Tweet
Turkish Press
Oct 13 2006
The Biggest Conflict
Published: 10/12/2006
BY FEHMI KORU
YENI SAFAK- Why did politicians in France wait until 2001 to write a
law on the so-called Armenian genocide? France is the biggest
obstacle to Turkey's EU membership. We know this from its stance when
decisions were taken about Turkey's EU membership talks. France was
among the EU countries which was most opposed to the European
Constitution. When people talk about a `train crash` on the way to
the EU, everybody thinks of the possibility of our membership being
rejected through a referendum in France. France is different from all
the other European countries. However, Turkey might be one of the
closest countries to it. Ottoman intellectuals knew France as the
`West,' and when the Westernization reforms were implemented, the
reformers took France as an example. The founders of the Republic
were Ottoman intellectuals. Naturally, France was the `level of
modern civilization' for them.
The law on which Turkey based its administrative structure was the
product of the first half of the 19th century and translated from the
Napoleonic Code. Almost all the legislation aimed at turning Turkey
into a Western country is the product of the same era, and France was
taken as an example for this. During the early years of the Republic,
France maintained this `exemplary' situation. Our intellectuals spoke
French and knew texts in French. In sum, although France isn't our
soulmate, now it's excluding and opposing itself to the country which
most resembles it in this region.
A similar analysis can be done of Armenians, which caused French
politicians to oppose Turkey just for votes. The Ottomans trusted the
Armenians the most. The Armenian people established the closest links
with Turkish society, and they were familiar with our culture and
contributed to our national heritage. Even today the presence of
Armenians who live illegally in Turkey shows that Armenians see
Turkey differently from their state. France, the country that we
resemble the most in the West, doesn't consider it harmful to pass a
meaningless law which drives Turkey into a corner on the
international stage with the pressure of Armenia, which is fated to
get on well with us in the east. This is the biggest conflict that
we're facing now. Not the Armenians in Armenia, but the Armenians who
live in other countries (the diaspora) are looking for revenge, and
the number of French politicians determined to pass a law punishing
those who deny the so-called Armenian genocide is small. When these
two facts come together, difficult circumstances might emerge against
Turkey. The question of why it's happening now in France has only one
answer: France had great leaders in the past, but now it lacks a
leadership which can take responsibility on critical issues, turn its
back on petty interests, and look at problems from the vantage point
of history. Can we expect leadership from leaders who don't realize
that this law will do the exact opposite of its stated intention?
Oct 13 2006
The Biggest Conflict
Published: 10/12/2006
BY FEHMI KORU
YENI SAFAK- Why did politicians in France wait until 2001 to write a
law on the so-called Armenian genocide? France is the biggest
obstacle to Turkey's EU membership. We know this from its stance when
decisions were taken about Turkey's EU membership talks. France was
among the EU countries which was most opposed to the European
Constitution. When people talk about a `train crash` on the way to
the EU, everybody thinks of the possibility of our membership being
rejected through a referendum in France. France is different from all
the other European countries. However, Turkey might be one of the
closest countries to it. Ottoman intellectuals knew France as the
`West,' and when the Westernization reforms were implemented, the
reformers took France as an example. The founders of the Republic
were Ottoman intellectuals. Naturally, France was the `level of
modern civilization' for them.
The law on which Turkey based its administrative structure was the
product of the first half of the 19th century and translated from the
Napoleonic Code. Almost all the legislation aimed at turning Turkey
into a Western country is the product of the same era, and France was
taken as an example for this. During the early years of the Republic,
France maintained this `exemplary' situation. Our intellectuals spoke
French and knew texts in French. In sum, although France isn't our
soulmate, now it's excluding and opposing itself to the country which
most resembles it in this region.
A similar analysis can be done of Armenians, which caused French
politicians to oppose Turkey just for votes. The Ottomans trusted the
Armenians the most. The Armenian people established the closest links
with Turkish society, and they were familiar with our culture and
contributed to our national heritage. Even today the presence of
Armenians who live illegally in Turkey shows that Armenians see
Turkey differently from their state. France, the country that we
resemble the most in the West, doesn't consider it harmful to pass a
meaningless law which drives Turkey into a corner on the
international stage with the pressure of Armenia, which is fated to
get on well with us in the east. This is the biggest conflict that
we're facing now. Not the Armenians in Armenia, but the Armenians who
live in other countries (the diaspora) are looking for revenge, and
the number of French politicians determined to pass a law punishing
those who deny the so-called Armenian genocide is small. When these
two facts come together, difficult circumstances might emerge against
Turkey. The question of why it's happening now in France has only one
answer: France had great leaders in the past, but now it lacks a
leadership which can take responsibility on critical issues, turn its
back on petty interests, and look at problems from the vantage point
of history. Can we expect leadership from leaders who don't realize
that this law will do the exact opposite of its stated intention?