Hrant Dink’s Death
Ali Saysel
ZNet
Feb. 1, 2007
ectionID=3D74&ItemID=3D12009
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 ofthe 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 hadan 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 hadto 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 identityof 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 experiencein official service. Following the fate of
previous investigations for other assassins of prominent intellectuals
and activists, there is not much hopethat 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 froma 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 becauseof 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 weregathering
around the court, insulting and assaulting, and all this was being
watchedby 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 quiteas 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]
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?S