Since about five or six years the Armenian identity in Turkey has been going through a very radical process of reconstruction. This non-Muslim minority, to use the terms of the Lausanne Peace Treaty of 1923, has started to participate to the country’s politico-cultural life very actively.
Agos: Its Publication, Objectives, Structure, Content, and Style Publication
On 22 April 2001 the daily Cumhuriyet published, on the sixth anniversary of Agos, an interview with the latter’s redactor-in-chief, Hrant Dink, who tells about the story of this publication:
“Everything started when the Patriarch Karekin II invited a few friends over. It was the years 1994-95. There was something that bothered him a lot. Certain false news in the Turkish press were linking Armenians of Turkey with the PKK. The picture of Ocalan with an Armenian priest published in the front page of Sabah was presented as the proof of this cooperation. The reporting was fabricated, the Patriarch was helpless, and the note he sent to the newspaper had not been published. He asked us what should be done. (...) We all pointed out the following: the fact that the Community was closed to outside world and therefore was unable to express itself to the greater society was a great handicap. This could not go on like this. This secluded life was unable to save the Community from melting. There should be some kind of opening. The method should be setting up a dialogue with the Turkish press”.
In other words, the start of Agos took place in a totally negative atmosphere. On the other hand this showed how “dialectics”, in that sense that everything bears within its very negation, was meaningful: The Armenians of Turkey had to really be in trouble to destroy the shell that imprisoned them.
Objectives
After the meeting, the group organized a press conference and explained that the priest on the photo was not an Armenian cleric. The press was very interested and the group decided to hold monthly meetings with the media. The final decision was to found a newspaper in Turkish. In the same interview H. Dink explains the reasons :
1) The need to defend the Community point of view when needed, and also introduce the Armenians of Turkey to the national public opinion.
2) The younger generation and those who came to Istanbul from Anatolia don’t speak Armenian and we can overcome this only with a newspaper in Turkish.
3) It’s very difficult to raise intellectuals in a Community that uses Armenian only and we need a “kitchen” to open the channels.
These considerations found their reflection in the zero issue of Agos published on 25 February 1996. The first issue appeared on 5 April 1996. This date was also the Armenian Easter known as Surp (“Saint”) Zadik; it symbolized the rebirth of the Community, and the Patriarch Karekin II had saluted the publication as “ a gift of Surp Zadik ” in this first issue.
Structure
Careful about their autonomy, the founders of Agos did not look for a sponsor and founded the paper by contributing each 3-5000 dollars and thus collecting some 18-20.000 dollars for a start; they also got about the same amount in credits. The publication was started thanks to the voluntary help of a few Turkish professionals as the group originally had only one professional journalist among them. As a non-profit organization, the weekly can currently stand on its feet with the revenues of subscription, sale and advertisements.
Agos started with 8 pages and sold 1.800 copies. It is now 12 pages, 3 in Armenian and 9 in Turkish, and sells 6.000. Of these, 1000 copies are sold to non-Community circles in Turkey, 2000 in various foreign countries, and the rest to the members of the Community and also at newspaper stands in various cities. It can also partly be read on the Internet (www.agos.com.tr). In the same interview, H. Dink says the best readers of Agos are “those who burn in the Diaspora with the Anatolian nostalgia”, as a result of which the weekly has subscribers in all continents.
The founders of Agos are between 30 to 60 years of age. All of them are university graduates, left (in US terminology: liberal) wing intellectuals who mainly are critical both of the Community and the State.
The personnel of Agos which includes two most senior journalists of the Community, Yervant Gobelyan and Hagop Ayvaz, is composed of about 30 salaried people, except the editor-in-chief who doesn’t get paid. Its columnists include three non-Armenians. The personnel is mostly composed of college students and also youngsters studying journalism. Since the foundation some 90 of them worked for Agos and are now working in various publications of the national press.
Content and Style
The following is a list of the main subjects treated on first page:
1) News depicting and answering any accusations against the Community, whichever source these may come from (the State, media, individuals, etc.). Main examples of these are those news, reports, etc. criticizing the State’s unfair treatment of Armenian foundations (waqf) and especially those pertaining to the “1936 Declaration”.
2) Human rights violations and problems of democratization in Turkey.
3) Main developments in the Republic of Armenia and in Caucasus, especially those pertaining to Turkey-Armenia relations and more particularly to the dialogue between the two countries.
4) The current situation of Armenian cultural heritage that contributed to the Ottoman Empire and Turkey, its importance, and any mistreatment these may encounter. Serials like “Bir Zamanlar” (Once Upon A Time) and “Ermeni Kadim Tarihi” (Armenian Ancient History) are cases in point which detail the Armenian existence in Anatolia before the First War.
5) Malfunctions in Community institutions and the non-transparency of their administration.
Agos is treating these subjects in a mild but determined style, and criticizes them by offering alternatives. The Patriarchate is not spared in these critics. Agos is generally critical of the current state of affairs in the Community and thinks it is not transparent enough. It strives to put an end to the isolation of the Community and it wants the Community to open to Turkish society with self-confidence.
Agos, which follows very closely all acts unfair to the Community, keeps its cool when the media overacts “in defense of the Armenians”. For instance, it carefully examines a media news about a “Senior citizen unable to get a free bus pass from the municipality because he is a non-Muslim” and writes that it is an “asparagas” (intentional false news). In fact, we learn that the false news was spread by the mayor of another municipality .
Main Observations, Theses, Methods, and Objectives of Agos
Up till now Agos had many observations and theses that did not coincide with those of the Community and of the Diaspora, and were even contrary to them. These can be summarized as follows:
1) Turkish language should be preferred to Armenian for many reasons. Because the majority of the Community doesn’t know enough Armenian to follow newspapers in this language and is therefore isolated from the Community. On the other hand, not using Turkish isolates him from the national majority.
2) The future of the Community is not promising, because the self-isolation that pushes it away from the majority cannot protect its identity. With the effect of globalization youngsters suffer slow and natural assimilation. The Community must open itself to the national society.
3) The main issue is to be able to get rid of the fear of assimilation. Once free from it, members of the Community will be more realistically able to protect their identity and make themselves accepted by the majority. The contemporary tendency is anyway towards integration with the society at large without getting assimilated into it.
Agos is trying to materialize this courageous observations and theses by publishing both in Armenian and Turkish. The 12-page weekly’s 3 pages in Armenian symbolize: “We’ll not be assimilated”, and the 9 pages of Turkish: “We want to get integrated”.
4) To reach this important and delicate objective, two main prerequisites must be realized :
First, to underline the important contributions of the Armenian heritage to the common Anatolian culture at the same time with opening to the Turkish society at large. This aim is being materialized also by publications other than Agos nowadays. In the last five years or so over 60 books are published about the Armenians of Turkey by Turkish writers and the Aras Publishing House, run by Armenians. The most recent of these is a 865-page book in very large format, written by Arsen Yarman on “Osmanli Saglik Hizmetlerinde Ermeniler ve Surp Pirgiç Ermeni Hastanesi Tarihi” (Armenians in Ottoman Health Services and the History of Saint Pirgiç Armenian Hospital) and published by the said Hospital.
Second, Armenians should be able to get rid of the residues of the past and look at the problems through the eyes of the other side (the majority) as well. In other words, Armenians should be able to display empathy. This will incite the majority to act the same.
This second observation, which H. Dink expressed by saying “Turkish-Armenian relations should be taken out of a 1915 meters-deep well” , is of great importance, because it is a hundred per cent against the genocide thesis of the Diaspora and the Republic of Armenia. In this context empathy has nothing to do with accepting or refusing the genocide.
According to Agos, the genocide discourse is not a historical term but a political one. It is cherished by the Diaspora for two important reasons:
First, it is a “national cause” that hinder its assimilation;
second, it increases its political influence in the host State.
But the same discourse is blocking both the Turkish-Armenian dialogue and the integration that is in the good interest of Armenians in Turkey. What’s more, this blocking is being made while the Turkish intellectuals have started questioning 1915 in every way. Everyone should abstain from blocking a dialogue that would for sure be beneficial to everyone (the Diaspora, Republic of Armenia, Turkey).
5) The main methods to be used to get integrated without getting assimilated should be as follows:
- First: To criticize the wrongs done by the State and underline the fact that a strong Turkey would be achieved if discrimination is eliminated. This should be done with seriousness, and a very careful and legally clear style.
- Second: To criticize and therefore strengthen the Community. This will be made possible by criticizing three groups of individuals or groups:
1) Those who mismanage the Community institutions;
2) Those who don’t care to struggle to obtain rights by legal ways (“They can’t take away your rights as long as you don’t surrender them” );
3) Those for whom nothing seems enough. That is to say, those who are never happy with the rights that the Community obtains and who are rather inclined to refuse its non-perfect gains. After all, this is a country that is very reluctant to concede rights to its majority as well.
- Third: In order to continue to be influential and constructive, Agos should be very careful not to take sides between conflicting parties, i.e. between the Community and the State, between various institutions of the Community, between the State on one side and the Diaspora and the Republic of Armenia on the other. A good example of this is H. Dink’s article entitled “23,5 Nisan” (23,5 April) .
- Four: Armenians of Turkey should rely on internal dynamics instead of external dynamics . In history, Armenians have been used and abused over and over again, and have always been left to themselves by the big powers when calamity arrived. Internal dynamic (democracy) works much slower in this country and is much more painful, but it’s much safer and lasting.
- Five: The rights of the Armenian community should not be constructed on the axis “Protection of Minorities” as expressed in articles 37-44 of the Lausanne Peace Treaty (=positive rights under international guarantee), but on “Prevention of Discrimination” (=negative rights=democracy). And this is so, for the simple fact that positive rights approach founded on international guarantee isolates the minority, sterilizes it in a milieu where it cannot protect its identity either, and identifies them as a target. Democratic rights founded on the “guarantee of Turkish public opinion” are more secure.
As to the founding objectives of Agos, H. Dink says in the same Cumhuriyet interview: “We reached well beyond our objectives in proportions we themselves have not expected” and explains:
1) Communication in the Community has developed considerably. For instance, 16.000 participated to the last Patriarchal elections while 5-6.000 had voted in the previous one.
2) Agos has succeeded to build a “kitchen” and has even raised many journalists.
3) It successfully introduced the Community to the Turkish society. Nowadays when any information about the Community is needed, it’s Agos that people come to. So much so that, now there is a real need for an Institute of Armenian Studies.
4) We set up links with many Turkish writers. Now we have many friends. They automatically speak in defense of us any time the need arises.
5) We can even say that an unpredicted mission has fallen upon us : The setting up of a dialogue between Turkey and Armenia, between Turkish and Armenian peoples. We are most pleased to try to work for it.
Conclusion
The weekly Agos is published with an approach very different from what the Armenian community had shown earlier. It has applied mild but determined methods to solve the chronic problems accumulated during the self-isolation days of the Community.
During its six years of publication so far, Agos has followed a neutral line that criticize both the State and the Diaspora.
It has not feared the Turkish State when it openly criticized its unfair policy of discrimination and resolutely defended its identity in an undemocratic atmosphere. As a matter of fact the newspaper was twice banned from circulation, as the State was not used to and/or prepared for such a different and determined approach .
On the other hand Agos has not feared the possibility of being considered by the Diaspora as a “Fifth Column” either, for resolutely refusing to accept the genocide approach, and for opting for a voluntary integration into the Turkish society.
In this picture, Agos is perfectly in line with the contemporary approach to human and minority rights and thus greatly contributes to the democratization process of Turkey. But its most important contribution to its host State resides in the fact that it brings, without knowing it, the only possible solution to Turkey’s greatest problem, the Kurdish Question, by offering a model founded on resolute insistence on its lower identity while voluntarily accepting the country’s upper identity.
Télécharger le texte de l'article au format PDF
RSS 2.0