Tweet
THREE PERSPECTIVES ON THE FRENCH PARLIAMENT BILL ON THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE OF 1915-1917
Gunduz Aktan, Aghasi Harutyunyan, and Morgan Poulizac
http://peacejournalism.com/ReadArticle.a sp?ArticleID=12348
PeaceJournalism.com, Nepal
Dec 5 2006
An account of the French Parliament bill recently passed condemning the
Armenian Genocide of 1915-1917. The three articles below - providing
French, Armenian, and Turkish perspectives - highlight the controversy
and possible implications of the legislation. Varduhi Tovmasyan is
responsible for commissioning all three pieces.
Benefits of Waiting
Gunduz Aktan
Some time has passed since the French Parliament passed the bill that
criminalizes denial of the Armenian Genocide. Now that it has lost
its newsworthiness, we can better analyze the matter.
Passing such a law caused some problems for France, but we should not
exaggerate them too much. The criticisms directed against France were
all for needlessly limiting freedom of expression. Most EU citizens,
especially the French, believe the Armenian incidents in 1915
constitute genocide. All those who have anything to say first voice
their belief that the genocide actually occurred before criticizing
the bill. Maybe they get the right to raise such criticism only after
they present their credentials.
Most of the criticisms in Turkey are also for France limiting freedom
of expression. That's why some argue that annulling Article 301 of the
Turkish Penal Code (TCK) would prove we respect freedom of expression
more than France and would provide a very wise response.
However, the problem goes beyond freedom of expression or academic
freedoms.
Genocide is the worst of crimes. Just like every other crime, law
defines it and the courts decide on it. Without a verdict, a person,
a group or a country cannot be accused of having committed genocide.
Moreover, it is impossible to refute a crime that has not been
proven first.
That's exactly why a law passed by the French Parliament in 2001 that
recognizes the Armenian Genocide cannot be enforced. On the other
hand, the Gaysot Law (1990), which criminalizes denial of the Jewish
Holocaust, is enforceable because it is based on the Nuremberg court
sentences. Professor O. Duhamel, fervently praised former minister
Jack Lang as the only person who had the courage to voice this. How
unfortunate for France.
If the bill becomes law in its present form, the right of Turkey
and the families of Enver Pasha and Talat Pasha to defend themselves
against the charges are rescinded. This is a more severe human rights
violation than limiting freedom of speech.
After this injustice, the gestures of French President Jacques
Chirac and the French government, as if they share our concerns,
are sickening. The Armenian government has also resorted to similar
deception as if it has nothing to do with such initiatives. They place
the blame with the Armenian diaspora. Actually, while one tries to
protect its commercial interests, the other is working to ensure that
the Armenians who illegally work here are not repatriated. They are
after both material and moral benefits.
Armenians used Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia
(ASALA) terrorism to promote their genocide claims and largely
succeeded. Westerners saw the courage to resort to terrorism as proof
of Armenians having been victims of genocide. They ignored the carnage
of terrorism until it also harmed them.
This incited Armenians to threaten academics in the United States who
said there was no genocide. They pressured universities to dismiss
such academics. They prevented publishers from printing anything that
went against their thesis. Those that were published were collected.
Dissident voices were not permitted in the meeting they held.
They walked through the corridors of the European Parliament,
brandishing guns in 1987 in order to ensure the resolution the European
Parliament was debating would support their thesis. They prevented
deputies from entering the meeting hall.
The threats by some Armenians made against one Armenian member of
the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Council (TARC) resulted in him
hiding his family at a secret location and blood clots that caused
him to undergo two surgeries.
Armenian lobbies that spend exorbitant amounts of money influenced
administrations and parliaments. The Armenian diaspora used their
votes for political blackmail. They bought hundreds of people and
made them write books full of lies. It was proven that the Talat Pasha
telegraph was false. What Henry Morgenthau wrote about Talat Pasha and
Enver Pasha is full of falsehoods, too. Lepsius, who never set foot in
Anatolia, talked about the incidents as if he were an eyewitness. The
Blue Book is only war propaganda. They have now started to bribe Turks.
There is no United Nations resolution on the matter, but they look us
in the eye and say there is. Our archives are open, but they say they
aren't. They say the Teskilati Mahsusa (Ottoman intelligence services)
organized genocide. Professors Lewy and Ericson smash this theory. Yet
they still look the other way. The figures they quote are sheer lies
and the documents they cite are a sham.
What does this disgrace have to do with freedom of expression?
-----------------------
The Genocide Denial Bill: Charting the Armenian Reaction
Aghasi Harutyunyan
To understand the reaction of the Armenian public and leadership to the
recent adoption by the lower house of the French Parliament of a bill
declaring the public denial of the Armenian genocide a crime, one has
to firstly understand the emotional intensity with which Armenians
treat the issue of the recognition of the 1915-17 genocide in the
Ottoman Empire. To put it bluntly, this issue is probably the cause
which unites Armenians all over the world irrespective of gender, age,
social status and even language and culture. Generations of Armenians
have devoted their lives to this cause and after hard battles have
managed to persuade the parliaments of a number of countries, but
first of all Turkey, to join them in condemning the extermination
of the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire as an instance of
genocide. No wonder, then, that any and all developments on this
front receive an emotional response from Armenians residing both in
the Republic of Armenia and outside, in the diaspora centers spread
across the world.1 The response to the adoption of the French bill
was no exception in this sense.
The majority of Armenians saluted the October 12th decision of the
French National Assembly although not everyone was quick to see
pro-Armenian sentiment in that act. In the days following the act
of adoption, the political forces and the media inside the country
devoted significant attention to the issue and analyzed thoroughly
the causes that made the French Parliament's lower house take the
extraordinary step as well as the harsh reaction from Ankara. This
article is an attempt at charting how Armenians received, perceived
and analyzed the news of the adoption of the bill.
Although the Armenian authorities welcomed the approval of the bill,
they somehow distanced themselves from the process showing that it
was a step the French took on their own without the interference of
the Armenian diplomacy. "Today's approval of the bill by the French
National Assembly is a natural continuation of France's principled
and consistent defense of human and historic rights and values,"
Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian declared in his first comment after
the adoption of the bill. He noted that "this decision is also a
natural reaction to the intensive, aggressive and official denialism
of the Armenian Genocide by the Turkish state. They have undertaken
a premeditated, planned assault on the truth. [...] What we don't
understand is the Turkish government's instigation of extremist public
reactions, especially while Turkey itself has a law that does exactly
the same thing and punishes those who even use the term genocide
or venture to discuss those events."2 Analysts believe that this
kind of 'passive' greeting (judged by the standards of the region)
of the bill is due to official Yerevan's efforts at avoiding further
deterioration of the strenuous Armenian-Turkish relations.3
A few days after his initial comments, Vartan Oskanian reaffirmed
Armenia's contentment with the French National Assembly's vote, but
declared that he would strive to normalize relations with Turkey. In
an interview with the Swiss newspaper NZZ am Sonntag he stressed that
"these events... have not been condemned and not recognized once
so far, is in reality a continuation of the genocide. However, as
foreign minister I have a duty to look to the future and to seek to
establish normal relations with Turkey." Interestingly the Foreign
Minister noted, "Whether the French or the Swiss legislation is a
good starting point is hard to say," adding that the recognition of
the genocide by other countries "is not a goal in itself." "Armenia
also has no interest in humiliating Turkey," emphasized Oskanyan.
le for the recognition of the atrocities committed at the beginning
of the 20th century. On October 13th, hundreds of students gathered
at the premises of the French embassy in Yerevan to express their
gratitude to France's parliament for passing the bill.
Chanting "Long live France!" and waving French and Armenian flags
the students who carried banners reading "Justice won over Turkish
blackmail" and "France - the standard bearer of justice in the European
Union," marched through the city center in two separate demonstrations
organized by the student organizations of one of the ruling parties,
the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnaktsutyun),4 and another
youth organization. "We express our sincere gratitude to our French
friends and welcome this historic step," an organizer of the first
rally representing the Social Democratic Hnchak Party (the oldest
Armenian political party) said, presenting the organization's thank-you
declaration outside the embassy building.
Most of the political forces in Armenia, too, were satisfied with the
action of the French National Assembly. For instance, a local member of
Dashnaktsutyun took the view that the law would serve a good purpose
for Armenia. "It would become a lever used by France to put pressure
on Turkey to make them recognize the Genocide," said Kiro Manoyan,
adding that "France has expressed its viewpoint which will finally
force Turkey to reckon with its history." Remarkably, the government
forces were quick to downplay the reports (that appeared in the
Turkish state media) that the French president Jacque Chirac (whose
administration was against the passage of the bill) had apologized
to the Turkish Prime-Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoghan for the act of
the National Assembly reminding that few weeks before Chirac on his
first state visit to Armenia had urged Turkey to recognize its past.
However, as mentioned before, the omnipresent enthusiasm does
not mean that there was no public discussion on the causes and
consequences of the approval of the bill. Despite the heavily
favorable attitude towards the bill there was also some dissent in
the Armenian society. The opposition press put forward several points
for consideration. One of the papers ("168 Zham") was quick to note
that the bill was approved not long before the French parliamentary
and presidential elections. France has the biggest Armenian diaspora
community (approximately 500,000 people) in Western Europe and the
Armenian votes are naturally important for the French lawmakers. The
same paper believes that the bill can not bring any tangible
benefits to the Republic of Armenia itself, but will further rouse
the anti-Armenian nationalist sentiment in Turkey, and the latter will
respond by adding the pressure on the small Armenian community (around
60,000 people) that was left in the country after the massacres of
the last century. The gist of these and similar arguments, of course,
is that the Armenian woes have yet again been used for the attainment
of internal and external political interests, something which has
sadly happened too often in the distant and near past.
But it was not only the 'Armenian' Armenians who had a somewhat
mixed reaction to the French bill. Hilda Tchoboian, the president
of the Brussels-based Euro-Armenian Federation, an association
representing the interests of the Armenian Diaspora in France and
other European nations, echoed in a statement the mainstream Armenian
sentiment. "We welcome with emotion this historic step forward through
which, once again, France points the way down the path of progress,
humanity and dignity. The hydra of denial is a tumor on freedom of
expression and a threat to public order that must be eradicated,"
she said in a statement. A few diaspora Armenians, however, were
reluctant to endorse the approval of the bill and had the opposite
opinion. Among them was Hrant Dink, the editor-in-chief of "Agos,"
an Armenian paper published in Istanbul, who reportedly told Radio
Liberty that the bill "will not be beneficial in terms of the future
of Armenians and in terms of the process of the recognition of the
genocide in the world." Dink, one of several journalists in Turkey
facing possible prison term for using the word "genocide" (under the
same infamous Article 301), labeled the bill a "trick" by those who
want to keep Turkey out of the EU. The journalist emphasized that in
case it is necessary he would go to France and would break the new law
just as he had broken the one in Turkey, simply to prove the idiotic
nature of the law. Dink's position is interesting not only because
of its dissenting nature but also because it gives some credit to
the above-mentioned allegation that as a result of the adoption of
the bill Armenians residing in Turkey can become targets of coercion.
To sum up, the approval of the landmark bill that makes it a crime to
deny that Armenians suffered genocide during World War One received
an overwhelmingly warm response from Armenians across the globe.
Although many Armenians understand that the bill might not be approved
by the upper house of the French Parliament, the Senate, and even
if approved might not be signed by the Chirac administration (which
is weary of damaging the ties with Turkey and receiving another dose
of criticism from the European Union and the United States officials
for creating additional obstacles on the Turkish path of entry into
the EU) they continue believing that the controversial legal act can
bring them closer to the ultimate goal of persuading Ankara to accept
its past faults. Nevertheless, as the following remarks made by the
renowned French-Armenian chanson singer Charles Aznavour suggest,
"The law against denialism should have been passed for all crimes,
not only the one against Armenians, because otherwise it leaves a
bizarre impression."
-----------------------
French Politics and the Armenian Genocide: An Uncomfortable Relation
Morgan Poulizac
Thursday October the 12th , the lower house of the French Parliament
Assemblee Nationale approved a bill making it illegal to suggest the
1915 Armenian Genocide did not occur.
This bill has been initiated by the Socialist Party. Contrary
to a former law, voted for in 2001 (loi Gayssot), which already
recognised the existence of genocide in Armenia, the new bill proposal
criminalizes the disregard of the genocide atrocity. Despite the
unlikelihood of the legislation being passed - subsequently needing
to be backed by the upper house and signed by the President - the
vote has created a division within French opinion.
Ten days before, Jacques Chirac, the French President, visited Armenia
and declared that the recognition of the Armenian Genocide might be
a precondition of the Turkish entry into the European Union.
However, when it came to vote, the French government declared the
initiative "unnecessary and untimely", in order for the MPs in the
Chirac majority to abstain from voting.
The Chirac administration noted that the 2001 law already asserts the
existence of the Genocide and that the new text would only have some
counterproductive effects. This new initiative could indeed damage
the trade relations between the two countries, as Christine Lagarde,
the French Minister of Trade, told to the press.
In 2005, French firms exported more than 4.7 million euros in goods
to Turkey. Moreover, as long as Turkey remains an important trading
partner of the French, it's important to keep tension between countries
at a minimum.
The parliamentary initiative raised, indeed, the anger of the Turkish
government, which now threatens to boycott French products. The day
after the vote, Turkish protesters threw eggs at the French consulate
in Istanbul. The Turkish Minister of Finance, Ali Babacan, said he
will reconsider the contract deal the Turkish government had with
Eurocopter, a French helicopter firm.
The bill did not solely spark a wave of protests in Turkey, but also
created notable strife in France.
This story is the latest episode of the bitter debate over the fate
of the Armenians slaughtered in the 1915 Ottoman Turkey territory,
yet also reveals the domineering relationship French politics have
with history.
Last year, some MPs tried to pass a law underlying the "benefits" of
past French colonialism. At a standoff with waves of popular criticisms
of their opinion, the MPs decided to give up the legislative effort
in the end.
There is, in fact, today, and since the beginning of 1990's, a large
debate occurring in France about the legitimacy of the Parliament
to "write" history. The divide between historians and politicians
is profound. While historians insist that politicians refrain from
intervening and misinterpreting history, politicians are progressively
trying to impose their view on it.
Several reasons may explain the opposition. One the one hand,
MPs will always play to their constituencies and manage their
agendas accordingly. On the other hand, media is perfectly content
thrashing politicians on television and in print, giving them a
difficult name to work with nationally and discouraging a vote in
favour Armenian-appeasing legislation. Notwithstanding media's wrath,
expect politicians to throw themselves in front of coming traffic to
assuage their respective constituencies - that is where the votes come
from after all. So with elections approaching near the beginning of
2007, the well-established Armenian communities may, in fact, hold
some weight.
It shows once again how history is a political matter in France.
-----------------------
1Up until 1991 the battle for the recognition of the genocide was
mainly fought by Armenians living in the diaspora centers whose
ancestors had been slaughtered in the Ottoman Empire. Since the
independence of the Republic of Armenia from the Soviet Union (1991)
activists in the country have joined their diaspora compatriots
in demanding that Turkey recognizes the genocide. Interestingly,
the administration of the first president of the country, Levon
Ter-Petrosyan, was reluctant to officially put the genocide issue on
its foreign policy agenda. The administration of the current president
Robert Kocharyan, however, has officially included the issue in the
list of its foreign policy priorities since it came to power in 1998.
2Oskanyan refers to the controversial Article 301 of the Turkish
criminal code which has recently been used to prosecute a number of
public figures in Turkey, including a leading Turkish novelist Pamuk
who went on trial for insulting "Turkishness" after telling a Swiss
newspaper nobody in Turkey dared talk about the Armenian massacres.
The court eventually dropped charges, and Pamuk received the Noble
Prize for Literature on the same day when the bill under discussion
was adopted.
3Armenia and Turkey do not have any diplomatic relations and
the border between them has been closed since Armenia gained
independence in 1991. Apart from the genocide issue the relations
between the neighbors are also soured because of a conflict between
ethnic Armenians living in Nagorno-Karabakh (effectively, Armenia
itself) and Azerbaijan, a neighboring country to which the region of
Nagorno-Karabakh belonged during the Soviet times (at the beginning
of the 1990s Nagorno-Karabakh fought a local war with Azeri forces
and established a de-facto independent state strongly supported
by Armenia). Azerbaijan and Turkey are close allies, and Ankara
demands that Yerevan returns Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijan. Until
then it refuses to talk about the establishment of diplomatic ties
with Yerevan. In recent years, however, both the European Union (EU)
and the United States have strongly urged Turkey to reopen the border
with Armenia, and many believe that Ankara will have to normalize
its ties with Armenia before the possible entry into the EU.
4This party is often characterized as nationalistic, and its
representatives have for decades been at the forefront of genocide
recognition efforts in foreign countries. Dashnaktsutyun, a junior
partner in the current coalition government, is believed to have
a rigid stance in the genocide issue and thinks that the Republic
of Armenia should not talk to Turkey unless and until Ankara has
recognized its gruesome past.
Benefits of Waiting by Gunduz Aktan was originally published 26
October 2006 by the Turkish Daily News.
http://www.monitor.upeace.org/innerpg.cfm?i d_article=396
Gunduz Aktan, Aghasi Harutyunyan, and Morgan Poulizac
http://peacejournalism.com/ReadArticle.a sp?ArticleID=12348
PeaceJournalism.com, Nepal
Dec 5 2006
An account of the French Parliament bill recently passed condemning the
Armenian Genocide of 1915-1917. The three articles below - providing
French, Armenian, and Turkish perspectives - highlight the controversy
and possible implications of the legislation. Varduhi Tovmasyan is
responsible for commissioning all three pieces.
Benefits of Waiting
Gunduz Aktan
Some time has passed since the French Parliament passed the bill that
criminalizes denial of the Armenian Genocide. Now that it has lost
its newsworthiness, we can better analyze the matter.
Passing such a law caused some problems for France, but we should not
exaggerate them too much. The criticisms directed against France were
all for needlessly limiting freedom of expression. Most EU citizens,
especially the French, believe the Armenian incidents in 1915
constitute genocide. All those who have anything to say first voice
their belief that the genocide actually occurred before criticizing
the bill. Maybe they get the right to raise such criticism only after
they present their credentials.
Most of the criticisms in Turkey are also for France limiting freedom
of expression. That's why some argue that annulling Article 301 of the
Turkish Penal Code (TCK) would prove we respect freedom of expression
more than France and would provide a very wise response.
However, the problem goes beyond freedom of expression or academic
freedoms.
Genocide is the worst of crimes. Just like every other crime, law
defines it and the courts decide on it. Without a verdict, a person,
a group or a country cannot be accused of having committed genocide.
Moreover, it is impossible to refute a crime that has not been
proven first.
That's exactly why a law passed by the French Parliament in 2001 that
recognizes the Armenian Genocide cannot be enforced. On the other
hand, the Gaysot Law (1990), which criminalizes denial of the Jewish
Holocaust, is enforceable because it is based on the Nuremberg court
sentences. Professor O. Duhamel, fervently praised former minister
Jack Lang as the only person who had the courage to voice this. How
unfortunate for France.
If the bill becomes law in its present form, the right of Turkey
and the families of Enver Pasha and Talat Pasha to defend themselves
against the charges are rescinded. This is a more severe human rights
violation than limiting freedom of speech.
After this injustice, the gestures of French President Jacques
Chirac and the French government, as if they share our concerns,
are sickening. The Armenian government has also resorted to similar
deception as if it has nothing to do with such initiatives. They place
the blame with the Armenian diaspora. Actually, while one tries to
protect its commercial interests, the other is working to ensure that
the Armenians who illegally work here are not repatriated. They are
after both material and moral benefits.
Armenians used Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia
(ASALA) terrorism to promote their genocide claims and largely
succeeded. Westerners saw the courage to resort to terrorism as proof
of Armenians having been victims of genocide. They ignored the carnage
of terrorism until it also harmed them.
This incited Armenians to threaten academics in the United States who
said there was no genocide. They pressured universities to dismiss
such academics. They prevented publishers from printing anything that
went against their thesis. Those that were published were collected.
Dissident voices were not permitted in the meeting they held.
They walked through the corridors of the European Parliament,
brandishing guns in 1987 in order to ensure the resolution the European
Parliament was debating would support their thesis. They prevented
deputies from entering the meeting hall.
The threats by some Armenians made against one Armenian member of
the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Council (TARC) resulted in him
hiding his family at a secret location and blood clots that caused
him to undergo two surgeries.
Armenian lobbies that spend exorbitant amounts of money influenced
administrations and parliaments. The Armenian diaspora used their
votes for political blackmail. They bought hundreds of people and
made them write books full of lies. It was proven that the Talat Pasha
telegraph was false. What Henry Morgenthau wrote about Talat Pasha and
Enver Pasha is full of falsehoods, too. Lepsius, who never set foot in
Anatolia, talked about the incidents as if he were an eyewitness. The
Blue Book is only war propaganda. They have now started to bribe Turks.
There is no United Nations resolution on the matter, but they look us
in the eye and say there is. Our archives are open, but they say they
aren't. They say the Teskilati Mahsusa (Ottoman intelligence services)
organized genocide. Professors Lewy and Ericson smash this theory. Yet
they still look the other way. The figures they quote are sheer lies
and the documents they cite are a sham.
What does this disgrace have to do with freedom of expression?
-----------------------
The Genocide Denial Bill: Charting the Armenian Reaction
Aghasi Harutyunyan
To understand the reaction of the Armenian public and leadership to the
recent adoption by the lower house of the French Parliament of a bill
declaring the public denial of the Armenian genocide a crime, one has
to firstly understand the emotional intensity with which Armenians
treat the issue of the recognition of the 1915-17 genocide in the
Ottoman Empire. To put it bluntly, this issue is probably the cause
which unites Armenians all over the world irrespective of gender, age,
social status and even language and culture. Generations of Armenians
have devoted their lives to this cause and after hard battles have
managed to persuade the parliaments of a number of countries, but
first of all Turkey, to join them in condemning the extermination
of the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire as an instance of
genocide. No wonder, then, that any and all developments on this
front receive an emotional response from Armenians residing both in
the Republic of Armenia and outside, in the diaspora centers spread
across the world.1 The response to the adoption of the French bill
was no exception in this sense.
The majority of Armenians saluted the October 12th decision of the
French National Assembly although not everyone was quick to see
pro-Armenian sentiment in that act. In the days following the act
of adoption, the political forces and the media inside the country
devoted significant attention to the issue and analyzed thoroughly
the causes that made the French Parliament's lower house take the
extraordinary step as well as the harsh reaction from Ankara. This
article is an attempt at charting how Armenians received, perceived
and analyzed the news of the adoption of the bill.
Although the Armenian authorities welcomed the approval of the bill,
they somehow distanced themselves from the process showing that it
was a step the French took on their own without the interference of
the Armenian diplomacy. "Today's approval of the bill by the French
National Assembly is a natural continuation of France's principled
and consistent defense of human and historic rights and values,"
Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian declared in his first comment after
the adoption of the bill. He noted that "this decision is also a
natural reaction to the intensive, aggressive and official denialism
of the Armenian Genocide by the Turkish state. They have undertaken
a premeditated, planned assault on the truth. [...] What we don't
understand is the Turkish government's instigation of extremist public
reactions, especially while Turkey itself has a law that does exactly
the same thing and punishes those who even use the term genocide
or venture to discuss those events."2 Analysts believe that this
kind of 'passive' greeting (judged by the standards of the region)
of the bill is due to official Yerevan's efforts at avoiding further
deterioration of the strenuous Armenian-Turkish relations.3
A few days after his initial comments, Vartan Oskanian reaffirmed
Armenia's contentment with the French National Assembly's vote, but
declared that he would strive to normalize relations with Turkey. In
an interview with the Swiss newspaper NZZ am Sonntag he stressed that
"these events... have not been condemned and not recognized once
so far, is in reality a continuation of the genocide. However, as
foreign minister I have a duty to look to the future and to seek to
establish normal relations with Turkey." Interestingly the Foreign
Minister noted, "Whether the French or the Swiss legislation is a
good starting point is hard to say," adding that the recognition of
the genocide by other countries "is not a goal in itself." "Armenia
also has no interest in humiliating Turkey," emphasized Oskanyan.
le for the recognition of the atrocities committed at the beginning
of the 20th century. On October 13th, hundreds of students gathered
at the premises of the French embassy in Yerevan to express their
gratitude to France's parliament for passing the bill.
Chanting "Long live France!" and waving French and Armenian flags
the students who carried banners reading "Justice won over Turkish
blackmail" and "France - the standard bearer of justice in the European
Union," marched through the city center in two separate demonstrations
organized by the student organizations of one of the ruling parties,
the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnaktsutyun),4 and another
youth organization. "We express our sincere gratitude to our French
friends and welcome this historic step," an organizer of the first
rally representing the Social Democratic Hnchak Party (the oldest
Armenian political party) said, presenting the organization's thank-you
declaration outside the embassy building.
Most of the political forces in Armenia, too, were satisfied with the
action of the French National Assembly. For instance, a local member of
Dashnaktsutyun took the view that the law would serve a good purpose
for Armenia. "It would become a lever used by France to put pressure
on Turkey to make them recognize the Genocide," said Kiro Manoyan,
adding that "France has expressed its viewpoint which will finally
force Turkey to reckon with its history." Remarkably, the government
forces were quick to downplay the reports (that appeared in the
Turkish state media) that the French president Jacque Chirac (whose
administration was against the passage of the bill) had apologized
to the Turkish Prime-Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoghan for the act of
the National Assembly reminding that few weeks before Chirac on his
first state visit to Armenia had urged Turkey to recognize its past.
However, as mentioned before, the omnipresent enthusiasm does
not mean that there was no public discussion on the causes and
consequences of the approval of the bill. Despite the heavily
favorable attitude towards the bill there was also some dissent in
the Armenian society. The opposition press put forward several points
for consideration. One of the papers ("168 Zham") was quick to note
that the bill was approved not long before the French parliamentary
and presidential elections. France has the biggest Armenian diaspora
community (approximately 500,000 people) in Western Europe and the
Armenian votes are naturally important for the French lawmakers. The
same paper believes that the bill can not bring any tangible
benefits to the Republic of Armenia itself, but will further rouse
the anti-Armenian nationalist sentiment in Turkey, and the latter will
respond by adding the pressure on the small Armenian community (around
60,000 people) that was left in the country after the massacres of
the last century. The gist of these and similar arguments, of course,
is that the Armenian woes have yet again been used for the attainment
of internal and external political interests, something which has
sadly happened too often in the distant and near past.
But it was not only the 'Armenian' Armenians who had a somewhat
mixed reaction to the French bill. Hilda Tchoboian, the president
of the Brussels-based Euro-Armenian Federation, an association
representing the interests of the Armenian Diaspora in France and
other European nations, echoed in a statement the mainstream Armenian
sentiment. "We welcome with emotion this historic step forward through
which, once again, France points the way down the path of progress,
humanity and dignity. The hydra of denial is a tumor on freedom of
expression and a threat to public order that must be eradicated,"
she said in a statement. A few diaspora Armenians, however, were
reluctant to endorse the approval of the bill and had the opposite
opinion. Among them was Hrant Dink, the editor-in-chief of "Agos,"
an Armenian paper published in Istanbul, who reportedly told Radio
Liberty that the bill "will not be beneficial in terms of the future
of Armenians and in terms of the process of the recognition of the
genocide in the world." Dink, one of several journalists in Turkey
facing possible prison term for using the word "genocide" (under the
same infamous Article 301), labeled the bill a "trick" by those who
want to keep Turkey out of the EU. The journalist emphasized that in
case it is necessary he would go to France and would break the new law
just as he had broken the one in Turkey, simply to prove the idiotic
nature of the law. Dink's position is interesting not only because
of its dissenting nature but also because it gives some credit to
the above-mentioned allegation that as a result of the adoption of
the bill Armenians residing in Turkey can become targets of coercion.
To sum up, the approval of the landmark bill that makes it a crime to
deny that Armenians suffered genocide during World War One received
an overwhelmingly warm response from Armenians across the globe.
Although many Armenians understand that the bill might not be approved
by the upper house of the French Parliament, the Senate, and even
if approved might not be signed by the Chirac administration (which
is weary of damaging the ties with Turkey and receiving another dose
of criticism from the European Union and the United States officials
for creating additional obstacles on the Turkish path of entry into
the EU) they continue believing that the controversial legal act can
bring them closer to the ultimate goal of persuading Ankara to accept
its past faults. Nevertheless, as the following remarks made by the
renowned French-Armenian chanson singer Charles Aznavour suggest,
"The law against denialism should have been passed for all crimes,
not only the one against Armenians, because otherwise it leaves a
bizarre impression."
-----------------------
French Politics and the Armenian Genocide: An Uncomfortable Relation
Morgan Poulizac
Thursday October the 12th , the lower house of the French Parliament
Assemblee Nationale approved a bill making it illegal to suggest the
1915 Armenian Genocide did not occur.
This bill has been initiated by the Socialist Party. Contrary
to a former law, voted for in 2001 (loi Gayssot), which already
recognised the existence of genocide in Armenia, the new bill proposal
criminalizes the disregard of the genocide atrocity. Despite the
unlikelihood of the legislation being passed - subsequently needing
to be backed by the upper house and signed by the President - the
vote has created a division within French opinion.
Ten days before, Jacques Chirac, the French President, visited Armenia
and declared that the recognition of the Armenian Genocide might be
a precondition of the Turkish entry into the European Union.
However, when it came to vote, the French government declared the
initiative "unnecessary and untimely", in order for the MPs in the
Chirac majority to abstain from voting.
The Chirac administration noted that the 2001 law already asserts the
existence of the Genocide and that the new text would only have some
counterproductive effects. This new initiative could indeed damage
the trade relations between the two countries, as Christine Lagarde,
the French Minister of Trade, told to the press.
In 2005, French firms exported more than 4.7 million euros in goods
to Turkey. Moreover, as long as Turkey remains an important trading
partner of the French, it's important to keep tension between countries
at a minimum.
The parliamentary initiative raised, indeed, the anger of the Turkish
government, which now threatens to boycott French products. The day
after the vote, Turkish protesters threw eggs at the French consulate
in Istanbul. The Turkish Minister of Finance, Ali Babacan, said he
will reconsider the contract deal the Turkish government had with
Eurocopter, a French helicopter firm.
The bill did not solely spark a wave of protests in Turkey, but also
created notable strife in France.
This story is the latest episode of the bitter debate over the fate
of the Armenians slaughtered in the 1915 Ottoman Turkey territory,
yet also reveals the domineering relationship French politics have
with history.
Last year, some MPs tried to pass a law underlying the "benefits" of
past French colonialism. At a standoff with waves of popular criticisms
of their opinion, the MPs decided to give up the legislative effort
in the end.
There is, in fact, today, and since the beginning of 1990's, a large
debate occurring in France about the legitimacy of the Parliament
to "write" history. The divide between historians and politicians
is profound. While historians insist that politicians refrain from
intervening and misinterpreting history, politicians are progressively
trying to impose their view on it.
Several reasons may explain the opposition. One the one hand,
MPs will always play to their constituencies and manage their
agendas accordingly. On the other hand, media is perfectly content
thrashing politicians on television and in print, giving them a
difficult name to work with nationally and discouraging a vote in
favour Armenian-appeasing legislation. Notwithstanding media's wrath,
expect politicians to throw themselves in front of coming traffic to
assuage their respective constituencies - that is where the votes come
from after all. So with elections approaching near the beginning of
2007, the well-established Armenian communities may, in fact, hold
some weight.
It shows once again how history is a political matter in France.
-----------------------
1Up until 1991 the battle for the recognition of the genocide was
mainly fought by Armenians living in the diaspora centers whose
ancestors had been slaughtered in the Ottoman Empire. Since the
independence of the Republic of Armenia from the Soviet Union (1991)
activists in the country have joined their diaspora compatriots
in demanding that Turkey recognizes the genocide. Interestingly,
the administration of the first president of the country, Levon
Ter-Petrosyan, was reluctant to officially put the genocide issue on
its foreign policy agenda. The administration of the current president
Robert Kocharyan, however, has officially included the issue in the
list of its foreign policy priorities since it came to power in 1998.
2Oskanyan refers to the controversial Article 301 of the Turkish
criminal code which has recently been used to prosecute a number of
public figures in Turkey, including a leading Turkish novelist Pamuk
who went on trial for insulting "Turkishness" after telling a Swiss
newspaper nobody in Turkey dared talk about the Armenian massacres.
The court eventually dropped charges, and Pamuk received the Noble
Prize for Literature on the same day when the bill under discussion
was adopted.
3Armenia and Turkey do not have any diplomatic relations and
the border between them has been closed since Armenia gained
independence in 1991. Apart from the genocide issue the relations
between the neighbors are also soured because of a conflict between
ethnic Armenians living in Nagorno-Karabakh (effectively, Armenia
itself) and Azerbaijan, a neighboring country to which the region of
Nagorno-Karabakh belonged during the Soviet times (at the beginning
of the 1990s Nagorno-Karabakh fought a local war with Azeri forces
and established a de-facto independent state strongly supported
by Armenia). Azerbaijan and Turkey are close allies, and Ankara
demands that Yerevan returns Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijan. Until
then it refuses to talk about the establishment of diplomatic ties
with Yerevan. In recent years, however, both the European Union (EU)
and the United States have strongly urged Turkey to reopen the border
with Armenia, and many believe that Ankara will have to normalize
its ties with Armenia before the possible entry into the EU.
4This party is often characterized as nationalistic, and its
representatives have for decades been at the forefront of genocide
recognition efforts in foreign countries. Dashnaktsutyun, a junior
partner in the current coalition government, is believed to have
a rigid stance in the genocide issue and thinks that the Republic
of Armenia should not talk to Turkey unless and until Ankara has
recognized its gruesome past.
Benefits of Waiting by Gunduz Aktan was originally published 26
October 2006 by the Turkish Daily News.
http://www.monitor.upeace.org/innerpg.cfm?i d_article=396