One day everyone will be an agent!

Certain concepts with specific or technical meanings in law have long been used haphazardly in politics. Need an example? Crime, treason, theft... Yet, the law assigns special meanings to these. When the meaning in politics is conflated with the meaning in law, discourse becomes dangerous. A journalist is accused of ''treason'' or taking something without permission is deemed''theft'''' For instance, not everyone can be the perpetrator of the crime of treason, and a journalist certainly cannot.

All over the world, politics is breaking away from grand ideological narratives. Political discourse is turning into a rhetoric of emotional reflexes, moral dogmas, or outright legal accusations. We see one of the most dangerous examples of this in''espionage'''' accusations.

It is unclear what is meant by "agent." Is it a secret service officer? An informant used by a secret service? An agent provocateur, as seen in some states and legally prohibited in Turkey? A news source? Or, in the trendy term, a political "influencer"? Among these, secret service duty, informing, and agent provocateur activities may not be subject to criminal charges as they can be legal depending on the situation. Of course, a secret service officer or informant of a foreign country can be caught by the state they are working against; diplomatic processes can be initiated regarding this, and criminal prosecution can certainly be carried out.

However, we are facing a global anomaly. Journalists can be prosecuted on the grounds of accessing and publishing classified documents. They can be accused of espionage and treason for these actions.

Again, a dangerous definition of crime has begun to be made on a global scale: "Influence Agent". In Georgia, "transparencyciting this as a justification, it requires civil society organizations and media outlets that obtain more than a certain percentage (according to some sources, 20 percent) of their financial resources from abroad to be registered as an 'organization serving the interests of a foreign power'. (https://www.dw.com/tr/g%C3%BCrcistandan-t%C3%BCrkiyeye-etki-ajanl%C4%B1%C4%9F%C4%B1-d%C3%BCzenlemesi/a-69078654 )

In countries like Georgia, where public resources are under the complete control of the ruling party, the opposition is forced to secure a significant portion of its resources from abroad. It should not be forgotten that while some of these resources may indeed come from direct or indirect funding by foreign states, a significant portion may also come from Georgians in opposition to the regime living abroad. Under these circumstances, with this regulation, opposition groups can easily be accused of'serving the interests of a foreign power'. Furthermore, political activities carried out with the presumption of this common interest or'working on behalf of' could be characterized as 'influence agency'. It is not difficult to predict where this will end. Indeed, Western-friendly researchers, in particular, have described this law as It is described as the ''Russian Law''.By referring to Russia, which is considered a competitive authoritarian state, it is argued that this law will be used to neutralize and hunt down dissidents.

The regulation in Turkey, as reflected in the media, is even more dangerous. According to ANKA, itenvisages prison sentences for those who conduct or commission research on Turkish citizens, institutions, or organizations, or foreigners residing in Turkey, in line with the strategic interests or instructions of a foreign state or organization. If this is true, the regulation does not merely establish a presumption. Moreover, it creates a presumption that is difficult to disprove, and if this presumption cannot be refuted, it stipulates that those deemed ''influence agents'' will be punished with imprisonment. Let us be clear: This is the new McCarthyism.

The strange thing is that both those who first implemented this McCarthyism and those who condemned it are Westerners. The statements of the ''former'' CIA agent Barkey, speaking to DW, were reported as follows: "That the judiciary in Turkey is not independent" drawing attention Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) researcher Barkey, stated that independent organizations accused of serving foreign interests could now be more easily targeted using the "influence agent" regulation.

Note the'independent organization' phrase here. When economic conditions and the cost of politics are considered together, it is truly difficult to remain "independent." Perhaps this is the real problem. Especially in authoritarian regimes, the "opposition," excluded from all public resources, is forced to find new sources. Regardless of the methods used to find and utilize these new resources, labeling all media and NGOs that receive funding from abroad as working for foreigners and designating them as influence agents is very dangerous. Just as anyone can easily become an influence agent, the distinction between the state and the government can disappear, and segments opposed to the government can inevitably become enemies of the state. It is clear that governments do not care about the state. It seems that defending the state will fall to the opposition.

THE DRAFT ARTICLE IS CONTRARY TO THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW AND MODERN LAW 

Let's take a closer look at the article:

Article 339/A:

(1) Provided that it does not constitute the crimes regulated in this section, in accordance with the strategic interests or instructions of a foreign state or organization against the security or domestic or foreign political interests of the State;

a) Those who conduct or commission research on Turkish citizens or institutions and organizations, or foreigners residing in Turkey,

b) Those who commit crimes in Turkey shall be sentenced to imprisonment from three to seven years. If the act constitutes another crime outside of those regulated in this section, a separate penalty shall be imposed for both this crime and the relevant crime.

(2) If the act is committed during wartime or has endangered the State's war preparations, war effectiveness, or military operations, the perpetrator shall be sentenced to imprisonment from eight to twelve years.

(3) If the crime is committed by those working in institutions and organizations that carry out projects, facilities, and services of strategic importance in terms of national security, the penalty to be imposed shall be increased by one fold.

(4) Prosecution for this crime is subject to the permission of the Minister of Justice.

We can easily say that this draft law does not comply with the principles of legality in crimes and punishments and certainty in criminal law. Let us start counting:

What are the state's internal and external political interests? On what basis are they determined? Can a citizen or a judge know these objectively? Is the determination and announcement of these legal? More importantly, is it lawful?

It states, 'in line with the strategic interests or instructions of a foreign state or organization against the security of the state or its internal or external political interests.' The third 'or' here blurs everything. Instead, it should say 'and.' Otherwise, an NGO or a media outlet could be penalized because its own political approach and goals overlap with the interests of a foreign state or organization. However, there is a deficiency here regarding intent, which is the moral element of the crime. Since one cannot commit espionage through negligence, this regulation is clearly contrary to reason, logic, and law.

It says, 'of a foreign state or organization.' What is meant by 'organization' must be clarified. 

It states, 'if the act was committed during wartime or has put the state's war preparations, war effectiveness, or military movements in danger...' What is meant by 'war' must also be clearly expressed. More importantly, what is to be understood by 'war preparations' or 'war effectiveness' is also ambiguous. Publications that are elements of psychological warfare could also be seen as war preparations. Someone who publishes content against the elements of this war without knowing that the state is conducting psychological warfare would be punished according to this regulation. This is contrary to reason, equity, and law.

What is meant by 'the security of the state' is also not clear. It is not certain even for judges, let alone the ordinary citizen, what constitutes a state secret or state security. Furthermore, there is no need for this regulation when acts that harm the security of the state can already be subject to criminal proceedings in light of other articles of the current Turkish Penal Code.

With the phrase 'those working in institutions and organizations that carry out projects, facilities, and services of strategic importance in terms of national security,' a specific crime is defined. However, here too, we are faced with the issue of how such institutions and organizations will be determined. Indeed, a unit of strategic importance in terms of national security can change according to time and circumstances. While there is a vast literature focusing on international security risk analysis, there should be no room for ambiguity on this matter.    

NEITHER A HOLIDAY NOR A FESTIVAL

So, despite the problems I have briefly touched upon here, why was this draft prepared? There is a three-level answer to this: At the national level, a system that is currently oppressive, monolithic, and cannot tolerate even the slightest opposition needs such regulations. The government, which first took over constitutional institutions, then NGOs, and finally the media, has now moved to label the opposition that has spilled over into social media and private organizations as 'Influence Agents' and 'It may very well be trying to prevent it with the'disinformation law'.

At the regional level, there is enough fear offoreign powers. This fear is not unfounded. Until just yesterday, the Arab Spring, the coup and uprising in Georgia, the Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict, and internal uprisings and tyranny in Iran show that there are indeed external influences in the region and that these influences are exerted through social media.

At the global level, all countries have been in a relativelypeacefulanddemocraticunderstanding is being abandoned. The UK, Russia, the US, the EU, and China are resorting to tyrannical practices, and news about espionage is becoming commonplace. In almost every country, we are encountering disproportionate displays of force by law enforcement. Behind all of this lies a legislative movement that abandons the modern understanding of law under the guise of a Counter-Terrorism policy.

In summary, it is clear why some are turning toward tyrannical governance. However, these methods and measures are not working. While there are ways to include people in the system, make democratic channels function, and adhere to the rule of law, these methods that fuel racism and fascism are very dangerous. In the end, there is a danger of the state turning into a pure apparatus of oppression. I would not want to put this into anyone's mind, but it appears that some are preparing for war. Or perhaps we have already entered a war of a kind we do not yet know.