Tweet
THE BRIEF BUT FULL TWO YEARS
Aztag Daily
Jan 20 2009
Lebanon
Only two years have passed from the murder of chief editor of
"Agos" and we can say that the Armenian issues has lived hectic
developments. Avoiding overestimations, we can even discuss the
impacts that Dink's life, ideology and martyrdom have had on Turkey's
public opinion.
There is the need to record the changes that have taken place after
Hrant Dink's murder both on Turkey's internal platform and with respect
to the Armenian issues in general. Surely, it would be politically
naïve or simplistic to relate the process or the development of the
changes to one person. That's not what is being said here anyhow.
Overlooking the Armenian factor in Dink's life, let's also consider
for a moment that Dink was a fervent activist in the Turkish leftist
spheres, a uniting element and a Turkish citizen who fought against
the Turkish surveying system in Turkish internal issues. And the
whole art, the uniqueness of that struggle was the closeness of the
ideological pivots of the issues pursued by the Turkish citizen of
Armenian descent, his effective approach to find common grounds as
well as his courage to unleash piercing attacks against the deep state
through articles and press conferences. After all article 301 was not
disturbing to Armenians alone. It had become a priority for Kurds,
Greeks, Alawis, Syriacs and a remarkable sphere of the Turkish public
opinion to overthrow it.
Two years is a short period of time to perform a general assessment
of the impact that Dink's ideas had over political processes. The
phenomenon of dragging intellectuals to courts under article 301,
the activation of the dormant Turkish dissident movement, the bold
rhetoric, and the screaming evidence of the wide respect towards
Dink and his influence on the Turkish public opinion as well as the
pardon campaigns in spite of outbursts from nationalist and racist
groups, make one surely think that within the two years that passed
a starting point has been established, a trigger has certainly went
off to produce the sequential chain reaction of events.
However, it seems that Dink's phenomenon has had a greater
impact on Turkish internal stage than it has on intra-state
relationships. Different motives, different stimuli have had an impact
on Armenian-Turkish official relationships, which has not given birth
to any basic novelty or change in the political field. After weeks or
years of Dink's death the situation is basically the same. Only three
weeks after Dink's death Vartan Osganian, the Armenian foreign minister
at the time, wrote the following lines in "The Los Angeles Times":
"Three weeks after the murder of well known journalist Hrant Dink, it
seems that the Turkish authorities have grasped neither the address of
his life nor the message of his death. Immediately after Dink's death
we, in Armenia, as well as many around the world wanted to believe
that the outburst of the popular grief would create a crack in the
walls of Turkish denial and refusal and that efforts would be put into
action to gradually eliminate the conditions that made the killing
possible. We were all hopeful that the gravity of that crime and the
depth of its repercussions would force the Turkish leaders to grab
the opportunity and radically change the policy that lead to today's
stalemate. Nevertheless, after the first glimpses of solidarity,
the message being received from Ankara is already changed. Erdogan,
the Turkish prime minister, has announced that any enhancement of
relationships with the Armenian side is not possible since they,
like in the past, are insisting on the necessity of the Genocide
talk. That is a history changing event that shouldn't and can't be
forgotten. Nevertheless we are also for the enhancement of ties. One
is not a precondition for the other".
It's obvious that the responsibility of the stalemate created in the
relationships falls on the Turkish state, who has adopted an absolutely
preconditional stance. Stripping Turkey of those precondition was
Dink's struggle as well. Till this day the explicit and deep states
of Turkey are on the zero mark in that respect. The change has swept
the Turkish population, however, where certain elements have become
bolder in their demands to overthrow article 301, to recognize the
Armenian Genocide, to respect the minority rights and to ask pardon
from the Armenians. It is the intensity of this struggle that will
eventually also influence the intra-state relationships.
No one can deny that the martyred chief editor of "Agos" has had a
founding role in the development of the public opinion as well as
the bursting of the boldness on Turkey's internal stage. That is a
dangerous fight fought on the inside of the castle walls where the
troop commander gave his utmost two years ago.
Two years is a short period of time. However, the spotlights shed on
the developments of Turkey's internal stage can convince us that in
spite of being brief, nevertheless, those two years have really been
two remarkably full ones.
--Boundary_(ID_114tpGiY2g7TIRl8LLmadg)--
Aztag Daily
Jan 20 2009
Lebanon
Only two years have passed from the murder of chief editor of
"Agos" and we can say that the Armenian issues has lived hectic
developments. Avoiding overestimations, we can even discuss the
impacts that Dink's life, ideology and martyrdom have had on Turkey's
public opinion.
There is the need to record the changes that have taken place after
Hrant Dink's murder both on Turkey's internal platform and with respect
to the Armenian issues in general. Surely, it would be politically
naïve or simplistic to relate the process or the development of the
changes to one person. That's not what is being said here anyhow.
Overlooking the Armenian factor in Dink's life, let's also consider
for a moment that Dink was a fervent activist in the Turkish leftist
spheres, a uniting element and a Turkish citizen who fought against
the Turkish surveying system in Turkish internal issues. And the
whole art, the uniqueness of that struggle was the closeness of the
ideological pivots of the issues pursued by the Turkish citizen of
Armenian descent, his effective approach to find common grounds as
well as his courage to unleash piercing attacks against the deep state
through articles and press conferences. After all article 301 was not
disturbing to Armenians alone. It had become a priority for Kurds,
Greeks, Alawis, Syriacs and a remarkable sphere of the Turkish public
opinion to overthrow it.
Two years is a short period of time to perform a general assessment
of the impact that Dink's ideas had over political processes. The
phenomenon of dragging intellectuals to courts under article 301,
the activation of the dormant Turkish dissident movement, the bold
rhetoric, and the screaming evidence of the wide respect towards
Dink and his influence on the Turkish public opinion as well as the
pardon campaigns in spite of outbursts from nationalist and racist
groups, make one surely think that within the two years that passed
a starting point has been established, a trigger has certainly went
off to produce the sequential chain reaction of events.
However, it seems that Dink's phenomenon has had a greater
impact on Turkish internal stage than it has on intra-state
relationships. Different motives, different stimuli have had an impact
on Armenian-Turkish official relationships, which has not given birth
to any basic novelty or change in the political field. After weeks or
years of Dink's death the situation is basically the same. Only three
weeks after Dink's death Vartan Osganian, the Armenian foreign minister
at the time, wrote the following lines in "The Los Angeles Times":
"Three weeks after the murder of well known journalist Hrant Dink, it
seems that the Turkish authorities have grasped neither the address of
his life nor the message of his death. Immediately after Dink's death
we, in Armenia, as well as many around the world wanted to believe
that the outburst of the popular grief would create a crack in the
walls of Turkish denial and refusal and that efforts would be put into
action to gradually eliminate the conditions that made the killing
possible. We were all hopeful that the gravity of that crime and the
depth of its repercussions would force the Turkish leaders to grab
the opportunity and radically change the policy that lead to today's
stalemate. Nevertheless, after the first glimpses of solidarity,
the message being received from Ankara is already changed. Erdogan,
the Turkish prime minister, has announced that any enhancement of
relationships with the Armenian side is not possible since they,
like in the past, are insisting on the necessity of the Genocide
talk. That is a history changing event that shouldn't and can't be
forgotten. Nevertheless we are also for the enhancement of ties. One
is not a precondition for the other".
It's obvious that the responsibility of the stalemate created in the
relationships falls on the Turkish state, who has adopted an absolutely
preconditional stance. Stripping Turkey of those precondition was
Dink's struggle as well. Till this day the explicit and deep states
of Turkey are on the zero mark in that respect. The change has swept
the Turkish population, however, where certain elements have become
bolder in their demands to overthrow article 301, to recognize the
Armenian Genocide, to respect the minority rights and to ask pardon
from the Armenians. It is the intensity of this struggle that will
eventually also influence the intra-state relationships.
No one can deny that the martyred chief editor of "Agos" has had a
founding role in the development of the public opinion as well as
the bursting of the boldness on Turkey's internal stage. That is a
dangerous fight fought on the inside of the castle walls where the
troop commander gave his utmost two years ago.
Two years is a short period of time. However, the spotlights shed on
the developments of Turkey's internal stage can convince us that in
spite of being brief, nevertheless, those two years have really been
two remarkably full ones.
--Boundary_(ID_114tpGiY2g7TIRl8LLmadg)--