Tweet
Hurriyet Daily News, Turkey
March 4 2012
The revenge of law on politics
by MAXIME GAUIN
A few days after the decision of a federal U.S. appeals court to
dismiss Armenian claims against German insurers, in the name of the
U.S. Constitution, the French Constitutional Council censored the bill
criminalizing `denial' of the unsubstantiated `Armenian genocide'
claim. The Council argued that such a bill was against freedom of
speech. It did not explicitly censor the `recognition' of the
`genocide' allegation adopted in 2001, but some of its comments -
regarding the field of law - show clearly that this text also is
against constitutional principles.
There is no serious hope anymore for a new bill of censorship
regarding the Armenian question, and the Council, according to its
communiqué, `expressed no opinion about the facts,' i.e., the events
of 1915.
Nobody should be surprised. Armenian nationalists were warned several
times, by jurists like the former Justice Minister and President of
the Constitutional Council (1986-1995) Robert Badinter; by MPs, like
the Chairman of the Law Committee in the Senate Jean-Pierre Sueur, who
presented in vain a motion of dismissal. Mr. Badinter announced `the
revenge of law on politics,' and this is what happened.
The main foreign policy lesson was the deep involvement of Armenian
diplomacy in intrigues to obtain the vote of this unconstitutional
bill. Mr. Sarkozy promised this vote in Yerevan, not even in a French
city with an important Armenian community; Ms. Boyer watched the vote
of the Senate in a lobby, together with Armenian diplomats. The main
Armenian associations supported the bill, but were relegated to second
rank.
What else could be expected from Yerevan? The Armenian authorities
deprived the Turkish-Armenian Protocols of their substance after 2009.
Armenia invaded Azerbaijan in 1992-1994, and still occupies about 20
percent of Azerbaijan's territory, cleansed of its Azeri population by
bloody means.
Since the 1990s, both the majority and opposition parties of Armenia
have widely distributed the theories of G. Nejdeh as an exemplary
reference. Nejdeh was a leader of the Armenian Revolutionary
Federation, who was also a Nazi, and went from the U.S. to Europe at
the beginning of WWII to fight on the eastern front of the Third
Reich's army. Perhaps even more importantly, Armenia is largely
dependent on Russia and Iran, two countries that do not want to see a
stronger union of Europe and the West, especially in the context of
the Syrian crisis. One more time, we see that the Armenian question
was used against Western unity, with the complicity of blind Western
politicians. I do not say that to advocate any fatalism or, still
less, any generalization regarding the Armenians, but merely to show
the kind of difficulties and level of the problem which are now
encountered.
Another lesson, both for French politics and international relations,
is that if there remain some active professionals of strong
anti-Turkish bent. There is also an increasing consciousness in France
of Turkey's importance, and exasperation vis-à-vis special ethnic
interests which damage national interest and freedom of speech,
chiefly nationalist Armenians. Michel Diefenbacher, Chairman of the
Franco-Turkish Friendship Group in the National Assembly, who
collected the signatures of deputies together with some colleagues,
said on Feb. 21: `France and Turkey have a very old relationship,
which has been very constructive. When you go to Turkey [...] you
understand that this relationship is not trivial. So, one cannot
accept a degradation of this relationship. All must be done for better
understanding.'
It is time to carefully carry out these words, with appropriate
permanent structures.
Maxime Gauin is a researcher at the International Strategic Research
Organization (USAK-ISRO) and a PhD candidate at the Middle East
Technical University Department of History
March/04/2012
March 4 2012
The revenge of law on politics
by MAXIME GAUIN
A few days after the decision of a federal U.S. appeals court to
dismiss Armenian claims against German insurers, in the name of the
U.S. Constitution, the French Constitutional Council censored the bill
criminalizing `denial' of the unsubstantiated `Armenian genocide'
claim. The Council argued that such a bill was against freedom of
speech. It did not explicitly censor the `recognition' of the
`genocide' allegation adopted in 2001, but some of its comments -
regarding the field of law - show clearly that this text also is
against constitutional principles.
There is no serious hope anymore for a new bill of censorship
regarding the Armenian question, and the Council, according to its
communiqué, `expressed no opinion about the facts,' i.e., the events
of 1915.
Nobody should be surprised. Armenian nationalists were warned several
times, by jurists like the former Justice Minister and President of
the Constitutional Council (1986-1995) Robert Badinter; by MPs, like
the Chairman of the Law Committee in the Senate Jean-Pierre Sueur, who
presented in vain a motion of dismissal. Mr. Badinter announced `the
revenge of law on politics,' and this is what happened.
The main foreign policy lesson was the deep involvement of Armenian
diplomacy in intrigues to obtain the vote of this unconstitutional
bill. Mr. Sarkozy promised this vote in Yerevan, not even in a French
city with an important Armenian community; Ms. Boyer watched the vote
of the Senate in a lobby, together with Armenian diplomats. The main
Armenian associations supported the bill, but were relegated to second
rank.
What else could be expected from Yerevan? The Armenian authorities
deprived the Turkish-Armenian Protocols of their substance after 2009.
Armenia invaded Azerbaijan in 1992-1994, and still occupies about 20
percent of Azerbaijan's territory, cleansed of its Azeri population by
bloody means.
Since the 1990s, both the majority and opposition parties of Armenia
have widely distributed the theories of G. Nejdeh as an exemplary
reference. Nejdeh was a leader of the Armenian Revolutionary
Federation, who was also a Nazi, and went from the U.S. to Europe at
the beginning of WWII to fight on the eastern front of the Third
Reich's army. Perhaps even more importantly, Armenia is largely
dependent on Russia and Iran, two countries that do not want to see a
stronger union of Europe and the West, especially in the context of
the Syrian crisis. One more time, we see that the Armenian question
was used against Western unity, with the complicity of blind Western
politicians. I do not say that to advocate any fatalism or, still
less, any generalization regarding the Armenians, but merely to show
the kind of difficulties and level of the problem which are now
encountered.
Another lesson, both for French politics and international relations,
is that if there remain some active professionals of strong
anti-Turkish bent. There is also an increasing consciousness in France
of Turkey's importance, and exasperation vis-à-vis special ethnic
interests which damage national interest and freedom of speech,
chiefly nationalist Armenians. Michel Diefenbacher, Chairman of the
Franco-Turkish Friendship Group in the National Assembly, who
collected the signatures of deputies together with some colleagues,
said on Feb. 21: `France and Turkey have a very old relationship,
which has been very constructive. When you go to Turkey [...] you
understand that this relationship is not trivial. So, one cannot
accept a degradation of this relationship. All must be done for better
understanding.'
It is time to carefully carry out these words, with appropriate
permanent structures.
Maxime Gauin is a researcher at the International Strategic Research
Organization (USAK-ISRO) and a PhD candidate at the Middle East
Technical University Department of History
March/04/2012