Tweet
Today's Zaman, Turkey
Jan 22 2012
Murder as a collective crime
Ä°HSAN DAÄ?I
It was five years ago: In my second column in Today's Zaman, only
three days after the murder of Hrant Dink, I wrote that he was `the
victim of the nation-state and nationalism.'
Since then he continues to be victimized by the same mindset that
prevails in Turkish security institutions, in the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs and in the judiciary.
The Dink case is a reminder of how deep-rooted and widespread Turkish
nationalism, which has defined itself silently vis-Ã-vis the Armenian
question since 1915, is. I think the Turkish subconscious is marked by
the events of 1915 so that it cannot recover from it and treat the
remaining Armenians, including Dink, as fellow citizens and
compatriots.
A year after Dink was murdered then Minister of Defense of the Justice
and Development Party (AK Party) government Vecdi Gönül declared
openly for the first time, `If the Armenians had remained where they
had lived in Anatolia, we could not have established such a
nation-state.' When Minister Gönül uttered these words he rightly
faced criticism that he was a `Unionist,' referring to the Committee
of Union and Progress (CUP) in power during the 1915 massacre of the
Armenians. But the fact of the matter is that this is the unspoken and
yet common belief among Turks, nationalists, conservatives, leftists,
you name it.
By linking the establishment of a Turkish nation-state and the
Armenian massacre, they implicitly endorse what was done to the
Armenians in 1915. This is what I refer to as the subconscious of the
Turks being marked by the Armenian question; their `presence' was only
possible at the expense of the `absence' of the Armenians. This I
think gives way to a guilt complex that cannot be admitted and
expressed and a deep sense of insecurity. When Armenians exist, they
panic that this happens at the expense of the Turks' absence. So the
presence of Dink as an Armenian in the public sphere deeply disturbed
the `Turkish psyche.'
As a result we have all kinds of barriers to the investigation of
Dink's murder. It started right after the murder. The person who
killed Dink was photographed in front of a Turkish flag flanked by two
soldiers when he was arrested. These photographs were distributed to
the media to trigger nationalist sentiments against the Armenians.
Again, right after the murder, the Ä°stanbul chief of police declared
that the murderer was motivated and led by nationalist sentiments.
Hürriyet Editor-in-Chief ErtuÄ?rul Ã-zkök wrote that we should try to
understand (i.e., sympathize with) the murderer.
All these have turned the Dink murder into an act justifiable simply
because it was committed against an Armenian.
So there was complacency all over. It is now a fact that security
forces in Trabzon and Ä°stanbul knew well that a plan to assassinate
Dink was being prepared. They knew and did not do anything to stop it.
How can this be explained? If the `victim' is an Armenian, then
`collaboration' or `silence' is the attitude. We also know for sure
that he was warned and threatened by an intelligence officer in the
office of the deputy governor of Ä°stanbul before his murder.
Even the AK Party government that was receptive to the demands of
minorities and in return supported by them did not stand by Dink. I do
not remember any member of the AK Party government who attended the
Dink's burial (except an adviser to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip
ErdoÄ?an).
Later on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs under the leadership of Ahmet
DavutoÄ?lu submitted a defense to the European Court of Human Rights
(ECtHR) for the Dink case in which Dink was compared to a Nazi leader,
and it was argued that restrictions on his writings could not be
regarded as a breach of freedom of expression, since they contained
`hate speech.' As if this embarrassing comparison was not enough, the
defense by the Turkish government also implied that Dink's murderers
were justified: It was Dink who was to blame for his own murder
because he was found guilty of insulting Turkishness by the Turkish
judiciary.
Apart from this shameful `defense' there are many cases that show
authorities did not collaborate to investigate the murder case. At the
end the court placed all responsibility on a `lone wolf' without going
deeper into his connections. Everyone knows this is a cover-up, not
only of the network that murdered Dink but also of our relationship
with Armenians. The decision of the court turns Dink's murder into a
`collective crime.'
From: Baghdasarian
Jan 22 2012
Murder as a collective crime
Ä°HSAN DAÄ?I
It was five years ago: In my second column in Today's Zaman, only
three days after the murder of Hrant Dink, I wrote that he was `the
victim of the nation-state and nationalism.'
Since then he continues to be victimized by the same mindset that
prevails in Turkish security institutions, in the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs and in the judiciary.
The Dink case is a reminder of how deep-rooted and widespread Turkish
nationalism, which has defined itself silently vis-Ã-vis the Armenian
question since 1915, is. I think the Turkish subconscious is marked by
the events of 1915 so that it cannot recover from it and treat the
remaining Armenians, including Dink, as fellow citizens and
compatriots.
A year after Dink was murdered then Minister of Defense of the Justice
and Development Party (AK Party) government Vecdi Gönül declared
openly for the first time, `If the Armenians had remained where they
had lived in Anatolia, we could not have established such a
nation-state.' When Minister Gönül uttered these words he rightly
faced criticism that he was a `Unionist,' referring to the Committee
of Union and Progress (CUP) in power during the 1915 massacre of the
Armenians. But the fact of the matter is that this is the unspoken and
yet common belief among Turks, nationalists, conservatives, leftists,
you name it.
By linking the establishment of a Turkish nation-state and the
Armenian massacre, they implicitly endorse what was done to the
Armenians in 1915. This is what I refer to as the subconscious of the
Turks being marked by the Armenian question; their `presence' was only
possible at the expense of the `absence' of the Armenians. This I
think gives way to a guilt complex that cannot be admitted and
expressed and a deep sense of insecurity. When Armenians exist, they
panic that this happens at the expense of the Turks' absence. So the
presence of Dink as an Armenian in the public sphere deeply disturbed
the `Turkish psyche.'
As a result we have all kinds of barriers to the investigation of
Dink's murder. It started right after the murder. The person who
killed Dink was photographed in front of a Turkish flag flanked by two
soldiers when he was arrested. These photographs were distributed to
the media to trigger nationalist sentiments against the Armenians.
Again, right after the murder, the Ä°stanbul chief of police declared
that the murderer was motivated and led by nationalist sentiments.
Hürriyet Editor-in-Chief ErtuÄ?rul Ã-zkök wrote that we should try to
understand (i.e., sympathize with) the murderer.
All these have turned the Dink murder into an act justifiable simply
because it was committed against an Armenian.
So there was complacency all over. It is now a fact that security
forces in Trabzon and Ä°stanbul knew well that a plan to assassinate
Dink was being prepared. They knew and did not do anything to stop it.
How can this be explained? If the `victim' is an Armenian, then
`collaboration' or `silence' is the attitude. We also know for sure
that he was warned and threatened by an intelligence officer in the
office of the deputy governor of Ä°stanbul before his murder.
Even the AK Party government that was receptive to the demands of
minorities and in return supported by them did not stand by Dink. I do
not remember any member of the AK Party government who attended the
Dink's burial (except an adviser to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip
ErdoÄ?an).
Later on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs under the leadership of Ahmet
DavutoÄ?lu submitted a defense to the European Court of Human Rights
(ECtHR) for the Dink case in which Dink was compared to a Nazi leader,
and it was argued that restrictions on his writings could not be
regarded as a breach of freedom of expression, since they contained
`hate speech.' As if this embarrassing comparison was not enough, the
defense by the Turkish government also implied that Dink's murderers
were justified: It was Dink who was to blame for his own murder
because he was found guilty of insulting Turkishness by the Turkish
judiciary.
Apart from this shameful `defense' there are many cases that show
authorities did not collaborate to investigate the murder case. At the
end the court placed all responsibility on a `lone wolf' without going
deeper into his connections. Everyone knows this is a cover-up, not
only of the network that murdered Dink but also of our relationship
with Armenians. The decision of the court turns Dink's murder into a
`collective crime.'
From: Baghdasarian