The return of the scarves Rural Kurds revive an old Armenian tradition

Jan 31st 2008
From The Economist

AGACLI- FOR centuries Armenians in the village of Agacli, in south-east Turkey, cultivated silk. With it they wove fine carpets and flowing scarves that were traded all along the silk road from China to Europe. That was until 1915, when Ottoman forces slaughtered most of the villagers, and hundreds of thousands of other Armenians. The village was taken over by Kurds and, in the 1990s, became a target for terrorists from the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK). Residents began to flee when the PKK started raiding the area demanding food and shelter.

Weary of the violence, Agacli's 62-year-old mayor, Yusuf Bayram, decided two years ago to try to revive the silk trade. He was inspired by his wife, the daughter of two Armenians rescued as children by Kurdish neighbours during the 1915 massacres. But a lone pair of gnarled mulberry trees planted by the Armenians were all Mr Bayram had—until the European Union rode to the rescue with a big grant.

New mulberry trees were planted, silkworms and looms brought in. Some 15 teenage girls have been trained to spin, weave and dye the silk. Despite finger-numbing cold, they have just produced their first batch of scarves. Gulay Aslan, a former seamstress who trains the girls, says their biggest challenge is sustainability. “The EU money is finished. We need to stand on our own feet, to find markets,” she declares.

The women have formed a co-operative, but their only customer is Diyarbakir's chamber of commerce. At $35 each, the scarves cost far more than those of competitors in China and India. “They use machine-spun silk, our girls make everything by hand,” boasts Mr Bayram. Just like the Armenians, he adds.

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Former top scorer worried by football violence, fanaticism

Saturday, December 15, 2007
ISTANBUL – Turkish Daily News
Vercihan Ziflioğlu

Minas Asa managed to lead a noble football career, playing alongside the best of his time, and faced no problems due to his Armenian origins. That is why, he is bothered by the changing profile and hostile habits of current football supporters

If the subject is the changing face of football in recent years, either in the industrial sense or in the changing profile of fans, Minas Asa is among the ones with a thing or two to say.

A former striker who played in several top and second division clubs, Asa recalls that he was never targeted because of his Armenian origins.

“Nowadays there are 6-year-olds in the stadiums, all filled with nationalism and violence,” said Asa to the Turkish Daily News. “In the ‘80s, identities did not matter as they do today. I never kept the fact that I was an Armenian a secret.”

Today he doesn't go to the stadiums because of fanaticism.

“Fans came to the games wearing ties and top hats then. They stood up and applauded both teams at the end of the match.”



Pre-industrial football :

Another big difference he pointed to is the big money in the football business. The fact that he is a bus driver for Esayan Armenian High School in Taksim, Istanbul sounds odd now, considering the dizzying sums today's players earn.

“We earned as much as a worker did, but we just did not care,” said Asa, adding that his generation's only interest was the game itself.

After starting to play football at Şişli and Taksim Sports Clubs, which are the Armenian community's clubs in Istanbul, Asa was approached by Division Two side Karabükspor. However, the striker's father intervened, who was not positive to the idea of his son having a professional career. After a while the offers became more serious, one of them from Beşiktaş. He had to reject the offer and what he now calls “a big mistake that affected his whole life,” and opted for an Anatolian club that was more off the radar, instead of Istanbul's title contender. He moved to Bursaspor in 1980, and plied his trade for a while in Boluspor, where he played alongside Rıdvan Dilmen, one of the most prolific strikers of Turkish football history.



Life without football:

But his peak was when he was loaned out to Adana Demirspor in 1986. Asa still remembers the day he was welcomed by 500 fans and carried to the club on shoulders. He compensated for this love by scoring 17 goals to take the club to the First Division.

Nevertheless, his story on the pitch ended sadly, as he had to retire two years later, due to an ankle injury. Maybe it wouldn't have been a career-ending injury, but in the Turkey of the ‘80s there was no solution and he would have had to be treated abroad.

“For me, this was death,” said Asa. “I could not think a life without football.”

And he did not let go of the game although he started his second life. He trains the High School's football team and proudly states that one of his players has just become a pro in Sarıyer. As a licensed coach, Asa is considering a coaching job at Armenia's renowned Ararat club.



Expecting a draw:

Asa is also among those that sees the forthcoming World Cup qualifying fixture between Armenia and Turkey as a big chance to reduce tensions. He predicts that the games will end in a draw, as Armenia will take the games too seriously.

“The World Cup is so important in terms of economy, and Armenia needs development,” said Asa, adding that players will perform at their best in order to help the promotion of the country.

If he was to play for Turkey against Armenia, he claims he would not lose any sleep over it. He calls himself a professional and that is why he sees sports as separate from politics. Asa believes that the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan would think that way as well. A former footballer at Kasımpaşa Erok Spor, Erdoğan played against Asa.

“No doubt he will say, the better team will deserve the win in the Turkey-Armenia game,” said Asa. “Because he is a professional that would separate football from politics.”

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

A journey into Turkey's wild east

9 Dec. 2007
Jakarta Post, Indonesia
Tim Hannigan, Contributor, London

The man behind the counter in Istanbul train station raised a quizzical eyebrow: "It's dangerous in the East -- Islamists, the Kurdish rebels, and it's close to Iraq. Are you sure you want to go there?"

I smiled nervously and nodded. He shrugged and handed over a ticket for a 30-hour train ride into Turkey's wild eastern borderlands.

I did wonder if this was a sensible time to be making the trip: it was late autumn, and for weeks tension had been mounting along the Iraq-Turkey border, with the Turkish parliament threatening cross-border raids against rebel bases in northern Iraq. But I put such worries from my mind, clambered aboard the train and settled down for the long journey across Anatolia.

The splendors of Istanbul have been attracting tourists for more than a millennia and the package resorts of Turkey's Mediterranean coastline seethe with sunbathers every summer, but I was heading for somewhere altogether different.

Eastern Turkey fades into a tangle of sensitive borders: Georgia, Armenia, Iran and Iraq. A geopolitical hotspot for centuries, invaded by Mongols and Russians in the past and riven by insurgency in recent decades, it's not surprising that it has never been much of a tourist destination.

But it wasn't stories of violence that I had in mind as the train rolled on past Ankara into the night: it was images of clear skies, jagged mountains and cobalt-blue lakes.

A long way from Istanbul

I was a long way from Istanbul now. There wasn't a trendy wine bar or upmarket boutique in sight, and there certainly weren't any girls in short skirts. Instead there were bulky women swathed in coal-black chadors, donkey carts in the alleys of the bazaar and a faint smell of spice in the gritty wind. Welcome to eastern Turkey.

Erzurum, where I clambered down from the train, seemed adrift in a huge landscape. From the minaret of the fifth-century citadel that loomed over the town I could see the sweep of empty yellow steppe to the north, and the ribbed brown hills, glowing in the October sunlight to the south.

Erzurum is an ancient city. A staging post on the Silk Route, it was repeatedly seized by invaders. The conquering armies left their marks on the town, and the arrow-straight main street is a thoroughfare through Turkish architectural history with ancient mosques and seminaries between the modern shops and cafes.

The cosmopolitan secularists of western Turkey will tell you that Erzurum is a hotbed of aggressive Islamic radicalism. There are certainly more veiled women than on the streets of Istanbul, but it's a remarkably friendly place, and everywhere I went the people offered warm greetings and cups of sweet black tea.

***

East of Erzurum the countryside was colder, and wilder. Great expanses of flat red-brown earth ran out from the road as the bus sped along the highway to Kars. Mud-walled villages stood in groves of poplar trees and small boys herded flocks of shaggy brown sheep over the broken soil. In the distance a long ridge of hills rose to a pale sky.

Kars is just about the most remote city in Turkey. Made famous by author Orhan Pamuk in his novel Snow, for many Turks Kars is a synonym for cold provincial backwardness.

It was certainly cold when I arrived just before nightfall. A bitter wind was howling along the grid of streets laid out during a period of Russian occupation, but there was real warmth in the people here. I ate a delicious dinner of stewed lamb and aubergine with tomato and fresh bread in a lokanta -- a simple cafe. The waiter had worked in Germany as a young man and had picked up a little English there. He was eager to welcome me to his part of the country.

"People in Istanbul say it is dangerous here," he said. "We are poor, yes, but we are good people."

Toward the Frontier

The next morning the hills beyond Kars were covered with snow. The sense of winter rapidly closing in added a feeling of excitement as I boarded a battered minibus heading towards the Iranian frontier.

The road passed villages hidden among willows and poplar trees. Ahead the great conical peak of Mount Ararat -- where according to legend Noah's Ark ran aground after the Flood -- rose from a yellow horizon. Kurdish folk music played on the minibus stereo and a blue and white charm to ward off the evil eye dangled from the rear view mirror.

In the early afternoon I arrived in Dogubayazit, a wild little border town, 20 miles from Iran, clinging to a hillside above an empty plain with Ararat looming in the distance.

Dogubayazit's most famous attraction stands on a high promontory above the town. The Ishak Pasa Palace is one of the most stunning buildings in Turkey. Built by a local chieftain two centuries ago, it looks out over the vast landscape of eastern Anatolia. The courtyard was deserted when I visited and the honey-colored limestone of the columns and archways glowed in the afternoon sunlight.

As I walked back downhill toward the town three boys huddling behind a low wall out of the chilly wind called me over to ask my name and my country. When I returned the question about nationality they glanced nervously at one another and mumbled, "Turkey". But as I walked away they called me back and hissed, "We are not Turkish, mister; we are Kurdish."

The Kurdish homeland sprawls across the borders of Turkey, Iran, Syria and Iraq. For many years Eastern Turkey -- the Kurdish heartland -- has seen vicious fighting between the Kurdistan Workers Party, known as the PKK, which wants to establish an independent Kurdish homeland, and the Turkish army.

In the last couple of years there have been moves towards peace, but the increasing Kurdish autonomy over the border in Northern Iraq has made the Turkish government nervous, and reignited the aspirations of Turkey's Kurds.

Abandoned churches, troubled past

The waters of Lake Van, a vast inland sea in hemmed in by rugged mountains, were as blue as lapis lazuli. The hillsides beyond the shore were dusted with snow, but it was warm in the bright sunlight. I was standing beneath the golden sandstone walls of the Armenian Church of the Holy Cross on the tiny island of Akdamar, a mile out in the lake.

I had caught a lift in a truck along the lakeside road, then convinced a ferryman to take me across despite the lack of other passengers.

The Kurds were not always the only troubled minority in eastern Turkey. A century ago the area was home to several million Armenians. As the Turks fought Russia in the First World War the Armenians were accused of having pro-Russian sympathies and deported en-masse to Syria.

During the deportations hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, died. Many regard the fate of the Armenians as the 20th Century's first case of genocide; for the modern Turkish government it is an issue still too sensitive for open discussion.

What is certain is that all that remains of centuries of Armenian culture in Eastern Turkey are enigmatic ruins like the church at Akdamar.

The church was beautiful. Inside its echoing chambers the delicate iconography could still be made out, a thousand years after it was painted. I wandered the island for an hour, then caught the ferry back to the mainland and hitchhiked into Van.

The city of Van was the last stop on my tour through Turkey's wild east. It was a bustling place and the sprawling bazaar hummed with sights and sounds. Great bolts of colored cloth hung outside tailors stores; pavements were lined with boxes of dates, nuts and apricots.

The smell of fresh bread wafted from hole-in-the-wall bakeries, and the sizzle of grilling meat drifted out from kebab stalls. Old Kurdish men in black-and-white headscarfs hobbled along the alleyways, and shopkeepers called me inside to give me sweet tea and creamy feta cheese.

Eastern Turkey might be the most troubled part of the country, but it is probably the friendliest. And despite the checkposts and army bases I saw in the region there was no hint of trouble, hostility or impending violence.

I spent 24 hours in Van then took an afternoon flight back to Istanbul. As the Turkish Airways jet roared up into the evening sky I strained my head to catch a last glimpse of the wild landscape through the cabin window. To the south ranks of hills ran on and on. Somewhere among them were the PKK camps and the troubled Iraqi frontier, but you'd never have known it.

***

Three hours later I was plodding uphill from the Golden Horn into the heart of Istanbul. The bars and upmarket restaurants were crowded; sleek modern trams hummed along the streets, and there were girls in short skirts.

I found a cozy little guesthouse amid the carpet shops in the shadow of the Blue Mosque. The young man on reception asked where I had arrived from and raised an eyebrow when I told him. "The East?" he said, "But it's dangerous out there."

I smiled, finished checking in, and set about putting him right.

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Armenian Patriarch of Istanbul Takes on Politics of Genocide

Volume 73, No. 39, September 29, 2007
Armenian Weekly, MA
By George Shirinian

“…I find in particular the approach of Ittihat Terakki’s collective punishment of Armenians quite wrong. It wasn’t the whole Armenian community who took up arms against the government, but I believe the Turkish Republic should not be accused of what happened then. The diaspora would say that it should be accused as long as there is a denial of what happened.”

“…But the Government of the Committee for Union and Progress, being in charge of the country, is chiefly responsible for the painful events that occurred and the great suffering that was endured. If you do not hold the government in charge of the behavior of the country as responsible for that behavior, then whom will you hold responsible? Instead of eliminating in their local areas the armed Armenian factions who were in rebellion, the Government of the Committee for Union and Progress sent all Armenians in the Ottoman Empire on a sort of death march to the Syrian Desert; it sentenced them to death. Therefore this party is chiefly culpable for the 1915 events.”

***

These words come from Mesrob II, Patriarch of the Armenian community of Turkey, in an interview with the Turkish newspaper Today’s Zaman on Sept. 17, and quoted in an editorial by Harut Sassounian on Sept. 20.

Why is the Armenian Patriarch of Turkey involving himself in such a highly politicized issue as the Armenian genocide? Doesn’t he know that whatever he may say or do publicly regarding this emotionally charged subject will never be considered strong enough by some Armenians in the diaspora, and that he will be perceived by many as a tool of the Turkish state? At the same time, doesn’t he know that he will always be considered with suspicion by nationalistic elements of Turkish society, simply because he is an Armenian leader?

The purpose of this commentary is not to advocate any position, but merely to raise questions in an attempt to understand what is happening and its implications.

Why the Today’s Zaman interview now? According to Zaman, the paper had been trying to interview the Patriarch unsuccessfully since before Hrant Dink’s death. He declined then and continued to do so because of the many threats he received. Did he accept to be interviewed now because of the recent election, from which the AKP is flush with victory? Did he do so because of his concern to improve relations between the newly re-elected government and Turkish society with the Armenian minority? Did he do so because of his concern to improve relations between Turkey and Armenia, as part of that?

Why take this risk now? Is he not aware that he may be dragged into the courts on the basis of Penal Code Article 301? After all, it is well known that the Armenian Patriarch operates under considerable constraints, due to the social and political environment in Turkey being so explosive, particularly as a result of the legacy of the genocide and the notorious Article 301.

Is he not aware of the current political environment in Turkey, eloquently described by Yavuz Baydar in an article titled “Free speech hell, hate speech paradise?”:

“Turkey is a peculiar country where free speech is still limited and hate speech goes mostly unpunished and ignored. The latest act of shame was the song video posted on YouTube that openly praises the murder of our colleague, Hrant Dink. As we brought attention to the act in the Turkish press, reactions of the singer and some supporters were not of defensiveness but of aggression. This is the mood that still prevails, despite the election results, in Turkey. Not a day passes without a newspaper or TV channel spreading hatred, lies, anti-Semitism and enmity of certain countries/nations. A few days ago, a sports columnist called a German footballer ‘Gestapo.’

“The sad part is, while the prosecutors and courts (including the higher courts) are busy and keen on sentencing people who ‘denigrate Turkishness’ or ‘insult the military,’ almost none of them care (or dare) to deal with hate speech cases. DTP deputy Akýn Birdal was almost murdered because of hate reports by daily Hurriyet; the Armenian Patriarchate was stoned and steadily threatened as daily Tercuman portrayed Mesrob II—the patriarch—as a villain, even after Dink’s murder! These acts of shame have been going on for years.’’ (Today’s Zaman, Sept. 20)

Is it the case, as Harut Sassounian wrote, that “…the sinister hand of the Turkish government [is] orchestrating the Patriarch’s speaking engagements, using the connections of high-powered lobbying firms hired by Ankara,” and that “He must at all cost resist the pressures exerted upon him by Turkish officials, in order not to allow them to use him as a propaganda tool serving Turkey’s denialist agenda”?

Is the Patriarch a tool, and if so, is it by force or by choice? Is it possible that some of his remarks were part of a strategy to help break down state taboos over discussion of the Armenian genocide, as a part of the democratization process of Turkey, like Hrant Dink used to do? Were these carefully considered statements from an individual in his prominent and precarious position utilizing “a change in the style and modalities of discourses dealing with history,” as Taner Akcam put it? (see “Dialogue across an International Divide: Essays towards a Turkish-Armenian Dialogue,” Cambridge, Mass., and Toronto: Zoryan Institute, 2001, p. 28.)

Is there a chance that this interview is part of a strategy to open up discussion on taboo Armenian issues? This could be in keeping with an important principle: “A society that erects taboos against a discussion of historical events and institutes related prohibitions can not have a democratic future. The road to achieving a state based on law and justice, which we wish to be the case for our country, Turkey, must pass through a gate where one can ponder and come to terms with one’s past. Those who can not bring themselves to discuss history openly, can not have a future, either.” (Akcam, p. 29.)

Could one consider the questions above as possibilities when analyzing some of the Patriarch’s other statements in that interview?

When asked if he thought the investigation into the murder of Hrant Dink had been conducted thoroughly, he stated, “I’d like the real perpetrators behind this crime to be found. Otherwise justice won’t be served.”

Without pointing fingers or making direct accusations, did he in effect answer “No?”

Was the Patriarch, in his efforts to preserve the future of the Armenian community in Turkey, trying to assert the historic rights of the Patriarchate (granted originally by Mehmet the Conqueror in 1461, as the interviewer notes) by (a) calling for the restoration of assets seized by the state since 1936, (b) pointing out that the former president vetoed religious foundations* and expressing the hope that the new president will approve them, and (c) calling for schools to develop clerics and the Armenian language?

If this was his objective, then why get mixed up in the genocide issue?

One wonders if Patriarch Mesrob II is using the interview in Today’s Zaman as an opportunity to highlight his primary concern and responsibility for the survival and welfare of what is left of the Armenian community in Turkey. Is it fair to assume, then, that (a) he is using this opportunity to introduce a new language to educate Turkish civil society about the Armenian genocide, by referring to it as “collective punishment” and a death sentence for all Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, without using the “G-word,” and (b) he is doing this with the hope that, ultimately, the Turkish state, government and society are able to accept the culpability of the Committee for Union and Progress, the perpetrator regime, and through such acceptance eliminate the tension, which has been menacing the Armenian community since 1915?

It seems that through the interview, the Patriarch raises serious questions regarding the rights of the Armenian community in Turkey. These rights are seldom discussed in the Diaspora, while they are vital to the Armenian community in Turkey. By referring to them, the Patriarch not only re-affirms them, but also contributes to the current efforts to transform Turkey into a legal, rational state that should have an inclusive approach to its minorities.

It is incumbent on all of us—Armenians, Turks and others—to read critically and with an open mind what a person in the Patriarch’s circumstances says. It is by asking such questions as those raised in this text that we can promote rational public debate. This has been one of the main goals of the Zoryan Institute from its inception.

*Religious foundations refers to the General Directorate for Foundations, which regulates the activities of non-Muslim religious groups and their affiliated churches, monasteries, synagogues and related religious property, including approximately 50 Armenian sites. In 1974, amid political tensions over Cyprus, the High Court of Appeals ruled that the minority foundations had no right to acquire properties beyond those listed in the 1936 declarations. Unfortunately, the court’s ruling launched a process under which the state seized control of properties acquired after 1936.

George Shirinian is executive director of the Zoryan Institute.

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

We Cannot Afford to Lose Our Armenians!

Friday, June 8, 2007
Turkish Daily News
Orhan Kemal Cengiz - ISTANBUL

If more people followed the example of Orhan Kemal Cengiz, there would be no problems between Turks and Armenians. Turkey would gain in international status and will prosper. The reality unfortunately is different and is getting worst. A quote from this article is shown below:

"One of these steps is that Turkey must start confronting its past. Without this, without having an honest and open discussion about our history, we will never heal and we will never able to put a mirror in front of these racists, which means that we will be seeing the same nightmares again and again. "

I wish I had Armenian neighbors living in my block of flats. I wish I could see a Turkish colonel of ethnic Greek origin in the Turkish military talking about the relations between the Turkish and Greek militaries. I wish I could hear a Jewish judge in a Turkish courtroom reading her judgment with a Jewish accent.

If I move to Istanbul I may have Armenian neighbors, but my latter two wishes seem unlikely to be granted in the near future. Once, Armenians lived all over this country and we had a huge population of Jewish and Greek Ottoman/Turkish citizens. They seemingly vanished and now we are facing the risk of losing even the remaining handful of non-Muslim citizens of this country.

After the murder of Hrant Dink threats against our non-Muslim citizens have intensified. Reportedly youths from these communities have started preferring new lives in foreign countries. I am afraid that new attacks and new murders, which unfortunately are not unlikely, will speed up this migration.

I would like to bring to your attention a new kind of threat especially directed towards Armenian schools, which evidently aims at scaring away Armenians from Turkey. I would like to quote from a recent threat letter received by Armenian schools.

The following text was on the first page of the message: "This was sent to all institutions concerned with the matter. This movement was started for the sake of Turkey's future and its unity."

The following pages featured a long text, entitled "The Last Warning and Ultimatum," accusing Turkish Armenians of separatism and efforts to ruin the Turkish state.

The message also mentioned the murder of Hrant Dink: "…exclamations saying ‘We are all Armenians, we are all Hrant Dink' are examples of extreme chauvinism and summons for revolution. Do not forget that besides the Armenian citizens of Turkey, there are also Armenians from Armenia in our land, and they number over one hundred thousand. Both their addresses and their workplaces are well known. Henceforth we hope to see our Armenian citizens as advocates of truth, concerning the Armenian genocide or any other matter, and as defenders of the Turkish statehood.”

“We shall keep an eye on how the Armenians are playing this role. Otherwise, the Armenians shall be those to lie in the grave and count how many Armenians and how many Turks there were in the ‘ages long past'. This land has never pardoned treachery and shall not. Who does not stand for our paradise homeland is against us and shall be vanquished."

The text ends with the following words: "There is no defense line. That line is the entire territory. Anything else is just a trifle when the fate of the homeland is concerned. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk…This is the last ultimatum. It is not to be repeated."

It is a shameful insult to Kemalists that such a racist hate speech document refers to Atatürk's remarks. Kemalists should take into account that some “sheep” among them may be turning into “wolves” in the night!

Recognizing and excluding these racists from their circles is the most urgent and foremost duty of the Kemalists in this country. They should be on high alert for racist rhetoric among their members.

It is also quite thought provoking, isn't it, that this racist letter threatens Armenians with a total extinction if they talk about the Armenian genocide—“Do not talk about genocide or you may be the victim of a new one!”

In the face of these threats we see no serious preparation to protect our citizens of Armenian origins. There are very urgent steps that the Turkish government should take to protect their lives and well-being.

I would like to urge the government and state officials that we cannot stand any new attack on these vulnerable groups. Protecting them is the highest moral obligation of the Turkish Republic and no other priority should prevent Turkey from fulfilling this responsibility.

Our minorities are not able to take public positions. We do not see them as police officers, as soldiers, or as judges. What a pity! They are forced to live an isolated life in their ghettos.

Already long ago we lost the richness the minorities contributed to our lives. But losing even the last members of these communities to foreign countries would be unbearable.

For some, homogenization of Turkey might be the final goal, but I assure you the side effects of achieving it will make this country unlivable, unlovable and primitive.

I also believe that security measures provide only a temporary relief, not a cure, for this racist disease. In the long term we need to take a lot of other serious steps.

One of these steps is that Turkey must start confronting its past. Without this, without having an honest and open discussion about our history, we will never heal and we will never able to put a mirror in front of these racists, which means that we will be seeing the same nightmares again and again.

orhan.kemal@tdn.com.tr

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Film on Armenian Genocide screened in Istanbul without any debates

01.06.2007
Public Radio of Armenia

The screening of film titled “Return” of French-Armenian director Serge Avetisyan in Istanbul did no result in any incidents, although it was dedicated to the Armenian Genocide. This proved that it is possible to watch the film in Istanbul without any debates, informs “Marmara” daily, referring to the French “Liberassion.”

This documentary was screened in the framework of the 5th conference on freedom of speech at Bigli University.

It was noted that Serge Avetisyan’s grandfather was forcefully displaced from his native Soloz village. According to the “Liberasison,” it became clear from the screening of the film that Turks know nothing about the Armenian Issue and are guided by certain prejudices.

The film was warmly accepted by the Turkish-Armenians. The film reminds also that last year the conference on “The Armenians of the Ottoman Empire” resulted in heavy disputes.

! Reproduction on full or in part is prohibited without reference to Public Radio of Armenia

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Who was Hrant Dink?

May 22, 2007
Reporters without borders (press release), France

The article below says:"The victim of his struggle against the Turkish state’s revisionism, Dink was one of the figureheads of the battle of Turkey’s Armenians for recognition of the 1915 massacres. His murder highlights a disturbing situation in Turkey in which rampant nationalism continues to contaminate the younger generations. Dink’s murder has been a rude awakening for the political and civic consciousness, and many are now pressing for reform of article 301."

“We have killed a man whose ideas we couldn’t accept” - Orhan Pamuk

Turkey’s journalists are mourning the death of Hrant Dink, 52, a newspaper editor of Armenian origin who was gunned down on 19 January. The barbaric action of Ogün Samast, a 17-year-old Turkish ultra-nationalist, silenced an advocate of peace and democracy. Throughout his career, Dink fought passionately for acknowledgement of the Armenian genocide, and was awarded the Henri Nannen Press Freedom Prize in recognition of his efforts. His death has exacerbated the divisions between nationalists and the more progressive sectors of Turkish society. Tirelessly committed and always controversial, Dink never lost faith in the possibility of national reconciliation.

“I have the right to die in the country where I was born”

Born on 15 September 1954, Dink grew up with his two brothers in a Protestant Armenian orphanage in Istanbul. A zoology and philosophy graduate, he founded Agos, the country’s first bilingual Turkish-Armenian weekly, in 1996. Endowed with a bold and acerbic style of writing, he waged an unflagging battle for better relations between Turks and the Armenian minority. He regarded Agos as “a bridge between the Turkish and Armenian communities (...) The only way to combat the deep-seated prejudices in Turkish society.”

Dink was subjected to administrative harassment and judicial intimidation throughout his career. In October 2005, he was convicted under article 301 of the criminal code, which protects Turkish identity. There have been serious violations of free expression since this article’s adoption in June 2005, and around 65 writers and journalists have been prosecuted. This law, which Reporters Without Borders has repeatedly condemned, allows the Turkish authorities to maintain their harassment of the media, journalists and intellectuals. The targets have included Nobel literature laureate Orhan Pamuk, journalist Umur Hozatli and of course Dink.

Dink’s comments about the Armenian genocide were called an “offence to Turkey.” In 2005, he received a six-month suspended sentence for “humiliating Turkish identity.” He was prosecuted again in September 2006 over an interview he gave to Reuters in which he referred to the massacres in Anatolia during the First World War as “genocide,” and he had been facing a possible three-year prison sentence.

Regarded by nationalists as a traitor, Dink became a target of groups on Turkey’s far-right. Despite all the threats and accusations, he always refused to leave Turkey. In his last interview he said: “It is here that I want to pursue this struggle. Because it is not just my struggle, it is the struggle of all those want the democratisation of Turkey. If I surrender and leave the country, it will be a disgrace for everyone. My ancestors lived in this country, it is here that I have my roots and I have the right to die in the country where I was born.”

In his last column, which appeared in the 19 January issue of Agos, on the day he died, he expressed his feelings about the prosecutions that had been brought against him. He spoke movingly about a man who was afraid: “I see myself like a scared pigeon but I know that in this country, the people do not attack pigeons (...) Pigeons can live in the cities, even in crowds. Nervous, certainly, but free.” Dink’s young murderer confessed to shooting him in order to put an end to what he considered to be insults to Turks.

Dink is survived by his widow, Rakel, and their three children. As she stood beside his coffin, covered by yellow and red carnations, his widow told a silent crowd of 100,000 mourners: “We say a finally goodbye to my beloved, the patriarch of our family and the half of my body.” She also described the passion that burned in her husband, for whom “there were no taboos and nothing was untouchable.”

A life of struggle

The victim of his struggle against the Turkish state’s revisionism, Dink was one of the figureheads of the battle of Turkey’s Armenians for recognition of the 1915 massacres. His murder highlights a disturbing situation in Turkey in which rampant nationalism continues to contaminate the younger generations. Dink’s murder has been a rude awakening for the political and civic consciousness, and many are now pressing for reform of article 301.

The presence of senior Armenian and Turkish officials at Dink’s funeral has been seen as a sign of improvement in relations between the two countries. Although it recognised Armenia when it obtained independence in 1991, Turkey has never accepted its responsibility for the 1915 genocide.

The silent procession of around 100,000 people on 23 January is evidence that a significant part of the Turkish population is committed to the defence of freedoms. All the communities taking part shared in brandishing banners that said: “We are all Armenians. We are all Hrant Dink.” The slogan was all the more surprising in a country where “Armenian”is still sometimes used as an insult. Dink today rests in Istanbul’s Armenian cemetery, but his struggle goes on.

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

TURKISH NATIONALISTS THREATENING ARMENIANS

15/05/2007
AZG Armenian Daily #090

On May 14 "Global Hay" news agency sent to "Azg" the copy of a message, received by "Surb Levon Vardukhian" Armenian school in Istanbul.

On the very first page of the message the following inscription could be found: "This was sent to all institutions concerned with the matter. This movement was started for the sake of Turkey’s future and its unity. Regards".

The next pages featured a long text, entitled "The Last Warning and Ultimatum", and accusing Armenians in separatism and efforts to ruin the Turkish statehood. The message also told of the Murder of Hrant Dink. "…exclamations "We are all Armenians, we are all Hrant Dink" are examples of extreme chauvinism and summons for revolution. Do not forget that except Armenian citizens of Turkey, there are also Armenians from Armenia on our land, and they count over 100 thousand. Both their addresses and their workplaces are well known. Henceforth we hope to see our Armenian citizens as advocates of truth, concerning the Armenian Genocide or any other matter, and as defenders of the Turkish statehood. We shall keep an eye on how the Armenians are playing this role. Otherwise the Armenians shall be those to lie in the grave and count how many Armenians and how many Turks there were in the ‘ages long past’. This land has never pardoned treachery and shall not. Who does not stand for our paradise-homeland is against us and shall be vanquished", says the message.

The text ends with the following words. "There is no defense line. That line is the entire territory. Anything else is just trifles when the fate of the homeland is the matter. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk". "This is the last ultimatum. It is not to be repeated" – say the last words of the message.

This latest expression of Turkish violent nationalism is unsigned. Nevertheless the quote from Ataturk must remind us of the Kemalist chauvinistic movement. This movement is called to protect the statehood of Turkey, and that statehood is supervised by the Special Forces Department of the army, which was the initiator of political crisis during the presidential elections in Turkey. Thus, the spiteful message should be ascribed to the armed forces of Turkey and linked with the political events about the presidential elections.

By H. Chaqrian

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Armenians of Istanbul to celebrate Holy Easter in Turkey under the police control

April 7, 2007
HULIQ
Source: Public Radio of Armenia

”Unfortunately, today we are not surprised to see at least 15-20 policemen next to our churches, who are working to prevent interference.

Certainly, entering the church under the guidance of Turkish policemen is not that pleasant for Armenians of Istanbul, but they hope that next year they will not be in the centre of attention of nationalists,” Mr. Hatechian says.

“The Armenian community of Constantinople is closely connected with its Church,” writer and famous intellectual Rober Hatechian from Istanbul told “Radiolur” correspondent. At this point there are more than 30 operating Armenian Churches in Istanbul. On religious holidays these Christian Churches are crowded with pious people and, of course, if there are clergymen.

The Holy Easter is usually celebrated in at least 20 Armenian Churches, since, according to Mr. Hatechian, the number of clergymen is small. “During the recent years the Armenian Patriarch has started inviting clergymen from Europe, Anthelias and Armenia, who come to participate in religious ceremonies,” he said.

The Armenians of Istanbul celebrate Easter with great luxury. According to tradition, in the second half of the day the Armenian Patriarch organizes a reception in the hall of the Patriarchate.

However, this year the Armenian community has certain concerns before the holiday. After the assassination of Hrant Dink and the threats to the Armenian Patriarch of Istanbul, Armenians have decided to undertake strict security measures round public establishments and churches.

”Unfortunately, today we are not surprised to see at least 15-20 policemen next to our churches, who are working to prevent interference.

Certainly, entering the church under the guidance of Turkish policemen is not that pleasant for Armenians of Istanbul, but they hope that next year they will not be in the centre of attention of nationalists,” Mr. Hatechian says. - Public Radio of Armenia

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Hrant Dink and Armenians in Turkey

23 - 2 - 2007
Open Democracy
By Hratch Tchilingirian

Hratch Tchilingirian is associate director of the Eurasia Research Programme at the Judge Business School, Cambridge University

The assassination of the Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink on 19 January 2007 and its aftermath highlighted both change and resistance to change in Turkish society. To understand how far Turkey has travelled in the past generation, Hratch Tchilingirian examines the role of Hrant Dink himself in the context of the Armenian community of which he was voice, critic, and emblem.

On 18 October 1994 a press conference called by the then Patriarch of the Armenian Church, Karekin Kazanjian, was held at the Armenian patriarchate in Kumkapi, Istanbul. It was organised to correct what the church saw as misinformation amounting to a slander campaign against the Armenian church in particular and the Armenian community in Turkey in general. The "highlight" of this campaign was an attempt by the patriarchate to voice protest against false, even lethal, accusations in Turkish media and political circles that Armenian clergymen were supporting Kurdish Workers' Party (PKK) terrorists in their secessionist struggle against the Turkish state.

A photograph allegedly depicting an Armenian priest in the company of PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan, widely distributed on posters, was a key instrument of these accusations. Indeed, shouted slogans such as Apo, Ermeni pici ("Apo [Öcalan's nickname], Armenian bastard") were at the time commonly heard during nationalist demonstrations and street protests.

The patriarchate's communiqué on the matter categorically denied the existence of any ties between the Armenian community in Turkey and any terrorist organisation, and explained that the priest in the relevant photo was not a cleric of the Armenian church. The document went on to condemn such anti-Armenian insinuations in both print and broadcast media, expressing the serious concern that such false rumours, assumptions and misrepresentations were endangering the Armenian community in Turkey and making the lives of individual Armenians difficult.

The press conference - attended by some seventy Turkish and foreign journalists - was a tense affair. Several journalists harassed the patriarch with presumptuous questions laced with innuendo about contentious issues, including the PKK and the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (Asala) - a small, Lebanon-based terrorist group that had killed thirty-four Turks (mainly diplomats) between 1975 and 1983, mainly in western Europe. (Asala had no presence, links or any type of backing among Armenians in Turkey, and minimal support even among diaspora Armenians).

As the interrogators became increasingly belligerent, a tall figure forced himself into the heart of the journalistic melèe. "As a member of the patriarchate's press office, I would like to answer that question", Hrant Dink announced. He continued:

"Respectable representatives of the press, we are trying to shake off from our shoulders a discomfort which causes pressure. It is for this reason that we are trying to voice our protest against a false claim. Apart from that, all your questions have been answered many times before. The Armenians of Turkey are not terrorists and they have never provided aid to terrorism, from whichever direction that may come. From now on too, this is the way it is going to be. Armenians will never support terrorism. As citizens of this country, we would like to live in peace and tranquility. This is the message of this press conference. ... The Armenians, all Armenians in the world, especially Armenians in Turkey, at this moment have only one preoccupation: peace, peace, and peace" (see Marmara [Istanbul], 19 October 1994).

This was the moment Hrant Dink fully entered public life. The occasion, the pressure, the times themselves were such that he chose - publicly, confidently and courageously - to address the "discomforts" and "burdens" put upon his community by the state and a highly politicised media. It was the moment Hrant Dink openly began to deal with the dilemma of being simultaneously a citizen of one country, Turkey, while being part of another nation, Armenia.

A time of silence

It was never going to be easy, for the challenge was at once institutional, legal, and political.

The Armenian community, like that of other minorities in Turkey, experienced shame, humiliation, harassment and intimidation across the long decades from the 1950s to the 1990s without being able to speak up in its defence - and in a very different atmosphere to later controversies over Article 301 and even minimal debate about the genocide of 1915. The Armenian community in Turkey in this period was characterised by its reclusive existence and collective silence.

The defining institutions of the Armenian community in Turkey were and are the church and the school. Both faced (and face) perennial problems that kept Hrant Dink and his colleagues awake at night. The interference and heavy-handedness of the Turkish government in the Armenian community's process of electing a patriarch (in 1990, and again in 1998) were among the arduous legal problems enmeshing this key Armenian body. On the second occasion Hrant wrote:

"We are sad ... The (Armenian) community is deeply hurt by the uncertainty created by the escalation of the senseless crisis about the election of an acting patriarch. These are trying days ... We are observing with shame" (see "Uzgunuz", Agos, 21 August 1998).

The situation with the Armenian schools was (and is) no better. Hrant wrote many columns about the state of Armenian schools in Turkey, and took special interest in their administration. While criticising his own community for its shortcomings, he also berated the Turkish government for imposing numerous administrative restrictions on minority (and not only Armenian) schools.

Hrant passionately recorded the constant indignities experienced by Armenian educators. In August 1998 he wrote:

"If I am not mistaken, it was three years ago ... One of the vice-directors of the ministry of national education's Istanbul office - who was later convicted of corruption and bribe-taking - said the following to the "vice-principals" he appointed (whom the minority schools call "Turkish vice-principals"): "You are our eyes and ears ... You are to inform us of even the minutest mistakes that these people make." He said this in the presence of the minority school principals, with total disregard for their dignity and common courtesy.

"... And what was I fantasising all these years ... With my 45-year-old brain, I was thinking: 'would, one day, a minister of national education start the ceremony for the new school year in a minority school?' Sweet thoughts ... My naïveté ... Sorry ..." (see "Kinkel ve Valilik", Agos, 21 August 1998 - translated excerpts posted on www.groong.com).

A voice of dignity

Hrant Dink and his colleagues were symbols as well as agents of change in relation to the Armenian community in Turkey. They were determined to express the indignation and resentment they experienced as citizens of the Republic of Turkey. If society and the political system did not allow them to voice their fears, concerns, and hopes for their community and for Turkey, the silence surrounding them - they believed - must be made audible.

Hrant Dink was from 1996 the editor-in-chief and a columnist of the Armenian-language weekly newspaper Agos in Istanbul. The paper aims to provide a voice for the Armenian community in Turkey and to further dialogue between Turks and Armenians

It was to a large extent this combination - of the hunger to speak and the desire to address the "existential" problems surrounding the Armenian church and educational establishments - that sparked the creation of the bilingual weekly newspaper Agos in April 1996.


The five colleagues who founded Agos were: Diran Bakar, a laywer; Luiz Bakar, also a lawyer and (since 1994) the spokesperson of the patriarchate; Harutiun Sesetian, a businessman; Anna Turay, a public-relations professional; and Hrant Dink, who at the time owned a bookshop.

The founding members - as is the case with any equivalent innovative project - were to have their differences in subsequent years. But at its heart, Agos (and Hrant in particular) remained consistent in the effort to open channels of communication and dialogue between the reclusive - and at times isolated - Armenian community and Turkish society.

Hrant defined one of the newspaper's purposes as "(trying) to identify and explain our problems to the government and to Turkish society", while acknowledging that "because of this, we sometimes have problems" (Armenian International Magazine, 11/3, March 2000). His core belief was that prejudices could be overcome by education and dialogue.

The target of this education and dialogue was not just misunderstanding and prejudice in Turkish society, but the Armenian community itself. Hrant's critical discourse about the Armenian community, and especially the Armenian patriarchate, was unpopular, costing him supporters and even friends.

In June 2001, for example, on the occasion of the 1,700th anniversary of Armenian Christianity, he wrote: "The Armenian church has suffered divisions throughout history and it is evident that it has not learned from its own history. The 'one nation - one church' rule, which has been repeated almost everywhere during these last years, is nothing but a slogan void of content" (see "Spiritual Chess", Agos, 1 June 2004 - translated from Turkish by Anahit Dagci).

At the same time, many found his passion, genuine concern and sincerity disarming. Most people in the Armenian community saw Agos as a courageous publication where issues related to Armenian identity and community were discussed with refreshing openness, reason and a genuine desire to build bridges across large divides - whether within Turkey, with Armenia or with the diaspora.

In the course of this work, Hrant came to a profound realisation: that the resolution of the problems of the Armenian community in Turkey was intimately related to the progress of tolerance, democracy and freedom in Turkey.

Armenians, here and there

Dogu Ergil observed after Hrant's death that he had "aimed to promote the idea that there are other ethnic-cultural groups in Turkey than Turks and Muslims, and (that) they can very well blend into the nation cleansed of stereotypes and biases". Hrant wanted, said Ergil, to "defend Armenians against majority fanaticism in Turkey and to defend Turks/Turkey against the fanaticism and hypocrisy of foreigners and diaspora Armenians" (see "Hrant Dink: Requiem to a Lesser Turkey", EU Turkey Civic Commission, 25 January 2007).

In recent years, the "Armenian issue" - as the problem of the genocide is referred to in Turkey - had indeed become a central theme in Hrant's public discourse. The centrality of the "Armenian issue", in fact, has come to cast a shadow over the other problems of the Armenian community in Turkey: ownership of property, community foundations, education of clergy, school administration, and church elections among them. (Why, for example, should the affairs of minorities in Turkey still be "administered" by Turkey's council of ministers, interior ministry, the security and intelligence agencies, and the foreign ministry?).

If the central, heated question of genocide came to dominate discussion of Armenians and Turkey, it is one that Hrant Dink and a considerable segment of the Armenian diaspora could not agree on. On the eve of the 24 April commemorations in 2002, for example, he addressed members of the Armenian diaspora in France in an interview with L'Express newspaper.

"Do not seek Armenian identity among the 1915 graves", he advised. "I am ready to discuss all issues with you ... I am proud to be a Turkish Armenian. I want to represent, with my newspaper, the rebirth of this society. Armenia will never be safe unless Turkey achieves democratisation. I believe Turkey may be a chance for that young state which is on the brink of drowning. Tomorrow, thanks to Turkey, Armenia will get the chance to become neighbors with the European Union. Turkey is Armenia's only chance" (Turkish Daily News, 23 April 2002).

More than the semantics of the issue, Hrant's approach to the issue of 1915 and Turkey-Armenia relations focused on the substance of reconciliation. "I know what happened to my grandparents", he told AFP. "It does not matter what you called it: genocide, massacres or deportation" (Agence France Presse, 8 October 2000). Hrant strongly believed - to the dismay of many in the diaspora - that the more essential thing was to influence Turkish public opinion. "The winning of the empathy and compassion of the Turkish population is far more important than the adoption of Armenian resolutions in hundreds of parliaments elsewhere".

Hrant spent considerable time and energy in seeking to persuade the diaspora that there is a new dynamic and a new openness in Turkey, involving an unprecedented interest in and discussion of Armenian issues. He said that "this process has been developing very slowly, just like the democratisation of Turkey", in a way that encouraged him to believe that "the taboo (of 1915) too will be broken".

Yet anyone who is familiar with "breaking taboos" in Turkey knows the extreme dangers involved in such a process. Hrant himself was well aware of the possible consequences: "We never deny our own history. But Armenians (in Turkey) are unable to discuss it for fear it will harm the community's existence" (see Ayla Jean Yackley, "Turks confront dark chapter of Armenian massacres", Reuters, 26 April 2005).

In his response to this predicament, Hrant displayed one of his largest virtues: courage. As he wrote in openDemocracy in 2005:

"Where fear is dominant, it produces symptoms of resistance to change at all levels of society. The more some people yearn and work for openness and enlightenment, the more others who are afraid of such changes struggle to keep society closed. In Turkey, the legal cases against Hrant Dink, Orhan Pamuk, Ragip Zarakolu or Murat Belge are examples of how the breaking of every taboo causes panic in the end. This is especially true of the Armenian issue: the greatest of all taboos in Turkey, one that was present at the creation of the state and which represents the principal "other" of Turkish national identity" ("The water finds its crack: an Armenian in Turkey", 13 December 2005).

Hrant Dink "was Turkey in its complexity", wrote Dogu Ergil. "He was a Turk against Armenian extremism and an Armenian against Turkish extremism."

The day of Hrant Dink's funeral was the evidence of how far Turkey had travelled since that press conference at Istanbul's Patriarchate in 1994. More than twelve years on, the Ermeni pic epithet hurled by nationalists was overtaken by the cries of Hepimiz Ermeniz ("We are all Armenians!") in the throats of tens of thousands of Turks. Hrant himself, in his life as much as his death, had played an enormous role in bringing about that change. He opened the door to a future that Armenians and Turks must find together.


Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Turkey begins self reflection over Armenia

Jan 21, 2005
Yahoo News

ISTANBUL (AFP) - While an exhibition in Istanbul devoted to the daily life of the Armenians in Anatolia at the start of the 20th century is breaking attendance records, Turkish society is beginning to reflect on the Armenian question, erased from official history for the past 90 years.

"In Turkey, history has always been taught about one people -- the Turks, as if there had never been any other people on the territory. When we speak of Armenians, they are not described as an integral group of society but as a source of problems," explained Osman Koker, exhibition director.

"It's to fill this void, because I have an 11-year-old daughter who is getting this kind of education at school, that I have decided to publish a book and put on this exhibition," said Koker, an historian turned editor.

"Without this realisation, it will remain impossible to discuss the events of 1915," he said, referring to the Armenian massacres committed between 1915 and 1917 by the Ottoman armies.

Several state-subsidised organisations continue to conduct research aimed at showing that if there was a genocide, it was more likely committed by Armenians against the Turks.

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.