Tweet
ZNet, MA
Feb 1 2007
Hrant Dink's Death
by Ali Saysel
February 01, 2007
Hrant Dink, the prominent Armenian intellectual of Turkey, co-founder
and the editor-in-chief of the Armenian weekly Agos was shot dead on
19th January at around 3 pm on one of the busiest streets of
Istanbul, just in front of the apartment block home to Agos's small
office. Hrant Dink was known as a vocal and true defender of people's
fraternity, equity and freedom of expression. He was courageous
enough to express in Turkey that "1915 was genocide", even though he
knew very well about the many articles in Turkish Penal Code that can
immediately criminalize anyone making such a claim publicly. And he
had held a true standard of freedom of expression that urged him to
express in France that "1915 was not genocide", ridiculing French
Parliament's ruling against such contrary claims.
Hrant Dink was born in 1954 in Malatya, one of the many eastern towns
of Turkey, all once home to a lively Armenian community before 1915.
At the age of seven, with his family, he migrated to Istanbul and had
his primary education in Armenian orphanages and minority schools. He
studied zoology and philosophy in Istanbul University. He had somehow
been active in the leftist movement in the 70's, managed a large
Armenian summer school in the 80's, had his first journalism
experience in Patriarchate's office and in 1996 co-found the weekly
Agos with the purpose of building a bridge between the Armenian and
Turkish communities, to be the voice of the Armenian community and to
fight against all sorts of injustices against those who are
underprivileged and in particular the Armenians. But Hrant Dink's
impact and reach had been beyond Agos, with his speeches and columns
published in other dissident and sometimes in main-stream media and
press, and through his participation in many forums and democratic
platforms.
There have been many responses to his assassination. For the Armenian
community, perhaps it was a trauma recalling the sufferings that are
well written on their national folklore and common memory. Were their
elders right when they warned the young Armenians that Turks are not
dependable? Were Hrant and his friends over-optimistic in thinking
that Turks can actually change? His friends, the rather thin
democratic groups, leftists and some liberals had an emotional
turmoil knowing that Hrant was not the first and probably would not
be the last. After all, since the Turkish state was established in
1923, 69 prominent journalists were killed, excluding the "less
valuable" ones, like the over 26 mostly Kurdish media workers that
disappeared between 1992-1995. For the state and its cogs in the
elite-press, this murder was awful, inhuman and would obviously harm
Turkey's foreign interests. The perpetrators had to be brought before
justice, now it was time to question the nationalist and jingoist
atmosphere in the country, yet without any specific reference to
their own contribution in the creation of this nationalist
atmosphere. Finally, the extreme nationalists and national-islamists
adopted a rather pragmatic, hence hypocritical stand saying that the
murder was detrimental for the national interests and therefore that
could be a conspiracy of foreign intelligence units like MOSSAD and
CIA and their local collaborators, or rather Armenian diaspora trying
to break down the national unity and the national identity of the
country.
Who then killed Hrant Dink? It had been easy to catch the hoodlum, a
seventeen years old male, an easy recruit probably acting for his
bigger brother's group which was possibly subcontracted by some more
experienced group that involves real professionals with considerable
counterinsurgency experience in official service. Following the fate
of previous investigations for other assassins of prominent
intellectuals and activists, there is not much hope that this inquiry
will go deep enough to discover the real criminal elements. For
instance, Hrant Dink's lawyer says that he was receiving death treats
from a retired General, Veli Küçük who has been allegedly organizing
and commanding Special Forces in Gendarmerie before his retirement.
General Küçük stays active after his retirement conducting a group of
lawyers bringing lawsuits against the prominent intellectuals and
thus victimizing them by organized insulting demonstrations in front
of the courts while the sessions are being held. Almost ten days
after the assassination, none of these people are questioned by the
authorities yet.
There are many assassinations in the recent history of Turkey that
are very well known by the public and have become a common memory of
the Turkish and Kurdish dissidents. When the voice of the opposition
needs to be suppressed, a prominent intellectual or human rights
activist is murdered, followed by others, until a terror atmosphere
is created where no one dares to speak out, so that some sections of
the state apparatus can implement their sinister hidden agenda.
It can be argued that, Dink had been the victim of Turkish
militarism. The military and the political parties deliberately
sought to create a jingoist-militarist cultural atmosphere; the
mass-media, mass-culture industry intentionally endorsed and
exploited this ascending culture and helped to create a "lynch
culture" of so-called self motivated hooligans. And under this
atmosphere, the articles in the new Turkish Penal Code of year 2005
and the new Anti-Terror Law of year 2006 deliberately victimized the
human rights activists and intellectuals and labeled them betrayers.
What is then at stake at the moment? During US's restructuring of the
Middle East, Turkey found its conventional Kurdish denial policy
obsolete. Seeing that it is impossible to avoid an emerging Kurdish
political structure in old Iraqi soils, the military establishment
panicked by projections that the country can be divided if the
millions of Kurds in Turkey pursue common ends with their Iraqi
fellows. The developments in Iraqi Kurdistan and the inability of the
Turkish military to manipulate the situation in Iraq and to suppress
the political demands of Kurds at home raised the atmosphere against
Kurds. Human rights violations in Kurdish regions increased and
approached its 1990s levels at the time when there was a
low-intensity warfare. In the 2005 Newroz celebrations, after a child
burned a Turkish flag, the Chief Army Officer addressed many Kurds as
not proper citizens but "so-called" citizens. In Autumn 2005, in the
border Kurdish town of Semdinli in southeast Turkey, when the
perpetrators of the bombing of a bookstore were unveiled by the local
people they were found out to be army officials. Soon, the judicial
process also accusing the Chief Army Officer for organized conspiracy
was halted by the dismissal of the public prosecutor, to the
disappointment of many Kurds. In April 2006, during the funeral of a
Kurdish armed militant in his hometown, the largest Kurdish town of
Diyarbakir, people revolted against police and the succeeding events
were suppressed in days by force, killing tens of children and adults
on the street.
The political parties, without exception, laid their faith on this
ascending jingoist-militarist atmosphere. The red-white colors of
Turkish nationalism and the crescent-star on Turkish flag became
ordinary objects of propaganda. A conference on "Ottoman Armenians"
in Spring 2005, by three relatively liberal universities in Istanbul
had to be indefinitely postponed because of the rivaling nationalist
attitudes of both the governing and opposition parties in the
Parliament in Ankara. Again, the participants of the conference were
labeled as betrayers before the public.
A TV series, covering illegal acts and crimes of a Turkish mafioso
character against so-called national enemies, his talents on how one
can evade being punished by law had become a cult for teenage males
in the country. Fictions and movies on Turkish forces fighting
against Americans and romantic and legendry versions of Turkish
Liberation War became best sellers in published media. Hitler's Mein
Kampf sold thousands of copies, by far exceeding the circulation of
any decent book on the shelves in recent years.
Furthermore, thin activist groups and intellectuals were threatened
by law. The year 2005 Turkish Penal Code, TPC 301 "insulting
Turkishness", TPC 216 "inflicting hatred", the special law 5816
"insulting Kemal Ataturk - the founder of the modern republic", and
Anti-Terror Law article 6 "adopting the propaganda of terror
organization", and many other articles were designed to suppress the
truths about suffering underprivileged groups, harass the
intellectuals and label them as betrayers and disrupters before an
extremely nationalistic public. Even their trials were a drama.
Jingoist groups were gathering around the court, insulting and
assaulting, and all this was being watched by the police officials.
Hrant Dink was one of those defendants. He was tried and convicted by
TPC 301. Against all expert opinion before the court, claiming that
Hrant did not insult Turkishness, he was convicted to 6 months
imprisonment by the Supreme Court in Ankara. He was sure of himself
that he did not insult but the verdict was a big disappointment. It
was very difficult for him to be understood and perceived as someone
insulting his Turkish fellows, he would not insult anyone, and under
such circumstances it could even become impossible for him to live
with Turks, with a group of people he had supposedly insulted. Other
fellow defendants of similar trials, like the Nobel Laureate Orhan
Pamuk, Elif Safak and some others were acquitted. Hrant was not,
although he was quite as salient as Pamuk and Safak for the world
public opinion and international community.
He was not acquitted, because he was Armenian. He did something
wrong, something that cannot be tolerated: for the first time since
1915, an Armenian in Turkey stood up and openly claimed that "1915 is
genocide" and at the same time said "I am an Armenian and this is my
country". And he said all this without inflicting any hatred on
Turkish and Kurdish people. He sought equitable means to live
together. That was too much, that was something to be punished.
Eventually, on 19th January, he was assassinated by a seventeen year
old hoodlum. His funeral on 23rd January was quite unanticipated in
many respects. For the first time in Istanbul, over 100.000 people
marched and mourned during a funeral. For the first time in Turkey,
over 100.000 people chanted "We are all Armenians". This obviously
shows an emerging democratic culture against ascending racism and
jingoism in the country. Moreover, for the first time in the country,
the citizens had the chance to see the true human face of a dissident
and the mourning of his friends and relatives on live broadcast
through elite media channels. It proved that, when people are given
the chance to see the truth, they have the ability to understand and
build empathy with the victims. That is, if they can generalize this
feeling onto hundreds of other victims in this country whose names
are unknown to many, a decent public opinion can emerge and can help
building a more democratic society.
Hrant Dink's life, and unfortunately his funeral taught something. On
the other hand malicious forces are still much larger, much stronger
and much more vocal. The future in Turkey will be one of struggle
between thriving democratic opinion and Turkish militarism, covering
itself as lay people's nationalism, racism and jingoism.
Ali Saysel is a scholar in Bogazici University, Istanbul and he can
be reached at [email protected]
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Feb 1 2007
Hrant Dink's Death
by Ali Saysel
February 01, 2007
Hrant Dink, the prominent Armenian intellectual of Turkey, co-founder
and the editor-in-chief of the Armenian weekly Agos was shot dead on
19th January at around 3 pm on one of the busiest streets of
Istanbul, just in front of the apartment block home to Agos's small
office. Hrant Dink was known as a vocal and true defender of people's
fraternity, equity and freedom of expression. He was courageous
enough to express in Turkey that "1915 was genocide", even though he
knew very well about the many articles in Turkish Penal Code that can
immediately criminalize anyone making such a claim publicly. And he
had held a true standard of freedom of expression that urged him to
express in France that "1915 was not genocide", ridiculing French
Parliament's ruling against such contrary claims.
Hrant Dink was born in 1954 in Malatya, one of the many eastern towns
of Turkey, all once home to a lively Armenian community before 1915.
At the age of seven, with his family, he migrated to Istanbul and had
his primary education in Armenian orphanages and minority schools. He
studied zoology and philosophy in Istanbul University. He had somehow
been active in the leftist movement in the 70's, managed a large
Armenian summer school in the 80's, had his first journalism
experience in Patriarchate's office and in 1996 co-found the weekly
Agos with the purpose of building a bridge between the Armenian and
Turkish communities, to be the voice of the Armenian community and to
fight against all sorts of injustices against those who are
underprivileged and in particular the Armenians. But Hrant Dink's
impact and reach had been beyond Agos, with his speeches and columns
published in other dissident and sometimes in main-stream media and
press, and through his participation in many forums and democratic
platforms.
There have been many responses to his assassination. For the Armenian
community, perhaps it was a trauma recalling the sufferings that are
well written on their national folklore and common memory. Were their
elders right when they warned the young Armenians that Turks are not
dependable? Were Hrant and his friends over-optimistic in thinking
that Turks can actually change? His friends, the rather thin
democratic groups, leftists and some liberals had an emotional
turmoil knowing that Hrant was not the first and probably would not
be the last. After all, since the Turkish state was established in
1923, 69 prominent journalists were killed, excluding the "less
valuable" ones, like the over 26 mostly Kurdish media workers that
disappeared between 1992-1995. For the state and its cogs in the
elite-press, this murder was awful, inhuman and would obviously harm
Turkey's foreign interests. The perpetrators had to be brought before
justice, now it was time to question the nationalist and jingoist
atmosphere in the country, yet without any specific reference to
their own contribution in the creation of this nationalist
atmosphere. Finally, the extreme nationalists and national-islamists
adopted a rather pragmatic, hence hypocritical stand saying that the
murder was detrimental for the national interests and therefore that
could be a conspiracy of foreign intelligence units like MOSSAD and
CIA and their local collaborators, or rather Armenian diaspora trying
to break down the national unity and the national identity of the
country.
Who then killed Hrant Dink? It had been easy to catch the hoodlum, a
seventeen years old male, an easy recruit probably acting for his
bigger brother's group which was possibly subcontracted by some more
experienced group that involves real professionals with considerable
counterinsurgency experience in official service. Following the fate
of previous investigations for other assassins of prominent
intellectuals and activists, there is not much hope that this inquiry
will go deep enough to discover the real criminal elements. For
instance, Hrant Dink's lawyer says that he was receiving death treats
from a retired General, Veli Küçük who has been allegedly organizing
and commanding Special Forces in Gendarmerie before his retirement.
General Küçük stays active after his retirement conducting a group of
lawyers bringing lawsuits against the prominent intellectuals and
thus victimizing them by organized insulting demonstrations in front
of the courts while the sessions are being held. Almost ten days
after the assassination, none of these people are questioned by the
authorities yet.
There are many assassinations in the recent history of Turkey that
are very well known by the public and have become a common memory of
the Turkish and Kurdish dissidents. When the voice of the opposition
needs to be suppressed, a prominent intellectual or human rights
activist is murdered, followed by others, until a terror atmosphere
is created where no one dares to speak out, so that some sections of
the state apparatus can implement their sinister hidden agenda.
It can be argued that, Dink had been the victim of Turkish
militarism. The military and the political parties deliberately
sought to create a jingoist-militarist cultural atmosphere; the
mass-media, mass-culture industry intentionally endorsed and
exploited this ascending culture and helped to create a "lynch
culture" of so-called self motivated hooligans. And under this
atmosphere, the articles in the new Turkish Penal Code of year 2005
and the new Anti-Terror Law of year 2006 deliberately victimized the
human rights activists and intellectuals and labeled them betrayers.
What is then at stake at the moment? During US's restructuring of the
Middle East, Turkey found its conventional Kurdish denial policy
obsolete. Seeing that it is impossible to avoid an emerging Kurdish
political structure in old Iraqi soils, the military establishment
panicked by projections that the country can be divided if the
millions of Kurds in Turkey pursue common ends with their Iraqi
fellows. The developments in Iraqi Kurdistan and the inability of the
Turkish military to manipulate the situation in Iraq and to suppress
the political demands of Kurds at home raised the atmosphere against
Kurds. Human rights violations in Kurdish regions increased and
approached its 1990s levels at the time when there was a
low-intensity warfare. In the 2005 Newroz celebrations, after a child
burned a Turkish flag, the Chief Army Officer addressed many Kurds as
not proper citizens but "so-called" citizens. In Autumn 2005, in the
border Kurdish town of Semdinli in southeast Turkey, when the
perpetrators of the bombing of a bookstore were unveiled by the local
people they were found out to be army officials. Soon, the judicial
process also accusing the Chief Army Officer for organized conspiracy
was halted by the dismissal of the public prosecutor, to the
disappointment of many Kurds. In April 2006, during the funeral of a
Kurdish armed militant in his hometown, the largest Kurdish town of
Diyarbakir, people revolted against police and the succeeding events
were suppressed in days by force, killing tens of children and adults
on the street.
The political parties, without exception, laid their faith on this
ascending jingoist-militarist atmosphere. The red-white colors of
Turkish nationalism and the crescent-star on Turkish flag became
ordinary objects of propaganda. A conference on "Ottoman Armenians"
in Spring 2005, by three relatively liberal universities in Istanbul
had to be indefinitely postponed because of the rivaling nationalist
attitudes of both the governing and opposition parties in the
Parliament in Ankara. Again, the participants of the conference were
labeled as betrayers before the public.
A TV series, covering illegal acts and crimes of a Turkish mafioso
character against so-called national enemies, his talents on how one
can evade being punished by law had become a cult for teenage males
in the country. Fictions and movies on Turkish forces fighting
against Americans and romantic and legendry versions of Turkish
Liberation War became best sellers in published media. Hitler's Mein
Kampf sold thousands of copies, by far exceeding the circulation of
any decent book on the shelves in recent years.
Furthermore, thin activist groups and intellectuals were threatened
by law. The year 2005 Turkish Penal Code, TPC 301 "insulting
Turkishness", TPC 216 "inflicting hatred", the special law 5816
"insulting Kemal Ataturk - the founder of the modern republic", and
Anti-Terror Law article 6 "adopting the propaganda of terror
organization", and many other articles were designed to suppress the
truths about suffering underprivileged groups, harass the
intellectuals and label them as betrayers and disrupters before an
extremely nationalistic public. Even their trials were a drama.
Jingoist groups were gathering around the court, insulting and
assaulting, and all this was being watched by the police officials.
Hrant Dink was one of those defendants. He was tried and convicted by
TPC 301. Against all expert opinion before the court, claiming that
Hrant did not insult Turkishness, he was convicted to 6 months
imprisonment by the Supreme Court in Ankara. He was sure of himself
that he did not insult but the verdict was a big disappointment. It
was very difficult for him to be understood and perceived as someone
insulting his Turkish fellows, he would not insult anyone, and under
such circumstances it could even become impossible for him to live
with Turks, with a group of people he had supposedly insulted. Other
fellow defendants of similar trials, like the Nobel Laureate Orhan
Pamuk, Elif Safak and some others were acquitted. Hrant was not,
although he was quite as salient as Pamuk and Safak for the world
public opinion and international community.
He was not acquitted, because he was Armenian. He did something
wrong, something that cannot be tolerated: for the first time since
1915, an Armenian in Turkey stood up and openly claimed that "1915 is
genocide" and at the same time said "I am an Armenian and this is my
country". And he said all this without inflicting any hatred on
Turkish and Kurdish people. He sought equitable means to live
together. That was too much, that was something to be punished.
Eventually, on 19th January, he was assassinated by a seventeen year
old hoodlum. His funeral on 23rd January was quite unanticipated in
many respects. For the first time in Istanbul, over 100.000 people
marched and mourned during a funeral. For the first time in Turkey,
over 100.000 people chanted "We are all Armenians". This obviously
shows an emerging democratic culture against ascending racism and
jingoism in the country. Moreover, for the first time in the country,
the citizens had the chance to see the true human face of a dissident
and the mourning of his friends and relatives on live broadcast
through elite media channels. It proved that, when people are given
the chance to see the truth, they have the ability to understand and
build empathy with the victims. That is, if they can generalize this
feeling onto hundreds of other victims in this country whose names
are unknown to many, a decent public opinion can emerge and can help
building a more democratic society.
Hrant Dink's life, and unfortunately his funeral taught something. On
the other hand malicious forces are still much larger, much stronger
and much more vocal. The future in Turkey will be one of struggle
between thriving democratic opinion and Turkish militarism, covering
itself as lay people's nationalism, racism and jingoism.
Ali Saysel is a scholar in Bogazici University, Istanbul and he can
be reached at [email protected]
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress