HRANT’S PARASITES
ETYEN MAHCUPYAN
Today’s Zaman
Feb 2 2012
Turkey
The murder of Hrant Dink turned him into something other than
himself, making him a tool for general use. The first step of this
transformation was to present Hrant as a “secular leftist” to the
degree that it made the emotional ties he had formed with society
meaningless. And thus we see Hrant being redrawn as a figure almost
above society, a hero who is at the same time outside of society.
In the second step of this transformation, the state is switching
places with the current elected government, so that while the axis
of the struggle for freedoms is constructed as being the Justice
and Development Party (AK Party) opposition, there is an attempt
to see the state revivified through the de-legitimization of the
Ergenekon cases. But this stance, which could be labeled “ideological
immorality,” is driven by a Hrant-based opportunism, and is also
turning Hrant into a hackneyed and empty-spirited entity.
This transformation of the memory of Hrant into a vehicle, done in
the name of the left in Turkey, is nothing other than the sweeping
down of a colony of parasites to feed off of an event that actually
deserves deep respect and serenity. The latest instance of this sort
came from the pen of writer Ece Temelkuran. Her article, published
in the Guardian newspaper, no doubt found some positive responses in
Western secular circles. But for people who are familiar with Turkey,
this combination of a lack of perception and understanding with the
desire to give oneself credence really deserves nothing other than
the description of corrupt writing.
Temelkuran chose this headline for her article: “Turkish journalists
are very frightened — but we must fight this intimidation.” As we
understand immediately from these words, Temelkuran is supposedly
showing us an example of great courage, a standard of leadership for
her fellow journalist colleagues. But unfortunately, what follows is
a rather miserable, and to tell the truth, comic analysis. According
to this analysis, Temelkuran’s removal from the Haberturk newspaper
is apparently the result of a strategy of government pressures that
goes as deep as the murder of Hrant. As she writes it, the true
volition driving the pursuit of and the ultimate killing of Hrant
actually belongs to the government. Of course, Temelkuran does not
really talk about the whole Ergenekon plot about which we know much
due to confessions, or about attempts to portray the AK Party as
only semi-legitimate, or about other murders. Instead, she presents
Ergenekon as an “allegation,” basically implying that the allegations
of attempts to “create chaos and prepare the groundwork for a coup”
are false. In short, Temelkuran’s ideas are all presented within the
framework of a well-known ultra-nationalistic thesis, reminding us
with her words that she is not far removed ideologically from the
world of Ergenekon.
In order to even “walk around” on top of such rotten foundations,
one really needs a hanging bridge that can allow you to hop from
one reality to another. Temelkuran uses such a bridge when it comes
to the arrests of Ahmet Å~^ık and Nedem Å~^ener. Temelkuran goes
as far as to suggest that it was only these two journalists who
really researched what went on behind the curtains of Hrant Dink’s
murder. Setting aside for a moment the base wrongness of this,
Å~^ener’s book gives the impression that he is trying to protect
not only certain politicians but also the military. As for Å~^ık’s
book, it not only has nothing to do with this topic, but was written
basically to prove the influence the Gulen movement is having on the
state. Å~^ener is blamed not because of a book he wrote but because
of another book published by Hanefi Avcı. The problem though is that
the writings of both of these people appear to work to the benefit of
the Ergenekon circles, and we still don’t know the truth. But the real
topic at hand in relation to these two people has nothing to do with
political ideas and engagements on their parts. The fact that Å~^ener
yelled “For Hrant” when he was arrested and that Å~^ık talked about
“those who touch it burn” — if these are not just exaggerations
that indicate how self-important these two men find themselves —
it truthfully indicates much deeper weaknesses in their inner worlds.
The conditions of these two journalists’ trials cannot be approved
of under any means. The reasons for Temelkuran’s removal from the
newspaper in question need to be shared with the public and it is
important that these reasons make sense. But to try and use these
cases of victimhood as ideological tools as well as using Hrant as
such a tool can only be characterized as immoral. Because not only
are the truths being distorted, a person who was brutally killed is
being distorted as well and then used to reconstruct the truth.
In the meantime, Temelkuran has not forgotten to say that the book
she wrote was “wanted” by Hrant or to add some embarrassing words
from the interior minister. So that as the AK Party is lowered to
that government minister’s level, Temelkuran sets herself up right
next to Hrant.
It appears that in fact “Turkish” journalists are really not all that
afraid. To the contrary, they are quite courageous. So much so that
they do not even hesitate to go beyond the regular illegalities in
manipulating perceptions outside of Turkey.
From: A. Papazian