Tweet
Today's Zaman, Turkey
Jan 1 2012
But¦
MARKAR ESAYAN
I just want to ask this. Let us try to answer this question by
stripping away all contexts.
What would be the reaction of Turkey had the massacre in Uludere taken
place in western Turkey and had 35 people died due to an accident or a
terrorist attack? In terms of politics, media and society, what would
we feel and what reactions would we have?
They would not be like the reaction we had to this massacre in
Uludere. I just know this. And it bothers me, as a human being and as
a citizen of Turkey. It bothers me so much that it makes me angry.
Whether the attack was an accident or a deliberate act, whether the
error involved provocation, who provided the intelligence and who gave
the order for the attack based solely on the intelligence they had
received are all of secondary importance to me.
I feel this way because it is possible to find answers to these
questions and to prosecute those responsible. And I hope this will be
done. But I believe that our ethics, which generate problems, are
problematic. Who turned the country into this? Who is responsible for
the huge difference between the standard of living in Uludere and
Etiler? Is it the fault of past elites alone?
Just like the locusts flooded Egypt in line with Moses' prophecy, it
seems that the actual source of the problem is the flow of `buts' in
my homeland when the dead are Kurds.
`But they were smugglers.' `But what they were doing over there?' `But
PKK [Kurdistan Workers' Party] militants could have been there.' `But
such accidents can happen while combating terrorism.'
What kind of double standard is this? What kind of humanity is this?
What kind of conscience is this?
How have we become like this?
I was notified of the massacre by Twitter early that morning. By noon,
the TV stations had not aired a single report on the incident. Then,
they broadcast it in their news tickers only. Most of them referred to
the massacre in these headlines as `Incident at the border.' On
Saturday, the Uludere district governor, who paid a visit to the
families of the victims, was attacked. The same TV stations were swift
to report this. Those who used to speak out in similar cases of human
rights abuses and suspicious deaths by the military adopted a fairly
opposite position this time, feeling that the government and the
National Intelligence Organization (MÄ°T) might be hurt. What is the
duty of an intellectual, taking a suitable position or telling the
truth?
Why should we expect maturity from political actors before we get rid
of this inhumane double standard? Politics is a mirror of the
community. And society is even more progressive than the clumsy state
in its desire for change. But I see a state of double standards in
Turkey. Positions are not principled or ethical; they are conjectural
and partial. We cannot go on like this.
If we turn our backs on the 1915 deportations -- where hundreds of
thousands of Armenians were murdered -- while calling Dersim a
massacre, and refer to the 1915 incidents with a `but,' our humanity,
faith and ethics become trapped within that `but.' We cannot go
anywhere with this mentality. The contradiction would steer us towards
that which is evil.
It is an inherent motive for a man to support others who are similar
to him, but this implies deliberate ethics. Our humanity is
complemented by our ability to make room for differences and
diversity. Peace and justice are achieved only when we believe others
actually deserve them.
This was articulated so perfectly in the columns by A. Turan Alkan and
Nedim Hazar published Saturday that I thought while reading those
columns we could be hopeful for the future of this country.
I felt the same way when I heard the following remarks that Bülent
Arınç made in Parliament. `The presence of the Kurds has been a
reality for more than 1,000 years. You cannot deny this. If you do,
you would be going back to 1980. You have to recognize the Kurds and
their rights. We will recognize their constitutional rights; we will
respect their language. We will not think of this as a concession or
submission to terrorism. We denounce racism. We will recognize the
right of a person who calls himself a Kurd to education, culture and
language. This is not a reward; this is their right.'
Yes, the constructive approach was expounded in these remarks.
Resolution of the Kurdish issue is possible if this approach permeates
politics and society. And true, this refers to a Turkey that is
completely different from the one of the past.
We are acting slowly; we do not swiftly turn our backs on the `buts.'
The fact that massacres like the one in Uludere take place is because
of this slowness.
I offer my condolences to our nation. Uludere is the joint loss and
pain of us all.
http://www.todayszaman.com/columnistDetail_getNewsById.action?newsId=267309
Jan 1 2012
But¦
MARKAR ESAYAN
I just want to ask this. Let us try to answer this question by
stripping away all contexts.
What would be the reaction of Turkey had the massacre in Uludere taken
place in western Turkey and had 35 people died due to an accident or a
terrorist attack? In terms of politics, media and society, what would
we feel and what reactions would we have?
They would not be like the reaction we had to this massacre in
Uludere. I just know this. And it bothers me, as a human being and as
a citizen of Turkey. It bothers me so much that it makes me angry.
Whether the attack was an accident or a deliberate act, whether the
error involved provocation, who provided the intelligence and who gave
the order for the attack based solely on the intelligence they had
received are all of secondary importance to me.
I feel this way because it is possible to find answers to these
questions and to prosecute those responsible. And I hope this will be
done. But I believe that our ethics, which generate problems, are
problematic. Who turned the country into this? Who is responsible for
the huge difference between the standard of living in Uludere and
Etiler? Is it the fault of past elites alone?
Just like the locusts flooded Egypt in line with Moses' prophecy, it
seems that the actual source of the problem is the flow of `buts' in
my homeland when the dead are Kurds.
`But they were smugglers.' `But what they were doing over there?' `But
PKK [Kurdistan Workers' Party] militants could have been there.' `But
such accidents can happen while combating terrorism.'
What kind of double standard is this? What kind of humanity is this?
What kind of conscience is this?
How have we become like this?
I was notified of the massacre by Twitter early that morning. By noon,
the TV stations had not aired a single report on the incident. Then,
they broadcast it in their news tickers only. Most of them referred to
the massacre in these headlines as `Incident at the border.' On
Saturday, the Uludere district governor, who paid a visit to the
families of the victims, was attacked. The same TV stations were swift
to report this. Those who used to speak out in similar cases of human
rights abuses and suspicious deaths by the military adopted a fairly
opposite position this time, feeling that the government and the
National Intelligence Organization (MÄ°T) might be hurt. What is the
duty of an intellectual, taking a suitable position or telling the
truth?
Why should we expect maturity from political actors before we get rid
of this inhumane double standard? Politics is a mirror of the
community. And society is even more progressive than the clumsy state
in its desire for change. But I see a state of double standards in
Turkey. Positions are not principled or ethical; they are conjectural
and partial. We cannot go on like this.
If we turn our backs on the 1915 deportations -- where hundreds of
thousands of Armenians were murdered -- while calling Dersim a
massacre, and refer to the 1915 incidents with a `but,' our humanity,
faith and ethics become trapped within that `but.' We cannot go
anywhere with this mentality. The contradiction would steer us towards
that which is evil.
It is an inherent motive for a man to support others who are similar
to him, but this implies deliberate ethics. Our humanity is
complemented by our ability to make room for differences and
diversity. Peace and justice are achieved only when we believe others
actually deserve them.
This was articulated so perfectly in the columns by A. Turan Alkan and
Nedim Hazar published Saturday that I thought while reading those
columns we could be hopeful for the future of this country.
I felt the same way when I heard the following remarks that Bülent
Arınç made in Parliament. `The presence of the Kurds has been a
reality for more than 1,000 years. You cannot deny this. If you do,
you would be going back to 1980. You have to recognize the Kurds and
their rights. We will recognize their constitutional rights; we will
respect their language. We will not think of this as a concession or
submission to terrorism. We denounce racism. We will recognize the
right of a person who calls himself a Kurd to education, culture and
language. This is not a reward; this is their right.'
Yes, the constructive approach was expounded in these remarks.
Resolution of the Kurdish issue is possible if this approach permeates
politics and society. And true, this refers to a Turkey that is
completely different from the one of the past.
We are acting slowly; we do not swiftly turn our backs on the `buts.'
The fact that massacres like the one in Uludere take place is because
of this slowness.
I offer my condolences to our nation. Uludere is the joint loss and
pain of us all.
http://www.todayszaman.com/columnistDetail_getNewsById.action?newsId=267309