Tweet
FRENCH BILL AGAIN
Today's Zaman
Jan 24 2012
Turkey
While I was writing this article, I joined a live discussion on the
BBC world service.
The topic, of course, was the French genocide denial bill. For a while
I listened to the discussion between a Turkish academic and a British
lady. The Turkish gentleman was repeating all those well-known axioms:
"This discussion should be left to historians, no one denies in Turkey
that tragic things happened in 1915, but these events cannot be labeled
as genocide," so on and so forth. The British lady was well-prepared
for this defensive denialist attitude and advanced strong arguments
showing that 1915 events were indeed genocide, and she was beating
the Turkish guy with her well-tuned "civilized manner." The Turkish
guy may not be aware of it, but his remarks had no meaning for anyone
outside of Turkey.
Then I joined the discussion, and I tried to make my point. I said:
"It is not relevant to discuss whether the 1915 events were genocide
or not, but rather we should discuss if this French genocide bill
will help Turkey to confront its past. There are people in Turkey,
including myself, who believe what happened in Turkey in 1915 was
indeed a genocide and who try to bring this subject to the attention
of the Turkish public. This French bill, however, took hostage all
these discussions, giving strength to Turkish nationalists only,
and nowadays, we cannot discuss anything but this genocide bill."
Then the British lady took the floor once again and stated quite
confidently that what I was saying "is another way of blackmailing."
At this exact moment, I lost my temper, and I said something like,
"Look, I have been defending human rights in Turkey for the last 20
years and fighting against this nationalist mentality, which carried
out all these massacres, it is very easy for you speaking like that
sitting there..." And all of a sudden, we came to the end of the
program. I did not have a chance to share all my thoughts.
After the discussion, I found myself pondering different things.
Everyone may be right about his or her respective positions.
Armenians, for example, may ask how long they should wait for Turkey
to come to terms with recognizing what happened in 1915. Some Europeans
may think that without this kind of outside pressure, Turkey will never
discuss what happened in the past. However, I strongly believe the
French move and others like it are only delaying Turkey's inevitable
confrontation with its past; this is the only purpose they serve.
Does France really want Turkey to confront its past, to see a more
democratic Turkey, to see Turkey as a good neighbor to Armenia? Why
then it is so strongly against Turkey's accession to the EU? Why
then does it try to push Turkey off the European map? Perhaps French
President Nicolas Sarkozy is trying to kill a few birds with one stone:
He will get more votes from Armenians; he will advance his agenda
of killing Turkey's chances to join the EU by provoking Turkey into
giving these primitive reactions to this French bill and showing all
the world that Turkey has not taken any step toward democratization,
but rather it repeats its past, etc.
I repeat in this column many times, Sarkozy and like-minded people in
Europe share the same agenda with some Turkish nationalists and with
the Turkish deep state. They all want to end Turkey's progress toward
becoming a member of the EU. They want to see an isolated Turkey. To
whose benefit would such a Turkey be? The Greeks? The Cypriots? The
Armenians? The Muslim world? Whom?
Some Armenians may think Sarkozy is trying to help them force Turkey to
recognize the Armenian genocide, and thus, they will protect Armenia
and so on. However, if they pay more attention, they could easily see
that Sarkozy's mind works in exactly the same manner as the people
who did terrible things to Armenians in 1915 in Anatolia. They are all
nationalist, they are all short-sighted and they are all Machiavelists,
who believe they could do anything to advance their political agenda!
Today's Zaman
Jan 24 2012
Turkey
While I was writing this article, I joined a live discussion on the
BBC world service.
The topic, of course, was the French genocide denial bill. For a while
I listened to the discussion between a Turkish academic and a British
lady. The Turkish gentleman was repeating all those well-known axioms:
"This discussion should be left to historians, no one denies in Turkey
that tragic things happened in 1915, but these events cannot be labeled
as genocide," so on and so forth. The British lady was well-prepared
for this defensive denialist attitude and advanced strong arguments
showing that 1915 events were indeed genocide, and she was beating
the Turkish guy with her well-tuned "civilized manner." The Turkish
guy may not be aware of it, but his remarks had no meaning for anyone
outside of Turkey.
Then I joined the discussion, and I tried to make my point. I said:
"It is not relevant to discuss whether the 1915 events were genocide
or not, but rather we should discuss if this French genocide bill
will help Turkey to confront its past. There are people in Turkey,
including myself, who believe what happened in Turkey in 1915 was
indeed a genocide and who try to bring this subject to the attention
of the Turkish public. This French bill, however, took hostage all
these discussions, giving strength to Turkish nationalists only,
and nowadays, we cannot discuss anything but this genocide bill."
Then the British lady took the floor once again and stated quite
confidently that what I was saying "is another way of blackmailing."
At this exact moment, I lost my temper, and I said something like,
"Look, I have been defending human rights in Turkey for the last 20
years and fighting against this nationalist mentality, which carried
out all these massacres, it is very easy for you speaking like that
sitting there..." And all of a sudden, we came to the end of the
program. I did not have a chance to share all my thoughts.
After the discussion, I found myself pondering different things.
Everyone may be right about his or her respective positions.
Armenians, for example, may ask how long they should wait for Turkey
to come to terms with recognizing what happened in 1915. Some Europeans
may think that without this kind of outside pressure, Turkey will never
discuss what happened in the past. However, I strongly believe the
French move and others like it are only delaying Turkey's inevitable
confrontation with its past; this is the only purpose they serve.
Does France really want Turkey to confront its past, to see a more
democratic Turkey, to see Turkey as a good neighbor to Armenia? Why
then it is so strongly against Turkey's accession to the EU? Why
then does it try to push Turkey off the European map? Perhaps French
President Nicolas Sarkozy is trying to kill a few birds with one stone:
He will get more votes from Armenians; he will advance his agenda
of killing Turkey's chances to join the EU by provoking Turkey into
giving these primitive reactions to this French bill and showing all
the world that Turkey has not taken any step toward democratization,
but rather it repeats its past, etc.
I repeat in this column many times, Sarkozy and like-minded people in
Europe share the same agenda with some Turkish nationalists and with
the Turkish deep state. They all want to end Turkey's progress toward
becoming a member of the EU. They want to see an isolated Turkey. To
whose benefit would such a Turkey be? The Greeks? The Cypriots? The
Armenians? The Muslim world? Whom?
Some Armenians may think Sarkozy is trying to help them force Turkey to
recognize the Armenian genocide, and thus, they will protect Armenia
and so on. However, if they pay more attention, they could easily see
that Sarkozy's mind works in exactly the same manner as the people
who did terrible things to Armenians in 1915 in Anatolia. They are all
nationalist, they are all short-sighted and they are all Machiavelists,
who believe they could do anything to advance their political agenda!