals like Foreign Policy for these project/articles, which “seem like opinion articles”?
“How can a respectable journal, whose title says with capital letters “Foreign Policy,” be involved in these kinds of things?
You may ask this question…
Well, can the thing that we point out as the problem be this?
So, can the respectability of this journal be what attracts more money? I don’t know, what do you think?