WHY WAS TURKEY PRESENT IN PARIS BUT NOT ON HRANT DINK’S MARCH?
Hurriyet, Turkey
Jan 20 2015
by Barcin Yinanc
If I had not read Hayko Bagdat’s article last week in daily Taraf,
I would not have realized that there are more similarities than
meet the eye between the Charlie Hebdo killings and the murder of
Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink. Their common point is not
limited to both incidents being attacks on freedom of expression.
In his article, Bagdat recalled the first testimony of Ogun Samast,
who shot Dink in front of his newspaper Agos in January 2007. Samast
told the police that he first went up the stairs to meet Dink, but
could not get in as he was told he had to make an appointment. “I
then called Yasin Hayal [who is charged with being the instigator
of the assassination]. I thought of going back to the newspaper and
killing other Armenians. But Yasin said ‘there is no need,'” he said.
In other words, Dink’s colleagues at Agos could have faced a similar
tragedy to that of Charlie Hebdo, where 10 journalists and two
policemen were killed on Jan. 7.
As was the case with the Charlie Hebdo tragedy, which was followed by
a march of solidarity by millions, a similar yet unexpected phenomenon
took place in Turkey, as Dink’s funeral turned into a march attended by
thousands carrying banners reading “We are all Hrant Dink; we are all
Armenian.” Now, each year, the day of his murder is marked by a march.
Yesterday, on the eighth anniversary of Dink’s death, mourners marched
to commemorate him. Unfortunately, the event was not attended by any
officials. Ministers had to attend the cabinet meeting chaired for
the first time by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. However, as was
underlined by Bagdat, the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP)
has preferred to abstain from the march for the past seven years.
In contrast, Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu made the right move and
attended the solidarity march in Paris on Jan. 11. In fact, French
Ambassador to Turkey Laurent Bili told me that Davutoglu proposed
to make the trip to Paris to present his condolences in person,
even before a decision was made to organize a march.
Exactly why a slain Turkish journalist has been deprived of a gesture
of solidarity shown to French journalists is a legitimate question that
the government should answer. We know that part of the answer lies in
the fact that the government has never approached Dink’s assassination
with a genuine democratic reflex. Judicial proceedings have been
very problematic, and if there are still some developments taking
place about the case today, this is not done out of justice to Dink,
but rather with the purpose of hitting at Gulenists in the police.
Dink was actually the victim of a smear campaign. At one stage, a
single sentence from his column on the Armenian identity was pulled
out of context and his critical approach towards the attitude of
diaspora Armenians about their relations with Turkey was completely
distorted. A lot of people were led to mistakenly believe that he
was insulting Turkish identity, which was not the case at all.
Currently, top Turkish officials are unfortunately making similar
efforts at distortion by targeting daily Cumhuriyet. If Davutoglu
opted to go to the Paris march to show solidarity with the victims
of Charlie Hebdo, then it is only natural for Cumhuriyet to print
the latest issue of Charlie Hebdo to show its solidarity with the
satirical magazine. However, while Cumhuriyet decided not to run the
front page of the magazine -which pictured the Prophet Muhammad -it
was not spared harsh criticism from both Erdogan and Davutoglu.
But the fact that two of its writers ran the cover page in their
columns did not deserve Erdogan and Davutoglu’s fury. After all,
the picture did not contain anything insulting; in fact, quite to
the contrary. However, both Turkish leaders spoke in such a manner
that many would believe that Cumhuriyet’s content was explicitly
insulting the prophet. It is, of course, their right to criticize
Cumhuriyet’s decision, but using such heated rhetoric shows we do not
have responsible statesmen. Instead, we have politicians who resort
to polemics to increase their public support.