Tweet
CONTRADICTIONS ON THE SWISS STAGE
by Shahan Kandaharian
Aztag Daily
Nov 7 2009
Lebanon
The criticism of the prominent Swiss newspaper against its government
is characteristic. The "Neo Zuricher Zeitung" newspaper criticizes the
country's foreign ministry, for mediating between Armenia and Turkey
in the process of normalization of their ties as well as signing of
the protocols. The main issue of the criticism is Turkish denialist
policy. In other words, official Bern shouldn't have mediated such
a process as long as Turkey doesn't recognize the Armenian Genocide.
We're not talking of a casual phenomenon here where a media
representative would criticize Turkey for its denial of history.
First of all, we're talking about the most popular newspaper in a
given country. Second, we're talking about Switzerland; a country
that has been given a mediatory role by geopolitical powers for a long
time now. It's true that the criticism didn't come from a government
official, however, after all we're talking about a major contradiction
between the state and the public opinion.
It shouldn't be surprising to state that by taking up this mediatory
role Switzerland also manifested intra-state contradictions.
And the rationale is this: We all know that the then president of the
Turkish Historians' Union Yousouf Haladjoghlu and after him historian
Doghou Perincek were taken to court one after the other for denying
the fact of Genocide based on Swiss Criminal Law. The judicial odessy
is familiar to our readers.
Let's continue the attempt of developing the rationale.
The same Switzerland was mediating secret talks between the Armenian
and Turkish foreign ministry delegates which was developing in rounds.
Most probably during those secret talks the Turkish delegates must
have denied the Armenian Genocide several times.
The question about the contradiction doesn't end here though. According
to media reports, on the day of the signing of the protocols it was
decided for the two ministers to address the reporters. The written
address of the Turkish foreign minister included a section which
to say the least doubted the Armenian Genocide and which even if
not presented, nevertheless was read and examined not so far from
the spotlights and the reporters' cameras. In other words, a Swiss
law-countering step was taken in the courts of University of Zurich.
Still, the historic subcommittee mentioned in the Protocols opens doors
for Turkey to assure the examination of the facts of the Genocide. The
examination itself is the indirect denial of the truth; a unique way
of denial. So, there goes the third explicit violation of Swiss Law.
The issue, therefore, isn't about state-public opinion contradiction,
but the screaming contradiction between Swiss judicial and
political sectors seen in the mediation of the for normalizing the
Armenian-Turkish relations. And that was seen in three occasions;
too many occasions.
This issue has no relation with the success or collapse of the
process. The Swiss foreign affairs high directorate must give an
explanation to the official judicial sector about the violations
committed until now if it's really true that in countries like
Switzerland the judicial sector is independent of the political sector.
by Shahan Kandaharian
Aztag Daily
Nov 7 2009
Lebanon
The criticism of the prominent Swiss newspaper against its government
is characteristic. The "Neo Zuricher Zeitung" newspaper criticizes the
country's foreign ministry, for mediating between Armenia and Turkey
in the process of normalization of their ties as well as signing of
the protocols. The main issue of the criticism is Turkish denialist
policy. In other words, official Bern shouldn't have mediated such
a process as long as Turkey doesn't recognize the Armenian Genocide.
We're not talking of a casual phenomenon here where a media
representative would criticize Turkey for its denial of history.
First of all, we're talking about the most popular newspaper in a
given country. Second, we're talking about Switzerland; a country
that has been given a mediatory role by geopolitical powers for a long
time now. It's true that the criticism didn't come from a government
official, however, after all we're talking about a major contradiction
between the state and the public opinion.
It shouldn't be surprising to state that by taking up this mediatory
role Switzerland also manifested intra-state contradictions.
And the rationale is this: We all know that the then president of the
Turkish Historians' Union Yousouf Haladjoghlu and after him historian
Doghou Perincek were taken to court one after the other for denying
the fact of Genocide based on Swiss Criminal Law. The judicial odessy
is familiar to our readers.
Let's continue the attempt of developing the rationale.
The same Switzerland was mediating secret talks between the Armenian
and Turkish foreign ministry delegates which was developing in rounds.
Most probably during those secret talks the Turkish delegates must
have denied the Armenian Genocide several times.
The question about the contradiction doesn't end here though. According
to media reports, on the day of the signing of the protocols it was
decided for the two ministers to address the reporters. The written
address of the Turkish foreign minister included a section which
to say the least doubted the Armenian Genocide and which even if
not presented, nevertheless was read and examined not so far from
the spotlights and the reporters' cameras. In other words, a Swiss
law-countering step was taken in the courts of University of Zurich.
Still, the historic subcommittee mentioned in the Protocols opens doors
for Turkey to assure the examination of the facts of the Genocide. The
examination itself is the indirect denial of the truth; a unique way
of denial. So, there goes the third explicit violation of Swiss Law.
The issue, therefore, isn't about state-public opinion contradiction,
but the screaming contradiction between Swiss judicial and
political sectors seen in the mediation of the for normalizing the
Armenian-Turkish relations. And that was seen in three occasions;
too many occasions.
This issue has no relation with the success or collapse of the
process. The Swiss foreign affairs high directorate must give an
explanation to the official judicial sector about the violations
committed until now if it's really true that in countries like
Switzerland the judicial sector is independent of the political sector.