As someone who has had the privilege of knowing him and who greatly admired his wisdom and bravery, I will also be among those who will gather to commemorate him where he was shot, in front of the offices of Agos, the Turkish-Armenian journal he founded and edited.In the three years that have passed since his killing, the suspected perpetrator and his immediate accomplices have been arrested and put on trial, but those who masterminded the plot to kill him still wait to be identified. There is widespread suspicion that security personnel who were informed beforehand about the plot and did not take steps to stop it are being protected by certain authorities in an effort at a cover-up. Dink’s attorneys have repeatedly stated that unless the various investigations started are placed under the jurisdiction of and coordinated by the İstanbul court handling the case, the plot to kill him will never be fully revealed.
There is widespread suspicion among those concerned with the Dink case that his murder was part of a wider conspiracy. A report drafted by the İstanbul Police Department suggested that the killings of Catholic priest Andrea Santoro in Trabzon in February 2006, Hrant Dink in İstanbul in January 2007 and three Christians in Malatya three months later were part of a plan devised by Ergenekon, a clandestine organization whose suspected members are currently on trial, accused of creating chaos in the country to pave the way for a military takeover. The Cage Operation Action Plan, which was retrieved from a CD seized in the office of an Ergenekon suspect last November, refers to the killings as “operations.” The CD also exposed Ergenekon’s plans to assassinate prominent non-Muslim personalities, including the Greek Orthodox patriarch, and place the blame for the killings on the Justice and Development Party now in power.
Hrant Dink died three years ago, but as a co-founder of Agos, Arus Yumul, head of the sociology department of İstanbul Bilgi University, told daily Taraf, “Hrant’s death is not an end but a beginning.” In the three years that have elapsed, Turkey has come a long way toward achieving the cause Hrant dedicated his life to.
Due in main part to debates triggered by Hrant’s killing, Turkey has become far more aware of the injustices inflicted upon not only Armenians but all non-Muslim citizens, not only during the Ottoman era but also in the Republican period. In the three years that have passed, substantial progress has been made towards normalization between the two countries and peoples Hrant loved. On the occasions of the soccer games between the national teams, the presidents of the two countries visited each other. On Oct. 10 of last year, the two countries signed protocols to establish diplomatic relations, open the border and set up commissions to deal with bilateral issues including historical ones. The next step is ratification by the respective parliaments and implementation of the protocols.
On Jan. 12 the constitutional court of Armenia determined the protocols to be in conformity with Armenian legislation. The protocols are now to be reviewed by the foreign affairs committees of both parliaments prior to being submitted for ratification. It is expected that the Armenian parliament will debate the protocols in March. Turkey seems to link the ratification of the protocols to steps towards normalization of relations between Azerbaijan and Armenia and the ending of Armenian occupation of Azerbaijan territory. Ankara is expecting the Minsk Group and especially Russia to put pressure on Armenia to move in that direction. It appears that the Turkish-Armenian normalization process is currently stuck on that point. There are, however, innumerable political and economic advantages of normalization for both sides, and as long as the leaders on both sides consider normalization to be in line with national interests, there are grounds for a cautious optimism for the process to get unstuck. It remains to be seen how this will come about.
I have for years, along with many others in Turkey, strongly advocated the unconditional establishment of diplomatic relations and opening the border with Armenia. The avoidance of such has not at all helped Turkey internationally or Azerbaijan towards an end to the Armenian occupation. The fact that the occupation continues is undoubtedly a growing security threat to the entire region. Ankara, on the other hand, by normalizing its relations with Yerevan, can assume a stronger position to convince it to move towards reconciliation with Baku. I and my like-minded Turkish commentators, however, are not bound by the same constraints facing Turkish decision-makers. Such constraints, provided not only by Baku but also by the political opposition in Parliament and the ethnic Azeri lobby, cannot be underestimated. We will have to wait and see how they deal with these constraints.
