Tweet
Today's Zaman, Turkey
Feb 10 2012
How did we step into the missionary threat trap ?(2)
MARKAR ESAYAN
I said in my last column that there was visible link between the Hrank
Dink murder and the missionary paranoia that has been discussed and
raised since 2002; in that column, I provided an introduction into how
the process had started.
In fact, the information that those who fabricated this paranoia had
in hand did not support a state of panic. A document from the National
Security Council (MGK) undersigned by Å?ükrü SarııÅ?ık and dated Nov.
17, 2003 noted that the missionary and minority threat was pretty
grave and that this threat was pointing to the unitary state itself.
The threat was underlined but the concrete evidence that referred to
the dimensions of this threat and danger referred to a completely
different situation. Furthermore, this was spelled out in the same
document.
The document provided some numbers of missionaries active in Turkey in
2000: `As of 2000, there are 54 missionaries, 45 foreigners and nine
Turks, active in Turkey.' True, the number of missionaries who were
threatening the unitary structure of the state of Turkey was just 54.
A 40-page report was drafted on these 54 people. In other words, there
was no danger that would lead to a state of paranoia at all. If you
take a look at those who created this fuss over missionaries, those
who exaggerated this danger and created this climate, you will see the
current Ergenekon suspects, like those who followed the actions of
Hrant Dink, who threatened him, harassed him in court and displayed
placards that read, `Hrant: son of missionary.' This matter was
extensively covered by Adem Yavuz Arslan in his book, `Bi Ermeni var:
Hrant Dink Operasyonunun Å?ifreleri' (There's this Armenian: The Codes
of the Dink Operation).
For instance, the book noted that a report by the Ankara Chamber of
Commerce led by Sinan Aygün, another Ergenekon suspect, on the
activities of missionaries argued that Turkey was a target of
missionary activities. The report claims: `The missionary activities
which were presented as actions to spread Christianity in the
beginning now seek to undermine the unitary structure of the state.
Their activities intensify in the Black Sea and Southeast regions.'
Aygün said that in those days harmonization laws promoted missionary
activity in Turkey.
EU membership bid targeted
In other words, it appeared that one of the targets was the EU
membership bid. The said report also presented a survey on
missionaries in 2003: `In 2003, 190 missionary activities were
detected. To this end, more than 300 churches, a number of bookstores,
one library, six journals, a number of foundations and publications,
five radio stations, many monasteries, two cafes, one agency, seven
corporations, one translation house, seven newspapers, one historical
artifact, two museums and a number of associations were spotted.' Let
us set aside these exaggerated numbers and the unwise claims that they
had historical artifacts and museums. Did you ever hear of such a
statistical study? This is obviously a study of intelligence; and even
if you assume that this information is true, only intelligence units
hold information such as what cafe belongs to who and what hotel is
run by a missionary. Arslan wrote in his book that this information
overlapped with the information provided in the document by the MGK's
General Secretariat on March 12, 2003. Let us continue. It was Jan.
23, 2002. The Agos weekly was classified as dangerous by the General
Staff's Psychological Warfare Unit. A report Col. Ä°smet Kayfaz
referred to the chair of the unit had unveiled that Agos and its
columnists were monitored and kept under surveillance. These
columnists included me. I wrote an article on this document for the
Taraf daily. Frankly, it was not pleasant to see my name and one of my
columns as an example in that document. Why does an army of a country
keep under surveillance a national paper while that is not its mission
or job?
But this is nothing new or surprising for Turkey. It later became
apparent that Father Andrea Santoro, who was killed in 2006, was
reviewed by the Gendarmerie Intelligence Review Unit in 2003 and 2004
and that detailed reports were drafted on his actions. The report
argued that missionaries used the opportunities and freedoms provided
by the EU harmonization laws and that Father Santoro, a priest at the
Santa Maria Catholic Church in Trabzon, was engaging in missionary
activity.
Using children under the age of 18
For some reason, all the people referred to in such reports and
documents, including Santoro, Dink and the Malatya victims, were
killed. In all these three cases, kids younger than 18 were used. Even
the methods and styles displayed consistency.
Now let us keep this in mind and go back to the `climate' aspect of
this matter. Those who were on the target list and the conscientious
people of this country were aware of the plot. A handful of people
were trying to practice their faith in Turkey. Their only crime was
that they were Christian. The plotters were well aware that this
danger was not real. However, the plot of paranoia worked. All TV
stations and papers contributed to the spread of the paranoia. As I
noted in my previous column, some ministers in the Cabinet, which was
the actual target, and even the Religious Affairs Directorate
contributed to this process via their attitudes and general
preferences.
Of course, there was a deep structure, along with its goals and
murders, out there. But this nation did not act prudently to abort
this plot. The circles and groups that were on Ergenekon's target list
were used through media, nationalism and prejudice.
A deep structure killed Dink. But how will we explain the negligence
that set reason and conscience aside during the process that resulted
in his murder? Why were numerous intelligence reports ignored? Why was
Hrant not protected? How were the Santoro and Malatya murders
committed? How did the intelligence units of this country miss all
these?
Let us say that every unit had Ergenekon extensions which manipulated
these units, but why did the government, which had stated that the
Dink murder also targeted the political administration as well, not
extend full support to this legal case? Why did the legal process end
with a scandalous decision?
At this point we have to admit the painful truth and realize that
there is a poisonous unification of agreement on some issues. There is
no other explanation for Ergenekon to have fallen for the trap of
`missionaries and Armenians.' And this remains a problem. This further
prevents the solution of the Dink murder and keeps the possibility for
other plots on the table.
In a country where the Islamic faith is so strong, I am surprised to
see that the overall outlook is in stark contrast with Islamic values
and precepts because the holy book of Islam, the Quran, says in verse
135 of Surah Nisa: `O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice,
as witnesses to Allah, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or
your kin, and whether it be [against] rich or poor: for Allah can best
protect both. Follow not the lusts [of your hearts], lest you swerve,
and if you distort [justice] or decline to do justice, verily Allah is
well-acquainted with all that you do.'
And verse 22 of Surah Rum says: `And among His Signs is the creation
of the heavens and the earth, and the variations in your languages and
your colors: Verily in that are Signs for those who know.'
Indeed it is.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Feb 10 2012
How did we step into the missionary threat trap ?(2)
MARKAR ESAYAN
I said in my last column that there was visible link between the Hrank
Dink murder and the missionary paranoia that has been discussed and
raised since 2002; in that column, I provided an introduction into how
the process had started.
In fact, the information that those who fabricated this paranoia had
in hand did not support a state of panic. A document from the National
Security Council (MGK) undersigned by Å?ükrü SarııÅ?ık and dated Nov.
17, 2003 noted that the missionary and minority threat was pretty
grave and that this threat was pointing to the unitary state itself.
The threat was underlined but the concrete evidence that referred to
the dimensions of this threat and danger referred to a completely
different situation. Furthermore, this was spelled out in the same
document.
The document provided some numbers of missionaries active in Turkey in
2000: `As of 2000, there are 54 missionaries, 45 foreigners and nine
Turks, active in Turkey.' True, the number of missionaries who were
threatening the unitary structure of the state of Turkey was just 54.
A 40-page report was drafted on these 54 people. In other words, there
was no danger that would lead to a state of paranoia at all. If you
take a look at those who created this fuss over missionaries, those
who exaggerated this danger and created this climate, you will see the
current Ergenekon suspects, like those who followed the actions of
Hrant Dink, who threatened him, harassed him in court and displayed
placards that read, `Hrant: son of missionary.' This matter was
extensively covered by Adem Yavuz Arslan in his book, `Bi Ermeni var:
Hrant Dink Operasyonunun Å?ifreleri' (There's this Armenian: The Codes
of the Dink Operation).
For instance, the book noted that a report by the Ankara Chamber of
Commerce led by Sinan Aygün, another Ergenekon suspect, on the
activities of missionaries argued that Turkey was a target of
missionary activities. The report claims: `The missionary activities
which were presented as actions to spread Christianity in the
beginning now seek to undermine the unitary structure of the state.
Their activities intensify in the Black Sea and Southeast regions.'
Aygün said that in those days harmonization laws promoted missionary
activity in Turkey.
EU membership bid targeted
In other words, it appeared that one of the targets was the EU
membership bid. The said report also presented a survey on
missionaries in 2003: `In 2003, 190 missionary activities were
detected. To this end, more than 300 churches, a number of bookstores,
one library, six journals, a number of foundations and publications,
five radio stations, many monasteries, two cafes, one agency, seven
corporations, one translation house, seven newspapers, one historical
artifact, two museums and a number of associations were spotted.' Let
us set aside these exaggerated numbers and the unwise claims that they
had historical artifacts and museums. Did you ever hear of such a
statistical study? This is obviously a study of intelligence; and even
if you assume that this information is true, only intelligence units
hold information such as what cafe belongs to who and what hotel is
run by a missionary. Arslan wrote in his book that this information
overlapped with the information provided in the document by the MGK's
General Secretariat on March 12, 2003. Let us continue. It was Jan.
23, 2002. The Agos weekly was classified as dangerous by the General
Staff's Psychological Warfare Unit. A report Col. Ä°smet Kayfaz
referred to the chair of the unit had unveiled that Agos and its
columnists were monitored and kept under surveillance. These
columnists included me. I wrote an article on this document for the
Taraf daily. Frankly, it was not pleasant to see my name and one of my
columns as an example in that document. Why does an army of a country
keep under surveillance a national paper while that is not its mission
or job?
But this is nothing new or surprising for Turkey. It later became
apparent that Father Andrea Santoro, who was killed in 2006, was
reviewed by the Gendarmerie Intelligence Review Unit in 2003 and 2004
and that detailed reports were drafted on his actions. The report
argued that missionaries used the opportunities and freedoms provided
by the EU harmonization laws and that Father Santoro, a priest at the
Santa Maria Catholic Church in Trabzon, was engaging in missionary
activity.
Using children under the age of 18
For some reason, all the people referred to in such reports and
documents, including Santoro, Dink and the Malatya victims, were
killed. In all these three cases, kids younger than 18 were used. Even
the methods and styles displayed consistency.
Now let us keep this in mind and go back to the `climate' aspect of
this matter. Those who were on the target list and the conscientious
people of this country were aware of the plot. A handful of people
were trying to practice their faith in Turkey. Their only crime was
that they were Christian. The plotters were well aware that this
danger was not real. However, the plot of paranoia worked. All TV
stations and papers contributed to the spread of the paranoia. As I
noted in my previous column, some ministers in the Cabinet, which was
the actual target, and even the Religious Affairs Directorate
contributed to this process via their attitudes and general
preferences.
Of course, there was a deep structure, along with its goals and
murders, out there. But this nation did not act prudently to abort
this plot. The circles and groups that were on Ergenekon's target list
were used through media, nationalism and prejudice.
A deep structure killed Dink. But how will we explain the negligence
that set reason and conscience aside during the process that resulted
in his murder? Why were numerous intelligence reports ignored? Why was
Hrant not protected? How were the Santoro and Malatya murders
committed? How did the intelligence units of this country miss all
these?
Let us say that every unit had Ergenekon extensions which manipulated
these units, but why did the government, which had stated that the
Dink murder also targeted the political administration as well, not
extend full support to this legal case? Why did the legal process end
with a scandalous decision?
At this point we have to admit the painful truth and realize that
there is a poisonous unification of agreement on some issues. There is
no other explanation for Ergenekon to have fallen for the trap of
`missionaries and Armenians.' And this remains a problem. This further
prevents the solution of the Dink murder and keeps the possibility for
other plots on the table.
In a country where the Islamic faith is so strong, I am surprised to
see that the overall outlook is in stark contrast with Islamic values
and precepts because the holy book of Islam, the Quran, says in verse
135 of Surah Nisa: `O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice,
as witnesses to Allah, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or
your kin, and whether it be [against] rich or poor: for Allah can best
protect both. Follow not the lusts [of your hearts], lest you swerve,
and if you distort [justice] or decline to do justice, verily Allah is
well-acquainted with all that you do.'
And verse 22 of Surah Rum says: `And among His Signs is the creation
of the heavens and the earth, and the variations in your languages and
your colors: Verily in that are Signs for those who know.'
Indeed it is.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress