Tweet
THOUSANDS OF TURKS SIGN PETITION FOR ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
by Geries Othman
AsiaNews.it
Jan 19 2009
Italy
The new sensitivity is the result of the death of Hrant Dink, the
journalist killed two years ago. People connected to his murder
are also part of the trial involving Ergenekon, the clandestine
ultranationalist group accused of planning a state coup.
Istanbul (AsiaNews) - "My heart does not accept that the people are
insensitive to the great tragedy that the Ottoman Armenians experienced
in 1915. I reject this injustice, and sharing their pain and sentiment,
I ask for forgiveness from my Armenian brethren." This is the online
petition, more courageous than any before it, launched by three hundred
Turkish intellectuals (journalists, writers, university professors)
to ask for official recognition of the genocide of the Armenians
during the first world war. It has been circulating on the internet
for a month, and has already been signed by 27,650 Turkish citizens.
It may not be a petition that will change the intransigence always
shown by Turkish governments toward the genocide of the Armenians,
but it is certainly a sign that something is changing in the nation's
public opinion.
This is certainly one of the most significant results of the blood
shed two years ago by Hrant Dink, the Armenian Turkish journalist
shot to death on the streets of downtown Istanbul. Sentenced to six
months for "insulting the Turkish identity," on the basis of article
301 of the constitution, for having dared to speak, as an Armenian,
of genocide in the pages of his weekly Agos and in interviews that
he gave to publications abroad, he became "the enemy of the Turks,"
and was essentially condemned to death by the same state justice that
should have defended a citizen and his right to speak.
It was January 19, 2007, when he was killed by a young
ultranationalist. Two years later, it seems increasingly clear that the
killing of the founder and director of Agos - the subject of a trial
still far from any conclusion - expresses all of Turkey's problems:
anti-Armenian and anti-Christian nationalism, limits on the freedom
of expression, the overweening power of the security forces and some
politicians, and the country's difficulties in coming to terms with
the past.
18 men are accused in the Dink trial. They are Ogun Samast, the
young man who pulled the trigger, and his 17 accomplices, with very
different backgrounds, but united by ultranationalist fanaticism. And
it is no accident that in this major trial that has been shaking all of
Turkey for more than a year, because of the involvement of well-known
political and military figures, there are more men implicated in Dink's
murder. Yes, among the 86 people arrested in the case of Ergenekon,
in the clandestine ultranationalist group that united bureaucrats,
retired military officers, nationalists, and criminal gangs, there
is Veli Kucuk, a retired general who had threatened Hrant Dink with
death, and Kemal Kerincsiz, the lawyer who had repeatedly sued Dink for
"denigrating the Turkish identity," and also Fuat Turgut, the lawyer
for the man who ordered Dink's murder.
The killing of Dink was a shock for all of Turkey: everywhere
there were gigantic photos of the slain journalist, candles in the
street, 100,000 pro-democracy activists at his funeral with signs
reading "We are all Armenians." No one would ever have expected
such visible and stirring participation. The solidarity of the
democrats and intellectuals is encouraging, and there are more and
more supporters for Agos, with thousands of new subscriptions, and
there is encouragement from the online petition, but there is still
rigidity and strong opposition.
Almost a century later, it is still difficult to confront the
genocide of the Armenians in Turkey. So in spite of the fact that
Turkish president Abdullah Gul has recently come out in support of
the internet campaign, and has affirmed that everyone has the right
to express his opinion freely, former ambassadors and diplomats
have raised protests, calling the campaign a mistake and contrary to
national interests. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, after the
angry reactions from some of the nationalists, has distanced himself
from the appeal of the intellectuals who are asking for forgiveness
from the victims: "I reject this campaign," he has said, "and I do not
support it. I have not committed any crime, why should I apologize?"
So ten days ago, six Turkish judges presented a petition asking for
the punishment of those who organized the campaign. As if this were not
enough, Arat Dink, the son of the Armenian journalist, is now on trial
with a possible sentence of six months, under the infamous article
301, and the accusation of "insulting Turkish identity." Behind the
charges is the publication in Agos (of which he became editor after
the assassination of his father) of an interview Hrant gave to the
news agency Reuters in July of 2006, and in which he makes reference
to the genocide of the Armenian people.
But how long can this stubborn opposition continue? When on September
6, 2008, President Gul visited Yerevan, the capital of Armenia,
to watch a soccer game between Turkey and Armenia, unlike the
other heads of state he refused to enter the museum (in the photo)
displaying documentaries and photographs of the genocide. Nonetheless,
an increasing number of Turkish tourists and journalists are visiting
this museum. "More than 500 Turks came here in 2008. That is an
enormous number for us, unprecedented," says Hayk Demoyan, director
of the museum. "At first, they are always shocked. They are disturbed
by what they see, and deny it. But after this, most of them begin to
question the history of their own country. Without a doubt, they are
different when they go back home." This is exactly what Hrant Dink
maintained, in defense of the Turkish people that he loved. When he was
asked how it was possible that the Turks would not admit the genocide,
he responded that this was not because of cynicism or hypocrisy,
but "because they think that genocide is a horrible thing that they
would never do, so they cannot believe that their ancestors would
have done it. They deny it mainly because they do not understand it,
they don't know anything about it. They see it only as a threat to
their identity."
The assassination of Hrant Dink has brought to light a stirring
of solidarity and awareness that was unthinkable just a few years
ago. These are signs of hope, hope in a process that will certainly
be slow and long, difficult and contested, but that will lead Turkey
to come to terms with this "black hole" in its history, from which it
will emerge stronger. Many, in fact, have no doubt: if this syndrome
of denial is not overcome, with the opening of a serene discussion
about all the chapters of modern Turkish history, it will be very
difficult for the country to carry out its transformation from an
authoritarian state to a democratic state based on the recognition
of universal rights. What is at stake is not so much the past, but
rather the future of Turkey. "A process is needed," Dink asserted in an
interview with Radikal in 2006, "in which information and expression
are set free. With this development of our democracy, as we gradually
come to understand it, our consciences will also become active. There
must be freedom of expression. A Turkey that is not able to talk with
itself will have nothing to say to the Armenians . . . We do not intend
to remain stranded in history. What counts is safeguarding our future."
by Geries Othman
AsiaNews.it
Jan 19 2009
Italy
The new sensitivity is the result of the death of Hrant Dink, the
journalist killed two years ago. People connected to his murder
are also part of the trial involving Ergenekon, the clandestine
ultranationalist group accused of planning a state coup.
Istanbul (AsiaNews) - "My heart does not accept that the people are
insensitive to the great tragedy that the Ottoman Armenians experienced
in 1915. I reject this injustice, and sharing their pain and sentiment,
I ask for forgiveness from my Armenian brethren." This is the online
petition, more courageous than any before it, launched by three hundred
Turkish intellectuals (journalists, writers, university professors)
to ask for official recognition of the genocide of the Armenians
during the first world war. It has been circulating on the internet
for a month, and has already been signed by 27,650 Turkish citizens.
It may not be a petition that will change the intransigence always
shown by Turkish governments toward the genocide of the Armenians,
but it is certainly a sign that something is changing in the nation's
public opinion.
This is certainly one of the most significant results of the blood
shed two years ago by Hrant Dink, the Armenian Turkish journalist
shot to death on the streets of downtown Istanbul. Sentenced to six
months for "insulting the Turkish identity," on the basis of article
301 of the constitution, for having dared to speak, as an Armenian,
of genocide in the pages of his weekly Agos and in interviews that
he gave to publications abroad, he became "the enemy of the Turks,"
and was essentially condemned to death by the same state justice that
should have defended a citizen and his right to speak.
It was January 19, 2007, when he was killed by a young
ultranationalist. Two years later, it seems increasingly clear that the
killing of the founder and director of Agos - the subject of a trial
still far from any conclusion - expresses all of Turkey's problems:
anti-Armenian and anti-Christian nationalism, limits on the freedom
of expression, the overweening power of the security forces and some
politicians, and the country's difficulties in coming to terms with
the past.
18 men are accused in the Dink trial. They are Ogun Samast, the
young man who pulled the trigger, and his 17 accomplices, with very
different backgrounds, but united by ultranationalist fanaticism. And
it is no accident that in this major trial that has been shaking all of
Turkey for more than a year, because of the involvement of well-known
political and military figures, there are more men implicated in Dink's
murder. Yes, among the 86 people arrested in the case of Ergenekon,
in the clandestine ultranationalist group that united bureaucrats,
retired military officers, nationalists, and criminal gangs, there
is Veli Kucuk, a retired general who had threatened Hrant Dink with
death, and Kemal Kerincsiz, the lawyer who had repeatedly sued Dink for
"denigrating the Turkish identity," and also Fuat Turgut, the lawyer
for the man who ordered Dink's murder.
The killing of Dink was a shock for all of Turkey: everywhere
there were gigantic photos of the slain journalist, candles in the
street, 100,000 pro-democracy activists at his funeral with signs
reading "We are all Armenians." No one would ever have expected
such visible and stirring participation. The solidarity of the
democrats and intellectuals is encouraging, and there are more and
more supporters for Agos, with thousands of new subscriptions, and
there is encouragement from the online petition, but there is still
rigidity and strong opposition.
Almost a century later, it is still difficult to confront the
genocide of the Armenians in Turkey. So in spite of the fact that
Turkish president Abdullah Gul has recently come out in support of
the internet campaign, and has affirmed that everyone has the right
to express his opinion freely, former ambassadors and diplomats
have raised protests, calling the campaign a mistake and contrary to
national interests. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, after the
angry reactions from some of the nationalists, has distanced himself
from the appeal of the intellectuals who are asking for forgiveness
from the victims: "I reject this campaign," he has said, "and I do not
support it. I have not committed any crime, why should I apologize?"
So ten days ago, six Turkish judges presented a petition asking for
the punishment of those who organized the campaign. As if this were not
enough, Arat Dink, the son of the Armenian journalist, is now on trial
with a possible sentence of six months, under the infamous article
301, and the accusation of "insulting Turkish identity." Behind the
charges is the publication in Agos (of which he became editor after
the assassination of his father) of an interview Hrant gave to the
news agency Reuters in July of 2006, and in which he makes reference
to the genocide of the Armenian people.
But how long can this stubborn opposition continue? When on September
6, 2008, President Gul visited Yerevan, the capital of Armenia,
to watch a soccer game between Turkey and Armenia, unlike the
other heads of state he refused to enter the museum (in the photo)
displaying documentaries and photographs of the genocide. Nonetheless,
an increasing number of Turkish tourists and journalists are visiting
this museum. "More than 500 Turks came here in 2008. That is an
enormous number for us, unprecedented," says Hayk Demoyan, director
of the museum. "At first, they are always shocked. They are disturbed
by what they see, and deny it. But after this, most of them begin to
question the history of their own country. Without a doubt, they are
different when they go back home." This is exactly what Hrant Dink
maintained, in defense of the Turkish people that he loved. When he was
asked how it was possible that the Turks would not admit the genocide,
he responded that this was not because of cynicism or hypocrisy,
but "because they think that genocide is a horrible thing that they
would never do, so they cannot believe that their ancestors would
have done it. They deny it mainly because they do not understand it,
they don't know anything about it. They see it only as a threat to
their identity."
The assassination of Hrant Dink has brought to light a stirring
of solidarity and awareness that was unthinkable just a few years
ago. These are signs of hope, hope in a process that will certainly
be slow and long, difficult and contested, but that will lead Turkey
to come to terms with this "black hole" in its history, from which it
will emerge stronger. Many, in fact, have no doubt: if this syndrome
of denial is not overcome, with the opening of a serene discussion
about all the chapters of modern Turkish history, it will be very
difficult for the country to carry out its transformation from an
authoritarian state to a democratic state based on the recognition
of universal rights. What is at stake is not so much the past, but
rather the future of Turkey. "A process is needed," Dink asserted in an
interview with Radikal in 2006, "in which information and expression
are set free. With this development of our democracy, as we gradually
come to understand it, our consciences will also become active. There
must be freedom of expression. A Turkey that is not able to talk with
itself will have nothing to say to the Armenians . . . We do not intend
to remain stranded in history. What counts is safeguarding our future."