Tweet
Turkey and Armenia
Targeting the Peacemakers
The recent conviction of Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink for
"debasing Turkish identity," reveals the flaws inherent in the Turkish
judicial system. Reactionary judges, argues the German Green Party's Cem
Özdemir, bar the way to essential processes of reform on the road to
entry into the European Union.
Spiegel Online (Germany)
October 13, 2005
By Cem Özdemir
For a section of the Armenian diaspora and more than a few narrow-minded
critics of Turkey in Europe, he is "contradiction personified." In fact,
he should not even exist. Hrant Dink is an Armenian in Turkey, actively
supporting the Turkish democratic movement and sensing an opportunity
for reconciliation with his own history. But Dink, and others like him,
are caught between a rock and a hard place.
The editor-in-chief of Agos, the Armenian-Turkish weekly newspaper, is
not short of adversaries. At the forefront are the Turkish
Ultra-Nationalists, who would like to see him silenced sooner rather
than later. Their allies in Turkey's judiciary underlined these
sentiments again recently. On Oct. 7, an Istanbul court sentenced Dink
to six months in jail for a "crime of ideas." The sentence was suspended
on the grounds that he had no previous convictions.
Dink's case highlights the flaws in the new Turkish penal code. It gives
reactionary judges and prosecutors ample scope to position themselves
consciously as the protectors of true "Turkishness" and to thwart
Ankara's efforts to bring about reform. Indeed, elements of the judicial
apparatus are quite blatantly set against the European Union aspirations
of the AKP government and the Turkish civil rights movement. By putting
intellectual figureheads like Dink or the German Publishers' Association
Peace Prize Winner Orhan Pamuk in the dock, the judiciary is sending
unequivocal signals to Ankara and Brussels. The timing of the charges is
anything but coincidental. Reactionary forces in the justice system are
thus adding timely weight to opposition of Turkish entry into the EU,
whether those opponents are in Turkey itself or in the European Union.
"We know very well what happened," Dink said. If the conference on the
historical question of Armenia had been cancelled yet again, shortly
before the slated start of EU accession talks on Oct. 3, Turkish
opponents of entry to the EU would likely have had a major victory on
their hands.
Derailment was ultimately only avoided thanks to an unlikely alliance
between liberal civil rights campaigners and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip
Erdogan's Islamic-Conservative government.
This was not exactly what the ultra-nationalists had in mind.
Yet even as the protesters gathered in numbers outside the conference
center to exercise their democratic right to free speech, they at the
same time wanted to deny those talking inside the same right. Turkey is
going to have to get used to this sort of schizophrenia, which is
symptomatic of the pain that comes with reform, as felt by reactionary
sections of the population and the state.
Dink's courageous efforts as one of the organizers were a major catalyst
in making the conference actually happen. Even the most ardent skeptics
with regard to the killings were swayed enough to reconsider when
challenged by the compelling Dink. Many in the crowd of scientists,
intellectuals, politicians and journalists were moved to tears as he
spoke of an Armenian woman from the Turkish town of Sivas. It was the
story of a woman who had lived in Paris and whose greatest wish was to
be buried in the place where she and her ancestors had lived for centuries.
The telephone calls that followed Dink's television appearances have
become legendary. Some Turkish people come forward to reveal Armenian
roots which they have hitherto kept hidden. Others report traces of
Armenian life in their local areas and ask for assistance in preserving
this cultural legacy. On one occasion, a whole village turned up in the
newspaper offices: descendents of Turkish Armenians who had fled for
safety to their Alevite neighbors in the Tunceli region (Dersim) in
1915, when persecution was at its worst.
Dink's prime concern is the future of Armenian and Christian minorities
in a cosmopolitan, secular Turkey as part of Europe. He is intent on
looking forward, not wanting the past to stand in the way of the future.
Facing up to the past should, in his eyes, find its way onto the agenda
as part of a natural process of increasing freedom of opinion and
democracy. Turkish acceptance of the claims that genocide was inflicted
on the Armenian people is being touted by some as a precondition of
Turkish membership in the EU. Dink feels this is playing too readily
into the hands of the reactionaries, who are determined to see an end to
Turkey's EU ambitions. Nonetheless, he sees reconciliation with Armenia
as a high priority, hence his campaigning for the opening of the border
between Turkey and Armenia.
His strategy is as unorthodox as it is effective. He does not allow
himself to get entangled in cynical discussions about whether the number
of Armenians murdered was 600,000 or 1.5 million. Instead, he confronts
the Turkish people with a history of which they either were ignorant, or
had only learned about through distorted channels of propaganda. His
arguments are persuasive, bringing to light what Turkey has irrevocably
lost in their destruction and denial of Armenian life. "If the Armenians
were alive today, Van (once a predominantly Armenian city in the East of
Turkey) would be the Paris of the East," he says. Dink surprises his
people with unexpected ideas. He has proposed, for example, a memorial
to the slaughtered Armenians in Turkey. A memorial for the Turks who
fell at the hands of Armenian freedom fighters already exists.
He has also paid a price for his nonconformist views. Just a few years
ago, Dink was denied a passport by the Turkish state. He was considered
"unreliable" and was not permitted to leave the country. In spite of his
great endeavors to promote constructive debate and reconciliation
between the Armenians and the Turks, he still has to face criticism from
the Armenian diaspora. They accuse him of betraying the Armenian cause,
denounce him as a lackey in the pocket of the Turks. This is the same
man who has been brought before the Turkish courts with the very real
prospect of a prison sentence.
In the offending newspaper article, Dink is said to have insulted
"Turkishness," as the judge put it. In fact, his column was aimed at the
Armenian diaspora. Dink's appeal left no room for misinterpretation: The
Armenian diaspora should surrender their hostility to the Turks,
hitherto a defining element of Armenian identity. Even independent
assessors brought in by the courts could not find any disparaging
references to Turkey in his comments.
Dink's main concern is neither the heated controversy about the past,
nor the instrumentalization of historical events. When asked by a
journalist whether genocide had taken place, he replied: "For us
Armenians, there is no discussion on that issue. We know very well what
happened." Although he maintains that one should concentrate on looking
forward, whilst learning from the past, his reaction to his court
sentence reveals deep disappointment in his home country, Turkey. He
intends to take all legal measures available to prove his innocence. If
the sentence is not revoked, he plans to leave the country.
This should not be seen as a threat -- that is not Dink's nature.
Nevertheless, the Turkish government does need to take note of what his
statement signifies. The new penal code, which only came into effect on
June 1, 2005, is already in need of another overhaul. The law needs to
be implemented in such a way that it cannot be used as a weapon against
free speech. Nor should it be possible for judges or prosecutors to
exploit it in ways that would impede reform in Turkey. A prime minister
who was, himself, imprisoned for reciting a religious poem ought to be
well aware of that.
Cem Özdemir, 39, is a German of Turkish origin and a member of the
European Parliament in Strasbourg, where he also serves as the foreign
policy spokesman for the Green Party.
PHOTO CAPTION - DPA: Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan prevented the
worst from happening, but protesters stil turned out to try to disrupt a
recent conference on Armenia.
PHOTO CAPTION - AFP: Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink: "We know
what happened."
PHOTO CAPTION - AFP: The Turkish massacre in Armenia claimed the lives
of between 600,000 and 1.5 million people when it took place between
1915-17.
PHOTO CAPTION - AP: Turkish author Orhan Pamuk: Intellectual reformers
are being subjected to intimidation.
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,379511,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,379511,00.html
Targeting the Peacemakers
The recent conviction of Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink for
"debasing Turkish identity," reveals the flaws inherent in the Turkish
judicial system. Reactionary judges, argues the German Green Party's Cem
Özdemir, bar the way to essential processes of reform on the road to
entry into the European Union.
Spiegel Online (Germany)
October 13, 2005
By Cem Özdemir
For a section of the Armenian diaspora and more than a few narrow-minded
critics of Turkey in Europe, he is "contradiction personified." In fact,
he should not even exist. Hrant Dink is an Armenian in Turkey, actively
supporting the Turkish democratic movement and sensing an opportunity
for reconciliation with his own history. But Dink, and others like him,
are caught between a rock and a hard place.
The editor-in-chief of Agos, the Armenian-Turkish weekly newspaper, is
not short of adversaries. At the forefront are the Turkish
Ultra-Nationalists, who would like to see him silenced sooner rather
than later. Their allies in Turkey's judiciary underlined these
sentiments again recently. On Oct. 7, an Istanbul court sentenced Dink
to six months in jail for a "crime of ideas." The sentence was suspended
on the grounds that he had no previous convictions.
Dink's case highlights the flaws in the new Turkish penal code. It gives
reactionary judges and prosecutors ample scope to position themselves
consciously as the protectors of true "Turkishness" and to thwart
Ankara's efforts to bring about reform. Indeed, elements of the judicial
apparatus are quite blatantly set against the European Union aspirations
of the AKP government and the Turkish civil rights movement. By putting
intellectual figureheads like Dink or the German Publishers' Association
Peace Prize Winner Orhan Pamuk in the dock, the judiciary is sending
unequivocal signals to Ankara and Brussels. The timing of the charges is
anything but coincidental. Reactionary forces in the justice system are
thus adding timely weight to opposition of Turkish entry into the EU,
whether those opponents are in Turkey itself or in the European Union.
"We know very well what happened," Dink said. If the conference on the
historical question of Armenia had been cancelled yet again, shortly
before the slated start of EU accession talks on Oct. 3, Turkish
opponents of entry to the EU would likely have had a major victory on
their hands.
Derailment was ultimately only avoided thanks to an unlikely alliance
between liberal civil rights campaigners and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip
Erdogan's Islamic-Conservative government.
This was not exactly what the ultra-nationalists had in mind.
Yet even as the protesters gathered in numbers outside the conference
center to exercise their democratic right to free speech, they at the
same time wanted to deny those talking inside the same right. Turkey is
going to have to get used to this sort of schizophrenia, which is
symptomatic of the pain that comes with reform, as felt by reactionary
sections of the population and the state.
Dink's courageous efforts as one of the organizers were a major catalyst
in making the conference actually happen. Even the most ardent skeptics
with regard to the killings were swayed enough to reconsider when
challenged by the compelling Dink. Many in the crowd of scientists,
intellectuals, politicians and journalists were moved to tears as he
spoke of an Armenian woman from the Turkish town of Sivas. It was the
story of a woman who had lived in Paris and whose greatest wish was to
be buried in the place where she and her ancestors had lived for centuries.
The telephone calls that followed Dink's television appearances have
become legendary. Some Turkish people come forward to reveal Armenian
roots which they have hitherto kept hidden. Others report traces of
Armenian life in their local areas and ask for assistance in preserving
this cultural legacy. On one occasion, a whole village turned up in the
newspaper offices: descendents of Turkish Armenians who had fled for
safety to their Alevite neighbors in the Tunceli region (Dersim) in
1915, when persecution was at its worst.
Dink's prime concern is the future of Armenian and Christian minorities
in a cosmopolitan, secular Turkey as part of Europe. He is intent on
looking forward, not wanting the past to stand in the way of the future.
Facing up to the past should, in his eyes, find its way onto the agenda
as part of a natural process of increasing freedom of opinion and
democracy. Turkish acceptance of the claims that genocide was inflicted
on the Armenian people is being touted by some as a precondition of
Turkish membership in the EU. Dink feels this is playing too readily
into the hands of the reactionaries, who are determined to see an end to
Turkey's EU ambitions. Nonetheless, he sees reconciliation with Armenia
as a high priority, hence his campaigning for the opening of the border
between Turkey and Armenia.
His strategy is as unorthodox as it is effective. He does not allow
himself to get entangled in cynical discussions about whether the number
of Armenians murdered was 600,000 or 1.5 million. Instead, he confronts
the Turkish people with a history of which they either were ignorant, or
had only learned about through distorted channels of propaganda. His
arguments are persuasive, bringing to light what Turkey has irrevocably
lost in their destruction and denial of Armenian life. "If the Armenians
were alive today, Van (once a predominantly Armenian city in the East of
Turkey) would be the Paris of the East," he says. Dink surprises his
people with unexpected ideas. He has proposed, for example, a memorial
to the slaughtered Armenians in Turkey. A memorial for the Turks who
fell at the hands of Armenian freedom fighters already exists.
He has also paid a price for his nonconformist views. Just a few years
ago, Dink was denied a passport by the Turkish state. He was considered
"unreliable" and was not permitted to leave the country. In spite of his
great endeavors to promote constructive debate and reconciliation
between the Armenians and the Turks, he still has to face criticism from
the Armenian diaspora. They accuse him of betraying the Armenian cause,
denounce him as a lackey in the pocket of the Turks. This is the same
man who has been brought before the Turkish courts with the very real
prospect of a prison sentence.
In the offending newspaper article, Dink is said to have insulted
"Turkishness," as the judge put it. In fact, his column was aimed at the
Armenian diaspora. Dink's appeal left no room for misinterpretation: The
Armenian diaspora should surrender their hostility to the Turks,
hitherto a defining element of Armenian identity. Even independent
assessors brought in by the courts could not find any disparaging
references to Turkey in his comments.
Dink's main concern is neither the heated controversy about the past,
nor the instrumentalization of historical events. When asked by a
journalist whether genocide had taken place, he replied: "For us
Armenians, there is no discussion on that issue. We know very well what
happened." Although he maintains that one should concentrate on looking
forward, whilst learning from the past, his reaction to his court
sentence reveals deep disappointment in his home country, Turkey. He
intends to take all legal measures available to prove his innocence. If
the sentence is not revoked, he plans to leave the country.
This should not be seen as a threat -- that is not Dink's nature.
Nevertheless, the Turkish government does need to take note of what his
statement signifies. The new penal code, which only came into effect on
June 1, 2005, is already in need of another overhaul. The law needs to
be implemented in such a way that it cannot be used as a weapon against
free speech. Nor should it be possible for judges or prosecutors to
exploit it in ways that would impede reform in Turkey. A prime minister
who was, himself, imprisoned for reciting a religious poem ought to be
well aware of that.
Cem Özdemir, 39, is a German of Turkish origin and a member of the
European Parliament in Strasbourg, where he also serves as the foreign
policy spokesman for the Green Party.
PHOTO CAPTION - DPA: Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan prevented the
worst from happening, but protesters stil turned out to try to disrupt a
recent conference on Armenia.
PHOTO CAPTION - AFP: Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink: "We know
what happened."
PHOTO CAPTION - AFP: The Turkish massacre in Armenia claimed the lives
of between 600,000 and 1.5 million people when it took place between
1915-17.
PHOTO CAPTION - AP: Turkish author Orhan Pamuk: Intellectual reformers
are being subjected to intimidation.
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,379511,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,379511,00.html