Tweet
Article 301 will Prevent a Train Wreck
Zaman, Turkey
Oct 19 2006
ABDULHAMIT BILICI
10.19.2006 Thursday - ISTANBUL 20:57
On the evening of the Troika meeting in Luxembourg, I was watching
television in Le Royal Hotel where the Turkish delegation was
staying. France's latest undertaking was being discussed in a program
joined by four journalists.
The point that caught my attention was the effort of the Le Monde
writer, who was defending the French parliament's decision to
criminalize the denial of the alleged Armenian genocide, to mention
Turkey's Article 301 whenever he was trapped. The words of the
journalist, whose views on this subject were contrary to those of his
own newspaper, were summed up as follows: We may be limiting thought,
but we want those who reject a crime against humanity to be punished.
Turkey, who is trying to teach us about freedom, punishes those who
talk about the genocide. There's no difference between us in regards
to putting limits on thought. Moreover, we are doing this as a moral
obligation.
The fact that the journalists, who previously thought Turkey was
right, could not find anything to say after this attack seemed very
meaningful to me. In the discussion an Arab and Muslim journalist,
whom in some circles in Turkey can't tolerate, defended Turkey,
but that's another story.
The program was very educational in respect to showing how important
it is to take Article 301 away from the hands of Turkey's opponents
in Europe. Today our strongest argument against France is the
prohibition of thought in a country that is identified with freedom of
thought. However, the existence of Article 301, with its sensational
applications, unfortunately weakens the argument.
Moreover, no matter how much we say that anything can be discussed
in Turkey and conferences on the genocide claim are even being held,
from the outside Turkey is seen as a country with prisons full of
journalists and intellectuals, as Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul
has said.
Another interesting point was a claim made the next day by diplomats I
spoke with in the context of the Troyka meeting that it was necessary
for similar reasons to resolve the Article 301 issue as soon as
possible. According to them, changes to be made in Article 301 are
very significant in order to avoid a train wreck with the European
Union. The scenario in the minds of these people who are constantly
struggling on this issue with their peers is as follows: The contents
of the progress report to be announced by the Commission on Nov. 8
are vital. Under current conditions there are three alternatives,
ranging from good to bad:
The first improbable alternative is that the parties involved in the
Cyprus dispute agree within the framework of Finland's proposal and
the Commission recommends continuation of negotiations in its report.
The second alternative is that due to Turkey's refusal to open its
ports to the Greeks, the report will recommend the suspension of some
negotiation topics related to the free circulation of goods until
Turkey fulfills its responsibilities.
The third alternative is a recommendation by the Commission for
full suspension of negotiations in the case that Turkish ports
aren't opened.
The first alternative is ideal. The second doesn't look too bad with
a postponement of a solution to the Cyprus issue and a continuation
of negotiations for some time. The worst alternative, which can be
termed a train wreck, is the third. Consequently, the third alternative
must somehow be prevented. It is believed that this can be done only
if Turkey has done its part on the subject of political reforms,
with Article 301 in particular. Actually, even if the Commission
doesn't make such a recommendation, members have the right to curtail
negotiations. However, for this to happen, at least nine countries
must say yes, and no one sees it as probable that the Greeks can
muster this number.
According to diplomatic calculations, completion of political reforms
will be beneficial in two ways: It will both increase Turkey's
strength to resist pressure on the Cyprus issue and strengthen the
hands of countries supporting Turkey. Of course, the only barrier in
front of these results is pressure from the calendar. In other words,
if amendments are going to be made to Article 301, it is important
to do it before Nov. 8.
The problems arising from Article 301 itself, which has become a
symbol, or its implementation don't only make the European Union
uncomfortable. Gul said, "This doesn't become Turkey and it shows our
country as more backward than it is." For this reason, when he said
in Luxembourg that Turkey wouldn't make the same mistake as France,
which is being perceived as a promise, it makes his audience more
comfortable. In this case, what's left is to explain this equation
to Turkey. What do you say, is it an easy matter?
Zaman, Turkey
Oct 19 2006
ABDULHAMIT BILICI
10.19.2006 Thursday - ISTANBUL 20:57
On the evening of the Troika meeting in Luxembourg, I was watching
television in Le Royal Hotel where the Turkish delegation was
staying. France's latest undertaking was being discussed in a program
joined by four journalists.
The point that caught my attention was the effort of the Le Monde
writer, who was defending the French parliament's decision to
criminalize the denial of the alleged Armenian genocide, to mention
Turkey's Article 301 whenever he was trapped. The words of the
journalist, whose views on this subject were contrary to those of his
own newspaper, were summed up as follows: We may be limiting thought,
but we want those who reject a crime against humanity to be punished.
Turkey, who is trying to teach us about freedom, punishes those who
talk about the genocide. There's no difference between us in regards
to putting limits on thought. Moreover, we are doing this as a moral
obligation.
The fact that the journalists, who previously thought Turkey was
right, could not find anything to say after this attack seemed very
meaningful to me. In the discussion an Arab and Muslim journalist,
whom in some circles in Turkey can't tolerate, defended Turkey,
but that's another story.
The program was very educational in respect to showing how important
it is to take Article 301 away from the hands of Turkey's opponents
in Europe. Today our strongest argument against France is the
prohibition of thought in a country that is identified with freedom of
thought. However, the existence of Article 301, with its sensational
applications, unfortunately weakens the argument.
Moreover, no matter how much we say that anything can be discussed
in Turkey and conferences on the genocide claim are even being held,
from the outside Turkey is seen as a country with prisons full of
journalists and intellectuals, as Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul
has said.
Another interesting point was a claim made the next day by diplomats I
spoke with in the context of the Troyka meeting that it was necessary
for similar reasons to resolve the Article 301 issue as soon as
possible. According to them, changes to be made in Article 301 are
very significant in order to avoid a train wreck with the European
Union. The scenario in the minds of these people who are constantly
struggling on this issue with their peers is as follows: The contents
of the progress report to be announced by the Commission on Nov. 8
are vital. Under current conditions there are three alternatives,
ranging from good to bad:
The first improbable alternative is that the parties involved in the
Cyprus dispute agree within the framework of Finland's proposal and
the Commission recommends continuation of negotiations in its report.
The second alternative is that due to Turkey's refusal to open its
ports to the Greeks, the report will recommend the suspension of some
negotiation topics related to the free circulation of goods until
Turkey fulfills its responsibilities.
The third alternative is a recommendation by the Commission for
full suspension of negotiations in the case that Turkish ports
aren't opened.
The first alternative is ideal. The second doesn't look too bad with
a postponement of a solution to the Cyprus issue and a continuation
of negotiations for some time. The worst alternative, which can be
termed a train wreck, is the third. Consequently, the third alternative
must somehow be prevented. It is believed that this can be done only
if Turkey has done its part on the subject of political reforms,
with Article 301 in particular. Actually, even if the Commission
doesn't make such a recommendation, members have the right to curtail
negotiations. However, for this to happen, at least nine countries
must say yes, and no one sees it as probable that the Greeks can
muster this number.
According to diplomatic calculations, completion of political reforms
will be beneficial in two ways: It will both increase Turkey's
strength to resist pressure on the Cyprus issue and strengthen the
hands of countries supporting Turkey. Of course, the only barrier in
front of these results is pressure from the calendar. In other words,
if amendments are going to be made to Article 301, it is important
to do it before Nov. 8.
The problems arising from Article 301 itself, which has become a
symbol, or its implementation don't only make the European Union
uncomfortable. Gul said, "This doesn't become Turkey and it shows our
country as more backward than it is." For this reason, when he said
in Luxembourg that Turkey wouldn't make the same mistake as France,
which is being perceived as a promise, it makes his audience more
comfortable. In this case, what's left is to explain this equation
to Turkey. What do you say, is it an easy matter?