Tweet
THE BEST RESPONSE TO SARKOZY
by Abdulhamit Bilici
Today's Zaman
Dec 27 2011
Turkey
The French National Assembly's move to pass a bill that bans the denial
of Armenian genocide and penalizes those who do deny it with up to
a year in prison and a fine of 45,000 euros has naturally angered us
to the highest extent.
Ranging from an ordinary citizen who axed his French-made car to a
government that suspended its political ties with France, everyone
is reacting in some way or another.
The fact that the bill was passed by the lower house of the
French parliament and with so low a number of deputies present as
40 or 50 does not do us any good. Indeed, France is governed by a
semi-presidential system and President Nicolas Sarkozy, who seriously
dominates the system, backs the bill. While some members of his own
party may be speaking out against the bill, the Social Democrats,
who are in the opposition, do not oppose it. However, they are a bit
angry with Sarkozy for acting before they did.
We should not forget that while the general public and intellectuals
in France, including historians, are against this bill, we have
already lost the war concerning genocide claims. Historians and
some politicians voice opposition not to the recognition of the 1915
incidents as genocide, but to the criminalization of genocide denial.
Actually, a closer look at the US leaves us in a similar situation.
Many US figures, including President Barack Obama, are against a vote
in Congress just for the sake of not losing Turkey from a strategic
standpoint.
Moreover, it is not the first time France has dealt with this matter.
As is well-known, along with the parliaments of 19 countries, the
French parliament passed a bill back in 2001 that recognized the
World War I-era mass killings of Armenians as genocide. Since then,
there have been several attempts to penalize the denial of this
genocide. In one of these efforts, a bill in 2006 was blocked by the
Senate, ironically with help from Sarkozy, although the lower house
had passed it.
There is always the possibility of the current efforts in France being
aborted. France deserves all sorts of reactions for having made this
move on purpose, knowing that it would create great uneasiness for
the Turkish side. Sarkozy's personal disliking of Turkey, his plans to
gain votes, pressures from certain lobbies and whatever justification
we may offer should not be enough to offend Turkey so easily. Yet,
we should also revise the strategy we follow as we express our anger
at France. Our insistence on resorting to methods that are doomed to
fail proves that we, both as a society and a state, lack foresight.
In my opinion, the most effective response to Sarkozy and those
like him is to make Turkey a true democracy with one of the top 10
economies in the world. From an economic standpoint, Turkey should,
instead of wasting its time with Sarkozy and being a tool for his
electoral ploys, focus on developing its ties with Russia, Africa, the
Middle East and other regions it is neglecting. Mutually abolishing
visa requirements with Ukraine is more important than Prime Minister
Recep Tayyip Erdogan's slamming France during a joint press conference
with his Ukrainian counterpart. If Turkish Airlines (THY) introduces
a new route or increases flights to Africa or if Turkish and African
businessmen come together to discuss mutual business opportunities,
France will be hurt more than by our current emotional reactions.
>>From a democratic perspective, expanding freedoms in all areas,
including the removal of bans against the discussion of genocide
claims, making the first-ever civilian constitution and solving
the problems with Kurds, Alevis and non-Muslims, is more important
than hurling angry remarks at Sarkozy. We should also question
ourselves with regards to our lobbying performance. In the US and
France, policies concerning Turkey are largely shaped by lobbies. In
democracies, politics are conducted more on a local basis than in
state capitals. Every sin gle vote is precious. Despite this well-known
fact, have we taken any step to mobilize the Turks in France or some
6 million Muslims who sympathize with Turkey?
In a democracy, you have to make your case known, even to the
grassroots, if you want to settle a dispute. You may be right, but
if you employ threatening language in asserting your case, it will
serve nothing but to amplify and antagonize the opposing camp. Let us
empathize with France and try to imagine that a country weaker than
ours is politically and economically threatening us in connection with
a bill passed by the Turkish Parliament. What would be our reaction?
Moreover, what we vitally need in this crisis is to reach out to the
general public in France by mobilizing those who support us in France
instead of acting offended or focusing our propaganda on the general
public in Turkey. Do we know if the French are informed as to why we
raise our objections? Ordinarily, one would take our reactions as a
symptom of our guilt.
Of course, before proceeding to Europe or the US, we need to
clarify our position about this matter and explain this position
to our own people. As suggested by Nationalist Movement Party (MHP)
leader Devlet Bahceli, Turkey "should establish its own commission
of historians to study and clarify the controversial incidents, even
if Armenians do not join it." Indeed, given the fact that our prime
minister offered an apology for the Dersim massacre two weeks before
the French National Assembly discussed the bill, we would be hardly
convincing if we failed to face the truth about these incidents.
But, unfortunately, we refrain from pursuing such far-reaching and
effective strategies and, instead, opt for sending our messages to the
domestic public, although we went to Paris with much fanfare two days
before the bill was introduced to the French National Assembly. Thus,
Sarkozy manages to distract the French public from the economic
crisis that is his main concern now. And we help him by attracting
not only Armenian votes but those of the 20-per cent far right who
fear Turkey and Islam. We even render ineffective the French public
and intellectuals who are against the bill. It is grievous state
of affairs.
by Abdulhamit Bilici
Today's Zaman
Dec 27 2011
Turkey
The French National Assembly's move to pass a bill that bans the denial
of Armenian genocide and penalizes those who do deny it with up to
a year in prison and a fine of 45,000 euros has naturally angered us
to the highest extent.
Ranging from an ordinary citizen who axed his French-made car to a
government that suspended its political ties with France, everyone
is reacting in some way or another.
The fact that the bill was passed by the lower house of the
French parliament and with so low a number of deputies present as
40 or 50 does not do us any good. Indeed, France is governed by a
semi-presidential system and President Nicolas Sarkozy, who seriously
dominates the system, backs the bill. While some members of his own
party may be speaking out against the bill, the Social Democrats,
who are in the opposition, do not oppose it. However, they are a bit
angry with Sarkozy for acting before they did.
We should not forget that while the general public and intellectuals
in France, including historians, are against this bill, we have
already lost the war concerning genocide claims. Historians and
some politicians voice opposition not to the recognition of the 1915
incidents as genocide, but to the criminalization of genocide denial.
Actually, a closer look at the US leaves us in a similar situation.
Many US figures, including President Barack Obama, are against a vote
in Congress just for the sake of not losing Turkey from a strategic
standpoint.
Moreover, it is not the first time France has dealt with this matter.
As is well-known, along with the parliaments of 19 countries, the
French parliament passed a bill back in 2001 that recognized the
World War I-era mass killings of Armenians as genocide. Since then,
there have been several attempts to penalize the denial of this
genocide. In one of these efforts, a bill in 2006 was blocked by the
Senate, ironically with help from Sarkozy, although the lower house
had passed it.
There is always the possibility of the current efforts in France being
aborted. France deserves all sorts of reactions for having made this
move on purpose, knowing that it would create great uneasiness for
the Turkish side. Sarkozy's personal disliking of Turkey, his plans to
gain votes, pressures from certain lobbies and whatever justification
we may offer should not be enough to offend Turkey so easily. Yet,
we should also revise the strategy we follow as we express our anger
at France. Our insistence on resorting to methods that are doomed to
fail proves that we, both as a society and a state, lack foresight.
In my opinion, the most effective response to Sarkozy and those
like him is to make Turkey a true democracy with one of the top 10
economies in the world. From an economic standpoint, Turkey should,
instead of wasting its time with Sarkozy and being a tool for his
electoral ploys, focus on developing its ties with Russia, Africa, the
Middle East and other regions it is neglecting. Mutually abolishing
visa requirements with Ukraine is more important than Prime Minister
Recep Tayyip Erdogan's slamming France during a joint press conference
with his Ukrainian counterpart. If Turkish Airlines (THY) introduces
a new route or increases flights to Africa or if Turkish and African
businessmen come together to discuss mutual business opportunities,
France will be hurt more than by our current emotional reactions.
>>From a democratic perspective, expanding freedoms in all areas,
including the removal of bans against the discussion of genocide
claims, making the first-ever civilian constitution and solving
the problems with Kurds, Alevis and non-Muslims, is more important
than hurling angry remarks at Sarkozy. We should also question
ourselves with regards to our lobbying performance. In the US and
France, policies concerning Turkey are largely shaped by lobbies. In
democracies, politics are conducted more on a local basis than in
state capitals. Every sin gle vote is precious. Despite this well-known
fact, have we taken any step to mobilize the Turks in France or some
6 million Muslims who sympathize with Turkey?
In a democracy, you have to make your case known, even to the
grassroots, if you want to settle a dispute. You may be right, but
if you employ threatening language in asserting your case, it will
serve nothing but to amplify and antagonize the opposing camp. Let us
empathize with France and try to imagine that a country weaker than
ours is politically and economically threatening us in connection with
a bill passed by the Turkish Parliament. What would be our reaction?
Moreover, what we vitally need in this crisis is to reach out to the
general public in France by mobilizing those who support us in France
instead of acting offended or focusing our propaganda on the general
public in Turkey. Do we know if the French are informed as to why we
raise our objections? Ordinarily, one would take our reactions as a
symptom of our guilt.
Of course, before proceeding to Europe or the US, we need to
clarify our position about this matter and explain this position
to our own people. As suggested by Nationalist Movement Party (MHP)
leader Devlet Bahceli, Turkey "should establish its own commission
of historians to study and clarify the controversial incidents, even
if Armenians do not join it." Indeed, given the fact that our prime
minister offered an apology for the Dersim massacre two weeks before
the French National Assembly discussed the bill, we would be hardly
convincing if we failed to face the truth about these incidents.
But, unfortunately, we refrain from pursuing such far-reaching and
effective strategies and, instead, opt for sending our messages to the
domestic public, although we went to Paris with much fanfare two days
before the bill was introduced to the French National Assembly. Thus,
Sarkozy manages to distract the French public from the economic
crisis that is his main concern now. And we help him by attracting
not only Armenian votes but those of the 20-per cent far right who
fear Turkey and Islam. We even render ineffective the French public
and intellectuals who are against the bill. It is grievous state
of affairs.