Tweet
Hurriyet Daily News, Turkey
Dec 23 2011
The new Turkish jurisprudence on Armenian genocide
BURAK BEKDÄ°L >
As I sit and write this article, the French vote on a bill to
criminalize genocide denial is still half a day away. All the same,
the result of the vote will be totally irrelevant to the contents of
this piece.
In recent years, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip ErdoÄ?an said that the
Chinese treatment of its ethnic Turkish Uighur minority amounted to
`near genocide,' that he went to Darfur and saw no genocide there,
that politicians should not comment on genocide and that it was the
historians' job to do so. And just last month, Mr. ErdoÄ?an invited
Turkish politicians to freely debate the 1937/8 massacres in Dersim
(Tunceli) of thousands of uprising Kurds, blaming the tragedy on the
Republican People's Party, the ruling (and only) party at the time.
But since last week Turkish bigwigs have been issuing warning after
warning that all cooperation with the French government and joint
projects would be frozen along with diplomatic relations if the French
Parliament passed a bill making the denial of the Armenian genocide
illegal.
In fact, the Armenian claims of genocide may have found many Turkish
supporters, especially among the ruling Islamist elite, if they
accused Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (or his prime minister, İsmet İnönü)
instead of the Ottoman government. It is the `Ottoman touch' that
offends Turkey's neo-Ottomans. Unsurprisingly, Foreign Minister Ahmet
DavutoÄ?lu has said the French bill `dishonored our country and
nation.'
First, Professor DavutoÄ?lu, you should have learned from your boss,
Mr. ErdoÄ?an, that parliaments represent the `will of the nation' and
their decisions are sacred in democracies. You should be able to
explain why the Turkish Parliament's decisions are sacred but
decisions of the French or any other Parliament may not be so.
Second, you should be able to explain why politicians should be able
to speak and vote on past crimes like the massacres of Dersim but not
on the Armenian genocide. Third, you should be able to explain why the
Turkish leader has the right to say that in Sudan there was no
genocide `because he went there and did not see it' while the French
or any other leader has no right to say the Armenian genocide did take
place. Why? Because President Nicolas Sarkozy did not personally see
it? Fourth, of course, you should be able to explain why Turkey has
full diplomatic relations with Switzerland where genocide denial is an
offense, but intends to freeze relations with France if the latter
passes the same bill.
But more importantly, Turkey's not-so-mature `we'll freeze our ties,
recall our ambassador and your companies will suffer' rhetoric has set
an example of jurisprudence which neither Mr. ErdoÄ?an nor Mr.
Davutoglu would wish to be reminded of in the future.
In 2001, the French Parliament recognized the Armenian genocide. So it
has been a decade of perfectly normal relations between Turkey and
France, including joint projects and full diplomatic ties. Now Turkey
threatens to freeze relations if the French Parliament makes it an
offense to deny the genocide. This is the example Ankara is mistakenly
creating: `Dear members of parliaments of the world! From now on, you
can recognize the Armenian genocide and have perfectly normal
relations with us; but we'll get badly offended only if you made
genocide denial illegal.'
Will the U.S. Congress get the message? The Turks should hope it
won't. Sadly, the more than 20 countries in the world whose
parliaments have recognized the Armenian genocide stand like an
unpleasant reminder that the soft power Mr. DavutoÄ?lu loves to assume
Turkey possesses does not exist in the real world.
December/23/2011
Dec 23 2011
The new Turkish jurisprudence on Armenian genocide
BURAK BEKDÄ°L >
As I sit and write this article, the French vote on a bill to
criminalize genocide denial is still half a day away. All the same,
the result of the vote will be totally irrelevant to the contents of
this piece.
In recent years, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip ErdoÄ?an said that the
Chinese treatment of its ethnic Turkish Uighur minority amounted to
`near genocide,' that he went to Darfur and saw no genocide there,
that politicians should not comment on genocide and that it was the
historians' job to do so. And just last month, Mr. ErdoÄ?an invited
Turkish politicians to freely debate the 1937/8 massacres in Dersim
(Tunceli) of thousands of uprising Kurds, blaming the tragedy on the
Republican People's Party, the ruling (and only) party at the time.
But since last week Turkish bigwigs have been issuing warning after
warning that all cooperation with the French government and joint
projects would be frozen along with diplomatic relations if the French
Parliament passed a bill making the denial of the Armenian genocide
illegal.
In fact, the Armenian claims of genocide may have found many Turkish
supporters, especially among the ruling Islamist elite, if they
accused Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (or his prime minister, İsmet İnönü)
instead of the Ottoman government. It is the `Ottoman touch' that
offends Turkey's neo-Ottomans. Unsurprisingly, Foreign Minister Ahmet
DavutoÄ?lu has said the French bill `dishonored our country and
nation.'
First, Professor DavutoÄ?lu, you should have learned from your boss,
Mr. ErdoÄ?an, that parliaments represent the `will of the nation' and
their decisions are sacred in democracies. You should be able to
explain why the Turkish Parliament's decisions are sacred but
decisions of the French or any other Parliament may not be so.
Second, you should be able to explain why politicians should be able
to speak and vote on past crimes like the massacres of Dersim but not
on the Armenian genocide. Third, you should be able to explain why the
Turkish leader has the right to say that in Sudan there was no
genocide `because he went there and did not see it' while the French
or any other leader has no right to say the Armenian genocide did take
place. Why? Because President Nicolas Sarkozy did not personally see
it? Fourth, of course, you should be able to explain why Turkey has
full diplomatic relations with Switzerland where genocide denial is an
offense, but intends to freeze relations with France if the latter
passes the same bill.
But more importantly, Turkey's not-so-mature `we'll freeze our ties,
recall our ambassador and your companies will suffer' rhetoric has set
an example of jurisprudence which neither Mr. ErdoÄ?an nor Mr.
Davutoglu would wish to be reminded of in the future.
In 2001, the French Parliament recognized the Armenian genocide. So it
has been a decade of perfectly normal relations between Turkey and
France, including joint projects and full diplomatic ties. Now Turkey
threatens to freeze relations if the French Parliament makes it an
offense to deny the genocide. This is the example Ankara is mistakenly
creating: `Dear members of parliaments of the world! From now on, you
can recognize the Armenian genocide and have perfectly normal
relations with us; but we'll get badly offended only if you made
genocide denial illegal.'
Will the U.S. Congress get the message? The Turks should hope it
won't. Sadly, the more than 20 countries in the world whose
parliaments have recognized the Armenian genocide stand like an
unpleasant reminder that the soft power Mr. DavutoÄ?lu loves to assume
Turkey possesses does not exist in the real world.
December/23/2011