Tweet
THE ARMENIAN ISSUE IN THE NETHERLANDS: THE REMOVAL OF THE THREE TURKISH-ORIGINATED MPS FROM THE CANDIDACY LIST
Nermin Aydemir
Journal of Turkish Weekly, Turkey
Oct 10 2006
The Armenian issue is nowadays quite popular in Europe. The French
brought a legislation regarding banning all the counter arguments
against the so-called Armenian genocide. If it is passed, rejecting the
so-called genocide, will be penalized either by casting into prison or
by substantial money punishments. Discussions go on in the Netherlands
after the three Turkish originated MP candidates (Erdin Sacan-labour
party, Ayhan Tonca and Osman Elmaci from Christian democratic party)
have been removed from the candidate list just because of not
accepting the existence of so-called Armenian genocide. A similar
thing had happened to Derya Bulduk, who was a candidate from the FDF
(Democratic front of the Francophones) in Belgium.
The two mainstream parties claim that the Netherlands accepted
the so-called Armenian genocide and base their[1] decisions on the
recommendatory decision on 21 December 2004, recognizing the existence
of the so called genocide.
According to the General Assembly decision of the UN in 1948, genocide
is defined as; killing members of a group, causing serious bodily or
mental harm to members of the group, deliberately inflicting on the
group conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction
in whole or in part, imposing measures intended to prevent births
within the group, and forcibly transferring children of the group to
another group.
The chair of ISRO, Sedat Laciner (Laciner, 2005) defines genocide as
the worst crime a human being can ever do, which I completely agree
with. Nevertheless, the ugliness of the case does not give the right
to accuse anyone with this crime and taking it for granted without
substantiating such arguments on valid evidences. Being against
genocide is one thing, and using genocide for some political ends is
another thing. Sometimes we put critical thinking completely aside
and defend democratic values and norms so blindly that this adherence
can become a deficit to democracy itself.
We have evidences of the Holocaust and see it as among the worst, maybe
the worst case in humanity. But do we really have such proofs regarding
the Armenian issue? What if, the Armenians were not tortured?!
Thousands of people die in Sudan right now, Israel killed thousands
of other just two months before. People died in Rwanda, former
Yugoslavia and many other places for just being a member of a
particular group. Why do we turn a blind eye to all these and are so
much insistent on restricting an unproven case?
The Turkish side has opened all its archives. And are very much
eager to form common committees for searching the issue. Turkish PM
Erdogan has underlined the willingness of searching this topic in
many occasions. Despite all these, keeping away from all scientific
enquiries and imposing such a heavy accusation leads to many
suspicions.
The Armenian state does not recognize the Lausanne treaty, on which
the Turkish Republic is grounded. In other words, Armenia does not
accept the current borders of Turkey. The Armenian state names the
North East part of Turkey as the West Armenia and makes claims on these
territories in its constitution. Robert Kocaryan, the PM of Armenia,
states that these territorial gains can be done in peaceful manners
(Ibid).
Are all these done for the sake of democracy or is the democratic
sensitiveness used for further aims?! It is highly confusing; why
do not we talk about what the Dutch did in Indonesia and Surinam,
French did in Algeria, Spain did in South America if we are so eager
to account for our faults in past ?
Apart from these, the migration policy of the Ottoman Empire is very
irrelevant to the genocide claims. Ottomans failed in providing healthy
conditions during this depart but why should a send all the members
of an ethnicity away if it really aims a genocide? The Nazi rule did
not send the Jews away, but brought the Jewish to its concentration
camps from all around the world.
The Netherlands
A very critical approach is on rise in the Netherlands in particular
and Europe in general. Although it is not very acceptable to
discriminate openly, discrimination becomes legalized when it is
made by reference to "democratic values". For instance, if someone
criticizes Moroccans in some way under the general classification of
Moroccans, s/he will probably be strictly criticized. Nevertheless,
when Fortuyn said that gays were under threat due to the Moroccan gangs
he was very much backed. Similarly, opposing Islam itself will be not
so much welcomed. But people get credit if they manage to hinder such
points of view under the democratic doctrine.
Specifically, the argument of the repression of women under the
Islamic doctrine is in many times welcomed without a slightest
degree of critical thinking. The same thing is valid for the expel
of the Turkish originated candidates. The party leaders are really
appreciated as the guardians of democratic principles!!!
With regard to the decisions of the CDA and the PvdA; has a party
have the right to ask its members to share a common vision on this
topic? Party members have more or less similar positions and it is
quite natural to demand from these people to share a common vision.
For instance, there is no point in defending capitalism in a highly
communist party. Nevertheless, we need different opinions in democratic
systems, also within the party.
The party position can not legitimize removing candidates from a party
list just because they have a point of view on a particular topic;
which is not a central in the party doctrine, open to debate, and
apparently not against the party doctrine. In the EP report, Turkey
is criticized due to the 301th article, which limits the freedom of
expression. It is true, Turkey has to improve its conditions in such
aspects just as the other European states have to.
However, people can be sent to jail or removed from candidacy lists
in the founding member states. This is a shame indeed.
The Armenian lobby is certainly quite effective in the international
field. But I personally do not believe the high influence of an
Armenian lobby in the Dutch society. The so-called Armenian genocide
has become quite trendy (!) in European politics.
Nevertheless some interior political aspects take place, as well.
People still talk the rise of Pim Fortuyn in 2002. Even the most
liberal parties have shifted to an anti immigration perspective
afterwards.
The Dutch Christian Appeal and labour party make some miscalculations
at this point. According to the official givens, 300 thousand Turkish
people live in this country, and many have the Dutch citizenship. A
substantial number of Turkish originated people has the right to vote
in this country. Expelling Turkish candidates will evidently not give
way to support by the Turkish society in this country. It is not a
very well advised stance to annoy such a big proportion just before
the elections.
No doubt however, the Turkish minority in Europe is very less
interested in politics and away from defending their interests in
discussions. The Turkish MPs carry great importance for both their
ethnicities and their residual countries at this point. These people
need to be represented on the parliamentary level as well as many
other aspects of life. Integration of these people and a peaceful
co-existence in this country cannot only be provided by sociological
researches, no matter how successful they are. We need successful
Dutch-Turkish people in politics, academic field, business, sport,
arts, etc.
At this point, it is worth bringing into attention that while cars
were put into fire in France and several other neighbor countries, the
Netherlands was quite still. This was not a coincidence. All in all,
the minority groups in the Dutch society are much better integrated to
the major society in many aspects. However, we do not have a guarantee
that this will be the case forever. The removed MP candidates do not
only carry significance for the Turkish minority, but are also very
much important to the Netherlands. The Dutch government has gold in
its hands indeed. We cannot continue living within boundaries and
within just one culture in an era of globalization. Countries need
bilinguals in the contemporary world.
Concluding Remarks:
The Dutch society made important progression after the uneasy days
regarding the tension between minority and majority. The Dutch
establishment and society are among the most tolerable people with
their multicultural doctrine. Therefore, it is highly disappointing
that all these occur in this country. The decision of those parties
are rather ill-given in the stressful atmosphere of elections
than representing the Dutch opinion in general. The Netherlands is
geographically little, but there are many other indexes of measuring
how big a country is. A country, sending its soldiers to Uruzgan,
one of the most dangerous places in Afghanistan, apparently has some
significant ambitions in the international arena. The Netherlands can
take many initiatives in line with its worldwide positive reputation
rather than just copying what the trends without searching the reality.
References:
Albayrak Nebahat and Timmermans Frans, Zie de Fouten uit het Verleden
onder Ogen, Trouw, 4 October 2006.
De Armenisch-Turksche Kwestie, Algemeen Handelsblad, 25.05.1920. (The
name of the reporter is not given)
Laciner, Sedat. (2004) Turkler ve Ermeniler, ISRO Publciations, 2004.
www.elsevier.nl
www.zaman.com.tr
Nermin Aydemir
Journal of Turkish Weekly, Turkey
Oct 10 2006
The Armenian issue is nowadays quite popular in Europe. The French
brought a legislation regarding banning all the counter arguments
against the so-called Armenian genocide. If it is passed, rejecting the
so-called genocide, will be penalized either by casting into prison or
by substantial money punishments. Discussions go on in the Netherlands
after the three Turkish originated MP candidates (Erdin Sacan-labour
party, Ayhan Tonca and Osman Elmaci from Christian democratic party)
have been removed from the candidate list just because of not
accepting the existence of so-called Armenian genocide. A similar
thing had happened to Derya Bulduk, who was a candidate from the FDF
(Democratic front of the Francophones) in Belgium.
The two mainstream parties claim that the Netherlands accepted
the so-called Armenian genocide and base their[1] decisions on the
recommendatory decision on 21 December 2004, recognizing the existence
of the so called genocide.
According to the General Assembly decision of the UN in 1948, genocide
is defined as; killing members of a group, causing serious bodily or
mental harm to members of the group, deliberately inflicting on the
group conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction
in whole or in part, imposing measures intended to prevent births
within the group, and forcibly transferring children of the group to
another group.
The chair of ISRO, Sedat Laciner (Laciner, 2005) defines genocide as
the worst crime a human being can ever do, which I completely agree
with. Nevertheless, the ugliness of the case does not give the right
to accuse anyone with this crime and taking it for granted without
substantiating such arguments on valid evidences. Being against
genocide is one thing, and using genocide for some political ends is
another thing. Sometimes we put critical thinking completely aside
and defend democratic values and norms so blindly that this adherence
can become a deficit to democracy itself.
We have evidences of the Holocaust and see it as among the worst, maybe
the worst case in humanity. But do we really have such proofs regarding
the Armenian issue? What if, the Armenians were not tortured?!
Thousands of people die in Sudan right now, Israel killed thousands
of other just two months before. People died in Rwanda, former
Yugoslavia and many other places for just being a member of a
particular group. Why do we turn a blind eye to all these and are so
much insistent on restricting an unproven case?
The Turkish side has opened all its archives. And are very much
eager to form common committees for searching the issue. Turkish PM
Erdogan has underlined the willingness of searching this topic in
many occasions. Despite all these, keeping away from all scientific
enquiries and imposing such a heavy accusation leads to many
suspicions.
The Armenian state does not recognize the Lausanne treaty, on which
the Turkish Republic is grounded. In other words, Armenia does not
accept the current borders of Turkey. The Armenian state names the
North East part of Turkey as the West Armenia and makes claims on these
territories in its constitution. Robert Kocaryan, the PM of Armenia,
states that these territorial gains can be done in peaceful manners
(Ibid).
Are all these done for the sake of democracy or is the democratic
sensitiveness used for further aims?! It is highly confusing; why
do not we talk about what the Dutch did in Indonesia and Surinam,
French did in Algeria, Spain did in South America if we are so eager
to account for our faults in past ?
Apart from these, the migration policy of the Ottoman Empire is very
irrelevant to the genocide claims. Ottomans failed in providing healthy
conditions during this depart but why should a send all the members
of an ethnicity away if it really aims a genocide? The Nazi rule did
not send the Jews away, but brought the Jewish to its concentration
camps from all around the world.
The Netherlands
A very critical approach is on rise in the Netherlands in particular
and Europe in general. Although it is not very acceptable to
discriminate openly, discrimination becomes legalized when it is
made by reference to "democratic values". For instance, if someone
criticizes Moroccans in some way under the general classification of
Moroccans, s/he will probably be strictly criticized. Nevertheless,
when Fortuyn said that gays were under threat due to the Moroccan gangs
he was very much backed. Similarly, opposing Islam itself will be not
so much welcomed. But people get credit if they manage to hinder such
points of view under the democratic doctrine.
Specifically, the argument of the repression of women under the
Islamic doctrine is in many times welcomed without a slightest
degree of critical thinking. The same thing is valid for the expel
of the Turkish originated candidates. The party leaders are really
appreciated as the guardians of democratic principles!!!
With regard to the decisions of the CDA and the PvdA; has a party
have the right to ask its members to share a common vision on this
topic? Party members have more or less similar positions and it is
quite natural to demand from these people to share a common vision.
For instance, there is no point in defending capitalism in a highly
communist party. Nevertheless, we need different opinions in democratic
systems, also within the party.
The party position can not legitimize removing candidates from a party
list just because they have a point of view on a particular topic;
which is not a central in the party doctrine, open to debate, and
apparently not against the party doctrine. In the EP report, Turkey
is criticized due to the 301th article, which limits the freedom of
expression. It is true, Turkey has to improve its conditions in such
aspects just as the other European states have to.
However, people can be sent to jail or removed from candidacy lists
in the founding member states. This is a shame indeed.
The Armenian lobby is certainly quite effective in the international
field. But I personally do not believe the high influence of an
Armenian lobby in the Dutch society. The so-called Armenian genocide
has become quite trendy (!) in European politics.
Nevertheless some interior political aspects take place, as well.
People still talk the rise of Pim Fortuyn in 2002. Even the most
liberal parties have shifted to an anti immigration perspective
afterwards.
The Dutch Christian Appeal and labour party make some miscalculations
at this point. According to the official givens, 300 thousand Turkish
people live in this country, and many have the Dutch citizenship. A
substantial number of Turkish originated people has the right to vote
in this country. Expelling Turkish candidates will evidently not give
way to support by the Turkish society in this country. It is not a
very well advised stance to annoy such a big proportion just before
the elections.
No doubt however, the Turkish minority in Europe is very less
interested in politics and away from defending their interests in
discussions. The Turkish MPs carry great importance for both their
ethnicities and their residual countries at this point. These people
need to be represented on the parliamentary level as well as many
other aspects of life. Integration of these people and a peaceful
co-existence in this country cannot only be provided by sociological
researches, no matter how successful they are. We need successful
Dutch-Turkish people in politics, academic field, business, sport,
arts, etc.
At this point, it is worth bringing into attention that while cars
were put into fire in France and several other neighbor countries, the
Netherlands was quite still. This was not a coincidence. All in all,
the minority groups in the Dutch society are much better integrated to
the major society in many aspects. However, we do not have a guarantee
that this will be the case forever. The removed MP candidates do not
only carry significance for the Turkish minority, but are also very
much important to the Netherlands. The Dutch government has gold in
its hands indeed. We cannot continue living within boundaries and
within just one culture in an era of globalization. Countries need
bilinguals in the contemporary world.
Concluding Remarks:
The Dutch society made important progression after the uneasy days
regarding the tension between minority and majority. The Dutch
establishment and society are among the most tolerable people with
their multicultural doctrine. Therefore, it is highly disappointing
that all these occur in this country. The decision of those parties
are rather ill-given in the stressful atmosphere of elections
than representing the Dutch opinion in general. The Netherlands is
geographically little, but there are many other indexes of measuring
how big a country is. A country, sending its soldiers to Uruzgan,
one of the most dangerous places in Afghanistan, apparently has some
significant ambitions in the international arena. The Netherlands can
take many initiatives in line with its worldwide positive reputation
rather than just copying what the trends without searching the reality.
References:
Albayrak Nebahat and Timmermans Frans, Zie de Fouten uit het Verleden
onder Ogen, Trouw, 4 October 2006.
De Armenisch-Turksche Kwestie, Algemeen Handelsblad, 25.05.1920. (The
name of the reporter is not given)
Laciner, Sedat. (2004) Turkler ve Ermeniler, ISRO Publciations, 2004.
www.elsevier.nl
www.zaman.com.tr