Tweet
Hurriyet Daily News, Turkey
Jan 27 2012
Positive fallout from French law
by Semih Idiz
Much has been said about the law enacted in France criminalizing
denial of the Armenian genocide. The best comment, however, came from
the Armenian side. Harry Hagopian, `an international lawyer, ecumenist
and EU political consultant,' can hardly be called a `denialist.' This
is an abbreviated version of what he said in an article for the
`Ekklesia' think-tank (www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/15961):
`In France, President Sarkozy is anxiously courting the Armenian
French votes in order to outdo François Hollande's Socialist Party in
the presidential elections (...) In Israel, the resurgent enthusiasm
toward the Armenian genocide is meant more as a potential threat (...)
to Turkey ever since bilateral relations chilled following the Mavi
Marmara flotilla incident (...) Should Armenian nationalism and
faithfulness to their identity accept their `cause' to be crassly
marketed with such animated toadying in a political bazaar that
debases the memory of their murdered ancestors?'
That one is for Armenians to answer and not for a Turk. As Turks we
can look instead at what might be the positive fallout from this whole
episode for the country, especially when combined with the outrage
over the verdict in the case of the murdered Armenian-Turkish
journalist Hrant Dink.
Before that, however, it is important to note that the denial law in
France also exposed the large number of Western academics,
intellectuals, politicians and commentators opposed to it. Even
Amnesty International (AI) has criticized France now.
`The real issue at stake with this bill is not whether the large-scale
killings and forced displacement of Armenians in 1915 constituted a
genocide, but the French authorities' attempt to curtail freedom of
expression in response to that debate,' Nicola Duckworth, AI's Europe
and Central Asia director, said in a statement.
To be chastised like this by AI must be particularly hard to swallow
for the grandchildren of Voltaire. None of this means, however, that
those criticizing France are scurrying to support the official Turkish
narrative on 1915.
Everyone from Timothy Garton Ash to Robert Fisk have made it amply
clear, in so many words, that the problem here is with the freedom of
expression this law denies. So, to return to our basic point, France's
loss could be Turkey's gain. Let me explain.
It is extremely contradictory for the Turkish government to constantly
accuse France of violating freedom of expression with this law. Turkey
is the last country that can say this given its own track record. But
this glaring inconsistency is constantly highlighted in Turkey now by
academics, intellectuals and commentators.
So much so that one can say, with some confidence, that it is unlikely
anyone in Turkey will be tried under these circumstances if they say
that it was genocide in 1915.
Together with the public outrage in Turkey over the verdict in the
case of Hrant Dink, who was also convicted for his view on the events
of 1915, this much appears certain.
So, no government expecting to be credible can accuse France anymore
of violating freedom of expression on this topic if there is such an
investigation in Turkey in the background. This then is the corner
into which Turkish nationalists have painted themselves.
Given this situation it is hard to disagree with Hagopian when he
asks, `Should recognition not pass directly and unfailingly through
Turkey, rather than meander hither and thither?'
The tragedy in question, with all its political and social dimensions,
occurred in Turkey, and that is where the problems emanating from it
have to be ultimately resolved, with positive input from Ankara and
Erivan. Where these will not be resolved is France or any other
country. That much should be apparent by now.
January/27/2012
Jan 27 2012
Positive fallout from French law
by Semih Idiz
Much has been said about the law enacted in France criminalizing
denial of the Armenian genocide. The best comment, however, came from
the Armenian side. Harry Hagopian, `an international lawyer, ecumenist
and EU political consultant,' can hardly be called a `denialist.' This
is an abbreviated version of what he said in an article for the
`Ekklesia' think-tank (www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/15961):
`In France, President Sarkozy is anxiously courting the Armenian
French votes in order to outdo François Hollande's Socialist Party in
the presidential elections (...) In Israel, the resurgent enthusiasm
toward the Armenian genocide is meant more as a potential threat (...)
to Turkey ever since bilateral relations chilled following the Mavi
Marmara flotilla incident (...) Should Armenian nationalism and
faithfulness to their identity accept their `cause' to be crassly
marketed with such animated toadying in a political bazaar that
debases the memory of their murdered ancestors?'
That one is for Armenians to answer and not for a Turk. As Turks we
can look instead at what might be the positive fallout from this whole
episode for the country, especially when combined with the outrage
over the verdict in the case of the murdered Armenian-Turkish
journalist Hrant Dink.
Before that, however, it is important to note that the denial law in
France also exposed the large number of Western academics,
intellectuals, politicians and commentators opposed to it. Even
Amnesty International (AI) has criticized France now.
`The real issue at stake with this bill is not whether the large-scale
killings and forced displacement of Armenians in 1915 constituted a
genocide, but the French authorities' attempt to curtail freedom of
expression in response to that debate,' Nicola Duckworth, AI's Europe
and Central Asia director, said in a statement.
To be chastised like this by AI must be particularly hard to swallow
for the grandchildren of Voltaire. None of this means, however, that
those criticizing France are scurrying to support the official Turkish
narrative on 1915.
Everyone from Timothy Garton Ash to Robert Fisk have made it amply
clear, in so many words, that the problem here is with the freedom of
expression this law denies. So, to return to our basic point, France's
loss could be Turkey's gain. Let me explain.
It is extremely contradictory for the Turkish government to constantly
accuse France of violating freedom of expression with this law. Turkey
is the last country that can say this given its own track record. But
this glaring inconsistency is constantly highlighted in Turkey now by
academics, intellectuals and commentators.
So much so that one can say, with some confidence, that it is unlikely
anyone in Turkey will be tried under these circumstances if they say
that it was genocide in 1915.
Together with the public outrage in Turkey over the verdict in the
case of Hrant Dink, who was also convicted for his view on the events
of 1915, this much appears certain.
So, no government expecting to be credible can accuse France anymore
of violating freedom of expression on this topic if there is such an
investigation in Turkey in the background. This then is the corner
into which Turkish nationalists have painted themselves.
Given this situation it is hard to disagree with Hagopian when he
asks, `Should recognition not pass directly and unfailingly through
Turkey, rather than meander hither and thither?'
The tragedy in question, with all its political and social dimensions,
occurred in Turkey, and that is where the problems emanating from it
have to be ultimately resolved, with positive input from Ankara and
Erivan. Where these will not be resolved is France or any other
country. That much should be apparent by now.
January/27/2012