Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ANKARA: Dink case and democratization

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ANKARA: Dink case and democratization

    Cihan News Agency (CNA) - Turkey
    January 19, 2013 Saturday


    Dink case and democratization



    ISTANBUL (CIHAN)- Six years have passed since Turkish-Armenian
    journalist and Agos newspaper editor-in-chief Hrant Dink left us, on
    Jan. 19, 2007. His departure from this world didn't take place
    naturally but was from an assassination that came slowly and visibly.
    Dink loved his country so much and was such a well-meaning person that
    those who knew him, i.e., us, nurtured the naïve conviction that no
    one would want to hurt him. He thought so too. During the last several
    years of his life, he was caught in an ever-narrowing trap.


    All hell broke loose when the Hürriyet daily published a news story
    about Dink's well-documented claim that Sabiha Gökçen, the adopted
    daughter of the founder of modern Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, and
    Turkey's first female pilot, was the daughter of an Armenian who died
    during the forced relocation of Armenians in 1915. The General Staff
    made a statement that directly targeted Dink. This statement referred
    to the "dangers of raising questions about national values." That day
    was a turning point. On the day after the General Staff's statement,
    some people filed with the prosecutor's office an official complaint
    about an article that Dink had written long ago. And, of course, the
    prosecutor brought a criminal case against Dink and this was the
    beginning of an adjudication process that made him the target of
    hatred. As you might recall, Dink was on trial on charges of
    "denigrating Turkishness" under the infamous Article 301 of the
    Turkish Penal Code (TCK). The number 301 was like a secret code, or a
    password. At that time, a person who was handled under Article 301
    would be considered as "finished off." Such people would have been
    advised to find a way to get out of the country.

    Like us, Dink didn't pay much attention to such advice. There were
    several reasons for this. First of all, Dink -- and we -- knew well
    that he didn't denigrate Turkishness in his article and believed that
    the court would quickly see this simple fact and acquit him. Since
    2002, Turkey has entered a process of rapid chance and reforms. The
    ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) has been taking
    decisive steps to make the country a full member of the European
    Union. Perhaps it was exactly for this reason why some groups wanted
    to kill Dink: to abort this process.

    In his contested article, Dink had told the Armenian diaspora that
    1915 had poisoned them and they should establish contact with the
    newly established Armenia instead of building their identity on this
    trauma and anti-Turkish sentiments. In doing so, he used a metaphor
    >From the Turkish national anthem to make his narration more evocative.
    We are talking about a sentence singled out from a series of articles.
    This sentence was taken out of context on purpose. Moreover, court
    experts reported that this sentence did not have any defamatory
    intentions.


    Despite these expert reports, the local court and the then Supreme
    Court of Appeals held that Dink was guilty. Crowds would gather in
    front of the court building before every hearing carrying placards
    reading, "You are the son of a Christian missionary and you are an
    enemy of Turks," and soon Dink started to be known as an anti-Turkish
    figure despite his efforts to repair his public image. Several
    prominent people who are currently on trial under a criminal case
    against Ergenekon were openly attacking him. They said that Dink was
    spreading anti-Turkish sentiments and were using nationalistic,
    provocative language while doing so. They were implying that Christian
    missionaries wanted to destabilize Turkey and convert Turks to
    Christianity. This missionary talk was continuously pumped to the
    general public in the context of the debate about Dink. Certain media
    outlets and certain columnists published extremely racist articles
    against Dink. They went crazy, particularly during an Armenian
    conference held for the first time in the history of Turkey in 2005 to
    discuss the 1915 incidents from all perspectives. Once again, hundreds
    of people gathered in front of Bilgi University, where this conference
    was held, and were again carrying placards that frequently referred to
    "missionaries" and "Armenians" in a libelous manner.

    Threats began to arrive

    During this process, Dink was receiving serious threats. He didn't
    care about the threats against his person, but the death threats were
    also targeting his family. He filed official complaints about these
    threats, but to no avail. He had taken personal measures. For
    instance, he was no longer using his own car. But the authorities had
    not provided him with protection. And although Agos was a dangerous
    place, no security measures had been taken.

    Of course, this was the side of the coin as we saw it at that time.
    After Dink was murdered on Jan. 19, 2007, many documents and pieces of
    information were destroyed, but the Dink family and their lawyers had
    presented many pieces of evidence to the court. Then we had a chance
    to see the other side of the coin. And it was truly horrific. Dink had
    been the victim of a murder that came about slowly, but most
    importantly, the state knew about it and had watched it happen. It was
    as if everyone except Dink knew that he would be killed in a few
    years.

    The notice about the first murder attempt came in 2005. The
    gendarmerie authorities in Trabzon were aware that the main suspect of
    the murder, Yasin Hayal, was on the move. Erhan Tuncel, an informant
    working for the police and gendarmerie, was also known to have played
    a key role in the murder. Hayal's brother-in-law, Coskun Igci, had
    told gendarmerie officials that Hayal was preparing to kill Dink in a
    provocative manner and had given money to Igci in order to buy a gun
    for Hayal. The Istanbul Police Department knew that Hayal had come to
    Istanbul to plan the murder. Many developments concerning Dink's
    murder were known to intelligence authorities.


    But nothing was done. Although a very simple measure could have
    prevented this murder, no one moved a finger and Dink was murdered in
    front of his newspaper on Jan. 19, 2007.

    A failure of justice

    The criminal case launched in connection with the murder was
    scandalous in all aspects. Everyone was sure that the blame would be
    placed on the young contract killers and effectively covered up. But
    for the sake of justice, Dink's lawyers and the general public never
    stopped getting more from the case. Perhaps this was a first in the
    history of the republic. For the first time, the general public did
    not quickly forget a trial but continued to pay close attention to
    this case. The media kept interest on this murder case alive. Despite
    this unceasing internal and external attention, the trial focused on
    19 defendants. Speaking to the Taraf daily, Fethiye Çetin, the lawyer
    for the Dink family, explained this as follows:

    "You know the criminal case was brought against 19 defendants. I then
    realized that all of my efforts to expand the case beyond these 19
    defendants failed. In a sense, we were not allowed to go beyond this
    framework. Lots of evidential documents and information were lost but
    coincidentally, new evidence was found on various occasions. Based on
    the new evidence, we demanded that the prosecutor and the court expand
    the scope of the case. But our demands were never taken seriously. It
    seemed as if the limits of the case had been predefined and any breach
    of them wouldn't be permitted.

    "This applied not only to the police and prosecutors but also to other
    public authorities as well. For instance, the process about the phone
    records at the Telecommunications Directorate [TIB] was like this. It
    said, 'There is nothing in the telephone records of the place of
    murder to show that any organization was involved in the murder.' But
    even our amateurish examinations could find a number of links. The
    prosecutor has been holding an investigation file for the last six
    years. This file was merged with the official complaints which we
    filed about certain public officials. But no concrete steps were taken
    over this file in the last six years. Now, we want the prosecutor to
    take those steps."

    Recently, a report sent by the National Intelligence Organization
    (MIT) to a parliamentary commission investigating coups and military
    interventions made mention of the plans of a "network that is above
    Ergenekon" which sought to overthrow the ruling AK Party. Realizing
    that they couldn't overthrow the AK Party through a traditional coup,
    the junta members used the Special Warfare Department (ÖHD) of the
    General Staff to plan an unconventional coup. Based on the six letters
    >From whistle-blowing military officers, MIT's report argued that
    Dink's murder had been planned and implemented by the ÖHD. Çetin, too,
    made a similar observation about the organization that killed Dink:

    "I was Dink's lawyer before his murder, so I knew the run-up to the
    murder very well. As far as I can see, there is multi-organizational
    network nested deep within the state apparatus. It is a powerful,
    well-organized and untouchable network. 'Is it Ergenekon?' I was asked
    many times. I believe that a more ghastly network than Ergenekon is at
    work. I can see this clearly when I look at the process of Dink's
    murder and the actors involved in it. Some of these actors are
    currently standing trial in the criminal case against Ergenekon, but
    there are also many actors at large. It is a network that has furrowed
    deeper into the state and is more tenuous. We can find it if we follow
    these trails. We are faced with a network which planned the whole
    process as though it was one of its operations, carefully planned and
    implemented the run-up to Dink's murder, advertised it as a rage of a
    handful of nationalist youths, meddled with the investigation and
    prosecution phases and destroyed the evidence."

    And justice is still not done after six years. Yet solving the Dink's
    murder means more than the fulfillment of a simple demand for justice.
    It is an opportunity for the democratization and cleaning up of the
    Turkish state. I hope politicians see this and lend support to the
    solution.




    From: A. Papazian
Working...
X