However, even if everything else is suspicious, these two facts were evident and beyond any doubt: The Cage action plan referred to the murder of missionaries in Malatya and the murder of priest Father Andrea Santoro in Trabzon as well as the murder of Dink as an operation. Here is the critical sentence in the documents relating to the plan: “In the aftermath of the priest Santoro, Malatya Zirve Publishing House and Hrant Dink operations, a new view emerged in Turkey believng that non-Muslims were being targeted by fundamentalist groups.” In addition, two people who followed the hearings during Dink’s trial in 2002 were Veli Küçük and Kemal Kerinçsiz, who jailed in Silivri Prison as suspects in the Ergenekon investigation.
However, those who have been trying to undermine the Ergenekon investigation in connection with which these individuals are being tried have used Hrant to prove that Turkey has turned into a country where people are being silenced by the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) and the Gülen movement and where journalists are jailed or killed. However, as spelled out in the anti-AK Party and Gülen action plan, which was referred to as a piece of paper at the beginning, but then the original documents were found, the two entities were on the target list of Ergenekon. In other words, just how Hrant was the victim of these circles, the AK Party and the Gülen movement were also victims. In addition, documents related to the Ergenekon case revealed that Hrant became a victim used to destroy these two primary targets just like Mustafa Özbilgin, who was murdered in an attack against the Council of State.
Speaking to the Star daily, Erhan Tuncel explained why Hrant was picked as a target: “There was a coup plan that would be implemented in 2009. The planners wanted to commit a previously deliberated murder that would alienate the government in the international arena and undermine the image of institutions and bureaucracy. The reason why Hrant Dink was chosen for this plan was that he represented Turkey well abroad. Dink was the target of neo-nationalists who wanted to put Turkey into a difficult position.”
Can you imagine that the organization called Ergenekon murdered Hrant to ensure that the political administration would not be supported by the West anymore, Turkey’s relations with Europe would be undermined, to make the world believe that there was a growing threat of Islamism and that there were grounds to conduct a coup. And then, in reference to the murder of Hrant, the same circles put out propaganda that Turkey was moving away from democracy under the Islamist government. Is this strangeness not the primary reason that Mahcupyan, as an intellectual of Armenian origin who assumed Dink’s position at the Agos daily after his death and who has been consistently a democrat, had to write this column even if it meant that he would break his principle of not delving into this matter anymore?
The meaning of this incident, which would make you question your mental health, is propaganda as it is termed within psychological warfare techniques. In a book titled “Psychological Warfare,” published in 1954, propaganda is defined as being for military, economic and political purposes to influence the minds and emotions of a targeted group by using mass communication devices. In the same book, three types of propaganda are explained as the following: It is white propaganda when the source of the message is obvious; it is grey if the source is vague and it is black propaganda when the information received is false but is presented as if it came from a friendly source. In our case, this can be the explanation of what happened: supporting the structure that killed Hrant and presenting his death as an opportunity for democracy and freedoms.
There are a number of Armenian intellectuals in Turkey, but Mahcupyan and Markar Esayan who are entitled to speak and write about the Hrant case insistently point to one thing. However, a chorus of domestic and international conspirators refers to an opposite point. As the true friends of Hrant, they refer to Ergenekon, whereas Hrant’s parasites point to the AK Party and the Gülen movement.
Let us just say that there is an abnormal situation in Turkey because of increased polarization. But what would you say about the foreign journalists who represent the most prestigious institutions and should remain more objective? Why would they not ask such figures as Mahçupyan, Esayan, İshak Alaton, Alper Görmüş, Yavuz Baydar, Ahmet Altan, Orhan Kemal Cengiz, Hasan Cemal, Yasemin Çongar about whether Turkey is more democratized compared to the past. Are they afraid of dealing with the truth? Or is there an organized propaganda warfare that transcends our borders?
