Tweet
The Anatomy of a Pre-announced murder
By CENGIZ AKTAR
http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/editoria l.php?ed=cengiz_aktar
Turkish Daily News
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
At first, clergyman and representative of Sunni Islam, Religious
Affairs Directorate head Ali Bardakoglu was very worried that Turkey's
"image was damaged." The chief of general staff said that the bullet
was actually fired at Turkey. The minister of justice, the architect
of Article 301, according to which Hrant Dink was tried, said that
the murder was a "well-calculated provocation." The prime minister
clarified the situation with "dirty hands have chosen our country."
Friday night, in a salvo and as if in agreement, members of both the
state and politicians said over and over again that Turkey was being
attacked via this murder. Statements from both people and men of
importance were textbook maxims originating from the reflex to protect
the state. They were strong words that remind us, in our country,
that the state needs to be protected before the individual. As if Dink
was guilty of being murdered and thereby of disadvantaging the state...
Making-a-big-deal-out-of-nothing specialists repeatedly stated that
the murder was a provocation. It was implied by both members of the
state and politicians that the secret aim of this murder was to ease
the path for Armenian genocide plans, expected to pass in the U.S.
Congress. In other words, it was implied that the murder was carried
out by focal points who will benefit from disadvantaging Turkey -
Armenians, French, Americans, Argentineans, Swiss - in short, all
those countries that declared it genocide, and all those that did
not. But insistently not the Turks. So, Dink, who received regular
life threats from all over Turkey, who was claimed as a target by
many internal focal points, and who was the target of much antagonism
by the rampant nationalists, was killed by one of the above foreign
forces? Or is it that the worst trick on Turkey is being pulled by
Turks again? Or is it that the Turk's worst enemy is itself?
Right after the murder, it was discussed whether or not the cause was
negligence. If there has been such a threat that could so gravely
hurt the country, what measures has the state taken to prevent
it? In the aftermath of the controversy as to whether Sabiha Gokcen
was Armenian or not, the state has implied, during a meeting at
the governor's office that "the nationalist spirits have surged,
if you keep talking, they may not be controlled." So what has the
state done to prevent such a provocation? Nothing! So, at the end
of the day, it could not protect itself, "the almighty state," just
as it could not protect Dink's life. As a result of this reasoning,
has not the state been negligent in taking care of its well-being,
just as it has been in protecting a citizen's life?
We have not heard anything from either the members of state or
politicians about the gruesome situation the country is in or
the reality of increasing ethnic nationalism with a religious
theme. Armenian, Greek, Kurdish, Jewish, Assyrian, Alevi, women,
disabled, leftist, liberal, homosexual ... Who will protect
the right of life for those where insulting anyone except
for "Sunni-Muslim-Turkish-man-who thinks like the state" goes
unpunished? It is not clear how society, all minorities, and anyone who
thinks dissimilar will be protected against this deep-water wave. On
the contrary, a nightmarish Article 301 rises against all those who
think differently.
The political sphere has not yet explained how it intends to tame
the nationalist greed that has come unhinged during a period of
election. No politician has voiced the desire to annul Article 301
with this as the aim. Or is it the political world that entices the
lynching mood that we are in? Could it be that the reason for using
only themes of protection and national injury in Turkey is to cover
the embarrassment, while Germany says of the murder "we are appalled
by this murder," and the United States calls it "worrying"?
Dink was the conscience of realities that were not talked about for
centuries. Even though I became aware of the Armenian issue a long
time ago, every time we talked, I learned something new about this
big Anatolian drama. Whole Armenian villages that were converted en
masse after 1915, tribes that took over Kurdish attributes, Armenian
brides, fortunes created with Armenian properties...
Writers who talk about the Armenian issue are marginalized, while
journalists are slain here. It is true that the bullet was fired at
Turkey. But it was also fired at a Turkey that was trying to make
pace with itself by a Turkey that is sure of its taboos and dogmas.
... Dink said, "We were candidates to turn the hell he is living
in, into a heaven." He is now in heaven himself, without having
the opportunity to make this place heavenly. Turkey without Dink is
left as an incomplete Turkey that will have a harder time resolving
its problems.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
By CENGIZ AKTAR
http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/editoria l.php?ed=cengiz_aktar
Turkish Daily News
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
At first, clergyman and representative of Sunni Islam, Religious
Affairs Directorate head Ali Bardakoglu was very worried that Turkey's
"image was damaged." The chief of general staff said that the bullet
was actually fired at Turkey. The minister of justice, the architect
of Article 301, according to which Hrant Dink was tried, said that
the murder was a "well-calculated provocation." The prime minister
clarified the situation with "dirty hands have chosen our country."
Friday night, in a salvo and as if in agreement, members of both the
state and politicians said over and over again that Turkey was being
attacked via this murder. Statements from both people and men of
importance were textbook maxims originating from the reflex to protect
the state. They were strong words that remind us, in our country,
that the state needs to be protected before the individual. As if Dink
was guilty of being murdered and thereby of disadvantaging the state...
Making-a-big-deal-out-of-nothing specialists repeatedly stated that
the murder was a provocation. It was implied by both members of the
state and politicians that the secret aim of this murder was to ease
the path for Armenian genocide plans, expected to pass in the U.S.
Congress. In other words, it was implied that the murder was carried
out by focal points who will benefit from disadvantaging Turkey -
Armenians, French, Americans, Argentineans, Swiss - in short, all
those countries that declared it genocide, and all those that did
not. But insistently not the Turks. So, Dink, who received regular
life threats from all over Turkey, who was claimed as a target by
many internal focal points, and who was the target of much antagonism
by the rampant nationalists, was killed by one of the above foreign
forces? Or is it that the worst trick on Turkey is being pulled by
Turks again? Or is it that the Turk's worst enemy is itself?
Right after the murder, it was discussed whether or not the cause was
negligence. If there has been such a threat that could so gravely
hurt the country, what measures has the state taken to prevent
it? In the aftermath of the controversy as to whether Sabiha Gokcen
was Armenian or not, the state has implied, during a meeting at
the governor's office that "the nationalist spirits have surged,
if you keep talking, they may not be controlled." So what has the
state done to prevent such a provocation? Nothing! So, at the end
of the day, it could not protect itself, "the almighty state," just
as it could not protect Dink's life. As a result of this reasoning,
has not the state been negligent in taking care of its well-being,
just as it has been in protecting a citizen's life?
We have not heard anything from either the members of state or
politicians about the gruesome situation the country is in or
the reality of increasing ethnic nationalism with a religious
theme. Armenian, Greek, Kurdish, Jewish, Assyrian, Alevi, women,
disabled, leftist, liberal, homosexual ... Who will protect
the right of life for those where insulting anyone except
for "Sunni-Muslim-Turkish-man-who thinks like the state" goes
unpunished? It is not clear how society, all minorities, and anyone who
thinks dissimilar will be protected against this deep-water wave. On
the contrary, a nightmarish Article 301 rises against all those who
think differently.
The political sphere has not yet explained how it intends to tame
the nationalist greed that has come unhinged during a period of
election. No politician has voiced the desire to annul Article 301
with this as the aim. Or is it the political world that entices the
lynching mood that we are in? Could it be that the reason for using
only themes of protection and national injury in Turkey is to cover
the embarrassment, while Germany says of the murder "we are appalled
by this murder," and the United States calls it "worrying"?
Dink was the conscience of realities that were not talked about for
centuries. Even though I became aware of the Armenian issue a long
time ago, every time we talked, I learned something new about this
big Anatolian drama. Whole Armenian villages that were converted en
masse after 1915, tribes that took over Kurdish attributes, Armenian
brides, fortunes created with Armenian properties...
Writers who talk about the Armenian issue are marginalized, while
journalists are slain here. It is true that the bullet was fired at
Turkey. But it was also fired at a Turkey that was trying to make
pace with itself by a Turkey that is sure of its taboos and dogmas.
... Dink said, "We were candidates to turn the hell he is living
in, into a heaven." He is now in heaven himself, without having
the opportunity to make this place heavenly. Turkey without Dink is
left as an incomplete Turkey that will have a harder time resolving
its problems.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress