Tweet
World Socialist Web Site (WSWS)
Jan 28 2007
The background to the murder of Turkish journalist Hrant Dink
By Sinan Ikinci
27 January 2007
On January 19 Hrant Dink, the well-known Turkish journalist of
Armenian origin, was murdered in broad daylight on the streets of
Istanbul by a right-wing assassin. Dink's murder is the tragic result
of a wave of nationalism and chauvinism spearheaded by the Turkish
military, supported by its `civilian partners,' which has terrorized
the country over the last few years.
Dink was assassinated outside the Istanbul offices of Agos, the
bilingual Turkish-Armenian weekly newspaper he edited. He was shot in
the head and neck three times, allegedly by 17-year-old Ögün Samast,
an unemployed youth from the northeastern town of Trabzon, with links
to fascist organizations.
Dink, who died at the age of 51 leaving behind a wife, two daughters
and a son, was the most outspoken and courageous opponent of the
official Turkish nationalist policy of denying the Armenian genocide,
which took place in 1915 towards the end of the Ottoman Empire. At
the same time, Dink was an outspoken advocate of mutual respect
between Turkey's majority population and its Armenian minority.
His stance led to him becoming a hated figure among Turkish
nationalists both of the `left' and right-wing variety. For their
part, Armenian businessmen and the Armenian clerical leadership in
Turkey tended to see him as a troublemaker. Dink also clashed with
Armenian nationalists, whom he accused of not being really interested
in the rights of Armenians, but instead of using the genocide to
pursue nationalist identity-politics. He took a principled stand
against imperialist maneuvers aimed at aggravating the difficult
relationship between Turks and Armenians.
When the French National Assembly organized a reactionary
provocation, with the active support of the Stalinist French
Communist Party, and made denial of the Armenian genocide a
punishable offence, Dink commented, `How can we in future argue
against laws that forbid us to talk about a genocide if France, for
its part, now does the same thing? That is completely irrational.' He
even threatened to go to France and, contrary to his own views, deny
the genocide in defiance of the new law.
Dink was prosecuted several times under Article 301 of the Turkish
Penal Code, which criminalizes insulting the state, Mustafa Kemal
Atatürk (the first president of the Turkish republic), the judiciary,
the military and `Turkishness.' In 2005 he was sentenced to jail for
six months for `insulting Turkishness.' His sentence was subsequently
suspended. In September 2006 he faced another court case under
Article 301.
Dink answered the charge of `insulting Turkishness' as follows: `In
my opinion to denigrate the people with whom one lives on ethnic or
religious grounds is pure racism and there is no excuse for that....
If I am not cleared of these indictments I will leave my country
because anyone condemned for such a crime does not deserve the right
to live with the people he derides.' On the basis of this statement
he had to face a further criminal charge of `trying to influence the
public.'
Dink was regarded as a traitor undermining the Turkish state by
fascists, all sorts of far-right tendencies, as well as all variants
of Kemalists (right and `left') and various other conservative
circles. After his first court case Dink received numerous death
threats and during the court hearings he was intimidated and attacked
by fascists, as well as members of the Maoist-Kemalist Workers Party
(Isci Partisi), outside and sometimes even in the courtroom.
All of the major political parties and media in Turkey have
contributed to this chauvinist campaign against Hrant Dink, by
labeling him an enemy of the Turks and marking him out as a target.
The well-known journalist Mehmet Ali Birand wrote, `We are the real
murderers of Hrant. We have brought up our murderers in an atmosphere
and mentality created by Article 301.'
His death also made clear that despite the fact that he had alerted
the Turkish authorities about the threats to his life, his appeals
for protection were never taken seriously.
In his last column in Agos, published on January 19, Dink explained
that he was being `psychologically tortured' and wrote, `The fascists
physically attacked me in the corridors of the courthouse and flung
racist curses.... They bombarded me with insults. Hundreds of threats
hailed down for months by phone, email and post - increasing all the
time.'
He continued, `Those who tried to single me out and weaken me have
succeeded. With the false information they oozed into society, they
were able to influence a significant section of the population who
view Hrant Dink as someone who `insults Turkishness.' ... How real
are these threats? To be honest, it is impossible for me to know for
sure.'
In fact, the threats were very real and he was assassinated,
apparently by a young fascist, before the ink had dried on his
article.
Article 301
Hrant Dink has not been the only target of escalating chauvinist
violence and oppression. In recent years more than 100 writers,
artists, journalists, translators, publishers, etc., have been put on
trial for things they have said, written or created. All of these
cases concerned comments on the genocide against the Armenians, the
Kurdish conflict or the military's domination of Turkish society.
The prosecution writs for the numerous court cases stem largely from
a group of ultra-right-wing lawyers (the so-called Unity of Jurists
led by Kemal Kerincsiz) with close ties to Turkey's fascist `Grey
Wolves' movement. There has been little difficulty persuading state
prosecutors to accept such cases, under conditions where the Turkish
judiciary is dominated by right-wingers, Islamists and
ultra-nationalists.
Like Dink, many of those convicted have been systematically harassed
and exposed to verbal and physical intimidation by the same circles.
Cases involving well-known intellectuals, such as the winner of the
Nobel Prize for literature, Orhan Pamuk, or famed author and
journalist Elif Safak, have received some coverage by the mainstream
bourgeois media, but many more lesser-known cases go unnoticed.
Article 301 was introduced on June 1, 2005, and replaced Article 159
of the old penal code, with an amnesty introduced for past offences.
The new paragraph was allegedly aimed at ensuring increased freedom
of opinion and was part of reforms adopted by the Turkish state as a
condition for the country's future admission into the European Union.
In fact, it soon became clear that previous repressive practices were
merely being continued under the new statute.
The European Union (EU) has voiced some criticism of Article 301, but
mainly in high-profile cases. In addition, conservative European
media outlets and politicians are using the issue of human rights
violations to mobilize resentment against Turkey and its attempt to
join the EU. The US government has remained silent about the Article
301 trials.
The moderate Islamist AKP (Justice and Development Party) government
has taken a hesitant stand, saying it may consider amending the
article if the latter's implementation makes such a measure
necessary. However, the government has refrained from taking any
concrete steps due to the serious danger of an offensive by the
military and its `civilian' supporters, who are seeking excuses to
challenge the government on the grounds that the AKP is undermining
national unity.
Last year Justice Minister Cemil Cicek expressed the AKP's concerns
by saying, `If Article 301 is lifted, then we will be faced with a
regime debate. There are proposals to take out `Turkishness' from the
law. But wouldn't some people then ask us if we are ashamed of being
Turks?'
Deniz Baykal, leader of the secular `leftist' Republican People's
Party (CHP), the biggest opposition faction in Turkish parliament,
acting as a mouthpiece for the military against the AKP government,
has played a despicable role and openly opposed changes to Article
301: `We are almost asked to apologize because we are Turks. We won't
apologize, we are proud of this.' Currently CHP leaders are trying to
prove that there is no link between Dink's assassination and Article
301.
The conservative Motherland Party (ANAVATAN), True Path Party (DYP)
and, needless to say, the fascist Nationalist Movement Party (MHP)
are against any revisions of Article 301. Just a few months ago
ANAVATAN Erzurum deputy Ibrahim Ozdogan cynically claimed that
insulting `Turkishness' had become the route to success for some
people. He claimed it was the reason why the novelists Pamuk and
Safak and journalist Dink had won recognition. He claimed that Dink
was given an award in Denmark solely for this reason: `Whenever
someone insults Turkishness, the whole world lines up to give them
awards.'
The columnist Dogu Ergil wrote: `The straw that broke the camel's
back was an editorial published in Agos on Feb. 6, 2004. According to
the editorial, the famed adopted (or god-) daughter of Mustafa Kemal
Atatürk, the founder and hero of Turkey, Sabiha Gokcen, was
originally an Armenian. Indeed Hrant had found and interviewed the
relatives of the late Gokcen now living in Armenia. According to the
information obtained, she was taken from an Armenian orphanage and
raised by Atatürk to be an accomplished military bomber pilot. She
was a national icon and symbol of modern Turkish women, besides being
the daughter of Atatürk.'
The news rocked official Turkey. The most virulent protest came from
the military. The press release from the office of the Chief of
General Staff stated: `Whatever the reason, opening up such a symbol
to public debate is a crime against national unity and social peace.'
Obviously the Agos editorial intended to show that Armenians could be
the best and most loyal defenders of the Turkish state. But according
to the Turkish military high command, even suggesting that a national
icon might have been of Armenian descent was an insult of criminal
proportions, bordering on treason.
It cannot be excluded that sections of the military are directly
involved in Dink's death. His lawyer Erdal Dogan claimed that the
journalist had received death threats from retired brigadier general
Veli Kücük. Kücük was one of the main figures in the `Susurluk
affair' of 1996, which brought to light the close links between
security forces, mafia gangs and fascist death squads. His name was
mentioned more recently in connection with the murder of the leading
judge at the administrative court last year. It was learned that
Kücük had known the perpetrator, the lawyer Alparslan Aslan, who had
links to the same milieu of mafia and fascist groups in Trabzon as
Dink's alleged murderer, Ögün Samast.
Wave of repression
During the ongoing wave of chauvinism, more than 20 murders or
attempted murders of leftists and Kurdish nationalists have taken
place in different parts of Turkey over the past two years. Every
time the perpetrators have gone unpunished due to the lenience of
governors, police chiefs and other local administrators. For example,
on November 2, 2005, members of the left-wing Association for
Inmates' Families' Solidarity (TAYAD) were stoned in Rize.
The response of local governor Enver Salihoglu was to excuse the
perpetrators. `The citizens were provoked,' he declared.
Parliamentary deputy Abdulkadir Kart said the citizens of the region
had been taught the necessary lesson. Mayor Halil Bakirci stated,
`TAYAD members tried to unfurl banners. If I had known that it was
them, I would have gone there and hit them myself.'
In April 2005 the journalist Birand expressed his concerns in the
face of the increasing rate of persecution and assassination
attempts: `Incidents under the guise of nationalism are occurring
right before your eyes, with lynch mobs prowling the streets, but
officials are wasting time by saying things like `Please don't
interfere. Let it cool down, people are very angry.' It appears the
brute force being used to try and silence all other opinions is being
protected.'
He expressed his disillusion with the political establishment, `As
the government continues to be silent, the opposition doesn't say a
thing. It was natural for us to expect the Republican People's Party
(CHP) to come out and defend freedom of expression.'
Official response
After the murder of Dink, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan
held a press conference and declared, `The bullets fired at Dink were
indeed fired at Turkey.' His comment merely echoed the general
hypocritical response of the major bourgeois parties to the
assassination of Hrant Dink. In fact the bullets fired at Dink were
aimed at a Turkish journalist of Armenian origin explicitly
challenging Ankara's official view about the Armenian genocide.
Reading between the lines, the real meaning of Erdogan's statement
can be summarized as follows: `This murder puts us in a very
difficult situation. Our policy was to make life miserable for Dink
and all others like him, in order to intimidate the whole population.
His death, however, is a stupid move, which doesn't serve our
interests.'
The wave of nationalism and chauvinism in Turkey is the response by
specific establishment political circles, in particular, to the
implications of the Iraq war. As a result of the disastrous US-led
war and occupation of the country, Iraq is on the verge of breaking
apart and the Turkish elite is extremely worried about the possible
consequences of such a development. Increasing independence for the
Kurdish region in northern Iraq, combined with revenues from oil
reserves flowing into Kurdish hands, have intensified fears in
nationalist quarters of a resurgence of Kurdish nationalism inside
Turkey itself.
The hysterical reaction by the establishment to any questioning of
Turkish nationalism, including the official myth surrounding the
`events' of 1915, which claims that a violent and treacherous
separatist uprising by Armenians had to be put down, stems from the
fact that under capitalism the unity of the Turkish state is
incompatible with basic democratic rights.
The assessment made by National Intelligence Organization (MIT)
Undersecretary Emre Taner on the 80th anniversary of the organization
underscores these concerns. In his statement Taner maintained, `In
this period we will see the process by which many nations lose the
marathon of history.' He continued: `All values, structures,
relations, systems and social order, be it socioeconomic or
political, religious or moral, are being reshaped and redefined. This
process is representative of the period in which new key players,
secondary players and the rules of the international system are being
redefined and even reborn.' Taner then urged the government to take a
much more aggressive stand.
The fact that Yasar Büyükanit, the man who was implicated in the
`Semdinli affair' just two years ago (in which army forces committed
terrorist attacks in southeast Turkey that were then blamed on the
PKK - Kurdish Workers Party), is now the chief of general staff, shows
that an influential faction of the state apparatus is prepared to
take such an aggressive stand. Erdogan, who came to power advocating
a political liberalization in line with EU reforms to break the power
of the old Kemalist elites, has adapted increasingly to this
right-wing faction. Now growing hostility to Turkish membership
within the EU itself has also served to strengthen the hand of the
Turkish nationalists.
See Also:
Freedom of speech under continuing attack in Turkey
[27 October 2006]
http://wsws.org/articles/2007/jan2007/turk- j27.shtml
Jan 28 2007
The background to the murder of Turkish journalist Hrant Dink
By Sinan Ikinci
27 January 2007
On January 19 Hrant Dink, the well-known Turkish journalist of
Armenian origin, was murdered in broad daylight on the streets of
Istanbul by a right-wing assassin. Dink's murder is the tragic result
of a wave of nationalism and chauvinism spearheaded by the Turkish
military, supported by its `civilian partners,' which has terrorized
the country over the last few years.
Dink was assassinated outside the Istanbul offices of Agos, the
bilingual Turkish-Armenian weekly newspaper he edited. He was shot in
the head and neck three times, allegedly by 17-year-old Ögün Samast,
an unemployed youth from the northeastern town of Trabzon, with links
to fascist organizations.
Dink, who died at the age of 51 leaving behind a wife, two daughters
and a son, was the most outspoken and courageous opponent of the
official Turkish nationalist policy of denying the Armenian genocide,
which took place in 1915 towards the end of the Ottoman Empire. At
the same time, Dink was an outspoken advocate of mutual respect
between Turkey's majority population and its Armenian minority.
His stance led to him becoming a hated figure among Turkish
nationalists both of the `left' and right-wing variety. For their
part, Armenian businessmen and the Armenian clerical leadership in
Turkey tended to see him as a troublemaker. Dink also clashed with
Armenian nationalists, whom he accused of not being really interested
in the rights of Armenians, but instead of using the genocide to
pursue nationalist identity-politics. He took a principled stand
against imperialist maneuvers aimed at aggravating the difficult
relationship between Turks and Armenians.
When the French National Assembly organized a reactionary
provocation, with the active support of the Stalinist French
Communist Party, and made denial of the Armenian genocide a
punishable offence, Dink commented, `How can we in future argue
against laws that forbid us to talk about a genocide if France, for
its part, now does the same thing? That is completely irrational.' He
even threatened to go to France and, contrary to his own views, deny
the genocide in defiance of the new law.
Dink was prosecuted several times under Article 301 of the Turkish
Penal Code, which criminalizes insulting the state, Mustafa Kemal
Atatürk (the first president of the Turkish republic), the judiciary,
the military and `Turkishness.' In 2005 he was sentenced to jail for
six months for `insulting Turkishness.' His sentence was subsequently
suspended. In September 2006 he faced another court case under
Article 301.
Dink answered the charge of `insulting Turkishness' as follows: `In
my opinion to denigrate the people with whom one lives on ethnic or
religious grounds is pure racism and there is no excuse for that....
If I am not cleared of these indictments I will leave my country
because anyone condemned for such a crime does not deserve the right
to live with the people he derides.' On the basis of this statement
he had to face a further criminal charge of `trying to influence the
public.'
Dink was regarded as a traitor undermining the Turkish state by
fascists, all sorts of far-right tendencies, as well as all variants
of Kemalists (right and `left') and various other conservative
circles. After his first court case Dink received numerous death
threats and during the court hearings he was intimidated and attacked
by fascists, as well as members of the Maoist-Kemalist Workers Party
(Isci Partisi), outside and sometimes even in the courtroom.
All of the major political parties and media in Turkey have
contributed to this chauvinist campaign against Hrant Dink, by
labeling him an enemy of the Turks and marking him out as a target.
The well-known journalist Mehmet Ali Birand wrote, `We are the real
murderers of Hrant. We have brought up our murderers in an atmosphere
and mentality created by Article 301.'
His death also made clear that despite the fact that he had alerted
the Turkish authorities about the threats to his life, his appeals
for protection were never taken seriously.
In his last column in Agos, published on January 19, Dink explained
that he was being `psychologically tortured' and wrote, `The fascists
physically attacked me in the corridors of the courthouse and flung
racist curses.... They bombarded me with insults. Hundreds of threats
hailed down for months by phone, email and post - increasing all the
time.'
He continued, `Those who tried to single me out and weaken me have
succeeded. With the false information they oozed into society, they
were able to influence a significant section of the population who
view Hrant Dink as someone who `insults Turkishness.' ... How real
are these threats? To be honest, it is impossible for me to know for
sure.'
In fact, the threats were very real and he was assassinated,
apparently by a young fascist, before the ink had dried on his
article.
Article 301
Hrant Dink has not been the only target of escalating chauvinist
violence and oppression. In recent years more than 100 writers,
artists, journalists, translators, publishers, etc., have been put on
trial for things they have said, written or created. All of these
cases concerned comments on the genocide against the Armenians, the
Kurdish conflict or the military's domination of Turkish society.
The prosecution writs for the numerous court cases stem largely from
a group of ultra-right-wing lawyers (the so-called Unity of Jurists
led by Kemal Kerincsiz) with close ties to Turkey's fascist `Grey
Wolves' movement. There has been little difficulty persuading state
prosecutors to accept such cases, under conditions where the Turkish
judiciary is dominated by right-wingers, Islamists and
ultra-nationalists.
Like Dink, many of those convicted have been systematically harassed
and exposed to verbal and physical intimidation by the same circles.
Cases involving well-known intellectuals, such as the winner of the
Nobel Prize for literature, Orhan Pamuk, or famed author and
journalist Elif Safak, have received some coverage by the mainstream
bourgeois media, but many more lesser-known cases go unnoticed.
Article 301 was introduced on June 1, 2005, and replaced Article 159
of the old penal code, with an amnesty introduced for past offences.
The new paragraph was allegedly aimed at ensuring increased freedom
of opinion and was part of reforms adopted by the Turkish state as a
condition for the country's future admission into the European Union.
In fact, it soon became clear that previous repressive practices were
merely being continued under the new statute.
The European Union (EU) has voiced some criticism of Article 301, but
mainly in high-profile cases. In addition, conservative European
media outlets and politicians are using the issue of human rights
violations to mobilize resentment against Turkey and its attempt to
join the EU. The US government has remained silent about the Article
301 trials.
The moderate Islamist AKP (Justice and Development Party) government
has taken a hesitant stand, saying it may consider amending the
article if the latter's implementation makes such a measure
necessary. However, the government has refrained from taking any
concrete steps due to the serious danger of an offensive by the
military and its `civilian' supporters, who are seeking excuses to
challenge the government on the grounds that the AKP is undermining
national unity.
Last year Justice Minister Cemil Cicek expressed the AKP's concerns
by saying, `If Article 301 is lifted, then we will be faced with a
regime debate. There are proposals to take out `Turkishness' from the
law. But wouldn't some people then ask us if we are ashamed of being
Turks?'
Deniz Baykal, leader of the secular `leftist' Republican People's
Party (CHP), the biggest opposition faction in Turkish parliament,
acting as a mouthpiece for the military against the AKP government,
has played a despicable role and openly opposed changes to Article
301: `We are almost asked to apologize because we are Turks. We won't
apologize, we are proud of this.' Currently CHP leaders are trying to
prove that there is no link between Dink's assassination and Article
301.
The conservative Motherland Party (ANAVATAN), True Path Party (DYP)
and, needless to say, the fascist Nationalist Movement Party (MHP)
are against any revisions of Article 301. Just a few months ago
ANAVATAN Erzurum deputy Ibrahim Ozdogan cynically claimed that
insulting `Turkishness' had become the route to success for some
people. He claimed it was the reason why the novelists Pamuk and
Safak and journalist Dink had won recognition. He claimed that Dink
was given an award in Denmark solely for this reason: `Whenever
someone insults Turkishness, the whole world lines up to give them
awards.'
The columnist Dogu Ergil wrote: `The straw that broke the camel's
back was an editorial published in Agos on Feb. 6, 2004. According to
the editorial, the famed adopted (or god-) daughter of Mustafa Kemal
Atatürk, the founder and hero of Turkey, Sabiha Gokcen, was
originally an Armenian. Indeed Hrant had found and interviewed the
relatives of the late Gokcen now living in Armenia. According to the
information obtained, she was taken from an Armenian orphanage and
raised by Atatürk to be an accomplished military bomber pilot. She
was a national icon and symbol of modern Turkish women, besides being
the daughter of Atatürk.'
The news rocked official Turkey. The most virulent protest came from
the military. The press release from the office of the Chief of
General Staff stated: `Whatever the reason, opening up such a symbol
to public debate is a crime against national unity and social peace.'
Obviously the Agos editorial intended to show that Armenians could be
the best and most loyal defenders of the Turkish state. But according
to the Turkish military high command, even suggesting that a national
icon might have been of Armenian descent was an insult of criminal
proportions, bordering on treason.
It cannot be excluded that sections of the military are directly
involved in Dink's death. His lawyer Erdal Dogan claimed that the
journalist had received death threats from retired brigadier general
Veli Kücük. Kücük was one of the main figures in the `Susurluk
affair' of 1996, which brought to light the close links between
security forces, mafia gangs and fascist death squads. His name was
mentioned more recently in connection with the murder of the leading
judge at the administrative court last year. It was learned that
Kücük had known the perpetrator, the lawyer Alparslan Aslan, who had
links to the same milieu of mafia and fascist groups in Trabzon as
Dink's alleged murderer, Ögün Samast.
Wave of repression
During the ongoing wave of chauvinism, more than 20 murders or
attempted murders of leftists and Kurdish nationalists have taken
place in different parts of Turkey over the past two years. Every
time the perpetrators have gone unpunished due to the lenience of
governors, police chiefs and other local administrators. For example,
on November 2, 2005, members of the left-wing Association for
Inmates' Families' Solidarity (TAYAD) were stoned in Rize.
The response of local governor Enver Salihoglu was to excuse the
perpetrators. `The citizens were provoked,' he declared.
Parliamentary deputy Abdulkadir Kart said the citizens of the region
had been taught the necessary lesson. Mayor Halil Bakirci stated,
`TAYAD members tried to unfurl banners. If I had known that it was
them, I would have gone there and hit them myself.'
In April 2005 the journalist Birand expressed his concerns in the
face of the increasing rate of persecution and assassination
attempts: `Incidents under the guise of nationalism are occurring
right before your eyes, with lynch mobs prowling the streets, but
officials are wasting time by saying things like `Please don't
interfere. Let it cool down, people are very angry.' It appears the
brute force being used to try and silence all other opinions is being
protected.'
He expressed his disillusion with the political establishment, `As
the government continues to be silent, the opposition doesn't say a
thing. It was natural for us to expect the Republican People's Party
(CHP) to come out and defend freedom of expression.'
Official response
After the murder of Dink, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan
held a press conference and declared, `The bullets fired at Dink were
indeed fired at Turkey.' His comment merely echoed the general
hypocritical response of the major bourgeois parties to the
assassination of Hrant Dink. In fact the bullets fired at Dink were
aimed at a Turkish journalist of Armenian origin explicitly
challenging Ankara's official view about the Armenian genocide.
Reading between the lines, the real meaning of Erdogan's statement
can be summarized as follows: `This murder puts us in a very
difficult situation. Our policy was to make life miserable for Dink
and all others like him, in order to intimidate the whole population.
His death, however, is a stupid move, which doesn't serve our
interests.'
The wave of nationalism and chauvinism in Turkey is the response by
specific establishment political circles, in particular, to the
implications of the Iraq war. As a result of the disastrous US-led
war and occupation of the country, Iraq is on the verge of breaking
apart and the Turkish elite is extremely worried about the possible
consequences of such a development. Increasing independence for the
Kurdish region in northern Iraq, combined with revenues from oil
reserves flowing into Kurdish hands, have intensified fears in
nationalist quarters of a resurgence of Kurdish nationalism inside
Turkey itself.
The hysterical reaction by the establishment to any questioning of
Turkish nationalism, including the official myth surrounding the
`events' of 1915, which claims that a violent and treacherous
separatist uprising by Armenians had to be put down, stems from the
fact that under capitalism the unity of the Turkish state is
incompatible with basic democratic rights.
The assessment made by National Intelligence Organization (MIT)
Undersecretary Emre Taner on the 80th anniversary of the organization
underscores these concerns. In his statement Taner maintained, `In
this period we will see the process by which many nations lose the
marathon of history.' He continued: `All values, structures,
relations, systems and social order, be it socioeconomic or
political, religious or moral, are being reshaped and redefined. This
process is representative of the period in which new key players,
secondary players and the rules of the international system are being
redefined and even reborn.' Taner then urged the government to take a
much more aggressive stand.
The fact that Yasar Büyükanit, the man who was implicated in the
`Semdinli affair' just two years ago (in which army forces committed
terrorist attacks in southeast Turkey that were then blamed on the
PKK - Kurdish Workers Party), is now the chief of general staff, shows
that an influential faction of the state apparatus is prepared to
take such an aggressive stand. Erdogan, who came to power advocating
a political liberalization in line with EU reforms to break the power
of the old Kemalist elites, has adapted increasingly to this
right-wing faction. Now growing hostility to Turkish membership
within the EU itself has also served to strengthen the hand of the
Turkish nationalists.
See Also:
Freedom of speech under continuing attack in Turkey
[27 October 2006]
http://wsws.org/articles/2007/jan2007/turk- j27.shtml