From: “collectif1971@scarlet.be” <collectif1971@scarlet.be>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 10:28:44 +0200
“The great Turk is governing in peace twenty nations from different religions. Turks have taught to Christians how to be moderate in peace and gentle in victory.”Voltaire’s Philosophical Dictionary
Turkey is fiercely patriotic and proud of it. But the country’s bid to join the European Union has sparked a nationalist backlash that has turned murderous, the BBC’s Sarah Rainsford reports from Istanbul.
Writer Hrant Dink was the first victim, killed last year because some in Turkey could not tolerate what he stood for. To nationalists, he was a traitor.
In a country where every citizen is defined as a Turk, Hrant Dink defined himself as ethnic Armenian. That was already subversive to some. But Mr Dink went further.
He wrote about the expulsion and killing of hundreds of thousands of Ottoman Armenians from eastern Turkey in 1915. To Armenians, and others, that was genocide – a claim Ankara vigorously denies.
Hrant’s cause
Hrant Dink was convicted of insulting the Turkish nation. That is a crime here. Nationalist protesters surrounded his office shouting “Love Turkey or leave it!” and he received hundreds of death threats.
Please turn on JavaScript. Media requires JavaScript to play.
Rakel Dink on her husband and his murder
Already low-profile, after Mr Dink’s murder most Armenians retreated into scared silence. But almost two years on, his widow has decided to speak out.
“Hrant was really affected by those protests,” Rakel says, fighting back tears. “After that, we said only a miracle could help us live here.”
But the family stayed.
“Hrant could never abandon his cause,” says Rakel, explaining that he wanted to convince Turkey that diversity and dissent were a strength, not a threat.
His killers disagreed.
“I don’t know if I should say this, but the origins of this murder go back to 1915,” Rakel says.
“An Armenian told the truth to the face of the Turkish state and the law. That’s why Hrant was murdered. It offended them, it dishonoured them.”
Critical flashpoints
To Turks, honour is everything. From childhood they learn of a glorious history: how a soldier – Mustafa Kemal Ataturk – forged a new nation from the ruins of the Ottoman Empire.
Turkey needs time to adjust – the EU process may help, but my husband’s death is their biggest loss Rakel Dink |
To most, the allegation their ancestors were guilty of genocide is an unacceptable slur.
Turkey’s justice minister underlined that view himself this week, defending his decision to allow the trial of another writer to proceed for referring to “genocide”.
“The man describes Turkey as a murderer state,” Mehmet Ali Sahin is quoted as saying.
It seems freedom of expression is no defence.
“That is why they were against Hrant,” Rakel says. “They could not digest what he was writing about, even though he used very soft language.”
But Turkey’s drive to enter the EU has made nationalists feel threatened, and that has made them aggressive.
The Armenian issue, and the treatment of millions of Kurds in Turkey, have become critical flashpoints.
‘Once-and-for-all fight’
Almost 50 writers have been brought to trial since May for insulting the nation.
“Democracy means questioning, it means self-critique – and this is the thing they [nationalists] would not like,” explains Umut Ozkirimli, from Istanbul’s Bilgi University.
“For them, when you start questioning things you become a traitor.”
That is why Hrant Dink was murdered.
It is also why at least 20 writers in Istanbul are now living with bodyguards.
Oral Calislar is one of them. A close friend of Hrant Dink, he is also a well-known critic of the Turkish military – particularly its policy towards ethnic Kurds.
He has had dozens of death threats. Now, wherever he goes his armed guard goes with him.
“We want to change this country into a democratic country and the EU accession process is important for that,” the journalist says.
“I think because of that, some powers in the state want to shut our mouths.”
Mr Calislar is sure Mr Dink’s murder is part of a far broader resistance to reform. He sees that deep within institutions of the Turkish state; groups clinging to power – and to their own vision of the republic.
“This is a once-and-for-all fight. It’s been going on in the closet for 80 years, between those who want change and those who don’t,” Mr Ozkirimli agrees.
“If the whole project of EU membership goes away, [then] the democratic forces will lose, and forever,” he adds.
‘Ergenekon’ trial
In that battle for democracy, Hrant Dink was on the frontline. Now there is another sign the fight will be fierce.
Eighty ultra-nationalists are currently on trial just outside Istanbul, accused of plotting to overthrow the government and block democratic reforms.
The prosecutor claims the group – known as Ergenekon – planned a campaign of murder and violence. It was meant to create chaos – and force the military to step in and take control.
Hrant Dink believed Turkey could change. His vision was of a truly democratic republic and the EU accession process was a vital part of that.
To his widow, such change now looks a long way off.
“[Turkey] doesn’t want people to express their ethnic identity, or live freely. That doesn’t fit the founding ideas of this country,” Rakel says.
“Turkey needs time to adjust. The EU process may help, but my husband’s death is their biggest loss.”
You can watch Sarah Rainsford’s full report at 2230 GMT tonight on BBC2’s Newsnight programme.
|
|
|
/PanARMENIAN. Net/ Turkey will never be a member of the European Union, head of Movement for France (MPF) Philippe de Villiers told a PanARMENIAN. Net reporter.
“First, this country is in Asia geographically. Second, this country is far from European culture, faith and human rights. Furthermore, accession of Turkey will mean Turkish majority in the European Parliament. We will never accept it,” he said.
Even recognition of the Armenian Genocide won’t open the EU door for Turkey, according to him.
“Turkey must acknowledge the Armenian Genocide. It’s a moral duty but not a condition for accession to the European Union. Armenia, with similar moral values, is closer to Europe than Turkey,” Mr. de Villiers said, adding that 80 per cent of French oppose Turkey’s bid for the EU.
Philippe de Villiers: Baku should understand that Karabakh Armenians have right to live and develop in their native land
/PanARMENIAN. Net/ France holds presidency in the EU and our task is to press for recognition of the Armenian Genocide and put an end to Genocide denial in state structures head of Movement for France (MPF) Philippe de Villiers told a PanARMENIAN. Net reporter.
“It’s essential to stop Armenia’s isolation and open its border with Turkey,” he said.
Another important trend in Mr. de Villiers’ policy is support of Nagorno Karabakh’s independence. “We should make Azerbaijan understand that Karabakh Armenians have the right to live and develop in their native land,” he said, adding that the French Co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group has a similar stand on the issue.
The people of Nagorno Karabakh should be guaranteed a secure life, Berdand Fassier said in Yerevan yesterday. “Presently, security [still jeopardized by Baku] is guaranteed by the Armenian armed forces and the defense army of Nagorno Karabakh,” he said.
By Saban Kardas
Monday, November 17, 2008
In his public statements throughout the trip, Erdogan underlined the importance of international cooperation in fighting the global crisis. Having emphasized the experience that Turkey had gathered from its own economic recovery programs as a result of the devastating crises of the 1990s and early-2000s, Erdogan maintained that his country represented a hope and a model for those countries seeking a way out of the current crisis (www.akparti.org.tr, November 13; Yeni Safak, November 16).
These inflated statements aside, how the AKP government will cope with the global financial crisis and whether it will seek help from the IMF had been matters of debate (EDM, October 31). Since the AKP came to power in 2002, reducing Turkey’s dependence on the IMF has been one of the government’s primary economic goals. The AKP has been arguing that Turkey could overcome the current crisis without significant support from the international community. Since the previous stand-by agreement with the IMF expired in May, Turkey has been resisting another arrangement with the IMF because of the strict fiscal conditions it would impose (New York Times, November 7).
During the G-20 Summit Erdogan met with Managing Director of the IMF Dominique Strauss-Kahn on November 14, and their teams had additional talks on November 15. Erdogan also met the President of the World Bank Robert Zoellick. The World Bank is expected to increase credits to Turkey to support various projects dealing with small and medium-sized enterprises and renewable energy (www.cnnturk.com; Anatolian Agency, November 15).
The statements coming from both sides following the meeting between Erdogan and Strauss-Kahn indicate that Turkey might be reversing its stubborn position on IMF aid. Both parties stressed that Turkey would maintain cooperation with the IMF in the future. Economic sources speculated that a new stand-by agreement worth $15 to $20 billion might be signed soon, although differences of opinion remain about the extent and kind of IMF aid to Turkey (www.tgrthaber.com.tr, November 16; Today’s Zaman, November 17). Experts believe that the decision, albeit late, to start negotiations with the IMF is a step in the right direction (Referans, November 17).
Erdogan also gave two public talks, in which he outlined the parameters of the new activism in Turkish foreign policy and Turkey’s strategic partnership with the United States, as well as developments in domestic politics. On November 13 Erdogan spoke at a conference at Columbia University, entitled “Turkey’s Role in Shaping the Future” (www.ntvmsnbc.com, November 14). On November 14 Erdogan discussedTurkish foreign policy at the Brookings Institution. During these addresses, he congratulated U.S. President-elect Barack Obama and emphasized that Turkey was ready to work with the new administration, provided that it was sensitive to Turkey’s priorities.
On relations with Armenia, Erdogan repeated Turkey’s position that the issue must be dealt with by the parties concerned through channels of dialogue already established. He warned the incoming administration not to let ethnic lobbies dictate American policy and spoil bilateral relations between Turkey and the United States (Hurriyet Daily News, November 17).
On the issue of nuclear proliferation and Iran, Erdogan highlighted Turkey’s new-found role as peace broker and criticized U.S.-led efforts against Tehran. Earlier in the week, the New York Times reported that Erdogan had offered to mediate between Iran and the incoming Obama administration (New York Times, November 11). During his talk at the Brookings Institution, Erdogan said that given the trust Turkey had built up with Iran, it was better positioned than the EU’s troika to facilitate talks with Tehran. Some of his remarks on this issue were, however, more controversial. Erdogan maintained that trying to force Iran to drop its nuclear program while other countries maintained nuclear arsenals was no ground for reducing tension. He instead urged the countries pressuring Iran to eliminate such weapons themselves, which would be a better basis for a comprehensive solution (www.cnnturk.com, November 15). Erdogan’s call for “total nuclear disarmament” has been criticized as a fundamental deviation from Turkey’s official position (Milliyet, November 15).
On the issue of Iraq, Erdogan emphasized Turkey’s positive contributions to the reconstruction efforts there. He criticized Obama for setting a clear exit date, however. He expressed concerns about a premature American withdrawal, arguing that Iraq’s infrastructure had not matured enough. (Cihan Haber Ajansi, November 14). U.S. State Department Deputy Spokesman Robert Wood criticized Erdogan’s assessment as overly pessimistic (Washington Times, November 15).
There were questions about whether Erdogan would meet Obama during the trip; but because Obama has decided not to meet foreign leaders before his inauguration, Erdogan searched out people who were likely to shape Obama’s policies. In a separate meeting during his visit, Erdogan met with Obama’s advisers Madeline Albright, Jim Leach, and Philip Gordon (Yeni Safak, November 15). Some Turkish observers believe that the choice of the Brookings Institute as the venue of Erdogan’s speech in Washington, D.C., was also part of Turkey’s attempts to influence the incoming administration. Veteran journalist Cengiz Candar noted that despite its non-partisan position, Brookings was regarded as a pro-Democrat organization and many Brookings specialists, such as Philip Gordon, who were familiar with Turkey may end up working in the new administration (Referans, November 15; Today’s Zaman, November 17). Another senior analyst, Semih Idiz, however, argued that Erdogan’s controversial statements on Iran might ironically rock the boat, just as Erdogan was seeking to build bridges (Milliyet, November 17).
Only time will tell whether “think-tank diplomacy” will put Turkish-American relations on the right track. In any case, given Erdogan’s critical position on Obama’s declared policies, it will be interesting to see how the new administration will manage relations with Turkey.