Tweet
RESPECT FOR HUMANITY IN DIFFERENT CASES
ZAUR SHIRIYEV
Today's Zaman
Jan 24 2012
Turkey
Last Friday, Azerbaijan marked the 22 year anniversary of Black
January. On Jan. 20, 1990, Soviet Special Forces, without declaring
a state of emergency, attacked Baku, killing innocent people.
Black January would come to represent Azerbaijan's independence
from the Soviet Union and serve as a springboard for similar
movements across the fifteen republics. This was a unique moment in
Azerbaijan's history that saw the people walk out unarmed against
tanks for independence. I would like to touch upon a different case,
which I discussed with Diba Nigar Göksel, the editor-in-chief of
Turkish Policy Quarterly.
Jan. 19 was another important anniversary: The death of Hrant Dink,
the Turkish-Armenian journalist, editor and human rights activist who
was murdered in İstanbul four years ago. In 2007 and in the years
following, Turkish activists protested under the slogan "We are all
Hrant, we are all Armenian."
When this happened, the response from a number of Azerbaijani voices
was to question why the 1992 Khojaly massacre had not incited such
protests and why, following the incident, the Turks never said,
"We are all Azerbaijanis." While solidarity with Azerbaijanis was
strong in the early '90s it seems to have faded, while the suffering
on the part of Azerbaijanis has not. This, in general, is a cause of
grief and resentment in Azerbaijan.
However, many of us see that associating the two issues is misled. A
few days ago a Turkish judge ruled that the Dink case did not have
enough evidence to determine whether the journalist's murder was
organized and the killer, who pleaded guilty, was sentenced to between
18 and 27 years in prison. The strong reaction to this verdict is not
about Armenians per se and certainly not a show of solidarity to the
forces that brought about pain and suffering to Azerbaijanis. Turks
are on the street for justice and accountability, for an innocent
man that touched on their sensibilities. We in Azerbaijan need to be
able to make this distinction. Supporting the rights of Armenians in
Turkey does not exonerate Yerevan's actions against Azerbaijan. Though
Armenians may not make this distinction and keep seeing themselves
as the only victim, we in Azerbaijan should not fall into this same
moral fallacy or trap.
It is also wrong to label Azerbaijanis as opposed to solidarity with
Dink. In general, Azerbaijan shared in the grief over the death of
an innocent journalist, regardless of his ethnic origin. I looked up
what people wrote about Dink, and found a Global Voices investigation:
"Azerbaijan: Bloggers remember Hrant Dink four years on." The majority
of the bloggers pay tribute to the injustice of Dink's death.
Indeed, the editor of Global Voices, Onnik Krikorian, reflected,
"It's also interesting to note that upon checking various metrics,
posts by Azerbaijanis, particularly the ones written in Azerbaijani,
were shared more on Facebook and Twitter compared to a significantly
fewer number of posts that I saw from Armenian bloggers, whether in
English, Armenian or Russian." Global Voices actually came under fire
for this investigation. One Armenian blogger posted, "Onnik, you are
a traitor, Dink was a traitor, I follow what you write and comment,
your existence brings shame upon the Armenian nation." This comment
raises an important question: why would some Armenians treat Dink as
a traitor?
Many Armenians who despised and ostracized Dink when he was alive now
seek to exploit his memory in ways totally at odds with everything he
represented and stood for. This is a difficult question, but I can
see several possible answers. First of all, as a Turkish-Armenian
journalist he tried to teach people the language of peace and on
several occasions he was strongly critical of the way the Armenian
diaspora pressured Western governments to officially recognize the
events of 1915 as "genocide." In addition, several years ago in a
public interview on Azerbaijani television, he declared his personal
view that Armenia must make serious compromises for the resolution of
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Secondly, his perspective was called "the
four way mirror," simultaneously sympathetic to the Armenian diaspora,
citizens of the Republic of Armenia, Turkish-Armenians, and Turks.
Most importantly, he suggested that conflict resolution could come
from the parties within the conflict, rather than from any third
party. In his words, "we are the doctors of our own pain."
Dink should not have been killed, no matter what he thought, said or
did. It is my firm belief that every caring, peace-seeking citizen
of Turkey, Armenia or Azerbaijan would grieve for his death as every
truly conscientious citizen of any of these nations would feel the
pain of Nagorno-Karabakh, Black January, or the Khojaly massacre.
Perhaps 20 years of living in displacement, however, has weakened the
once-strong faith among Azerbaijani internationally displaced persons
(IDP) that they will be returned to their homes in Karabakh soon. The
rhetorical exclamation today is, "Can you be an injured party for
twenty years?" We cannot look for answers indefinitely. The State
Commission of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Prisoners of War, Hostages
and Missing People has registered 4,046 missing people. If we take
each case, one by one, there will remain many, many untold stories.
Azerbaijan and Armenia are two countries that exist side by side,
but neither knows how long it will take for this mutual hatred to
dissipate. How long will it be before this all-consuming anger and
resentment can be transformed into a willingness to build the types
of friendships that were once so prevalent? Both sides can look to
Dink for an example of empathy and respect for humanity. As my final
words here, I would like to repeat Dink's counsel: "We should be the
doctors of our own pain, for no one from outside can heal as we can."
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
ZAUR SHIRIYEV
Today's Zaman
Jan 24 2012
Turkey
Last Friday, Azerbaijan marked the 22 year anniversary of Black
January. On Jan. 20, 1990, Soviet Special Forces, without declaring
a state of emergency, attacked Baku, killing innocent people.
Black January would come to represent Azerbaijan's independence
from the Soviet Union and serve as a springboard for similar
movements across the fifteen republics. This was a unique moment in
Azerbaijan's history that saw the people walk out unarmed against
tanks for independence. I would like to touch upon a different case,
which I discussed with Diba Nigar Göksel, the editor-in-chief of
Turkish Policy Quarterly.
Jan. 19 was another important anniversary: The death of Hrant Dink,
the Turkish-Armenian journalist, editor and human rights activist who
was murdered in İstanbul four years ago. In 2007 and in the years
following, Turkish activists protested under the slogan "We are all
Hrant, we are all Armenian."
When this happened, the response from a number of Azerbaijani voices
was to question why the 1992 Khojaly massacre had not incited such
protests and why, following the incident, the Turks never said,
"We are all Azerbaijanis." While solidarity with Azerbaijanis was
strong in the early '90s it seems to have faded, while the suffering
on the part of Azerbaijanis has not. This, in general, is a cause of
grief and resentment in Azerbaijan.
However, many of us see that associating the two issues is misled. A
few days ago a Turkish judge ruled that the Dink case did not have
enough evidence to determine whether the journalist's murder was
organized and the killer, who pleaded guilty, was sentenced to between
18 and 27 years in prison. The strong reaction to this verdict is not
about Armenians per se and certainly not a show of solidarity to the
forces that brought about pain and suffering to Azerbaijanis. Turks
are on the street for justice and accountability, for an innocent
man that touched on their sensibilities. We in Azerbaijan need to be
able to make this distinction. Supporting the rights of Armenians in
Turkey does not exonerate Yerevan's actions against Azerbaijan. Though
Armenians may not make this distinction and keep seeing themselves
as the only victim, we in Azerbaijan should not fall into this same
moral fallacy or trap.
It is also wrong to label Azerbaijanis as opposed to solidarity with
Dink. In general, Azerbaijan shared in the grief over the death of
an innocent journalist, regardless of his ethnic origin. I looked up
what people wrote about Dink, and found a Global Voices investigation:
"Azerbaijan: Bloggers remember Hrant Dink four years on." The majority
of the bloggers pay tribute to the injustice of Dink's death.
Indeed, the editor of Global Voices, Onnik Krikorian, reflected,
"It's also interesting to note that upon checking various metrics,
posts by Azerbaijanis, particularly the ones written in Azerbaijani,
were shared more on Facebook and Twitter compared to a significantly
fewer number of posts that I saw from Armenian bloggers, whether in
English, Armenian or Russian." Global Voices actually came under fire
for this investigation. One Armenian blogger posted, "Onnik, you are
a traitor, Dink was a traitor, I follow what you write and comment,
your existence brings shame upon the Armenian nation." This comment
raises an important question: why would some Armenians treat Dink as
a traitor?
Many Armenians who despised and ostracized Dink when he was alive now
seek to exploit his memory in ways totally at odds with everything he
represented and stood for. This is a difficult question, but I can
see several possible answers. First of all, as a Turkish-Armenian
journalist he tried to teach people the language of peace and on
several occasions he was strongly critical of the way the Armenian
diaspora pressured Western governments to officially recognize the
events of 1915 as "genocide." In addition, several years ago in a
public interview on Azerbaijani television, he declared his personal
view that Armenia must make serious compromises for the resolution of
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Secondly, his perspective was called "the
four way mirror," simultaneously sympathetic to the Armenian diaspora,
citizens of the Republic of Armenia, Turkish-Armenians, and Turks.
Most importantly, he suggested that conflict resolution could come
from the parties within the conflict, rather than from any third
party. In his words, "we are the doctors of our own pain."
Dink should not have been killed, no matter what he thought, said or
did. It is my firm belief that every caring, peace-seeking citizen
of Turkey, Armenia or Azerbaijan would grieve for his death as every
truly conscientious citizen of any of these nations would feel the
pain of Nagorno-Karabakh, Black January, or the Khojaly massacre.
Perhaps 20 years of living in displacement, however, has weakened the
once-strong faith among Azerbaijani internationally displaced persons
(IDP) that they will be returned to their homes in Karabakh soon. The
rhetorical exclamation today is, "Can you be an injured party for
twenty years?" We cannot look for answers indefinitely. The State
Commission of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Prisoners of War, Hostages
and Missing People has registered 4,046 missing people. If we take
each case, one by one, there will remain many, many untold stories.
Azerbaijan and Armenia are two countries that exist side by side,
but neither knows how long it will take for this mutual hatred to
dissipate. How long will it be before this all-consuming anger and
resentment can be transformed into a willingness to build the types
of friendships that were once so prevalent? Both sides can look to
Dink for an example of empathy and respect for humanity. As my final
words here, I would like to repeat Dink's counsel: "We should be the
doctors of our own pain, for no one from outside can heal as we can."
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress