Tweet
FROM THE BOSPHORUS: STRAIGHT - WHEN DOGMA IMPERILS DIPLOMACY
Hurriyet
Feb 4 2010
Turkey
When the roles of judicial, diplomatic and political authorities blur,
the result is problematic. This will be amply demonstrated in coming
days in the news involving Turkey, Armenia and Switzerland.
As readers know, we support the position of the Turkish government
and many others that the nature of the events before and leading up
to 1915, a time of nationalist slaughter throughout the collapsing
Ottoman Empire, should be discussed as part of the normalization
process between our two countries. Whether the word "genocide" is a
legitimate part of the discussion is something with which we have no
quarrel. But given the highly charged nature of the issue, as well as
other matters including complex legal questions related to the fact
the relevant law on the matter was promulgated in 1948, we support
the argument that this should come at the end of the normalization
process. Not on opening day. We have also noted, to the discern of
many readers holding diverse perspectives, our view that historians
are generally converging toward a common view of the facts of this
important history. Increasingly, the greater disputes are over the
question of what the facts mean. Do they add up to "genocide"? We
think not. But we are neither historians nor legal scholars. That's
why we strongly support the creation of a historical commission by
the two countries that can examine these questions authoritatively.
Which takes us to the matter of dogma. The encyclopedia definition:
"Dogma is the established belief or doctrine by a religion, ideology or
any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed,
doubted or diverged from."
Like most journalists, we are not fond of dogma. We have long shared
the concern that when national legislatures, or other institutions,
venture into the making of historical conclusion, the result is dogma.
And dogma is inflexible.
The reason the Turkish-Armenian protocols are now in trouble is
that the Armenian Constitutional Court has trumped the proposed
work of the envisioned commission. It has stated that "genocide" is
not up for discussion, that the ratification process cannot proceed
if such is in the cards. Hoping to retrieve the negotiations, the
Turkish government is seeking the support of the Swiss diplomats who
facilitated the protocol agreement last year. A Turkish ambassador
was on his way to Bern yesterday on this mission.
This is good diplomacy. But it is about to encounter dogma. For the
Swiss Parliament has made questioning the term "genocide" a crime. It
has made it dogma. Next week, three Turks will be on trial for this
crime. Will the envoy's request for Swiss mediation be a crime? If
the Swiss Foreign Ministry helps, will it be in violation of its own
national law?
We don't know. But we do know that this is why we don't like dogma.
Hurriyet
Feb 4 2010
Turkey
When the roles of judicial, diplomatic and political authorities blur,
the result is problematic. This will be amply demonstrated in coming
days in the news involving Turkey, Armenia and Switzerland.
As readers know, we support the position of the Turkish government
and many others that the nature of the events before and leading up
to 1915, a time of nationalist slaughter throughout the collapsing
Ottoman Empire, should be discussed as part of the normalization
process between our two countries. Whether the word "genocide" is a
legitimate part of the discussion is something with which we have no
quarrel. But given the highly charged nature of the issue, as well as
other matters including complex legal questions related to the fact
the relevant law on the matter was promulgated in 1948, we support
the argument that this should come at the end of the normalization
process. Not on opening day. We have also noted, to the discern of
many readers holding diverse perspectives, our view that historians
are generally converging toward a common view of the facts of this
important history. Increasingly, the greater disputes are over the
question of what the facts mean. Do they add up to "genocide"? We
think not. But we are neither historians nor legal scholars. That's
why we strongly support the creation of a historical commission by
the two countries that can examine these questions authoritatively.
Which takes us to the matter of dogma. The encyclopedia definition:
"Dogma is the established belief or doctrine by a religion, ideology or
any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed,
doubted or diverged from."
Like most journalists, we are not fond of dogma. We have long shared
the concern that when national legislatures, or other institutions,
venture into the making of historical conclusion, the result is dogma.
And dogma is inflexible.
The reason the Turkish-Armenian protocols are now in trouble is
that the Armenian Constitutional Court has trumped the proposed
work of the envisioned commission. It has stated that "genocide" is
not up for discussion, that the ratification process cannot proceed
if such is in the cards. Hoping to retrieve the negotiations, the
Turkish government is seeking the support of the Swiss diplomats who
facilitated the protocol agreement last year. A Turkish ambassador
was on his way to Bern yesterday on this mission.
This is good diplomacy. But it is about to encounter dogma. For the
Swiss Parliament has made questioning the term "genocide" a crime. It
has made it dogma. Next week, three Turks will be on trial for this
crime. Will the envoy's request for Swiss mediation be a crime? If
the Swiss Foreign Ministry helps, will it be in violation of its own
national law?
We don't know. But we do know that this is why we don't like dogma.