The assassination of Turkish journalist Hrant Dink has forced Turks to face their past. Mr. Dink was killed because he had called the mass killings of Armenians in the early 20th century a genocide. While his rhetoric angered many Turks, his death appears to have prompted many more of them to think twice about the dangers of unbridled nationalism. Mr. Dink’s murder has given Turkey the opportunity to examine its past and heal the wounds that continue to poison relations with its Armenian minority.
The exact number of Armenians that died between 1915 and 1917 is unknown: Estimates range from 300,000 to 1.5 million, out of a population reckoned to be over 2 million before 1914. Whatever the exact figure, the scale is immense. Even more hotly disputed is the cause of those deaths. The official Turkish government narrative is that they were the result of ethnic strife, disease and famine, the tragic but inevitable product of the chaos and confusion of World War I.
Armenians counter that the deaths were the result of a deliberate policy of the Ottoman Empire, an attempt to cleanse the territory of a group of citizens that were not Turks. They demand that the killings be recognized as the first case of genocide in the 20th century. Historians are deeply divided, but a growing number accept the argument that genocide is an apt description for what happened.
The historical dispute is tangled up in Turkish nationalism. Not only are the two communities still deeply divided about what actually happened and why, but Turks see the charge as an attack on the legitimacy of their state. Allegations of mass murder are interpreted as a slur against the country and its founding father Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. Turkish nationalists are intolerant of such criticism. Nor is the dispute purely historical: Some worry that the genocide charge could legitimize the demands of ethnic Kurds in southern Turkey for their own state.
Aggrieved Turks have legal recourse against such attacks. Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code prohibits “insulting Turkishness,” a catch-all provision that has been used to punish or intimidate anyone who supports the charges of genocide, along with a slew of lesser inflammatory allegations. (To their credit, Turkish courts have acquitted all those so charged.) Nobel Literature Prize Winner Orhan Pamuk was charged with violating the statute in 2005, but that allegation was dropped when it sparked an international uproar.
Mr. Dink was also prosecuted under 301 for his reiteration of the genocide claim. His defense — that he only wanted to improve relations between Armenians and Turks — was enough for the tribunal but not for some of his critics. On Jan. 19, Mr. Ogun Samast, a 17-year-old Turkish nationalist, shot and killed Mr. Dink on the street in front of his office. Mr. Samast was captured days later and confessed to the crime, but questions have been raised about the ability of someone of that age to pull off the act and then flee as he did to another city. Many suspect he was part of a wider network.
The murder has shocked Turkey. Turkish President Ahmet Necdet Sezer called the murder a “repugnant and shameful attack” that “deeply wounded” Turkey. While many Turks may have disagreed with Mr. Dink’s comments, only the most extreme nationalists are prepared to condone the murder of such critics. The proof is in the estimated 100,000 mourners who marched the streets in solidarity at Mr. Dink’s funeral, demanding freedom of expression and reconciliation between the Turkish and Armenian communities. This mass outpouring of sympathy suggests that such hopes are not misplaced. The Turkish government even invited Armenian officials, religious leaders and members of the Armenian diaspora to the funeral.
Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Abdullah Gul admitted that Article 301 was “problematic,” and hinted that changes may be on the way. This is part of a more general liberalization process, nudged along by the prospect of Turkey’s membership in the European Union: The EU has demanded various reforms as the price of Ankara’s entry into the group.
Those changes must reflect more than political expediency if they are to lead to real reconciliation. The perception that the Turkish government is somehow diluting its authority as a result of foreign pressure will only increase nationalism. Ankara must be seen as leading the reform process and taking the initiative because it is truly in the national interest, rather than merely responding to European demands and adopting a path of least resistance. The reaction to Mr. Dink’s murder suggests that a foundation for national reconciliation exists in Turkey. A government that sought legitimacy and support from all its citizens would seize the moment to condemn the extremists and propose a truly nationalist agenda that embraced all Turkey’s citizens.
Yorumlar kapatıldı.