Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ANKARA: Turk businessman: Boycotting France wrong, unsustainable

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ANKARA: Turk businessman: Boycotting France wrong, unsustainable

    Hurriyet Daily News, Turkey
    Jan 14 2012

    Turk businessman: Boycotting France wrong, unsustainable

    By Barçın Yinanç
    ISTANBUL - Hürriyet Daily News

    Economic sanctions against France would be detrimental to both sides
    even though France would stand to lose more, the head of
    Turkish-French Business Council, Yılmaz Argüden, says as Ankara warns
    Paris of economic consequences if a motion criminalizing the denial of
    the 1915 events as genocide passes the Senate


    Turkey should not shoot itself in the foot in reacting to France as
    the country's Senate prepares to vote on a motion criminalizing the
    denial of Armenian genocide claims on Jan. 23, according to a Turkish
    businessman.

    Both Turkey and France will suffer in the event of an economic
    boycott, said Yılmaz Argüden, the head of the Turkish-French Business
    Council at the Foreign Economic Relations Board of Turkey (DEÄ°K).
    There are several French businessmen genuinely working to prevent the
    adoption of the bill, yet Turkey needs a more organized and
    sustainable approach to fight Armenians' claims of genocide, he told
    the Hürriyet Daily News in a recent interview.

    What will happen on Jan. 23 in the French Senate?

    There is a possibility that [the genocide motion] could pass, and the
    fact that French President Nicolas Sarkozy is putting so much effort
    behind it strengthens this possibility.

    What can be done about it now?

    Unfortunately, we started acting at the last minute. From this point
    on, what could be done is that Sarkozy should be told by those whom he
    might listen to that what he is doing is not right; and these [people]
    are not Turks.

    Who are they?

    Other powers in the world.

    Would Sarkozy listen to them?

    Everyone has somebody to listen to. Would this be enough? No, but I
    think it might be helpful. Another thing to do is to raise the
    awareness in France about the subject. We need to have our arguments
    heard by larger segments of French society. Of course, from this point
    on, nothing is easy. Our approach to the Armenian issue is very
    passive. It's been like this for many years. This is an issue that we
    don't even have in the curriculum. I only became familiar with this
    issue when I went abroad. The Armenians, on the other hand, have been
    very consistent.


    French businessmen are working against the bill. This also depends on
    the potential for a positive outcome. Their efforts might weaken when
    they see a decided Sarkozy.

    So you think we should include it in the curriculum?

    Of course, societies can only endorse and defend all the positive and
    negative arguments that they are reproached with when they have deeper
    knowledge about them.

    We don't even discuss it in Turkey, we say, `Let's leave it to the historians.'

    Yes but we should not sit and wait for the historians. If there are
    20,000 books defending the Armenian arguments but not even 200 books
    about the Turkish arguments, this shows that we are not working. If we
    are opening the archives, we need to get the historians to come and
    work; it's not enough to say `go and work.' We need to encourage and
    allocate resources. But we also need to be honest. Sad events have
    taken place. I don't think it is appropriate to mention what the
    French have done in Algeria. The fact that the French have done bad
    things in Algeria does not vindicate the Turks. In fact, if you
    mention this argument, this means an implicit acceptance of what you
    are being accused of.

    If we are really confident about our arguments, about our archives, we
    have the responsibility to work on those archives and explain our
    arguments to world opinion in a way that they can understand. This
    responsibility does not belong to others: it's not enough to say that
    if you have accusations, then come and look at our archives.

    In this respect, you probably don't think that the Turkish campaign on
    France has been effective so far.

    I am not sure it has created a positive effect. We acted too late.
    Plus, we get reactive very fast but we cool down with the same speed.
    We don't have a sustainable effort. When we don't have enough
    information, we give different type of reactions. What we need to say
    is that, yes, there were sad events, that a lot of people lost their
    lives, but that this cannot be identified as genocide.

    But even if you give this more-balanced message, it falls on deaf
    ears. There is a widespread and strong belief in global public opinion
    that there was an Armenian genocide.

    This is because we have been late. What breaks the stone is the
    continuous flow of water. The Armenians have been working for the past
    90 years, whereas we talk about it when the issue comes to the agenda
    and then forget about it.

    What is your view on the government intention to implement economic sanctions?

    We should not forget that initiatives to block trade are detrimental
    to both societies. But especially at this time around, France stands
    to lose more than Turkey. There is an incredible competition in the
    world and all countries are looking for markets. It is obvious that
    the French economy will have problems in the near future. Turkey has
    alternatives.

    Turkey's alternatives as trade partners are diminishing as well with
    the Arab Spring.

    A: This is why I say both sides will suffer. And I don't think this is
    sustainable. As a society, we are very quick-tempered and then, in
    time, this temper cools down. But this time it could be different.
    There are several infrastructure projects in Turkey. And these
    long-term projects are decided by states. Naturally, the tendency of a
    state to enter into a long-term project with a state that is hostile
    will be weaker. But at the end of the day, we as the Turkish-French
    Business Council want to increase business. I see business as an area
    where people get to know each other more. Instead of turning inward as
    a reaction, if we are confident of our arguments, then we should
    explain these arguments with stronger means of communication.

    Yes but in the short term, the Turkish government is looking for ways
    to hurt France.

    I don't think it is right to say I am boycotting France as a reaction.
    But for many Turkish decision-makers, Sarkozy's attitude is an element
    that affects their decision; whether we like it or not, it has already
    started hurting bilateral trade. If there are alternatives,
    preferences slide to the alternatives.

    Whenever there are problems with France, all eyes turn to economic sector.

    This is one of the means of pressure, but we know that politicians
    don't change their stance just because businessmen want it. This is a
    tool that can be used, but we can't rely on that tool alone.
    Q: Are French businessmen with economic ties to Turkey working enough
    to prevent the adoption of the bill?

    There are representatives of the French business community that are
    showing a genuine effort. But this also depends on the potential of a
    successful outcome. If they see an incredible resoluteness from
    Sarkozy, then their efforts could remain at 80 percent rather than 100
    percent. But we know that there are many French businessmen that are
    genuinely dedicated and expending efforts.

    Some say we should not give such a strong reaction, as that only makes
    the Armenians happier.

    We need to react but not through blackmail. In the interdependent
    world that we are living in today, there should not be a policy of
    hurting the other side. Trying to hurt the other side can hurt you and
    become very exhausting; the reaction should not [make] us shoot
    ourselves in the foot. It should be through law, information and
    communication.

    Europe suffers from the shortsightedness of its leaders. Europe has
    not faced the truth that it has an unsustainable system. There is no
    awareness that Europeans need to change. Leaders just think with the
    perspective of the next elections; they have difficulty dealing with
    long-term problems, so instead of leading their societies in the right
    direction, they look out for short-term scapegoats. This analysis is
    true for France as well.

    Empires start falling once they start clashing with their own values:
    What France should be alarmed with is not the Turkish boycott, but
    that it itself is taking a decision based on short-term ethnic
    politics at the expense of a sacred value like freedom of expression.
    France should be alarmed that it could accept a restriction on freedom
    of expression. One of the keys to governance [the title of Argüden's
    book] is consistency. France fails to meet these criteria. We need to
    underline that point.

    The restrictions on freedom of expression in Turkey make it difficult
    to criticize France. Don't we need to be consistent as well?

    Of course. I'm not saying that we are wonderful, but the French are
    bad. I believe consistency and freedom of expression should be
    [practiced] everywhere. But for those who think we can't criticize
    France on freedom of expression, I'll recall the mistake of using the
    Algerian case. Two wrongs don't make a right.


    WHO IS YILMAZ ARGÃ`DEN?



    Yılmaz Argüden is the chairman of ARGE, an Istanbul-based strategy
    consultant. He is also the chairman of Rothschild Turkey. His career
    spans the private sector, public sector, multinational institutions,
    NGO'S and academia.

    A graduate of Bosphorus University, Argüden received his Ph.D. in
    policy analysis from the RAND Graduate Institute. He worked in the
    World Bank. Upon the Turkish government's invitation, he returned
    home, where he helped lead a privatization program. In 1991, he served
    as the chief economic adviser to the prime minister. He has served on
    the boards of more than 50 institutions. He is the author of several
    books, including `Keys to Governance,' and `Boardroom Secrets,' both
    in English.

    January/14/2012

    http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turk-businessman-boycotting-france-wrong-unsustainable.aspx?pageID=238&nID=11423&NewsCatID= 338

Working...
X