AB Haber, Belgium
EU-Turkey News Network
Feb 9 2007

Report on the mission to Istanbul of 18 to 19 January 2007 to
represent the European Parliament at the Funeral Mass for the
Armenian journalist Hrant Dink

Rapporteur: Joost Lagendijk

Hrant Dink, publisher and editor-in-chief of the Turkish-Armenian
weekly newspaper Agos, published in Istanbul, was shot in front of
his newspaper’s offices on Friday, 19 January 2007. He died at the
scene from three gunshot wounds to the head. The news spread across
the world within minutes and there was a great sense of outrage
within Turkey and in Europe as a whole. The murderer was a
17-year-old youth from ultra-nationalist circles in the city of
Trabzon. Although those who gave the assassination order have since
been arrested, many questions surrounding this crime remain
unanswered. As well as covering the Mass and visits to the family and
to the editorial staff of the Agos newspaper, this report examines
the background to the crime as well as the significance of Hrant
Dink’s work in the context of efforts to improve relations between
Armenia and Turkey. Let us begin, however, with a brief biography of
Hrant Dink:

Hrant Dink

Hrant Dink was born into an Armenian family from the town of Malayta
in eastern Turkey. The Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople, Mesrob
II, described his development and personality in the following words:

‘His life of struggle and hardship made Hrant Dink a courageous,
sensitive and resolute person. These qualities enabled him to become
an advocate and a symbol of justice, freedom of belief and human
rights. He stood up for his opinions and his ideas without fear of
possible consequences. He was equally resolute in taking action when
he was convinced that action was needed.

Hrant had the same affinity with his native country as he had with
his ethnic roots. He loved his birthplace, his country and its people
without rejecting the values of his origins. His courage reflected
his Anatolian attitude to people – full of love, making no
distinction on the basis of religion, race or origin. In this, Hrant
followed God’s commandment.’

With these words, Patriarch Mesrob II expressed the joy he felt when,
calling on Mrs Dink to express his condolences, he learned that Hrant
believed in Jesus and honoured him as the Saviour. The fact that the
Patriarch did not discover until after Hrant Dink’s death that this
prominent member of his small community had been a Christian believer
says a great deal about Hrant’s work in Turkey. With his liberal
left-wing convictions, he was not only on the side of the opposition
in national politics but he also belonged to the opposition within
the small Armenian community, which is dominated by the Armenian
Apostolic Church. He had been especially critical of the leaders of
the community for not being vociferous enough in condemning the
numerous instances of discrimination against minorities in general
and against the Armenian community in particular. Nevertheless, or
perhaps precisely because of that criticism and that courage, he was
extremely popular within his community.

Hrant Dink, whose journalism was honoured with numerous awards, had
also established a firm place within Turkish society. Agos, the
newspaper he published – which, unlike other Armenian newspapers,
also appears in Turkish – was held in high regard by its Turkish
readers too. His foremost concerns were Turkish-Armenian dialogue and
rapprochement, and the promotion of relations between Turkey and
Armenia.

Hrant firmly believed that the past can only be addressed and
understood where there are prospects of future relations. Armenia’s
painful history exercised his mind no less than the Armenian
Diaspora. But he took a different, and perhaps more effective,
approach to the debate on the Armenian genocide of 1915 than is
customary in Turkey. In his speeches and writings, he tried to avoid
the term ‘genocide’. He informed his readers and listeners,
describing the events of 1915, but left the definition to them and
invited them to find the appropriate term.

Hrant was also loved by his Turkish friends because, like many other
critical journalists in that country, he was persecuted on account of
his work. He was the subject of several criminal trials. He was
sentenced to six months in prison under Article 301 of the Criminal
Code for ‘denigration of Turkishness’. His last newspaper article
contained a very tactful analysis of the reasons why charges against
‘Turkish’ writers such as Orhan Pamuk and Elif Þafak had been dropped
whereas he had been convicted. He could rebel like nobody else
against exclusion and injustice without bowing to anyone or indeed
taking pleasure in his resistance. His conviction hurt him not only
because he considered it unjust but also because he felt it as an
affront to his deeply held anti-racist convictions. This made him a
unique journalist in Turkey, a much-loved and respected figure. His
death is undoubtedly a great loss to Turkey and to the Armenian
community around the world.

The funeral – a political event

The funeral of Hrant Dink turned into one of the largest ever mass
demonstrations in the city of Istanbul. Although it was expected that
thousands would come to pay their last respects to Hrant Dink, not
even the greatest of optimists could have foreseen the vast sea of
more than a hundred thousand people. At 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 23
January, when we[1] arrived in the boulevard in front of the Agos
offices, thousands of people had already gathered for the
demonstration, which was due to begin in one hour’s time. As we
waited for the start of the demonstration, which began with a speech
from Hrant Dink’s widow in the form of a letter, entitled Sevgilim
(‘My Beloved’),[2] floods of people poured into the street in front
of the Agos offices from all parts of the city. Mrs Dink’s speech, a
declaration of love, not only moved the listening crowds to profound
grief but also contained an appeal to refrain from the chanting of
slogans and to accompany Hrant in silence on his final journey. This
wish was respected. It was not easy to take in this mass of
participants, young and old, who seemed to come from all strata of
society. It was as if we were in the midst of a sea and could only
make out waves of people. It was impossible to see where the crowds
began or ended.

After a few kilometres the family and guests left the demonstration
to attend the Funeral Mass in the Church of the Virgin Mary. This was
not easy either. The guests’ path was blocked not only by the
traffic, which had been brought to a standstill by the demonstration,
but also by the sheer mass of people around the church. All the
streets around the Church of the Virgin Mary, the seat of the
Patriarch, were jammed with masses of people. The ambassadors of many
countries, including the United States, the Netherlands and Germany,
had travelled up from Ankara, and the Turkish Government was also
represented by two ministers. The press, representatives of
employers’ organisations, trade unions and political parties, the
Mayor of the City of Istanbul and representatives of the Armenian
community throughout the world were gathered in the church.

In his remarks during the Mass, the Patriarch was very restrained. He
neither attempted to assess the political motives for the murder nor
apportioned blame to the security forces for failing to protect Hrant
Dink, nor did he even comment on speculation and accusations
concerning these matters. Two important demands did, however, emerge
clearly: the Patriarch asked the Turkish Government to grant full
freedom of expression and to ensure that people would no longer be
charged or convicted, let alone murdered, for expressing their
opinion. The second demand related to discrimination against the
Armenian community in Turkey. The Patriarch called for recognition
that ‘the Armenians are Turkish nationals who have lived for
thousands of years in this country, and they must no longer be
perceived as a foreign body or a threat’. The removal of this
prejudice, he said, should begin with the revision of school
textbooks.

The liturgy was accompanied and concluded by Gregorian chant and
hymns. The congregation rejoined the demonstrators at the cemetery.

The family and the editorial staff of Agos

On 22 January, shortly after our arrival, we had visited the family
to express our condolences and convey the condolences of the
President of the European Parliament. The small modest flat in the
Bakýrköy district of Istanbul was crammed with family and friends of
Hrant Dink. Representatives of political parties were in the room.
The youngest daughter was with her mother. Mrs Dink was outwardly
composed, but her grief was evident. The constant flow of callers was
surely stressful, but at the same time it helped to ease the family’s
pain. As we were leaving the flat, the Minister for the Interior
arrived. Two days later, it was reported in the press that the Prime
Minister had paid a call. Mr Erdogan spent more than an hour with the
family. Some press reports seem to indicate that his visit was more
than just a courtesy call.

Thanks to the bookshop that Hrant Dink established in the Bakýrköy
district, the family’s economic circumstances seem to be stable.
Before his murder, he was building a new house to reduce the burden
of a high rent for the bookshop. Nevertheless, it will not be easy
for the family to continue Hrant Dink’s work and maintain his
personal network. His children are still too young to contribute, not
having yet completed their education.

The family will also have to bear his political legacy, a task made
even more onerous by his murder. There is a need not only to maintain
the Agos newspaper, which was partly funded from Hrant Dink’s own
pocket, but also to channel many initiatives designed to keep Hrant
Dink’s ideas alive through the creation of foundations and other
cultural and political activities, and these things are not easy to
organise.

The twenty or so people who work for Agos, his political and cultural
platform, showed through the organisation of the demonstration that
they will continue to run the newspaper successfully. Dink’s closest
friend, the journalist Etyen Mahçupyan, will take over as
editor-in-chief in the meantime and will assist the family, who will
be publishing Agos. The financial situation, though not particularly
stable, seems to be sound enough for the newspaper to cover its
costs. It would be a great loss for Turkey if Agos were to die with
Hrant Dink. We visited the newspaper offices twice and assured the
editorial team of our support.

The murderers and freedom of expression in Turkey

The murderer, a 17-year-old youth, was arrested fairly quickly, two
days after the crime. The murder of an Italian priest a year before,
which was also committed by a youth, aged 16, not only put the city
in the spotlight but also alerted the press to the fact that
fanaticised minors were being used for political assassinations. So
far seven men from ultra-nationalist circles who are believed to have
been behind the crime have been arrested, and they are currently
being questioned. They too are young people in their mid-twenties.
Two theories are being discussed in the Turkish press.

It is being suggested that those who give the orders are using the
same methods as the organisers of suicide bombings and deliberately
choosing minors to carry out their crimes. Fanaticised by
nationalists and fundamentalists, these young people are sent to
assassinate critical journalists, writers and politicians. After his
arrest, one of the young people also made death threats against the
writer Orhan Pamuk, last year’s winner of the Nobel Prize for
Literature, who was likewise charged with a breach of Article 301 of
the Criminal Code. The theory has been advanced that the men behind
these crimes are active members of political parties and also
maintain links with elements of the security forces.

The second theory is that the killers are gangs of youths who have
been fanaticised through the Internet. Initial indications suggest
that these youths are linked in a Web network and communicate with
other ultra-nationalist circles. This scenario would make the
situation even more dangerous since it may be supposed that there are
hundreds of these youth gangs throughout Turkey.

Whichever is the true scenario, it spells danger for all critical
journalists, writers and politicians who have been charged or
convicted under Article 301. Almost all of the journalists and
writers who have been charged under Article 301 are given police
protection – and rightly so, for the last article by Hrant Dink,[3]
which was published in two parts in Agos on 12 and 19 January,
reveals how that provision has been putting journalists’ lives at
risk.

In his article, Hrant bemoans the fact that, in spite of the expert
reports obtained by the court and contrary to the statement made by
the public prosecutor, his accusers secured his conviction, and he
was sentenced to six months in prison. This judgment, he said, hurt
him, because it meant that he had been wrongly convicted of
‘denigrating Turkishness’. He went on to describe how the trial had
made him a target for ultra-nationalist factions. This frequent
pattern in cases involving Article 301 is an important factor in the
present debate, and for this reason we shall briefly focus on it.

On 6 February 2004, Hrant had stated in a newspaper article that
Sabiha Gökçen, the adopted daughter of Kemal Atatürk, had been of
Armenian descent and that Atatürk had adopted her from an orphanage.
As evidence, he accompanied the article with excerpts from his own
conversations with members of Sabiha Gökçen’s family. A report on
this article made front-page headlines in one of the major national
newspapers on 21 February 2004, triggering both a chorus of praise
and a hail of condemnation. The fiercest criticism came from the
general staff of the armed forces, who called Hrant’s article a
criminal act. As a result, he was called to the office of the
provincial governor and given a formal warning. Hrant Dink tried to
point out that for him, as a journalist, discovering that Kemal
Atatürk’s adopted daughter was an Armenian girl was a big news story.
For that reason, ‘instead of only discussing the Armenian question
through the dead’, he had sought to discuss it ‘through living people
and survivors too’. Hrant Dink concluded that it was even more
difficult to involve survivors in the discussion.

In the days that followed, Agos became the target of
ultra-nationalist demonstrations. Hrant Dink’s speeches and writings
were scrutinised. The Turkish "Great Lawyers’ Association", another
ultra-nationalist body, initiated proceedings against him on the
basis of a sentence taken out of context from an article that had
appeared in Agos on 13 February 2004. The public prosecutor
instituted proceedings under Article 301 of the Criminal Code.
Contrary to all judicial logic, Hrant Dink was found guilty at every
stage of the proceedings.

The succession of trials and appeals and the fact that he had to
resort to the European Court of Human Rights weighed heavily on Hrant
Dink. He felt persecuted and even threatened. He told his friends
that he was afraid. His final article conveys a vivid impression of
how he must have felt during the last months of his life.

Hrant Dink’s death has brought two important issues into the public
spotlight in Turkey, namely the threat to freedom of expression and
the Armenian question. The outpouring of sympathy and the throngs of
people who paid their last respects to Hrant Dink mean that we must
ensure that these two issues are high on our agenda in the coming
months and years.

_____

[1] Hélène Flautre, chair of the Subcommittee on Human Rights, also
travelled to Istanbul for the funeral.

[2] See annex.

[3] See annex, ‘The "pigeon skittishness" of my soul’ – Agos, 12 and
19 January 2007.