Tweet
Zaman, Turkey
Oct 28 2006
How the Turkish Parliament Should React to France
ETYEN MAHCUPYAN
10.28.2006 Saturday - ISTANBUL 15:42
The adoption of the Armenian `genocide' bill by the French parliament
was met with expected reactions from Turkey. Boycotting French
products (apart from those of OYAK-affiliated French companies),
deporting Armenian citizens working in Turkey and even passing a
counter bill were among the steps taken.
Certain people who support anti-democratic laws in Turkey said they
would go to France and violate the bill, which was a good sign of how
valor can be rendered valueless. During those days, a psychological
movement was initiated to make the society react `sensitively.'
Familiar Stereotypical `information' was relayed to the media under
the label of `archives revealed by the Turkish chief of staff.' I
think the `documents' claiming Armenians committed massacres in 1915
in Diyarbakir were a pleasing surprise to researchers who deal with
that period of time. However, the intention was not actually to
inform, but to foment our heroic sensitivity. Meanwhile, Turkey
ignored the fact that Armenian President Robert Kocharian was against
the bill and claimed that Armenia stipulated recognizing the genocide
as a prerequisite without questioning the argument's objectivity.
During such a volatile atmosphere, Turkish Prime Minister Recep
Tayyip Erdogan said, `There is no legal basis to penalize those who
call a lie a lie,' which was very pleasing to nationalists. Our
failure to realize that such attitudes legalize the `genocide'
conviction worldwide shows the problem is a deep-rooted one.
Fortunately, it was again the prime minister who prevented our
natural reflexes from stretching to meaningless points by saying, `We
use clean water to clear away dirt.'
How should the Turkish parliament react to the French move? The
parliament consulted the Turkish Institute of History (as if it was
the first time it had heard such allegations) and agreed that the
institute should conduct a comprehensive research on the so-called
Armenian genocide allegations. The parliament also agreed to
investigate the history of countries which recognize the Armenian
`genocide' and prepare a list of shame.
The aim was to reveal how foreign countries that have their own
checkered past throw mud at Turkey, with a clean history, in an
effort to conceal their past misdeeds.
If only the Turkish parliament had looked at its institutional
structure before making such a decision. If only the head of the
history institute had also touched on such issues. If only a few
deputies had remembered Ayse Hur's article in the daily Radikal.
Then they would have learned that in 1923, as envisaged in an
agreement prior to the Lausanne Agreement, it was legal to confiscate
the properties of Armenians who were not living in Turkey at that
time; and in September of the same year, Armenians who fled from
Kilikya and the eastern Anatolia regions during the war were barred
from returning.
They would have learned that according to a decision made in August
1926, the properties acquired before the Lausanne Agreement came into
effect could be confiscated and that in May 1927, Turkish citizenship
for Armenians who were abroad between 1923 and 1927 was revoked. They
would also have recalled that travel restrictions imposed on Armenian
Turkish citizens during those years made them lose their jobs and
they were forced to migrate because they had to share their homes in
Anatolia with immigrants.
Those willing could also recall the wealth tax and the issue of the
properties of non-Muslim associations. All these decisions were made
by the Turkish parliament and none of them were gloated over. It is
not wrong to make others remember their past; however, to achieve our
goal we should also look at our history from the same perspective.
October 27, 2006
Oct 28 2006
How the Turkish Parliament Should React to France
ETYEN MAHCUPYAN
10.28.2006 Saturday - ISTANBUL 15:42
The adoption of the Armenian `genocide' bill by the French parliament
was met with expected reactions from Turkey. Boycotting French
products (apart from those of OYAK-affiliated French companies),
deporting Armenian citizens working in Turkey and even passing a
counter bill were among the steps taken.
Certain people who support anti-democratic laws in Turkey said they
would go to France and violate the bill, which was a good sign of how
valor can be rendered valueless. During those days, a psychological
movement was initiated to make the society react `sensitively.'
Familiar Stereotypical `information' was relayed to the media under
the label of `archives revealed by the Turkish chief of staff.' I
think the `documents' claiming Armenians committed massacres in 1915
in Diyarbakir were a pleasing surprise to researchers who deal with
that period of time. However, the intention was not actually to
inform, but to foment our heroic sensitivity. Meanwhile, Turkey
ignored the fact that Armenian President Robert Kocharian was against
the bill and claimed that Armenia stipulated recognizing the genocide
as a prerequisite without questioning the argument's objectivity.
During such a volatile atmosphere, Turkish Prime Minister Recep
Tayyip Erdogan said, `There is no legal basis to penalize those who
call a lie a lie,' which was very pleasing to nationalists. Our
failure to realize that such attitudes legalize the `genocide'
conviction worldwide shows the problem is a deep-rooted one.
Fortunately, it was again the prime minister who prevented our
natural reflexes from stretching to meaningless points by saying, `We
use clean water to clear away dirt.'
How should the Turkish parliament react to the French move? The
parliament consulted the Turkish Institute of History (as if it was
the first time it had heard such allegations) and agreed that the
institute should conduct a comprehensive research on the so-called
Armenian genocide allegations. The parliament also agreed to
investigate the history of countries which recognize the Armenian
`genocide' and prepare a list of shame.
The aim was to reveal how foreign countries that have their own
checkered past throw mud at Turkey, with a clean history, in an
effort to conceal their past misdeeds.
If only the Turkish parliament had looked at its institutional
structure before making such a decision. If only the head of the
history institute had also touched on such issues. If only a few
deputies had remembered Ayse Hur's article in the daily Radikal.
Then they would have learned that in 1923, as envisaged in an
agreement prior to the Lausanne Agreement, it was legal to confiscate
the properties of Armenians who were not living in Turkey at that
time; and in September of the same year, Armenians who fled from
Kilikya and the eastern Anatolia regions during the war were barred
from returning.
They would have learned that according to a decision made in August
1926, the properties acquired before the Lausanne Agreement came into
effect could be confiscated and that in May 1927, Turkish citizenship
for Armenians who were abroad between 1923 and 1927 was revoked. They
would also have recalled that travel restrictions imposed on Armenian
Turkish citizens during those years made them lose their jobs and
they were forced to migrate because they had to share their homes in
Anatolia with immigrants.
Those willing could also recall the wealth tax and the issue of the
properties of non-Muslim associations. All these decisions were made
by the Turkish parliament and none of them were gloated over. It is
not wrong to make others remember their past; however, to achieve our
goal we should also look at our history from the same perspective.
October 27, 2006