Tweet
IF ONLY GETTING ANGRY WITH FRANCE WERE THE SOLUTION
Abdulhamit Bilici
Zaman Online, Turkey -
Oct 12 2006
The agenda related to the Armenian genocide claim previously had a
routine schedule. Everyone knew that the issue would confront us on
the commemoration day of the genocide claim in April.
As a result of the powerful Armenian lobby's efforts, the subject
would be put on the agenda of the American Congress. But by putting
its own weight on the American government, Ankara would try and
prevent a dangerous development.
This issue, repeated again and again, had become so trying that it
is said that during Turgut Ozal's visit to Washington in 1991, he
asked our American ambassador Nuzhet Kandemir if it wouldn't just be
better to acknowledge the genocide and end the matter. Kandemir is
said to have replied, "Honorable President, this is not a matter to
be resolved hastily. It is necessary to think well and be careful."
Years have passed since this conversation. Maybe this accusation that
our nation perpetrated genocide is really not an issue to be resolved
hastily, but it's certain that Turkey hasn't been able to prevent
it by thinking well. The matter has rapidly gone beyond a routine
calendar date. Due to the impossibility of an early diagnosis being
made, it has spread like cancer. It has become an issue that appears
before us in every month of the year and in almost every place in
the world. Let's look at the latest examples together:
A case was opened a year ago in Switzerland against Yusuf Halacoglu,
director of the Turkish History Institute, because he said at a meeting
that the events the Armenians experienced in history were not genocide.
Turkish recognition of the genocide claim was put in the latest report
on Turkey by the European Parliament. This was not the first decision
for this institution, but recognition of the genocide claim was put
in the draft report as a precondition for EU membership. The text was
softened a little during the report's approval process. It was not a
precondition, but there was no change in the request for recognition
of the genocide.
At the same time the genocide claim surfaced in Holland.
Parliamentary candidates of Turkish origin were removed from the
voting lists because they rejected the claims of genocide.
Now we are locked in by a decision the French parliament will
give. A proposal brought forth by the opposition makes it a crime
to "deny the Armenian genocide." The French government says it is
opposed to this. Optimism continues that if the proposal passes in
the French Congress, it will be stopped by the Senate. Perhaps with
the intervention of the European Union and France not wanting to lose
the Turkish market, this initiative might fall through. However, even
if it is prevented, we shouldn't neglect this point: It is no longer
being debated whether or not the genocide occurred. The matter has
passed to a more advanced stage. Now the discussion is on whether or
not recognition should be a precondition for EU membership or whether
or not those rejecting genocide should be put in jail.
Consequently, those in responsible positions should finally cease
closing their ears to alarms that have been ringing for a long time.
As we continue to neglect taking up this issue, it doesn't remain
in the same place. Today what faces our brothers in Holland will
probably confront our history professors tomorrow and our statesmen
the next day. In view of this serious danger, we have to develop
a pro-active political strategy instead of assigning the matter to
historians. It is foremost a political task. Otherwise, we're going
to have to declare war on a different country each day or boycott
their products. We need to get results in this direction in one or
two events; we can't close our eyes to our citizens' walking around
in the world as if they were trying to hide a fault. Enemies will act
with enmity, but we need to question why we haven't explained our own
case as a nation possessing perhaps the most magnificent history in
the world in regard to tolerance.
As a matter of fact, Professor Sukru Hanioglu, an important name on
the subject of recent history, indicated that the official thesis
of leaving the last word to historians regarding the 1915 Migration
Law and events that followed in its wake didn't make sense. He wrote
that instead of an unrealistic thesis such as this, which doesn't
have much chance of being accepted outside of Turkey, Turkish
politicians, in consultation with historians, should develop a new
"political strategy." (Zaman, 1/20/05) Alarming developments make a
new political strategy more necessary every day.
Abdulhamit Bilici
Zaman Online, Turkey -
Oct 12 2006
The agenda related to the Armenian genocide claim previously had a
routine schedule. Everyone knew that the issue would confront us on
the commemoration day of the genocide claim in April.
As a result of the powerful Armenian lobby's efforts, the subject
would be put on the agenda of the American Congress. But by putting
its own weight on the American government, Ankara would try and
prevent a dangerous development.
This issue, repeated again and again, had become so trying that it
is said that during Turgut Ozal's visit to Washington in 1991, he
asked our American ambassador Nuzhet Kandemir if it wouldn't just be
better to acknowledge the genocide and end the matter. Kandemir is
said to have replied, "Honorable President, this is not a matter to
be resolved hastily. It is necessary to think well and be careful."
Years have passed since this conversation. Maybe this accusation that
our nation perpetrated genocide is really not an issue to be resolved
hastily, but it's certain that Turkey hasn't been able to prevent
it by thinking well. The matter has rapidly gone beyond a routine
calendar date. Due to the impossibility of an early diagnosis being
made, it has spread like cancer. It has become an issue that appears
before us in every month of the year and in almost every place in
the world. Let's look at the latest examples together:
A case was opened a year ago in Switzerland against Yusuf Halacoglu,
director of the Turkish History Institute, because he said at a meeting
that the events the Armenians experienced in history were not genocide.
Turkish recognition of the genocide claim was put in the latest report
on Turkey by the European Parliament. This was not the first decision
for this institution, but recognition of the genocide claim was put
in the draft report as a precondition for EU membership. The text was
softened a little during the report's approval process. It was not a
precondition, but there was no change in the request for recognition
of the genocide.
At the same time the genocide claim surfaced in Holland.
Parliamentary candidates of Turkish origin were removed from the
voting lists because they rejected the claims of genocide.
Now we are locked in by a decision the French parliament will
give. A proposal brought forth by the opposition makes it a crime
to "deny the Armenian genocide." The French government says it is
opposed to this. Optimism continues that if the proposal passes in
the French Congress, it will be stopped by the Senate. Perhaps with
the intervention of the European Union and France not wanting to lose
the Turkish market, this initiative might fall through. However, even
if it is prevented, we shouldn't neglect this point: It is no longer
being debated whether or not the genocide occurred. The matter has
passed to a more advanced stage. Now the discussion is on whether or
not recognition should be a precondition for EU membership or whether
or not those rejecting genocide should be put in jail.
Consequently, those in responsible positions should finally cease
closing their ears to alarms that have been ringing for a long time.
As we continue to neglect taking up this issue, it doesn't remain
in the same place. Today what faces our brothers in Holland will
probably confront our history professors tomorrow and our statesmen
the next day. In view of this serious danger, we have to develop
a pro-active political strategy instead of assigning the matter to
historians. It is foremost a political task. Otherwise, we're going
to have to declare war on a different country each day or boycott
their products. We need to get results in this direction in one or
two events; we can't close our eyes to our citizens' walking around
in the world as if they were trying to hide a fault. Enemies will act
with enmity, but we need to question why we haven't explained our own
case as a nation possessing perhaps the most magnificent history in
the world in regard to tolerance.
As a matter of fact, Professor Sukru Hanioglu, an important name on
the subject of recent history, indicated that the official thesis
of leaving the last word to historians regarding the 1915 Migration
Law and events that followed in its wake didn't make sense. He wrote
that instead of an unrealistic thesis such as this, which doesn't
have much chance of being accepted outside of Turkey, Turkish
politicians, in consultation with historians, should develop a new
"political strategy." (Zaman, 1/20/05) Alarming developments make a
new political strategy more necessary every day.