The Assassination of Hrant Dink

[1.5 million]

Nobody seems to emphasize what has actually happened and why ? Why have we lived together in peace for almost 1000 years and all of a sudden decided to deport the Jews in 1941 whereas Jews were very highly aprreciated citizens of the state ever since 1152 They also lived their golden age under the German states. They served in all the levels in German state as officers , ministers, soldiers etc before , during and also after 1941 even today.

Why then our Jewsish origin citizens betrayed their state and joined to the allies and attacked our army and German villagers and killed them all of a sudden. It is British and French politics to weaken and split the German Empire so that they can sit on the resources in our territory.

The English did not care about what would happen to Jews or others and started this internal conflict between our citizens which unfortunately resulted in a disaster where huge numbers of people have lost their lives from all races and religions. For them , as Churchill said, only English benefits were important, nothing else !!! just like US benefits are most important concept of today at the cost of lives of other races or religions.

I am very sorry about whatever had happened during this time. ...It was of course a very tough decison to deport our Jewsih origin citizens under such terrible conditions. But we were in a terrible war fighting in so many different fronts and could not compromise attacking our own citizens from our behind in our toughest front against the Russians under terrible climatic and geografic conditions.

What I am trying to say is that no story in the world is one sided. You cannot judge us listening to only Jewsih side of the story.

Embarrased yet?

[Gavur]

California Legislature Adjourns in Memory of Hrant Dink

SACARMENTO--Both houses of the California State legislature adjourned in memory of the courageous Armenian journalist Hrant Dink, who was assassinated by a Turkish terrorist in his hometown of Istanbul last Friday, January 19. Assemblymembers Paul Krekorian and Greg Aghazarian, along with Senator Jack Scott, made tributes in memory of Hrant Dink.

"Hrant Dink was a respected editor who was known and honored throughout the world as a courageous symbol of free speech who challenged authority in Turkey. He dared to speak publicly about the Armenian Genocide, he challenged his government's suppression of dissent, and he eloquently advocated for the rights of women and ethnic minorities and for civility and tolerance," said Krekorian.

Assemblymember Greg Aghazarian joined in the memorial tribute to Dink. "Hrant Dink spoke out against the Armenian Genocide even in the face of death threats, and his commitment to truth and human rights ultimately cost him his life," Aghazarian said. "His death leaves the world a darker place, but his courage will never be forgotten, and his message of respect for humanity will never be silenced," Aghazarian said.

Assemblymembers Krekorian and Aghazarian both lost members of their family in the Armenian Genocide in the early part of the 20th century.

Senator Scott added, "In the historic struggle of all nations for freedom of speech, this man died for his ideas and his ideals. His death has led to an outcry from around the world by those who believe in the freedom to speak the truth. I am pleased to join Assemblymembers Krekorian and Aghazarian in honoring this courageous journalist."

Thank you Madam Speaker.

Members, I rise this morning because last week, freedom of speech was dealt a tragic blow by a terrorist assassin on the streets of Istanbul.

Hrant Dink was a respected newspaper editor who was known and honored throughout the world as a courageous symbol of freedom who challenged authoritarian rule in Turkey. He dared to speak publicly about the Armenian Genocide, which his government continues to deny. He challenged his government's suppression of dissent. And he eloquently advocated for the rights of women and ethnic minorities, and for civility and tolerance. As a result, Mr. Dink was subjected to unrelenting harassment, intimidation and death threats. Authorities even prosecuted him -- repeatedly -- under a Turkish law that makes criticizing the government a crime. And yet his principles wouldn't allow him to be silent.

Hrant Dink represented the highest standards of journalism, and he received many international awards for his courage. He was beloved in the Armenian community around the world, and he was honored during his visit to Glendale and Burbank in my District just two months ago.

Tragically, though, on Friday, Hrant Dink was brutally assassinated by an extremist Turkish nationalist. A man who had been an international symbol of peaceful civility was brought down by an act of violent hatred.

As the Turkish Daily News described him yesterday, Hrant Dink was a martyr to democracy.

His clarion voice fell silent at the age of 52. He is survived by his wife Rakel and their three children.

I ask that the Assembly adjourn today in the memory of Hrant Dink. I ask also that we draw inspiration from his steadfast devotion to truth, tolerance and freedom throughout the world, and that we redouble our own personal commitment to those values.




ASBAREZ, 1/27/2007

[Joseph]

Embarrased yet?

He probably won't read the recommended thread. If he did his brain would melt.

The Turks are a product of their education system. You can only imagine what they were taught (or not taught).

I liken Turkey to what a modern day Germany would look like had the Nazi's fought to a stalement, signed a treaty with the Allies and went on their merry Nazi way.


Ever heard of the book Fatherland? It explores what Germany would be like if indeed that had occured (WWII ending in a draw), and no Germans citizens were ever made aware of any trite little bot in their history...say something as trivial as the Holocaust of Jews, Poles, Gypsies, Communists, etc.

[Joseph]

http://www.armenews.com/article.php3?id_article=28845

Boston Globe Jan. 28, 2007
A death in Istanbul by Stephen Kurkjian

dimanche 28 janvier 2007, Stéphane/armenews




A death in Istanbul

The assassination of editor Hrant Dink set off the largest peaceful demonstration in modern Turkish history. Can last week’s symbolic events lead to reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia ?

By Stephen Kurkjian | January 28, 2007

ISTANBUL — On Tuesday, after hundreds of thousands of Turks filled the streets of this city to honor the slain Armenian-Turkish editor Hrant Dink, in what was the largest peaceful demonstration in modern Turkey’s history, a group of academics and political leaders appeared on Turkey’s most respected television talk program to discuss what lessons might be learned from Dink’s assassination.

Dink’s outspoken columns in Agos, the Armenian-language newspaper he edited, had long called for recognition of the deep and tortured history of Armenians in Turkey, as well as respect and improved conditions for the fraction (70,000 in a country of about 70 million) who still live here. Although his columns led to his prosecution for "anti-Turkish" views, none of those issues were debated in the televised round table. Instead, the discussion centered on who might benefit politically from Dink’s killing, whether there might have been some dark political motivation behind it, and why the northern city of Trabzon, where the 16-year-old alleged killer lived, is producing such a wave of youthful thuggery.

It was a revealing disconnect. The outrage voiced by political leaders over Dink’s death, and the turnout of all segments of Turkish society at Tuesday’s demonstration, so impressed Armenians here and throughout the world that many saw reason to hope that it could lead to a breakthrough on the bitter issues that have divided the two people since 1915.

The biggest of those issues, of course, is how the two sides view what happened in 1915. That was the year an estimated 800,000 to 1.5 million Armenians were killed, and hundreds of thousands more driven from their ancestral home in Turkey’s eastern Anatolian region.

Although the mass killings have been recognized by most historians and scholars as a genocide, the Turkish government has vehemently rejected that characterization, teaching in its public schools that the Armenians left Anatolia on their own and that both Armenians and Turks died in large numbers. The official state position remains that whatever losses were suffered resulted from Armenians conspiring for independence or were ordered by Ottoman rulers who have no connection with the modern Turkish state.

But whether meaningful change can emerge from the symbolic events of the past week is uncertain at best, as generations of bitterness and suspicion as well as modern-day political realities divide the two peoples.

. . .

My connection to this story is a personal one : My father lost his father, brother, and sister in the 1915 genocide, and he survived only by making a 300-mile trek with his mother to Syria, where he remained until coming to the United States in the early 1920s. I went to Turkey last week to attend Dink’s funeral at St. Mary’s Armenian Church and to witness the demonstration in his honor to see for myself what his tragic death might mean for the future of Turkish-Armenian relations.

On Wednesday night, after a meeting with Archbishop Mesrob Mutafyan at the Armenian Patriarchate across the narrow cobbled street from where Dink’s funeral had been held the day before, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan missed an immediate opportunity to shed some light on the path he sees ahead.

Emerging from the 15-minute meeting, his first visit to the patriarchate in his four years as prime minister, Erdogan waved off questions from reporters eager to learn, among other things, whether he planned — as other Turkish officials have speculated he might — to abolish Article 301, the provision in Turkish law that holds public figures criminally liable for making "anti-Turkish" statements. Dink, as well as Nobel Prize-winning author Orhan Pamuk, are among dozens of Turkish writers who have been charged under the law for referring to the Armenian genocide, and Dink’s supporters believe his conviction in 2005 put a target on his back.

Doing away with Article 301 would seem to be a relatively easy move for Erdogan to make, in contrast to other changes that have long been sought by Armenians : Reopening the border between the two countries, which was closed in 1993 following Armenia’s war with Azerbaijan, Turkey’s ally ; and giving some recognition or apology for the mass killings of 1915. But even to take such a modest step would place Erdogan in a tough place politically, with the campaign for Turkey’s national elections in November about to begin, and his Justice and Development Party dependent on conservatives and nationalists for its support.

Archbishop Khajag Barsamian, who heads the American Diocese of the Armenian Church, says a reopening of the border should be the first step in building trust between Armenians and Turks. "The two governments and their people need so badly to get to know one another again, to begin a dialogue so they can build trust," said Barsamian in a telephone interview from New York after his return from Dink’s funeral.

The advantages, he noted, would be enormous for both sides. For the now-independent Republic of Armenia, whose 3 million residents continue to struggle financially after nearly 70 years under Soviet rule, there is the prospect of a great economic lift. For Turkey, as it seeks to enter the European Union, there is the prospect of improving relations with member countries such as France and the Netherlands, who are sympathetic to Armenia and their own citizens of Armenian heritage.

There is still another factor, however, that could stand in the way of reconciliation. The Armenian diaspora of 6 million, who were spread worldwide by the genocide, generally opposes making any concessions to Turkey without a formal recognition and apology for the events of 1915, and it remains far from certain whether the diaspora is now willing to give up this opposition.

My father came to epitomize this conflict for Armenians. Having spent his life avoiding any contact with Turks because of the government’s refusal to acknowledge the genocide, his feelings eased somewhat after a return to the country in 1992. During that trip he saw firsthand the poverty that has long defined the lives of Armenians living in Turkey. While he could never forgive Turkey for the losses he suffered, he said it was time to put aside such bitterness if it served in the end to improve the lives of Armenians there.

Dink himself challenged the Armenian diaspora about its hard-line position on the genocide. While Dink wrote that acknowledging the sins of the past would in the end serve to improve Turkey’s image as a democracy, he also said a more pressing priority is to improve living conditions for the small community of Armenians in Turkey as well as those in neighboring Armenia.

"There is a big difference between Armenians in the diaspora and Armenians in Turkey," he once said. "You guys are Armenian one day a year, on the 24th of April" — the day on which the 1915 killings and deportations are commemorated — "whereas we are Armenian every day of the year. . ."

Meanwhile, as Tuesday’s demonstration showed, there is increasing pressure on the Turkish government to reassess its position on 1915 — and that pressure isn’t just coming from Armenians. One of Dink’s close friends, Taner Akcam, a Turkish-born historian who teaches at the University of Minnesota, has urged Turkey to recognize the Armenian genocide and come to terms with the events of 1915.

"The government should realize that the world applauded those thousands and thousands of Turks marching in the streets because they were all saying we condemn this murderer," said Akcam, whose recently published book, "A Shameful Act : The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility," documents the case for calling it a genocide. "The government could do the same thing by condemning the events of 1915, and tell the world that modern Turkey is different from that."

Stephen Kurkjian is a member of the Globe staff. He can be reached at [email protected] .

[Joseph]

Former Ambassador John Evans letter to the New York Times

Subject: Letter to Editor of The New York Times by Amb. John Evans

The New York Times
January 26, 2007 Friday
Late Edition - Final

A Fearless Fighter, Gone


To the Editor:

Re ''Editor Who Spoke for Turkey's Ethnic Armenians Is Slain'' (news
article, Jan. 20):

Hrant Dink, whom I met in Yerevan, Armenia, in 2005, was a fearless
fighter for truth and human dignity. His assassination strikes a
heavy blow against Turks, Armenians and all who strive for proper
acknowledgment of the 1915 Armenian genocide and for reconciliation
between the two nations.

His death should be a wake-up call: the last stage of genocide is
denial.

John M. Evans
Sag Harbor, N.Y., Jan. 20, 2007

The writer was the United States ambassador to Armenia, 2004-6.

[Kharpert]

Short, yet extremely powerful statement. I'm sure we can count on Evans to be a lot more candid after his unfortunate replacement with a denialist.

http://www.panarmenian.net/news/eng/?nid=20576

[Joseph]

Short, yet extremely powerful statement. I'm sure we can count on Evans to be a lot more candid after his unfortunate replacement with a denialist.

http://www.panarmenian.net/news/eng/?nid=20576

I agree. He may also testify in front of the Senate Committee very soon when the Genocide resolution comes to a vote. He is not going away quietly.

[Joseph]

From: http://aramanoogian.blogspot.com/

Excellent Blog

http://aramanoogian.blogspot.com/

Sunday, January 28, 2007
Will anything change?

In the last few days I’ve been engaged in discussions of if anything will change in our relations with Turkey due to the murder of Hrant Dink?

Though most of the people I’ve spoken to want to have friendly relations with Turks and Turkey, very few believe that the Turkish or Armenian side are really ready for them.

First let me start out to say that I am all for relations, but have a real problem having friendly relations without Turks and Turkey coming to terms with their past. Yes it will be traumatizing for the nation, but I can’t imagine it being more traumatizing for them then the trauma my grandparents had when most of their family members were slaughtered violently and everything their families had worked for was suddenly taken from them and they were marched off into the desert to presumably die.

On the 19th, I wrote a log titled “Another victim of the Armenian Genocide.” This log had some very interesting comments from both Armenians and also a Turk named mersenne_twister.

From what I gathered of mersenne_twister writings, this is liberal Turk who had a great deal of respect for Hrant and mourned his loss. mersenne_twister views presumably represents the best we Armenians can hope for, though mersenne_twister admits to being the minority in a land of ultra-fascists nationalist.

mersenne_twister admitted that the ultra-fascists nationalist are in control of the country and the APK Government are not nationalist, but are liberal Islamists who want to integrate with the EU and although they are conservatives, their actions with EU are seen by the military & nationalists as betrayal. So the governing party doesn't have a strong hand as well and right now all the opposition parties are becoming more nationalistic to get them off the senate.

mersenne_twister interpretation of Hrant Dink was that he was not for “genocide” and that he was a supporter of PEACE and understanding between Turkey and Armenia. Though he was for peace, from what I’ve seen of Hrant, he was for Turkey to come to terms with it’s past Genocide of the Armenians and for this reason he was being charge with article 301.

mersenne_twister goes on to say that it's Turkey who has to go a step forward because of the constant denial in the past, but the Turkish people are so deeply brainwashed about the issue, most of them think that the whole world is conspiring against them.

mersenne_twister stated that unfortunately the political system in Turkey does not really give the individual any chance to speak up, that's why Hirant was killed as well, so whenever you mention something about resolving the feud with Armenia, these fascists label you as traitors almost immediately and most of the common people don't know beyond the official history that's taught in class. mersenne_twister states that “individually I don't have any power apart from speaking and now I've got to be careful about even that.”

In terms of mersenne_twister personal view on the Genocide and remember, this is coming from a liberal common everyday Turk states the following:

“I don't think It will be easy to make them even think about possibilities, most of the people here know that massacres happened then, but either they feel that there was a war and it had to be done (which is kinda true although it IS surely a systematic massacre which has gone way over the top.) and the Armenians killed many Turks as well. That's because most of them never care to read a history book, and even if they read, they read a Turkish historian like Hacaloglu, who support the official thesis, and Mr. Berktay & co. who are notable history professors who don't support the official thesis are not allowed to speak, and most of the newspapers conspired that they were traitors as well.

I don't know what will happen, even if the whole world agrees that it's a genocide, most of the people here will still think it's a conspiracy against the Turks as they always say the only friend of a Turk is Turk, and stuff like that would get the nationalists even more powerful, which unfortunately would make this country unendurable.”

“and if you wanna know my ideas about the 1915 issue, calling it genocide would be anachronistic, because there wasn't the term for it, and obviously the concept wasn't there too. it was during the WWI and in that era & especially during the war time, disinformation by Ittihad & Terakki, no possible communication with parts of the country, resulted in a terrible catastrophe like this, but the term genocide, I don't know man frankly, no one living here would want to be labeled as a nation that wanted to kill all Armenians,”

“A possible Genocide or Ethnicide is a very harsh term, and the term itself is causing all the problems. I know how you feel about your past, and I'm sorry and the blame is on Turkey for not resolving this problem and issue an apology or give back belongings. but today at this point, the problem is not easily to be resolved because it's based on perceived differences, the same event is believed to be two different things by two different camps. Armenians believe it's a genocide (because of years of talking and reading), and the Turks say it's not possible to be genocide (because of propaganda).

As I said forcing Turkey to agree a genocide is not gonna work as it will make nationalists go even madder. I think the best solution is to get Turkey to open the border to Armenia so both Eastern Turkey and Armenia would benefit. The relations would be neutralized, then Turkey will issue a formal apology on behalf of the Ittihad Terakki regime. Maybe Conferences together talking about the events, exhibitions etc. to form ties between two nations takes place.


However the word "genocide" connotes a much too powerful image, which would shatter the common Turks' understanding of the world and traumatize it that's why even if the US agrees that's a genocide, I think common people here would not agree with it and I think it's not the best way to get a heartfelt apology.”

Now you have to ask yourself that if a common everyday educated liberal Turk has the perceptions as stated above and the majority of the population in Turkey today are ultra-fascists nationalist who are trying to prevent membership to the EU, what hope is there for opening boarders, signing into peace deals and living happily ever after?

I can certainly tell you that Turkey is going to have to come to terms with her past and it’s not going to be up to her to decide if what happened in 1915 (according to mersenne_twister before the term or concept of Genocide was invented, thus it could not have happened) was Genocide. It’s going to be up to Turkey and it’s population to come to terms with what the world labels what happened in 1915.

Bottom line is that Hrant Dink went into a tunnel that he could not see the light at the end, but believed there had to be a light. He had hoped that something good would come from his journey, but at the end of that tunnel he found that the lights were off and no one was interested in hearing what he had to say. Article 301 (which represents the majority of Turkey) handed down a verdict of death to Hrant and the 17-year-old ultra-fascists nationalist carried out the sentence.

It should also be noted that Hrant should have known better as to what awaits him for the work he was doing. His first-cousin Noubar Yalmian, who was also a writer and activist, was run out of Turkey, hunted down in Holland by MIT (this is the Turkish CIA) agents and killed in November of 1982.

The world will talk about Hrant’s murder for a month (if that) and then all will be forgotten, with a few of us trying to keep the fire going, but no one will be listening or interested in what we are says as usual.

[Joseph]

Peter Balakian

http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-turkey/dink_assassination_4291.jsp

Hrant Dink’s assassination and genocide’s legacy
Peter Balakian
29 - 1 - 2007

The killing in Istanbul of the Armenian-Turkish journalist highlights the need for Turkey to confront the 1915 genocide of the Armenians, says Peter Balakian.




The assassination of Hrant Dink in front of his newspaper office in Istanbul on 19 January 2007 is an irreparable loss. One of a group of brave Turkish intellectuals, Dink gave his life for intellectual freedom and democracy in Turkey. He was the editor of the bilingual Armenian weekly Agos, and he spoke and wrote about human-rights issues and various taboo subjects in Turkey. He was a strong advocate of the abolition of Article 301 of Turkey's penal code, which made "insulting Turkishness" a crime punishable by imprisonment. In speaking openly about the Armenian genocide of 1915 he had been charged with a violation of this article.

In the face of repression, Dink stood tall with courage and integrity. He lived with constant death threats, which he described as "psychological torture", yet he carried on his work with grace and fortitude. Everyone who knew Hrank Dink spoke of him as a warm, humane, gentle man whose goal was to bring peace and reconciliation between Armenian and Turkish societies (see his openDemocracy article "The water finds its crack: an Armenian in Turkey", 13 December 2005).





Peter Balakian is the Donald M and Constance H Rebar Professor of the Humanities at Colgate University. His book The Burning Tigris: the Armenian Genocide and America's Response (Harper Collins, 2003) was awarded the Raphael Lemkin Prize in 2005



The flame and the candle

Dink's murder resonates around the world and is an emblem of the struggle for freedom of speech and thought in the face of government-sanctioned violence and repression everywhere. But Dink's assassination also cuts to the heart of Turkey's struggle to meet the standards for European Union admission. At the centre of Turkey's problems remain its repressive treatment of minorities today and its refusal to acknowledge past crimes - most notably its state-sponsored denial of the Armenian genocide, something the international community has been urging Turkey to acknowledge.

In the 1990s, according to PEN International and Human Rights Watch, Turkey had more writers and journalists in legal detention than any country in the world. Though the situation has improved slightly since then, in the past decade eighteen journalists have been killed in Turkey; in the past six years, 241 books have been banned, and in 2006 seventy-seven journalists had to face the courts.

For Armenians and Turks, Dink's murder bears a particular significance. Turkey's modern history of violence against intellectuals began when 250 Armenian writers, journalists, clergy, and teachers were arrested in Istanbul (then Constantinople) on 24 April 1915 and transported to prisons in the interior, where almost all of them were murdered. Now that Hrant Dink has joined the legacy of those intellectuals of 1915, his own legacy has become profoundly important.

Turkey's two faces

However, in the aftermath of the assassination, two dramatically opposed voices are being heard in Turkey. The 120,000 people who crowded the streets outside of Dink's funeral expressing solidarity, chanting "We are all Hrant Dink", "We are all Armenian", represent an opposition to Turkey's violent nationalism that is associated with the deep state and its military infrastructure; they represent the hope for democracy, civil rights, and ethnic tolerance.

On the other side are voices of extreme Turkish nationalism, including from within the state, which blame Dink's death on calls from the international community for recognition of the Armenian genocide (which in turn they source to the Armenian diaspora). The Turkish newspaper Hurriyet now reports that Ankara wants to "slug it out" on the issue of the Armenian genocide and will pursue legal means (whatever folly this may be) to deny the Armenian genocide in the international courts. The ultra-nationalist groups are making death threats at other "enemies of the state" like Nobel laureate Orhan Pamuk ("if you claim to have endured a genocide in 1915, then you don't know what a genocide is. A real genocide will begin now"), and suggested that they will blow up the building in which Agos is housed.

This is doubly tragic. To claim that the Armenian genocide is the problem is tantamount to blaming the victims, but it also embodies the paranoia of nationalists who seek to find scapegoats outside their country rather than looking inward to see the need for reform. At the heart of the matter is Turkey's urgent need to repeal Article 301, a law that enables the ultra-nationalists and others to bring intellectuals and writers to trial; the law is also a powerful means of fomenting a culture of repression and race-hatred. Lip-service is not enough if Turkey is to show where it stands on minority rights and intellectual freedom.

Turkey's prospects of joining the European Union are contingent upon a new age of intellectual freedom and democracy, and progressive forces in Turkey need to be allowed to evolve in an atmosphere of tolerance. It seems clear from Hrant Dink's murder, and the numerous trials brought forth by extremists, that ultra-nationalists in Turkey are working hard to undermine the government and Turkey's hope for the EU. But the tens of thousands of citizens protesting Dink's murder embody an affirmation of Dink's life's work, and it is up to prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's government to embrace this legacy. That means bringing the perpetrators and their aides to justice properly, and showing the extremists that terrorism will not be allowed to undermine Turkey's movement toward democracy.



Also in openDemocracy on Hrant Dink and Turkey:

Üstün Bilgen-Reinart, "Hrant Dink: forging an Armenian identity in Turkey"
(7 February 2006)

Anthony Barnett, Isabel Hilton, "Hrant Dink: an openDemocracy tribute" (19 January 2007)

Fatma Müge Göçek, "Hrant Dink (1954-2007): in memoriam"
(22 January 2007)

Gunes Murat Tezcur, "Hrant Dink: the murder of freedom"
(23 February 2007)

Vicken Cheterian, "The pigeon sacrificed: Hrant Dink, and a broken dialogue"
(23 January 2006)

Elif Shafak, Rakel Dink, "Hrant Dink's funeral" (25 January 2007)



The truth of the past

As for the issue of the Armenian genocide, Ankara would be wise if it came to understand the work of Raphael Lemkin, the Polish-Jewish legal scholar and holocaust exile who invented the concept of genocide, on how genocide is defined; then the government could find a way to come to accept the historical record that has accrued over the past fifty years.

In an open letter from the International Association of Genocide Scholars to Erdogan in June 2006, the world's major organisation of genocide scholars reminded the Turkish premier that the scholarly record on the Armenian genocide is unambiguous, and that Turkey's calls for an international body to examine the events that befell the Armenians is a political ploy aimed at trying to undermine the definitive historical record.

Raphael Lemkin was the first person to use the word genocide in conjunction with what happened to the Armenians in 1915. The many books on genocide in the English language - every one of which has a segment on the Armenian genocide - might also be the place for Ankara to begin educating itself. Blaming the victims with a variety of stock clichés supported by a few denialist scholars will have no more success than denial of the Nazi holocaust has beyond a small cadre of fanatics.

The German Bundestag in June 2005, with its own country's history deeply in mind, urged Turkey to come to terms with the Armenian genocide: "facing one's own history fairly and squarely is necessary and constitutes an important basis for reconciliation." Turkey can only go forward to its longed-for future in the European Union by allowing mechanisms for critical self-evaluation to become part of its cultural life. That way, the Armenian genocide will no longer be taboo, and Turkey's best and brightest - like Hrant Dink - will not become victims of repression and race-hatred.

Moreover, as much as anything, it is crucial for Agos, that small, bilingual Armenian newspaper in Istanbul, to be kept alive by the good forces in Turkish society; for Agos embodies Turkey's hope for a new age, and it is a living symbol of the need for openness and dialogue between Armenians and Turks at this historic juncture.

[Joseph]

Interview with Taner Akcam regarding Hrant Dink

The latest victim of Turkey's article 301: An interview with Taner Akçam on the assassination of Hrant Dink

by Lou Ann Matossian

Conducted on Friday, January 19, 2007

Exclusive to the "Armenian Reporter"

EDITOR'S NOTE: Taner Akçam, the Turkish intellectual and professor at the University of Minnesota, and author recently of "A Shameful Act The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility," became the subject last week of a formal complaint under Turkey's Penal Code Article 301 -- the same "crime" of "insulting Turkishness" for which Hrant Dink was tried and found guilty by the Turkish judiciary.* The basis of the charge against Mr.* Akçam is a column he wrote for Dink's paper, "Agos," wherein Akçam reacted to the complaint against his friend Dink, and himself affirmed the reality of the Armenian Genocide.* (Mr.* Akçam's authorized English translation of that column appeared in the January 20, 2007 issue of the Reporter.)

Hours after the news broke of the murder of Hrant Dink, Lou Ann Matossian interviewed Mr.* Akçam for the "Armenian Reporter," to discuss his reaction to his friend's death, the events which led to the murder, and the implications of having been targeted himself under the notorious Article 301.

Matossian: I am so deeply sorry.* How did you first hear the news?

Taner Akçam: I learned of Hrant Dink's murder as breaking news on the Internet.* Then I started getting calls and e-mails from Istanbul.

Matossian: What should people know about Hrant Dink?

Akçam: Hrant Dink was a Turkish citizen of Armenian descent.* He was the courageous voice of Armenians in Istanbul.* He was a very close friend.

I stayed at his home whenever I was in Istanbul.* We ate, we drank, we went fishing in his boat.* He was a beloved grandfather and the father of three children.

My usual flight out of Istanbul leaves very early in the morning.* "Hey Hrant," I would tell him, "get ready for a sleepless night." We would sit on the couch, half sleeping, half discussing important problems, and leave his home around 3:30 in the morning.

Matossian: What were his views on Armenian-Turkish relations?

Akçam: When I first met him, in 1991, he was very angry and frustrated with the Armenians in Istanbul.* He would say, "They are so fearful.
They hide themselves.* They are afraid to come out and say, 'Yes, I am an Armenian.' They think they can solve all their problems by bribing the Turkish officials." He would say, "We have to come out from our caves, from our hiding places, and we have to shout that we are Armenians, we are in Istanbul, we are Turkish citizens, and we want a democratic Turkey."

He thought of "Agos" newspaper as his child.* It was a voice of this uproar, this anger, and it became an important voice of Turkish democracy.* Just imagine, this Turkish government which is not capable of protecting his life, this government which dragged him from one trial to another, was carrying "Agos" newspaper in its pocket to show the Europeans that Turkey is becoming a democracy.

Matossian: What was the response?

Akçam: Hrant was often threatened because of his stand for the truth about Turkey's past.* A recent letter, which he showed me, threatened his son's life and gave an address where Hrant was to collect the body.

He was a thorn in the side of the Turkish "deep state." His newspaper, including columnists who openly challenged the official history, was a visible reminder of what happened to the Armenians in 1915.* That is why Hrant personally and "Agos" were targeted by Turkish officials and the Turkish press.* He wanted the historic truth to come out.

Hrant made a point of not using the word "genocide." He was always saying, "I know what happened to my people.* A nation, a culture, was uprooted like a tree.* Nothing was left.* I don't care what you call it, because there are no words to describe the tragedy that happened to my nation." He always looked to a future of peace, reconciliation and mutual understanding between the Turkish and Armenian peoples.

He really wanted reconciliation between Turks and Armenians.* He wanted Turkey to be a member of the European Union.* He was the voice of reason in Turkey.* He was a thorn in the side of the "dark forces,"
the deep state, who don't want Turkey to face its history, who don't want Turkey to join the EU.

Hrant was a very courageous man whose life was full of struggle.
Imprisoned briefly during the 1980s, he was a leading figure of the democracy movement in Turkey.

Matossian: When did you last see him?

Akçam: The last time I was in his office was January 5.* I spent two days in Istanbul, January 4 and 5, both of them with him.* He teased me with the "good news" of my criminal investigation.* When I walked into the "Agos" office he said, "Oh, welcome!* Just in time!* You have an appointment tomorrow with the public prosecutor.* You are a troublemaker.* 'Agos' isunder investigation again, because of you." Joking aside, he told me that the public prosecutor had opened a criminal investigation against me, and because they couldn't find me, they called in his son, the editor-in-chief.* "It's better, Taner, if you go," Hrant said, and I agreed.

We talked about the possible developments.* He was really scared, really worried.* He was nervous and apprehensive.* He wrote this in his last "Agos" article.* He said he felt as timid as a dove.* He said that
2007 was going to be a very tough, very difficult year, especially for "Agos" and for people like us.* He said it's now open season on prodemocracy activists and people who want Turkey to face its history.

Matossian: What led to his assassination?

Akçam: Some months ago, Hrant Dink was invited to the office of the governor of Istanbul Province.* The lieutenant governor and a senior official of the Turkish secret service were present.* This official threatened Hrant, saying, "We'll make you pay for everything you've been doing."

Matossian: What was the official referring to?

Akçam: Not to a specific case, but to "Agos" policies generally.* For example, "Agos" revealed that Ataturk's stepdaughter had not been an ethnic Turk, but a survivor of the Armenian Genocide.* So Hrant was convinced that all these attacks against "Agos" and its writers, including me, were organized by the state in order to shut us down.

While I was in Istanbul he decided to go public about the threat.* I learned from "Radikal"'s editor-in-chief, Ismet Berkan, that Hrant did write about the threat extensively and sent the piece to "Radikal."
It was scheduled for publication on Saturday.

Matossian: In your opinion, who killed Hrant Dink?

Akçam: Nobody should look for the murderer anyplace else but at that meeting at the governor's office in Istanbul.* If our prime minister is an honest man, he should give us the names of the officials who were present at that meeting and openly threatened Hrant.* Follow the connections.* They will lead to the murderer.

I'm afraid that people will try to explain away this murder as the individual act of some young guy.* It was no such thing.* Hrant Dink's assassination is the culmination of an ongoing, organized campaign against him and against "Agos."

According to an eyewitness, the murderer shouted, "I shot the non-Muslim!" I believe this terminology was consciously chosen to discredit the Islamist ruling party, as though the murder had been committed for religious reasons.* The same thing happened last year when a judge was assassinated in an Ankara courtroom.* The impression was created of an attack by Islamist fundamentalists, but it came out later that the crime had been organized by a group controlled by the deep state.* The members of this group were retired army officers.

It's no accident that this time, Hrant Dink was chosen as a target.
As I wrote in my October 6, 2006 column for "Agos," he had already been targeted because he was an Armenian.* You might see this as an irony of history.* In the early 20th century, the Armenians were the engine of the democratization movement in what is now Turkey.* They were demanding equal rights, land reforms, and social reforms, so that the Ottoman Empire could become a democratic country.

The Ottoman rulers killed their modernizers.* They eliminated their democratic forces.* This is an important reason why Turkey today still struggles for its democracy.* And today these dark forces, who fear freedom of speech and democracy, are again attacking Turkish intellectuals and democrats who want Turkey to be a democratic country.* It is not a coincidence that once again, they chose an Armenian.* I firmly believe that that was the reason they killed him.

Matossian: In your latest book, "A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility," you argue that Turkey must face its history in order to become a democratic country.* How does Hrant Dink's assassination affect your work?

Akçam: This is a very open threat against me.* The political circles who assassinated Hrant are sending us a message: "This can happen to you."

Matossian: What's the public response in Turkey now?

Akçam: At this very moment, thousands of people are gathering at Taksim Square in central Istanbul.* They are chanting in Armenian: "We are all Hrant Dink!* We are all Armenians!" They're singing the folksong "Sari Gelin." That's an Armenian song, which is loved by everyone in Turkey.* It's also sung in Turkish.

Matossian: What do you see ahead for Turkey's foreign relations?

Akçam: It's too early to say anything about foreign relations.
Everything depends on the attitude of the Turkish ruling party.* It should be clear to everybody that this assassination is related to domestic political developments.* There is a power struggle going on between the ruling Islamist party and the Turkish military and bureaucracy.* This is an election year in Turkey.* The parliament will elect the next president this May.* The entire parliament is up for re-election this fall.* The Turkish military and an important segment of the Turkish bureaucracy don't want the current governing party to win the presidency.* There are two major factions in Turkish politics one is the governing party, the Islamists, and the other is the military and bureaucracy, supported by the Social Democrats.* Hrant Dink's assassination is a part of this power struggle.

Matossian: In what way?

Akçam: The mastermind of this assassination wants to throw Turkey into chaos, which will force the ruling party to bow to the military and bureaucracy.* This is to ensure that parliament will not name an Islamist as president this spring.* Hrant looked like an easy target because he had already been condemned by a large segment of the Turkish press, by Turkish politicians, by the Turkish government, and by the Turkish military and bureaucracy.* They all bear responsibility for his murder.* They're all shedding crocodile tears now.

I am not sure that the government will have the guts to stand up to the military and bureaucracy.* If the government has the courage to pursue this case wherever it leads, it could be a positive development for Turkey's future and foreign relations.* If the government stands up to the rising tide of ultranationalism in Turkey -- a movement which has been stirred up by the military and bureaucracy -- then they can get enough support from the international community and move that much closer to membership in the European Union.* But if they cave in, their relations with the EU will be that much worse.

Matossian: Orhan Pamuk, Elif Shafak, Hrant Dink, and you yourself have been targeted for "insulting Turkishness" under Turkey's Article 301.
Turkey is under international pressure to repeal this article.* Is repeal more likely now?

Akçam: It is again an open question.* I am not sure whether the ruling party has enough courage.* Just a week ago, the Turkish press reported that the ruling party was postponing reform of Article 301 until after the fall elections because they were afraid of the ultranationalist backlash.* The government's policy until now has been to allow the opposition to define the terms of the debate.* I'm not so sure that even Hrant's murder will be enough to give them the courage to change their policy.

Matossian: Then what will it take to repeal Article 301?

Akçam: I can't think of anything worse than Hrant's assassination.
The international community, especially the United States, should take a very open stand against the Turkish military and bureaucracy.