TURKISH MFA COMPLAINT ABOUT SENATE RESOLUTION ON

C O N F I D E N T I A L ANKARA 000478

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/02/2017
TAGS: PREL PHUM TU
SUBJECT: TURKISH MFA COMPLAINT ABOUT SENATE RESOLUTION ON
HRANT DINK


Classified By: AMBASSADOR ROSS WILSON FOR REASONS 1.4 (B) AND (D)


1. (c) Turkish MFA U/S Apakan called in Ambassador March 2
regarding the Senate draft resolution on the Hrant Dink
assassination that has been introduced by Sen. Biden.


2. (c) Reading from a Washington EMBASSY report, Apakan noted
that S-Res 65 is listed publicly on the SFRC agenda for March

6. It contains language about Dink having been prosecuted
"for speaking about the Armenian genocide." Turkey, which
has been giving priority attention to the draft House
resolution on the Armenian genocide itself, was surprised by
this. While the resolution as a whole is unobjectionable,
Turkey asks that this phrase, or at least its reference to
Armenian genocide, be removed. Just like the House language,
the resolution as it now stands will have negative
implications for US-Turkish relations and for public opinion
at a time when our governments need to cooperate in
confronting common problems in Iraq and elsewhere.


3. (c) Apakan said he understood that Turkish Ambassador
Sensoy had spoken with A/S Fried regarding the matter and
appreciated that the Administration is aware of it. An aide
noted that a similar House resolution on Dink (introduced by
Rep. Crowley) had been revised weeks ago to delete the
genocide reference. He said that Turkey hopes for the same
this time.


4. (c) Ambassador said the he will report the MFA's concern
to Washington. He said there is some discussion of opposing
in this resolution the specific rsue that he
felt should be dealt with by Turks and Armenians directly.
One of the two prosecutions of Dink dealt with this. In
2005, Dink was convicted for insulting Turkishness under
Article 301. At issue was an article in Dink's Agos
newspaper that contained a sentence discussing Armenian and
Turkish blood. Dink contended publicly that the sentence had
been misunderstood and that the point of the article was that
Armenians should get over their obsession with genocide
recognition. A second, 2006 Article 301 case was more
problematic. It involved remarks by Dink to Reuters: "Of
course, I'm saying it was genocide. Because its consequences
show it to be true and to label it so." It was not clear
that that this had ever moved beyond the stage of filing
charges to court proceedings, but it is difficult to contend
that, factually, this is not "prosecution for having spoken
about the genocide." Ambassador reminded Apakan of our
repeated urgings, and those of senior Washington officials,
visiting members of Congress and others, to change Article

301. There remained an opportunity, and Turkey should take
it.

Visit Ankara's Classified Web Site at
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/eur/ankara/

WILSON