Tweet
Dissident Voice
Jan 6 2012
Why has President Sarkozy Revived the Alleged Armenian Genocide?
by Dan Lieberman / January 6th, 2012
Genocide is always ignored until the genocide is over. After its
completion, eloquent and hypocritical words appear in defense of the
murdered and departed. Genocide makes headlines, and people know how
to use them for their own advantage.
France's President Nicholas Sarkozy gains headlines, and mostly for
appropriate reasons. He is in the news almost every day - marriage to
a celebrity model, leading the charge against dispatched Libyan leader
Moammar Gadhafi, whom he befriended months earlier, scuffling with
Germany's Prime Minister Angela Merkel over how to save the Euro and
French banks, camera shots with the new baby, and at an October 7,
2011 meeting in Armenia stating that `Turkey's refusal to recognize
the [Armenian] genocide would force France to make such denials a
criminal offense.'
Peoples who suffered genocide have the right to solicit compensation
for displaced survivors from the guilty government and to seek means
to correct the wrong. Others have an obligation to help. Nevertheless,
knowing that President Sarkozy's statement would irritate Turkish
Prime Minister Erdogan and force him to reject the bill, there must be
more to the French President's actions and to the French National
Assembly December 20, 2011 vote that proposed a year in jail and a
fine of $58,000 to those publicly denying the alleged genocide.
Note: The expression `alleged genocide' is used for impartiality.
There is neither intention to deny genocide nor assent to a thesis
that it did not occur.
What does the bill accomplish for France?
Is denial of an Armenian genocide a polarizing issue in France? Do
citizens of La Patria openly debate Ottoman Empire responsibility for
an alleged genocide that happened one hundred years ago? Does French
jurisprudence need this bill to prevent a significant offense? The
necessity to pass a law that makes it a crime to deny the alleged
Armenian genocide is baffling. To whom is it directed and what is its
purpose?
The bill will not help the victims; after all, they are gone. What
happened in the Armenian part of Turkey almost a century ago is not a
French issue, and therefore will neither resolve a present or future
French problem nor change French life. It is doubtful that many
citizens thought about the issue and argued a need for the bill.
The bill will create problems
Old wounds are opened, and with them renewed hatreds will occur. As
the western world starts to overcome its prejudices and learns to
appreciate the Turkish nation, Sarkozy shakes the world with
accusations of criminal behavior by the almost ancient Ottoman
government.
Just when Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has embarked on
reconciliation with Armenia and his own Armenian citizens, a challenge
interrupts the peace-minded progress. After decades of hostility,
Turkey and Armenia signed an agreement in October 2009 to establish
diplomatic relations and open their borders. Unfortunately, neither
government has ratified the agreement due to the lack of settlement of
a dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh, a
territory that was formally inside Azerbaijan and, since a 1990s war,
is occupied by ethnic Armenians.
The bill, written one hundred years after an event, makes it illegal
for people to rebut accusations that their ancestors initiated
genocide and considers them complicit in the atrocities if they defend
their elders. The Turks are probably asking themselves: `If this bill
is necessary, why aren't there bills concerning complicity of many
western powers in the mass killings of Indigenous populations in the
Western Hemisphere, African populations throughout Africa, which
includes slavery in the United States, Asians, most prominently in
China, India, and the Philippines, and their own populations in
Europe?'
Not stopping atrocities, and then criminalizing words that question
the extent of the atrocities, smacks of duplicity; an attempt to hide
failures by achieving political correctness. Isn't there something
wrong in a democratic nation when opinions can be made illegal and
illegal deeds are not prevented?
Why aren't remaining effects of previous genocides not directly countered?
Existing effects of previous genocides require more attention than
bills that punish people for denying genocide. In North, Central and
South America, Indigenous peoples who suffered genocide continue to
struggle for cultural survival and to maintain their dignity. Inca and
Mapuche from South America, Maya from Central America, and Indigenous
peoples in North America remain disempowered in trying to regain the
land and resources stolen from them and find themselves slowly
decimated and slipping into obscurity. Grief still inhabits their
faces and squalor is forced upon them.
Disadvantages arising from past actions have been, and always will,
impede descendants of American slaves in their progress. While severe
disadvantage is not easily overcome, advantage is capitalized and adds
to advantage. African Americans deserve a compensation that enables
them to overcome the disadvantages in order to achieve an equal status
with White America.
Why are these victims of genocide not being properly helped? The
answer is simple: the economic capital (a huge amount to right the
wrongs done to the African Americans) will not return a positive
political benefit. Note that these genocides are often denied with one
statement - a natural course of history - and the detractors are not
punished.
What motivated a bill that criminalizes denial of an alleged genocide?
Proving hidden motivations for passage of the bill cannot be easily
justified or demonstrated. Frame the question in another context:
Knowing that Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan would disregard President
Sarkozy's statement and vehemently reject the bill, how will others
benefit from a bill that criminalizes denial of an alleged Armenian
genocide?
Prime Minister Erdogan has taken independent stances that lead many to
regard him his courage. His stances and moral attitude have generated
opposition and disturbed those who envy his popularity. The French
bill shifts the moral compass from Erdogan to Sarkozy and reduces the
impact from Erdogan's independent positions.
The Justice and Development Party (AKP) has steered Turkey away from
the severe nationalist polices of its militarist predecessors. The
bill places Erdogan and his AKP Party in a difficult position. Accept
the bill and lose favor with a great majority of the Turkish
electorate. Reject the bill and give the appearance of following a
renewed nationalist policy.
Those who view Turkey as too independent, too large, and too Muslim
seek any excuse to keep Turkey out of the European Union. Add to the
list Turkey's unwillingness to recognize the Ottoman Empire's
culpability in the alleged Armenian genocide.
When friendly with Turkey, Israel rejected recognition of the alleged
Armenian genocide. Now that the two nations are declared antagonists,
is it possible that Israel, whose Knesset held a renewed discussion on
recognizing the Armenian genocide, played a role in promoting the bill
in order to embarrass Erdogan?
Armenia has an unresolved situation with Azerbaijan over the status of
Nagorno-Karabakh. The Armenian lobby consistently works to keep the
atrocity alive and direct sympathy to Armenia.
France has a law that calls genocide denial a criminal offense. People
are questioning why the law is applied to the World War II holocaust
and not to other genocides.
An Armenian lobby and contributors can play a significant role in the
coming French presidential election.
The bill might backfire on President Sarkozy and damage French interests.
An injured Turkey, that has become dubious of a wounded European
Union, might shift its allegiance and interchange from the western
world to Russia, China and India. If that happens, NATO, who relies
greatly on Turkey's geo-strategic position, will find itself engaging
a more difficult partner.
Preventing genocide and assisting its remaining victims has highest
priority. However, perpetually aggravating hatred rather than pursuing
reconciliation and using a genocide for enhancing a personal or
national agenda create suspicion. Making criminals of those who
recognize atrocities but deny that ancestors deserve to be included as
purveyors of genocide is a controversial afterthought and an arm
twister: `Say uncle or go to jail.'
Dan Lieberman is Editor of Alternative Insight, a monthly web based
newsletter. He is a writer of many published articles on the Middle
East. He can be reached at: [email protected]. Read
other articles by Dan.
http://dissidentvoice.org/2012/01/why-has-president-sarkozy-revived-the-alleged-armenian-genocide/
Jan 6 2012
Why has President Sarkozy Revived the Alleged Armenian Genocide?
by Dan Lieberman / January 6th, 2012
Genocide is always ignored until the genocide is over. After its
completion, eloquent and hypocritical words appear in defense of the
murdered and departed. Genocide makes headlines, and people know how
to use them for their own advantage.
France's President Nicholas Sarkozy gains headlines, and mostly for
appropriate reasons. He is in the news almost every day - marriage to
a celebrity model, leading the charge against dispatched Libyan leader
Moammar Gadhafi, whom he befriended months earlier, scuffling with
Germany's Prime Minister Angela Merkel over how to save the Euro and
French banks, camera shots with the new baby, and at an October 7,
2011 meeting in Armenia stating that `Turkey's refusal to recognize
the [Armenian] genocide would force France to make such denials a
criminal offense.'
Peoples who suffered genocide have the right to solicit compensation
for displaced survivors from the guilty government and to seek means
to correct the wrong. Others have an obligation to help. Nevertheless,
knowing that President Sarkozy's statement would irritate Turkish
Prime Minister Erdogan and force him to reject the bill, there must be
more to the French President's actions and to the French National
Assembly December 20, 2011 vote that proposed a year in jail and a
fine of $58,000 to those publicly denying the alleged genocide.
Note: The expression `alleged genocide' is used for impartiality.
There is neither intention to deny genocide nor assent to a thesis
that it did not occur.
What does the bill accomplish for France?
Is denial of an Armenian genocide a polarizing issue in France? Do
citizens of La Patria openly debate Ottoman Empire responsibility for
an alleged genocide that happened one hundred years ago? Does French
jurisprudence need this bill to prevent a significant offense? The
necessity to pass a law that makes it a crime to deny the alleged
Armenian genocide is baffling. To whom is it directed and what is its
purpose?
The bill will not help the victims; after all, they are gone. What
happened in the Armenian part of Turkey almost a century ago is not a
French issue, and therefore will neither resolve a present or future
French problem nor change French life. It is doubtful that many
citizens thought about the issue and argued a need for the bill.
The bill will create problems
Old wounds are opened, and with them renewed hatreds will occur. As
the western world starts to overcome its prejudices and learns to
appreciate the Turkish nation, Sarkozy shakes the world with
accusations of criminal behavior by the almost ancient Ottoman
government.
Just when Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has embarked on
reconciliation with Armenia and his own Armenian citizens, a challenge
interrupts the peace-minded progress. After decades of hostility,
Turkey and Armenia signed an agreement in October 2009 to establish
diplomatic relations and open their borders. Unfortunately, neither
government has ratified the agreement due to the lack of settlement of
a dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh, a
territory that was formally inside Azerbaijan and, since a 1990s war,
is occupied by ethnic Armenians.
The bill, written one hundred years after an event, makes it illegal
for people to rebut accusations that their ancestors initiated
genocide and considers them complicit in the atrocities if they defend
their elders. The Turks are probably asking themselves: `If this bill
is necessary, why aren't there bills concerning complicity of many
western powers in the mass killings of Indigenous populations in the
Western Hemisphere, African populations throughout Africa, which
includes slavery in the United States, Asians, most prominently in
China, India, and the Philippines, and their own populations in
Europe?'
Not stopping atrocities, and then criminalizing words that question
the extent of the atrocities, smacks of duplicity; an attempt to hide
failures by achieving political correctness. Isn't there something
wrong in a democratic nation when opinions can be made illegal and
illegal deeds are not prevented?
Why aren't remaining effects of previous genocides not directly countered?
Existing effects of previous genocides require more attention than
bills that punish people for denying genocide. In North, Central and
South America, Indigenous peoples who suffered genocide continue to
struggle for cultural survival and to maintain their dignity. Inca and
Mapuche from South America, Maya from Central America, and Indigenous
peoples in North America remain disempowered in trying to regain the
land and resources stolen from them and find themselves slowly
decimated and slipping into obscurity. Grief still inhabits their
faces and squalor is forced upon them.
Disadvantages arising from past actions have been, and always will,
impede descendants of American slaves in their progress. While severe
disadvantage is not easily overcome, advantage is capitalized and adds
to advantage. African Americans deserve a compensation that enables
them to overcome the disadvantages in order to achieve an equal status
with White America.
Why are these victims of genocide not being properly helped? The
answer is simple: the economic capital (a huge amount to right the
wrongs done to the African Americans) will not return a positive
political benefit. Note that these genocides are often denied with one
statement - a natural course of history - and the detractors are not
punished.
What motivated a bill that criminalizes denial of an alleged genocide?
Proving hidden motivations for passage of the bill cannot be easily
justified or demonstrated. Frame the question in another context:
Knowing that Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan would disregard President
Sarkozy's statement and vehemently reject the bill, how will others
benefit from a bill that criminalizes denial of an alleged Armenian
genocide?
Prime Minister Erdogan has taken independent stances that lead many to
regard him his courage. His stances and moral attitude have generated
opposition and disturbed those who envy his popularity. The French
bill shifts the moral compass from Erdogan to Sarkozy and reduces the
impact from Erdogan's independent positions.
The Justice and Development Party (AKP) has steered Turkey away from
the severe nationalist polices of its militarist predecessors. The
bill places Erdogan and his AKP Party in a difficult position. Accept
the bill and lose favor with a great majority of the Turkish
electorate. Reject the bill and give the appearance of following a
renewed nationalist policy.
Those who view Turkey as too independent, too large, and too Muslim
seek any excuse to keep Turkey out of the European Union. Add to the
list Turkey's unwillingness to recognize the Ottoman Empire's
culpability in the alleged Armenian genocide.
When friendly with Turkey, Israel rejected recognition of the alleged
Armenian genocide. Now that the two nations are declared antagonists,
is it possible that Israel, whose Knesset held a renewed discussion on
recognizing the Armenian genocide, played a role in promoting the bill
in order to embarrass Erdogan?
Armenia has an unresolved situation with Azerbaijan over the status of
Nagorno-Karabakh. The Armenian lobby consistently works to keep the
atrocity alive and direct sympathy to Armenia.
France has a law that calls genocide denial a criminal offense. People
are questioning why the law is applied to the World War II holocaust
and not to other genocides.
An Armenian lobby and contributors can play a significant role in the
coming French presidential election.
The bill might backfire on President Sarkozy and damage French interests.
An injured Turkey, that has become dubious of a wounded European
Union, might shift its allegiance and interchange from the western
world to Russia, China and India. If that happens, NATO, who relies
greatly on Turkey's geo-strategic position, will find itself engaging
a more difficult partner.
Preventing genocide and assisting its remaining victims has highest
priority. However, perpetually aggravating hatred rather than pursuing
reconciliation and using a genocide for enhancing a personal or
national agenda create suspicion. Making criminals of those who
recognize atrocities but deny that ancestors deserve to be included as
purveyors of genocide is a controversial afterthought and an arm
twister: `Say uncle or go to jail.'
Dan Lieberman is Editor of Alternative Insight, a monthly web based
newsletter. He is a writer of many published articles on the Middle
East. He can be reached at: [email protected]. Read
other articles by Dan.
http://dissidentvoice.org/2012/01/why-has-president-sarkozy-revived-the-alleged-armenian-genocide/