UNPUBLISHED INTERVIEW WITH HRANT DINK, OCTOBER 2006.
Alin Ozinian

Aztag
19.01.08

"I am the one who understands his nation’s pains and bears that burden"

It was in the middle of October, 2006. We arranged to meet with Hrant
Dink at his office in the "Agos" newspaper. I have taken interviews on
the theme "Mental and spiritual atmosphere in Turkey about the Armenian
Problem" with 30 Turkish academicians, journalists, politicians and
intellectuals. Hrant got me acquainted with many of them. Now it was
his turn to answer the questions.

It was warm atmosphere at the office and we easily started the talk.

Sometimes we switched off the recorder during the friendly talk and
he expressed his worries. I did not take them serious but the stupid
scenery comes true just two months later. After the interview both
of us was sure we did a real contribution for the existing situation:
Me with my questions and he with his responds. We were quite happy.

Last time I talk to Hrant on 16 January 2007 when I was in Yerevan. I
wanted some points of view to realize the project into a book. The
talk was short.

He said to me, "Come to Istanbul, we will talk face to face". I went
to Istanbul for many times after our talk but we never talked face
to face.

– Will you tell me how, why and whose idea was to found the "Agos"?

– The foundation of the newspaper was a difficult task as it was
decided to publish the "Agos" according to the needs of Turkey’s
Armenian community. But the "Agos" was published contrary to some
negative reactions. Up to then some questions were raised: it was not
enough in the community to publish only in Armenian, as the majority
of people came from Anatolia and they were Turkish speaking. There
was a serious lack of information in the community as people can
not read the Armenian press. And then enclosed society itself causes
difficulties, it needed to get accustomed to. We had to struggle. The
Turkish society accepted the Armenian community in other way. The
word Armenian was considered to be an abuse; the Turks connected the
Armenians with the Kurdish Worker Party (PKK) or with ASALA. There
was a great anxiety and trouble in the community when the Karabagh
problem was discussed in Turkey.

We lived like a worm. We heard what was on TV but could do nothing. We
apposed, cried, told that all these were lie but could not speak
loudly. We need to break the wall, it was necessary. One day the
Patriarch Ghazanchyan invited us and told that there was a photo
of an Armenian priest and Abdullah Odjalan in the "Sabah" newspaper
and there was written under the photo "Here is the fact of Armenian
and PKK collaboration". Then His Holiness stated that it was a lie,
the priest was not an Armenian. He asked me and my friends who were
with me at that time what we thought about all that. I expressed my
point of view and suggested that it’ll be meaningful if we invite
a press- conference. It was a brave action, all the local and
international press came and it was a great success. The impression
was indescribable. After the meeting I suggested that it was nonsense
to invite a conference on every occasion, we had to take definite
steps. And I suggested publishing a newspaper.

We were running it with my friends. Later they left and I was the
one to run it. By using the newspaper we also wanted to create an
intellectual cuisine youth to grow sociologists and intellectuals.

– What problems did you come across during foundation and after it?

– The first problem was to subdue the community conservatism. We felt
anti-sympathy by local Armenian press. There were people who thought
we would work for months or in the best case for a year but it is 10
years that we have been working.

Some people thought it was a regress to be published in Turkish. But
we tried to do a good thing, by using the Turkish language for the
community. I am sure they have already been persuaded.

– When you founded the newspaper did you think it would be better for
Turks to read the press and get some news about the Armenian community?

– Our main objective for this society was to be a window to a large
society.

I think this is our success: the two societies started to penetrate
into each other.

We managed to discuss our own problems equal to Turkey’s problems. We
think that only through Turkey’s democratization it was possible to
solve the problems. Soon the community also started to show interest
towards the main problems of society. The Armenian society together
with the "Agos" struggled braver for its identity; felt the patronage
started not to fear.

– Will you tell about the peculiarities of being an editor, publishing
a newspaper especially for a minority in Turkey? Please introduce us
your viewpoints on freedom of the press in Turkey.

– There is no special difficulty in publishing a newspaper for the
minority.

If you are not an editor with principle, if you do not have a certain
political motivate, if you are interested more often in illustrated
news then you have no professional difficulties. But if you are a
journalist of certain ideas, sure you will have difficulties.

Recently we have had some common difficulties connected with freedom of
the press, in accordance with Turkey’s criminal new code and the Press
law there is some control over us. We also suffered: the newspaper
was confiscated for several times.

I think we get more than we deserve and the only reason is our attitude
toward the Armenian problem. I am sure this is the reason but we have
not repudiated yet, aside we will go on.

– Let’s talk on European Union role for Turkey. Is it necessary for
Turkey to become a member of EU?

– This is an irrevocable process for Turkey. It is necessary to
understand Turkey’s reason to enter EU it is not a simple desire. The
real reason is the fear. It’s the reason why this process moves so
slowly. Why Turkey fears? It is the fear of instability and fear is
mutual. Because of this fear this process is continuing and there is
no way to go back.

If military in Turkey definitely had been rejected entering EU, the
process will not come to this level. If we do not become a member of
EU, one day we will also have to leave the NATO. The process goes
so slowly because of the reason that there is no great desire to
become a member of EU. I do not think it will be possible to stop the
process. We may slow it, sometimes freeze it, but can not cancel it.

If we observe the history of the state there are three important
periods influencing into Turkey’s interact process. The first was
Cold war period when the country had some problems with leftist
movements and abolished them. The second period was when clerical
forces came into office in Iran. Islamists of Turkey demanded their
participation in country’s administration and today they came into
power. The third period is EU membership process and so far nothing
had influenced Turkey so much. The process left no group homogeneous
in Turkey. Today, there are powers among soldiers, bureaucrats,
academicians and media who speak against EU.

– What is the greatest problem in the process of Turkey’s
Europeanization and modernization?

– Opposing reactions coming from the lower class by the upper
class. The laws of the upper class. Тhese are the first problems. The
second great obstacle is fear of the upper class. Turkey occupies
less area unlike the Ottoman Empire, this is the reason of not to
lose more. This can be also called "a syndrome of Sevres". Every
change causes fear and doubt in Turkey. This is the reason why the
changes in Turkey moves so slowly.

Turkey is both a crossroad and a border between West and East. I
think Malatia is the border in Turkey. East and West of Malatia are
quite different worlds.

In effect Turkey is a country of strategic importance but depends at
the same time on East and West. Depending on the situation it will be
injustice to wait quick adaptation from Turkey. One of the greatest
reasons that changes do not occur easily is the new building built
in Turkey which is the upper identity created and was obliged to
whole society. That’s why they are afraid to get to know their real
history. Every other historic comment has an effect of an earthquake
for the identity. This earthquake is also a threat for Europe. The
identity may pull down but over whom this is uncertain…

– May reformations take place in the sphere of democracy and human
rights in the process of corresponding EU demands?

– I have no doubt but it is a difficult process. Laws may be passed
but while putting them into forces there will be opponents…

Change of thinking is necessary, democracy will sufficiently change
the way of thinking. The more the way of thinking is changed the
quicker democratization will be.

– However trouble of people in some situations is observable,
For instance, freedom of thought is considered to be high treason
(Turkey’s criminal code, article 301), and freedom of religion,
conscience (head scarf) may be accepted as regress. What is the
reason? In effect are people ready for those reformas?

– Today people are speaking about the raise of the nationalism but I
do not believe that nationalism increases but it is being increased
by some people.

It became more obvious in the last two years. Those people do their
best to model coming elections in Turkey.

They make plans to throw down the party "Justice and Development".

However they have no reason neither economic, nor democratic. We are
only to inspire nationalists and it is done everywhere at funerals
of martyrs, against EU or while welcoming the Pope.

I think the whole pain of those responses is the coming elections. They
do not want to give sits to the Islamists in the government. We will
see what will happen…

– Do you agree that there are differences in Turkey based on ethnic
roots?

Can you speak about reasons provoking it and consequences following it?

– As for ethnic roots, no doubt there are various attitudes. A simple
example, today not only Muslims but also Christians, Armenians
should have been in main headquarters, military powers, police,
various official government offices and ministries. The main reason
provoking it is security.

Turkey has evaluated the contest of minorities in conception and
takes it as a matter of security.

I say facts, there are mathematical data. Out of 300000 Armenians at
the Lausanne period today 60000 is left and the Turkish population
is increased from 13 million up to 70 million. When one increases how
it happens that the other is decreased? It was necessary to decrease
the number of minorities.

Some crucial points appeared, for instance the law for property tax,
September 6, 1955 but what happened is already past. Besides, the
Armenians for being safe and sound left Turkey because of economic
and moral problems.

There is one more fact as well. You will not find anything connected
with minorities especially the Armenians in any textbooks. There are
facts on minorities only in the textbook of the National Security. In
the elementary school there is not even a sentence like "Ali gives
the ball to Hakob"; Ali will always give it to Veli. When we observe
them we are nowhere.

Only in the textbooks of National Security you may find the word
"Armenians" which will take place in the unit of unprofitable groups
which play bad tricks with Turkey.

– How can you estimate relationship between Turkey and Armenia?

– We may speak about non-existing relationships. I do not see any
relationship after Armenia gained its independence. First the USA
attempted to make some steps then EU but in vain. Desire exists but
it is very weak.

Turkey has not yet got accustomed to the thought that Armenia is an
independent country in the Caucasus. There is a state, a neighbor,
Turkey should comprehend this and start relationship.

When state policy fails public policy takes its place. There are some
attempts to establish non-governmental relationship from to sides,
but they are very weak, very few.

– What do you think the 1915 events should be called?

– I have no doubt. It was genocide.

– What do you think of diplomatic relations without preconditions
suggested by Armenia and the committee of historians proposed by
Turkey?

– I do not think Turkey’s attitude an honest one. The Armenian side
is more sincerely.

– Why? Do you have any doubts that the committee of historians will
be of any use?

– Yes, everybody thinks that the committee of historians will be of
no use.

Policy like always will go on without relations and results. This
is the way which Turkey loves: no relations. I think Azerbaijan also
obliges such policy to Turkey. The Armenian side is more reasonable
and desirous.

– What is your opinion about the third state to interfere the problem
and bills on genocide accepted in parliaments?

– My point of view in these bills may be considered a very romantic
one, but I have not denied it. I think also the world like Turkey
takes double-faced position in the process of accepting the Armenian
genocide. The world is aware of the reality for a long time; they
had their role and influence on those times. Nowadays France accepts
it after decades. It is not like moral attitude, because the case is
used as trump card in relations with Turkey.

It is very painful for me as an Armenian when my tragedy is used as
political trump card on international arenas. I can not stand it,
I oppose against it. I am indifferent towards third states. I think
the problem should be solved between Turkey and Armenia. But it should
be solved not through punishing bills but morality. We do not need
punishing bills in morality, our conscience is enough.

I believe that these two states may overcome but I do not want to
predict anything.

– Do you divide Armenians between those who live in Armenia, in abroad
and in Turkey, while speaking about the Armenian question?

– Not only in connection with that matter but in general I think
so. Turkey is a far and irresistible state for Diaspora but for
Armenia it is a neighboring state and keeps Armenia independence. For
the Armenians living in Turkey, Turkey is their motherland. Though
I say such things I do not want to separate Armenians and accept the
Turkish point of view.

Turkey should establish good relations with every state. But these
two states should come into conclusion and solve the problem. I do
not think that Armenians living in Turkey must be involved in the
talks as they are citizens of Turkey.

– As a citizen of Turkey are you worried about the Armenian-Turkish
closed border? What is your estimation on Turkey’s policy towards
Armenia that accepts Azerbaijan’s problems as its own, and sets
preconditions in the relations with Armenia?

– During the Demirel’s government good relations were established
between Turkey and Azerbaijan. Turkey attempts to make relations with
Armenia taking into account the Armenian-Azerbaijani relations. Frankly
saying Turkey does not want to annoy Azerbaijan negotiating with
Armenia.

Azerbaijan does not allow Turkey to negotiate with Armenia using the
Karabagh problem.

Any nationalistic power will solve this problem in anti-Azerbaijani
way.

Turkey also takes this side and does not consider Armenia as its
neighboring country.

First Turkey exterminated the Armenian question, but as Armenia gained
its independence the question again resurrected. Turkey suddenly saw a
phantom and the same question raised how to do with Armenia. Turkey was
in a desperate situation but the Karabagh problem emerged and clung to
it with its four hands, rejoiced it and ran for help. Turkey thought
that it would take a long time. This is the continuation of policy…

– According to you is the Republic of Turkey the continuer of the
Ottoman Empire in the history…

– I do not expect apology or responsibility from anybody. I am the one
who understands his nation’s pains and bears that burden. I do not
think of financial compensation or returning of lands. For me it is
important to repair relations broken in the past, to know who and what
circumstances played role. European states may also have a positive
effect, compensate their guilt and try to soften the disagreement
founding economical and cultural advantageous platforms to make the
two states become closer.

– May we state the role of the "Ittihat ve Terraki" is great in
this matter?

– Not only one group is in charge, there were assistants who promoted
and closed their eyes on it. Today, also existing people who are
reluctant that reality may come into world.

If you seek responsibility there are many of them, each one has its
share but I am not the one to remind of this. Presumably it sounds
very romantic but every one should admit his guilt.

– Let’s try to analyze what are the main problems of the two states?

-There are disappointments, unwillingness; enmity and fear…

Today some new fears exist. The Armenians also fear we need to pay
attention to them. The Armenians are subdued between Azerbaijan and
Turkey. There are two states suppressing from right and left. Fear
and insecurity is an important handicap it needs to be inoculated.

We need to explain fairly that Turkey may be a friend of
Armenia. The Armenian side should be reasonable, should see the
present situation. There is an independent Armenia with two states
around carrying out an embargo.

Armenia may relax only in the south but there is mullah administration
which is not clear how long it may go on.

Diaspora should ponder on this. Armenia should settle good relations
with its neighbors and to become a member of EU. If Armenia were
a member of EU today Turkey will subject to embargo not Armenia
but Europe.

Instead of passing bill in parliaments of different states it will
be better for Diaspora to persuade those states to accept Armenia
into EU. They should be reminded of their history, responsibilities
as they have their share of guilt in today’s situation. Diaspora at
least should be able to say to carry out that. This is my formula to
go ahead and we should demand from the Europeans for the steps taken
in the past.

–Boundary_(ID_rjiJpxGJEL77B/XZVPOnYQ)–