A TURKISH MURDER ECHOES THROUGHOUT THE WEST

Assyrian International News Agency, CA
Feb 14 2007

Fifty-three-year old Turkish-Armenian journalist, editor and columnist
Hrant Dink was slain by gunfire in Istanbul on January 19, 2007. He
was not only a courageous outspoken member of the Armenian minority
in Turkey, he was husband to Rachel, who read aloud her letter to
him at his funeral, and the father of several children.

According to eyewitnesses, Dink was shot three times at point blank
range in the back of his head by a young man who shouted, "I shot the
unbeliever!" before he fled the scene. Reports are that the three-shot
assassination style is that of the Turkish Hezbollah.

How could a seventeen-year old teenager be so manipulated by
nationalistic agitation as to commit a cold-blooded murder?

Turkey has mourned the untimely death of Dink, editor of the
Turkish-Armenian weekly journal Agos, and the loss of such an
important voice for its political conscience. But how sincere was
the public weeping for him? Before his death, he was treated by the
media and politicians as a public enemy because of his comments about
Turkish-Armenian relations and the massacres of Armenians during
the First World War which he characterized as genocide. We cannot
but suspect that for some Turkish politicians, the condemnation of
Dink’s assassination was motivated not by his death itself but by
fear about the consequences of this atrocity for potential Turkish
entry into the European Union.

The murder reflected the toxic political atmosphere in Turkey. For
a lot of journalists "paragraph 301" of the common law remains
significant, in that it bans supposed insults to Turkish national
identity. Even the Nobel Prize-winning Turkish author Orhan Pamuk
was charged under this law, and Dink himself was prosecuted three
times for insulting Turkishness. In fact, he received numerous death
threats from Turkish nationalists who accused him of treason. Public
prosecutor Kemal Kerincsiz must listen to the voices of those who
blame his judicial career for the murder, since he charged Hrant
Dink under the same law. Kerincisiz rejects any complicity in Dink’s
death and defends his action against Dink as well as this clause in
the law which, in the present author’s opinion, should be abolished
for the sake of Turkish intellectual freedom.

The killing of journalists has a dreadful history in Turkey. Abdi
Ipekci and Ugur Mumcu were among the famous victims of aggression
based on nationalist fantasies as well as religious intolerance. In
fact, today, critics still live in great danger in Turkey. Sadly, the
Turkish-Islamist construction of national identity diverts people from
seeking the recovery of cultural and political pluralism in Turkey,
a very great loss indeed.

Many Turkish people paid their last respects to the Turkish-Armenian
journalist who always supported dialogue between Armenians and Turks
and who refused to leave Turkey even though he received threats. The
slogans "We all are Hrant Dink" and "We all are Armenians" stand as
evidence for Dink’s high reputation as a prominent intellectual in
Turkey. The impressive demonstrations express nothing less than the
highest appreciation of Hrant Dink’s commitment to freedom of opinion
and democracy.

Regrettably, however, Turkey must accept the reality that nationalist
groups celebrated this unspeakable crime. They showed publicly that
the nationalist image is more important to them than a human life.

Acclaim for the murder of Hrant Dink showed that the Turkish propensity
for extremism has changed, but that the bloody tradition persists. The
nationalists saw Hrant Dink as a separatist, who risked the unity and
alleged honor of the country. Important politicians like premiere Recep
Tayyip Erdogan and President Ahmet Nedet Sezer were absent from the
funeral. The political barriers were too high to be overcome. Other
items on their agendas seemed more important for them. Erdogan thus
indicated that the bullets which killed the 53-year old journalist
and publisher were aimed at all Turkish citizens.

Conspiracy theorists in Turkey very quickly argued that foreign
influences are inflicting political harm on the country. Still,
the people ask: why do dissidents fear for their lives?

How could a seventeen-year old teenager be so manipulated by
nationalistic agitation as to commit a cold-blooded murder? After his
arrest he said that Dink described Turkish blood as unclean, and had
to pay for it. The assassin came from the margins of the nationalist
milieu, where teenagers are misused and dissidents are attacked.

Other suspects were also arrested, as well they should be; there
is certainly more behind the murder of Dink than a simple act by an
enraged teenager.

The claim that the crime was not political, which Turkish politicians
want people to accept, has no ring of truth. The young assassin is a
child of this nationalistic rhetoric that describes Turks as honest,
hard-working and accomplished. But proof of such an identity cannot
be found in Turkish society, or in its bloody history, even after
the formation of the republic.

What this will mean for Turkey’s acceptance into the European Union
remains to be seen; but the shots fired into Hrant Dink’s head were
certainly heard throughout the West.

By Ali Sirin Source

FamilySecurityMatte rs.org Contributing Editor Ali Sirin is a German
journalist in the Alevi Muslim community. This text was translated by
Hasan Canoglu and is distributed by the Center for Islamic Pluralism
in Washington and London

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress