Tweet
FRANCE AND ARMENIAN ISSUE: TURKEY SHOULD REMAIN CALM
Prof. Dr. Beril Dedeoglu
Zaman, Turkey
Oct 23 2006
If the bill in France that makes it a crime to deny the so-called
Armenian genocide passes in the Senate and is approved by the
president, it will become an effective law.
Although it is probable that it won't pass, the Senate and the
president won't approve it, the heart of the matter doesn't change.
In fact, perhaps the law's waiting before the Senate, which is known
to be comprised of intelligent men who aren't worried about elections,
and a president who doesn't show much of a tendency to go beyond the
demands of society, can spark further serious tensions.
The probability of the law passing can become more important than
the law itself. In this state it can be used more consciously as a
vehicle for imposing action, and from Turkey's perspective it will
serve as Democles' sword.
First, we shouldn't make the mistake of asking France questions as
long as the bill doesn't become law.
The opposition Socialist Party is the architect of the bill and is
responsible for it. It is as meaningless to criticize all French
citizens for this bill as it is to leave all Turkish citizens under
genocide suspicion.
There is benefit in discussing the probabilities of what is happening
in France. It can be claimed that the bill is a tactic that will
cause Turkey to break off from the EU negotiations process. Perhaps
there are members of parliament from both the party in power and
the opposition who would approve such an understanding. In fact,
if the law leads to ending Turkey's EU negotiations, there may be
others who would be very happy about it.
However, the tactic to drive Turkey away from the table can only
succeed if Turkey actually chooses to do this. In other words,
this points to a process tied to Turkey, not France. Actually, this
strengthens the hands of those in Turkey who, seeing it as their duty,
defend abandoning developments on the EU road and support efforts
for democratization. However, it is difficult to say that French
representatives had planned this. If France wants to drive Turkey
away from the European Union, it is already doing it with the Cyprus
problem. Besides, France will have several more opportunities to push
Turkey away during the negotiation process.
For the Votes of 400,000 Citizens
Another possibility that can be considered is barring the way of
any improvements in Turkish-Armenian relations. It can be said that
as long as Armenia's isolation continues in the region and tensions
with Russia are increased, France remains Armenia's only hope for
political breakthrough and France will protect Armenia because it is
its only avenue for activity in the Caucasus. The biggest weakness
of this possibility lies under the question of whom the tensions
between these countries harm the most. Just as preventing Armenia
from opening to the world will increase its political and economic
weakness, it will bring the problem of taking on more responsibility
before the Armenian Diaspora in France (it can't be claimed that
there are serious contributions to the root country). In addition,
this kind of implementation that points to Armenia would nurture
radical movements that are fed by enemy politics, which, in turn,
support authoritarian structures. In this situation, those who don't
want to be authoritarian would be negatively affected, rather than
authoritarians. This process would not benefit Armenian citizens and
would prevent Turkey from taking any possible steps toward Armenia.
We can assume the kind of results the Armenian Diaspora's expectations
will yield. Armenians are continuing to organize in many regions of the
world. We know that genocide claims form the basis of the Diaspora's
ethnic references and that it sometimes becomes more important than
those of the citizens of the country they live in.
While such a claim can sometimes have a positive effect on the status
of the people and a negative one, it also gives them political power.
It helps them to receive direct decisions and obtain the capacity to
influence processes. The Diaspora largely uses the positions they
have gained in the country to meet its expectations. The Armenian
Diaspora in France mainly supports the Socialist Party. Situations
like the Socialist Party being an opposition party, their loss to
an ultra-nationalist party in the last elections, and not being sure
about the vote potential of Segolene Royal, the female candidate they
brought out to oppose Sarkozy who is in the party in power as the
presidential elections approach, have led the party to increasingly
lean toward more aggressive policies.
It's is unknown if there are still people who are surprised at the
socialist parties coming to the point of acting along the same lines
as the ultra-nationalist parties. However, as a result it is obvious
that the Socialist Party needs the votes of the estimated 400,000
Armenians living in France. In a similar way, the parties in power
need every vote they can get, strengthening the nationalist game.
Consequently, the administration doesn't verbalize the meaninglessness
of the bill; on the contrary, it is said that if this policy gains
votes. If so, why should it fail? One of the reasons why certain
parties want these votes could be to turn the raison d'etre of the
Armenian Diaspora, which supports it, into law. Moreover, this effort
is a matter of urgency for the Diaspora, because Turkey has opened
a different door to approach the issue.
Turkey has announced that it is ready to "officially" open this issue
for discussion on an international level outside of state players and
has made progress to some extent. It is clear that the beginning of
discussion of the issue on an international basis in the fields of
science, politics or law will lead to the watering down of the claim
that genocide was perpetrated and the posing of the proposition in
many places throughout the world that maybe there was no genocide. In
this situation, there can be a weakening of the raw material within
the genocide claim from which it feeds.
For certain, the law related to the benefits of exploitation, which
was passed previously and is still being discussed, and the law
that counts the denial of genocide as a crime will continue to be
debated in France. It is also evident that even if this type of law
is a result of a political party presenting it to the parliament,
these subjects are not that contrary to general perceptions in France.
There is a broad, wide-spread and deep belief in France that there
was an Armenian genocide. When the Socialist Party puts this on the
agenda, there's no great uproar. As communication increases among
societies, it's possible for fixed opinions to change. There are
lessons here for Turkey. Instead of producing policies based on pushing
possibilities for communication among societies and drawing closer
through cooperation, looking for counterattack policies that encourage
introversion hasn't provided Turkey with any permanent benefits
to date. If Turkey is a country that trusts its theses, documents,
philosophy and, most importantly, its system, it shouldn't rush to
take harsh actions that can be seen as expressions of helplessness.
Professor Beril Dedeoglu - Galatasaray University Faculty Member
Prof. Dr. Beril Dedeoglu
Zaman, Turkey
Oct 23 2006
If the bill in France that makes it a crime to deny the so-called
Armenian genocide passes in the Senate and is approved by the
president, it will become an effective law.
Although it is probable that it won't pass, the Senate and the
president won't approve it, the heart of the matter doesn't change.
In fact, perhaps the law's waiting before the Senate, which is known
to be comprised of intelligent men who aren't worried about elections,
and a president who doesn't show much of a tendency to go beyond the
demands of society, can spark further serious tensions.
The probability of the law passing can become more important than
the law itself. In this state it can be used more consciously as a
vehicle for imposing action, and from Turkey's perspective it will
serve as Democles' sword.
First, we shouldn't make the mistake of asking France questions as
long as the bill doesn't become law.
The opposition Socialist Party is the architect of the bill and is
responsible for it. It is as meaningless to criticize all French
citizens for this bill as it is to leave all Turkish citizens under
genocide suspicion.
There is benefit in discussing the probabilities of what is happening
in France. It can be claimed that the bill is a tactic that will
cause Turkey to break off from the EU negotiations process. Perhaps
there are members of parliament from both the party in power and
the opposition who would approve such an understanding. In fact,
if the law leads to ending Turkey's EU negotiations, there may be
others who would be very happy about it.
However, the tactic to drive Turkey away from the table can only
succeed if Turkey actually chooses to do this. In other words,
this points to a process tied to Turkey, not France. Actually, this
strengthens the hands of those in Turkey who, seeing it as their duty,
defend abandoning developments on the EU road and support efforts
for democratization. However, it is difficult to say that French
representatives had planned this. If France wants to drive Turkey
away from the European Union, it is already doing it with the Cyprus
problem. Besides, France will have several more opportunities to push
Turkey away during the negotiation process.
For the Votes of 400,000 Citizens
Another possibility that can be considered is barring the way of
any improvements in Turkish-Armenian relations. It can be said that
as long as Armenia's isolation continues in the region and tensions
with Russia are increased, France remains Armenia's only hope for
political breakthrough and France will protect Armenia because it is
its only avenue for activity in the Caucasus. The biggest weakness
of this possibility lies under the question of whom the tensions
between these countries harm the most. Just as preventing Armenia
from opening to the world will increase its political and economic
weakness, it will bring the problem of taking on more responsibility
before the Armenian Diaspora in France (it can't be claimed that
there are serious contributions to the root country). In addition,
this kind of implementation that points to Armenia would nurture
radical movements that are fed by enemy politics, which, in turn,
support authoritarian structures. In this situation, those who don't
want to be authoritarian would be negatively affected, rather than
authoritarians. This process would not benefit Armenian citizens and
would prevent Turkey from taking any possible steps toward Armenia.
We can assume the kind of results the Armenian Diaspora's expectations
will yield. Armenians are continuing to organize in many regions of the
world. We know that genocide claims form the basis of the Diaspora's
ethnic references and that it sometimes becomes more important than
those of the citizens of the country they live in.
While such a claim can sometimes have a positive effect on the status
of the people and a negative one, it also gives them political power.
It helps them to receive direct decisions and obtain the capacity to
influence processes. The Diaspora largely uses the positions they
have gained in the country to meet its expectations. The Armenian
Diaspora in France mainly supports the Socialist Party. Situations
like the Socialist Party being an opposition party, their loss to
an ultra-nationalist party in the last elections, and not being sure
about the vote potential of Segolene Royal, the female candidate they
brought out to oppose Sarkozy who is in the party in power as the
presidential elections approach, have led the party to increasingly
lean toward more aggressive policies.
It's is unknown if there are still people who are surprised at the
socialist parties coming to the point of acting along the same lines
as the ultra-nationalist parties. However, as a result it is obvious
that the Socialist Party needs the votes of the estimated 400,000
Armenians living in France. In a similar way, the parties in power
need every vote they can get, strengthening the nationalist game.
Consequently, the administration doesn't verbalize the meaninglessness
of the bill; on the contrary, it is said that if this policy gains
votes. If so, why should it fail? One of the reasons why certain
parties want these votes could be to turn the raison d'etre of the
Armenian Diaspora, which supports it, into law. Moreover, this effort
is a matter of urgency for the Diaspora, because Turkey has opened
a different door to approach the issue.
Turkey has announced that it is ready to "officially" open this issue
for discussion on an international level outside of state players and
has made progress to some extent. It is clear that the beginning of
discussion of the issue on an international basis in the fields of
science, politics or law will lead to the watering down of the claim
that genocide was perpetrated and the posing of the proposition in
many places throughout the world that maybe there was no genocide. In
this situation, there can be a weakening of the raw material within
the genocide claim from which it feeds.
For certain, the law related to the benefits of exploitation, which
was passed previously and is still being discussed, and the law
that counts the denial of genocide as a crime will continue to be
debated in France. It is also evident that even if this type of law
is a result of a political party presenting it to the parliament,
these subjects are not that contrary to general perceptions in France.
There is a broad, wide-spread and deep belief in France that there
was an Armenian genocide. When the Socialist Party puts this on the
agenda, there's no great uproar. As communication increases among
societies, it's possible for fixed opinions to change. There are
lessons here for Turkey. Instead of producing policies based on pushing
possibilities for communication among societies and drawing closer
through cooperation, looking for counterattack policies that encourage
introversion hasn't provided Turkey with any permanent benefits
to date. If Turkey is a country that trusts its theses, documents,
philosophy and, most importantly, its system, it shouldn't rush to
take harsh actions that can be seen as expressions of helplessness.
Professor Beril Dedeoglu - Galatasaray University Faculty Member