Tweet
AS THEIR HOSTAGE, I CANNOT CRITICIZE THIS GOVERNMENT
By Orhan Kemal Cengýz
Today's Zaman
03 July 2009, Friday
This week I attended a luncheon in Ankara with foreign diplomats who
wanted to discuss Turkey's human rights problems. We were two human
rights experts invited to this meeting to give a briefing about recent
developments in the human rights field.
My colleague, the other expert, gave a fairly balanced briefing on
human rights questions that we have been going through recently. I,
however, found myself only talking about the Ergenekon case. I had a
good excuse for that. Since my colleague covered quite a large area
on the subject, I could focus on the Ergenekon case. However, at the
end of the meeting it suddenly dawned on me that I was in the kind of
mood where I was refraining from criticizing the current government,
which obviously should be held accountable for the shortcomings of
its human rights records, for dragging its feet and refraining from
making further reforms for democratization and so on.
I made a confession at the end. I said to the diplomats that I
feel I am a hostage of the current government, which is the only
power backing the Ergenekon case. If the opposition, whose leader
declared himself to be the advocate of Ergenekon, comes to power,
then the Ergenekon gang will be resurrected and start to do its job
as usual. And their usual job is assassinations and mass provocations
through which they manipulate society and the political agenda in
Turkey. Not only me, but also many other intellectuals were threatened
by Ergenekon before. Some became victims of hate-mongering campaigns
during the trials against them. Some were targeted because of their
stance against illegal activities within the state structure. Many
people were condemned to live with bodyguards. We could not have had
a "we apologize campaign" (an initiative started by intellectuals
and followed by more than 30,000 people who signed a declaration
apologizing to Turkish Armenians who lost their li!
ves and were forced to leave the country during the "Great Catastrophe"
in 1915) if the Ergenekon investigation had not been started. I can
guarantee that a couple of intellectuals who took active roles in
this campaign would have been killed by Ergenekon.
They may not be declaring this, but I believe many liberal and
democratic intellectuals share the same feelings with me, too. Can
these intellectuals, after all, be as outspoken and critical of
the government as they would like if they feel so threatened by
a gang, when the only supporter of its trial would be the current
government? This is also a question of priority. If there is such a
gang messing around, what would be your first priority? Wouldn't you
be less concerned about many other issues that do not have as much
gravity as the issue concerned?
Normally, in such a meeting I would be talking about the Halki seminary
and the government's failure to open it for such a long time. I would
talk about Erdoðan's double standards when it comes to dealing with
"other's terrorist" and "ours," when he advised the Israeli government
to sit down at the table with Hamas, whereas he refused to even shake
hands with the leaders of the legitimately elected pro-Kurdish Party,
the Democratic Society Party (DTP). I would be fiercely critical of
his treatment of Mr. al-Bashir who is obviously responsible for crimes
against humanity in Darfur. I would be very critical of Erdoðan's
approach towards article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK). I
would also criticize him for his inadequacy in finding a long-awaited
solution to the head scarf problem and for many other things...
These are the governments that should be criticized for human rights
violations, right? But, imagine a government that is at the mercy of
a Constitutional Court which has closed down many political parties
before and there is a good chance that there might be a second
closure case against it, which, this time, could actually bring an
end to its existence after the first one in which the court decided
to cut off the financial aid that the government was taking from the
Treasury. Imagine a government which felt deeply threatened by a plot
against itself prepared by some military personnel (just last week)
in a country in which many governments were thrown out of power by
military interventions. So we arrived at this formula: I am a hostage
of a government that is taken hostage by the state apparatus in this
country. As a human rights defender, I feel under tremendous pressure:
Should I maintain my position and criticize this government as fiercely
as I used to before and ignor!
e their constraints, or should I focus on the "big picture" only,
in which the future of the country would seem at stake. Which way
should I take? Sometimes, I really do not know. I am the hostage of
a government which is itself taken hostage by the state apparatus,
and this situation is getting more and more complex. I really
hope that the days when I could freely and openly criticize this
government without feeling guilty will return soon. But for now,
I am confused. Aren't you?
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
By Orhan Kemal Cengýz
Today's Zaman
03 July 2009, Friday
This week I attended a luncheon in Ankara with foreign diplomats who
wanted to discuss Turkey's human rights problems. We were two human
rights experts invited to this meeting to give a briefing about recent
developments in the human rights field.
My colleague, the other expert, gave a fairly balanced briefing on
human rights questions that we have been going through recently. I,
however, found myself only talking about the Ergenekon case. I had a
good excuse for that. Since my colleague covered quite a large area
on the subject, I could focus on the Ergenekon case. However, at the
end of the meeting it suddenly dawned on me that I was in the kind of
mood where I was refraining from criticizing the current government,
which obviously should be held accountable for the shortcomings of
its human rights records, for dragging its feet and refraining from
making further reforms for democratization and so on.
I made a confession at the end. I said to the diplomats that I
feel I am a hostage of the current government, which is the only
power backing the Ergenekon case. If the opposition, whose leader
declared himself to be the advocate of Ergenekon, comes to power,
then the Ergenekon gang will be resurrected and start to do its job
as usual. And their usual job is assassinations and mass provocations
through which they manipulate society and the political agenda in
Turkey. Not only me, but also many other intellectuals were threatened
by Ergenekon before. Some became victims of hate-mongering campaigns
during the trials against them. Some were targeted because of their
stance against illegal activities within the state structure. Many
people were condemned to live with bodyguards. We could not have had
a "we apologize campaign" (an initiative started by intellectuals
and followed by more than 30,000 people who signed a declaration
apologizing to Turkish Armenians who lost their li!
ves and were forced to leave the country during the "Great Catastrophe"
in 1915) if the Ergenekon investigation had not been started. I can
guarantee that a couple of intellectuals who took active roles in
this campaign would have been killed by Ergenekon.
They may not be declaring this, but I believe many liberal and
democratic intellectuals share the same feelings with me, too. Can
these intellectuals, after all, be as outspoken and critical of
the government as they would like if they feel so threatened by
a gang, when the only supporter of its trial would be the current
government? This is also a question of priority. If there is such a
gang messing around, what would be your first priority? Wouldn't you
be less concerned about many other issues that do not have as much
gravity as the issue concerned?
Normally, in such a meeting I would be talking about the Halki seminary
and the government's failure to open it for such a long time. I would
talk about Erdoðan's double standards when it comes to dealing with
"other's terrorist" and "ours," when he advised the Israeli government
to sit down at the table with Hamas, whereas he refused to even shake
hands with the leaders of the legitimately elected pro-Kurdish Party,
the Democratic Society Party (DTP). I would be fiercely critical of
his treatment of Mr. al-Bashir who is obviously responsible for crimes
against humanity in Darfur. I would be very critical of Erdoðan's
approach towards article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK). I
would also criticize him for his inadequacy in finding a long-awaited
solution to the head scarf problem and for many other things...
These are the governments that should be criticized for human rights
violations, right? But, imagine a government that is at the mercy of
a Constitutional Court which has closed down many political parties
before and there is a good chance that there might be a second
closure case against it, which, this time, could actually bring an
end to its existence after the first one in which the court decided
to cut off the financial aid that the government was taking from the
Treasury. Imagine a government which felt deeply threatened by a plot
against itself prepared by some military personnel (just last week)
in a country in which many governments were thrown out of power by
military interventions. So we arrived at this formula: I am a hostage
of a government that is taken hostage by the state apparatus in this
country. As a human rights defender, I feel under tremendous pressure:
Should I maintain my position and criticize this government as fiercely
as I used to before and ignor!
e their constraints, or should I focus on the "big picture" only,
in which the future of the country would seem at stake. Which way
should I take? Sometimes, I really do not know. I am the hostage of
a government which is itself taken hostage by the state apparatus,
and this situation is getting more and more complex. I really
hope that the days when I could freely and openly criticize this
government without feeling guilty will return soon. But for now,
I am confused. Aren't you?
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress