• am
  • ru
  • en
print version
22.02.2007

The assassination of Hrant Dink and political developments

   

Sargis Harutyunyan

If the developments on Karabakh issue may be considered to be the most important political issue of 2006, then Armenian-Turkish relations pretend to take the first place in the prospective of 2007. Just like in case of Karabakh developments, any serious change in Armenian-Turkish relations may have its influence on the whole region.

It is not by chance, that at lest the two of the international force centers, presented in South Caucasus, spare no effort to transform Armenian-Turkish relations.

In the above mentioned context it is obvious, that the assassination of Hrant Dink, the chief editor of “Agos” newspeperon, on January 19, 2007, relates not only to Armenian-Turkish relations, but also is reflected in regional developments.

New Tendencies in Armenian-Turkish relations

Special attention should be paid to the fact that the issue of Armenian-Turkish relations has become one of the elements of electoral campaign in Armenia. The same can also happen in Turkey, where are to be held presidential and parliamentary elections in May and November of this year1. However, the situation in connection with Armenia is quite different:

  • It has been announced that the issue has become the foreign policy initiative of one of the most influential powers of Armenian elite,
  • The developments in that direction should be considered in the context of Yerevan’s new approach in its relations with the EU and the US.

During the last month the official Yerevan has publicly turned to Ankara for two times to establish diplomatic relations. In the articles of Armenia’s defense minister Serj Sargsyan, published in “The Wall Street Journal” on December 22, 2006 and in “European Voice”2 on February 1, 2007, was mainly called for regulating the relations between the two countries.

There is little probability that just before RA Parliamentary elections in May, the politician with remarkable political influence would appear with such unprecedented and risky public demarche without having certain guaranties for success.

The mechanism of carrying out such a demarche is not of little importance. It is known that the publication of conceptual material in the western authoritative mass media is one of the mechanisms of representing important foreign policy initiatives of the elite of Post Soviet (and not only) different countries (Russia in the first place). Thus, the presentation of such initiatives supposes response of corresponding level, including the one by the western elite. In case of Armenia, one may add that the initiative didn’t proceed from the official Yerevan.

And, at last, one should not ignore the fact that the response of Turkish information field to the RA defense minister’s public announcements was positive. Let’s notice that such a position is hardly the result of decision made on the level of editors.

The Response to the assassination of Hrant Dink in information field

According to information provided by “Reports without borders” organization, for about 81 journalists and 32 so called media assistants were murdered during the year of 2006.

The assassination of Hrant Dink, the chief editor of “Agos” newspaper published in Istanbul, was widely discussed in international information field. Although, besides Armenian and Turkish mass media the case was interpreted by European, Russian and Middle Eastern mass media, however, it is noteworthy that the chief editor’s assassination was also considered to be one of the top news of American, British and French mass media.

At least three days (the assassination day, the next day, on January 20 and the day of Hran’t dink’s funeral on January 23) the topic of the assassination was one of the three main news of CNN, BBC and EuroNews TV channels. For example, on January 20 the murder case even took the place of the two main news of some news releases on CNN, leaving the Iraqi issue behind.

Special attention should be paid to the fact that the assassination of the chief editor of “Agos” was interpreted by a number of popular American commentators and journalists in American mass media.

However, in the international information field the subject of Hrant Dink’s assassination was singled out as a result of high level political response.

Besides, the RA president Robert Kocharyan, the Catholicos of Armenia and of All Armenians Garegin II and Turkey’s prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the assassination was denounced and condolences were expressed to Dink’s family by the president of France Jacques Chira, the minister of home affairs and the right wing candidate of the coming elections Nicola Sarkozy, the foreign minister Philip Dust-Blazi, Italy’s prime minister Romano Prondi, the foreign ministries of the United States, Germany ( as a presiding country in the UN as well), Greece, UN Secretary General Terry Devis.

On January 30, the Congress member of the group supporting Armenians, Joseph Crowley, represented a resolution denouncing Dink’s assassination to the discussion of the House of Representatives; on January 1 his example was followed by the Senate’s chairman of Foreign Policy Committee Joseph Bayden, who presented a suchlike resolution to Senate’s discussion and on January 2 the 42 US congressman sent a letter denouncing the case to Turkey’s foreign minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

On February 1 the EU Parliament observed a minute of silence in memory of the chief editor of “Agos”. On January 26 it became known that The European Court of Human Rights entertained a claim of Armenian-language Agos newspaper editor Hrant Dink after he was sentenced to half-a-year imprisonment for “offending the Turkish identity” according to the article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code.

Internal developments in Turkey

Hrant Dink’s assassination was followed by a number of events in Turkey worth mentioning.

It is noteworthy that Ogul Samast, a 17 years old youth was arrested in connection with the slaying of the leading journalist, and Turkish mass media spread information on his close ties with a Turkish nationalistic organization. Taking into account Turkish peculiarities, gathering and spreading of such information were not without participation of Turkish security services and correspondent decision of political importance.

The next noteworthy circumstance was the multi-thousand3 rally organized on the day of Dink’s funeral on January 23 and especially the slogan of “I’m Armenian” in the hands of thousandof participants. It is more probable that such a mass rally was sure to enjoy state support.

On January 26 Turkey’s interior minister Abdulkadir Aksu dismissed the governor of Trabson, Hussein Yavuzdemir, and the police chief, Resat Altay4. It is hardly possible for the interior minister to make such a decision by himself. Taking into account the coming presidential and parliamentary elections in Turkey in May and November of this year, it is hardly possible that the political power, leaded by Recep Tayyip Erdogan, would decide “to medley situation” in the elite of one of the provinces.

And at last, on February 2, one of the Turkish private TGRT TV companies broadcasted a material, where the arrested Ogul Samast was being pictured with the state flag in his hand and in the company of law enforcement bodies. On February 5, five policemen depicted in the photo, were already arrested and five more were transferred to another work. Taking into account Turkey’s state control and especially over TV companies, it is noteworthy that the material released by anti-terrorist center of police station of the Turkish town of Sasun was broadcasted.

Conclusions

Armenian-Turkish relations are on the threshold of transformation. The developments of the last two years were at least pursuing that aim.

From this standpoint, one should mention the articulation of the word “genocide” by the former US ambassador to Armenia Jhons Evans at the meeting with the Armenian community in San Francisco5. After the dismissal of Evans, the delay of affirming the candidacy of the new US ambassador to Armenia Richard Hogland by the Senate6, the information campaign on resolution 106 presented to the House of Representatives on recognizing the Armenian Genocide at the end of January of this year7, and the approval of the bill on Armenian Genocide denial. All these should first of all be considered to be a pressure on Ankara to review Armenian-Turkish relations.

Information activity on the occasion of Hrant Dink’s assassination should be considered as the component part of the same strategy. In connection with the editor’s assassination, Turkey found itself under unprecedented international information-psychological pressure, in the context of which were developed the issues on Armenian Genocide and Armenian-Turkish relations.

Special attention should be devoted to the fact that in case of Ankara was applied the same technology of international information-psychological pressure as in case of Moscow after the assassination of the well-known Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya on October7, 2006 in Moscow and the death of the former lieutenant of the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation Aleksandr Litvienko, on November 24, as a result of lethal polonium-210 radiation poisoning.

Armenia has also its part in continuous diplomatic-information pressure on Turkey. In particular, in this connection it is worth mentioning official Yerevan’s activity on the occasion of Dink’s assassination and the above mentioned articles of the RA defense minister Serj Sargsyan.

From the other hand, the standpoint, that the developments which followed the assassination of Hrant Dink were not quite unexpected for Recep Tayyip Erdogan, becomes more grounded. In this case two aspects should be singled out:

  • One shouldn’t exclude that the antinational information campaign following the chief editor’s assassination was directed to Turkish society’s psychological-information “processing”, aiming at improving the image of Armenians and Armenia in Turkey, for example, towards regulating Armenian-Turkish relation (as it is known, Turkish nationalism is the principal adversary of such a prospective)8,
  • Perhaps the developments following Hrant Dink’s assassination are to be used in the coming presidential and parliamentary elections by the political power leaded by Erdogan against his main adversaries consisting of a secular part of the elite enjoying the army’s support and ideologically pursuing Turkish nationalism9.

In general, the pressure exerted by the United States and a number of European countries on Turkey has a strategic purpose to strengthen its influence by means of opening Armenian-Turkish boundaries. The latter should be considered in the context of strengthening the western presence in the region, preserving the flow of oil and gas from the Central Asia and the Caspian Sea, reduction of Russia’s influence in South Caucasus and at last making the situation possibly controllable along Iran’s north-western borders (in connection with Iran’s nuclear issue).

1 It is noteworthy the announcement of Turkey’s prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Jenuary 29, that he doesn’t exclude the fact that Hrant Dink’s assassination may be connected with the coning elections in Turkey.

2 “European Voice” belongs to “The Europen Group” publishing such British influential journals as “The Economist”, “Economist Intelligence Unit” and others.

3 According to some estimation, for about 100 thousand people took part in Hrant Dink’s funeral.

4 On Fabruary 5 was dismissed the police chief of Istanbul’s special services Ahmed Ilham Guler.

5 In spite of different versions, it is hardly possible, that Evans, who worked in the system of the US State Department for many years, would utter the word “genocide”, without the permission of official Washington.

6 If in autumn 2006 only the senator Robert Menendez was publicly against Hogland’s candidacy, now the leader of the majority of Democrats in senate Harry Rid and Charles Shumer have assumed the same position.

7 Among many opinions, according to which this year the US House of Representatives will recognize the Armenian Genocide, one should probably single out the suchlike announcement of the former US ambassador to Turkey Mark Peris, made on January17, 2007. Peris’s announcement may be perceived not only as estimation, but a peculiar message to official Ankara.

8 Besides antinational information campaign, it may be proved by the announcements made by the members of Turkish government on reconsidering 103 article of the Penal Code. By the way, if the issue of Hrant Dink’s assassination becomes the subject of electoral campaign, then such a situation may be perceived to be an intention of waging an additional information campaign directed to reconsider Armenian-Turkish relations.

9 The contradictions between the Islamic powers headed by Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the secular powers supported by the army became tenser when the new head of the Joint Staff of Turkey’s armed forces become Yashar Boyuqanit, on August 2006. According to information spread by Turkish mass media, in spring and summer of 2006 the general Yashar Boyuqanit, still in his former post of commander of land forces, formes illegal military units to struggle against Kurdish fighters.


Return
Another materials of author