Tweet
France, Turkey, and the Politics of Genocide
By Joe Mazur
http://hpronline.org/world/france-turkey-and-the-politics-of-genocide/
March 25, 2012 11:14 pm
>From an American perspective, one could be forgiven for thinking
that the French don't understand freedom of expression. After all,
it was only last year that a bill banning the public wearing of a
burqa or niqab drew the support of roughly four out of five French
citizens. Denying the Holocaust has been illegal in France for
more than twenty years, and the "positive presentation of drugs"
is punishable by massive fines and up to five years in prison.
Most recently, both houses of the French legislature have passed a
bill that would make the public denial of the Armenian Genocide of
1915 to 1923 punishable by a whopping fine of 45,000 euros ($57,000)
and a year in jail. The bill's inexorable advance was halted only when
it was referred to the country's highest court, the Constitutional
Council, where it was ruled unconstitutional in February.
But this setback might not spell the end for the criminalization
of Armenian Genocide denial. President Nicolas Sarkozy has asked
his government to redraft the bill, his office explaining that
"The President of the Republic considers that [genocide] denial is
intolerable and must therefore be punished." Sarkozy's dogged pursuit
of the bill's passage has his critics wondering about his angle.
Accusations leveled against Sarkozy at home range from attempting
to curry favor with French voters of Armenian descent (a small but
influential minority of about 500,000) to outright Islamophobia and
an effort to prejudice the French people against Turkey's possible
accession to the European Union.
The Turkish response to the legislation can best be described as
apoplectic. In the wake of the bill's initial approval by the National
Assembly last December, Ankara cancelled all bilateral talks with the
French government, suspended joint military operations, and denied
French warships and military planes permission to dock or land in
Turkey respectively. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has
even gone so far to accuse France of having committed genocide in
colonial Algeria and threatened further, unspecified action against
France if the bill becomes law.
Turkey's righteous indignation might be more convincing if it was not
also glaringly hypocritical. When Erdogan, in a speech to parliament,
insisted that the French bill "murdered freedom of thought", he seemed
to have forgotten that Article 301 of the Turkish penal code makes
it illegal to insult the Turkish nation, ethnicity, or government.
Since its implementation in 2005, Article 301 has been used on
many occasions to prosecute writers, journalists, and scholars who
have criticized Ankara's policy of vehement genocide denial or who
have otherwise run afoul of the regime. It would seem, therefore,
that Erdogan's definition of "freedom of thought" is as fluid as is
politically convenient. Whatever the French motives for promulgating
its genocide denial legislation and regardless of whether or not such
legislation truly suppresses freedom of thought, Turkey simply cannot
claim the moral high ground when it comes to free expression.
Moreover, Turkey's hysterical reaction to the bill has made it
abundantly clear that the country is being forced to confront its
own checkered history. In an interview with HPR, Harvard Professor of
Armenian Studies James Russell shed some light on why the legislation
elicited such a strong Turkish response: "In Turkey itself, denial
of the genocide is one of the cornerstones of the culture. There
has been a very systematic effort by the Turkish state not only to
deny that the genocide took place, but also to eradicate signs that
[Armenians] lived there." Russell further believes that the French
legislation represents an important and long overdue reality check
and rejects Turkish claims that the bill is intended to be racist
or Islamophobic. "This isn't a matter of anti-Turkish bigotry. [The
Bill] stems from a desire for historical recognition." Indeed, Russell
views recognition as a move that would ultimately benefit Turkey and
expressed optimism that such recognition would take eventually gain
acceptance. "One has to encourage a change in Turkish civil values
... I think Turkey's viable future depends on this issue. There has
been a lot of progress and there will be more progress."
But ultimately, the controversy surrounding France's bill ceases to
be about the skeletons in Turkey's closet or even about the Armenian
Genocide specifically. Rather, it is a facet of a larger debate between
those who would recognize and learn from historical fact and those
who would stubbornly continue to deny the undeniable. As important
as it is for Turkey and other governments to acknowledge the truth
of the Armenian Genocide in order to reconcile the descendants of
the victims with the descendants of the perpetrators, the true value
of recognition is as a bulwark against future abuses. "The Armenian
experience was one of the signal dangers of the twentieth century"
explains Russell. The longer a crime is concealed, the longer lies
take the place of truth, the easier it is for subsequent crimes
connected to the first to proliferate and find acceptance."
While France's methods for ensuring the perpetuation of historical fact
might run counter to the American concept of constitutional liberty
and be perceived by Turks as a grave insult to their national identity,
its government is addressing a hugely important issue that deserves the
world's attention. In the almost 100 years since the extermination of
Armenians by the Ottoman Empire and the seven decades that have elapsed
since the Holocaust, the world seems no closer to the abolition of
mass murder. Tragic chapters on Cambodia, Rwanda, Yugoslavia, and
Darfur have instead been written in the annals of history with the
blood of millions. If "Never Again" is to be anything more than just
a mantra, perhaps the governments of the world would do well to play
an active role in preserving the memory of calamities past.
After all, it was Hitler who wondered on the eve of his genocidal
invasion of Poland, "Who still talks today of the extermination of
the Armenians?"
By Joe Mazur
http://hpronline.org/world/france-turkey-and-the-politics-of-genocide/
March 25, 2012 11:14 pm
>From an American perspective, one could be forgiven for thinking
that the French don't understand freedom of expression. After all,
it was only last year that a bill banning the public wearing of a
burqa or niqab drew the support of roughly four out of five French
citizens. Denying the Holocaust has been illegal in France for
more than twenty years, and the "positive presentation of drugs"
is punishable by massive fines and up to five years in prison.
Most recently, both houses of the French legislature have passed a
bill that would make the public denial of the Armenian Genocide of
1915 to 1923 punishable by a whopping fine of 45,000 euros ($57,000)
and a year in jail. The bill's inexorable advance was halted only when
it was referred to the country's highest court, the Constitutional
Council, where it was ruled unconstitutional in February.
But this setback might not spell the end for the criminalization
of Armenian Genocide denial. President Nicolas Sarkozy has asked
his government to redraft the bill, his office explaining that
"The President of the Republic considers that [genocide] denial is
intolerable and must therefore be punished." Sarkozy's dogged pursuit
of the bill's passage has his critics wondering about his angle.
Accusations leveled against Sarkozy at home range from attempting
to curry favor with French voters of Armenian descent (a small but
influential minority of about 500,000) to outright Islamophobia and
an effort to prejudice the French people against Turkey's possible
accession to the European Union.
The Turkish response to the legislation can best be described as
apoplectic. In the wake of the bill's initial approval by the National
Assembly last December, Ankara cancelled all bilateral talks with the
French government, suspended joint military operations, and denied
French warships and military planes permission to dock or land in
Turkey respectively. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has
even gone so far to accuse France of having committed genocide in
colonial Algeria and threatened further, unspecified action against
France if the bill becomes law.
Turkey's righteous indignation might be more convincing if it was not
also glaringly hypocritical. When Erdogan, in a speech to parliament,
insisted that the French bill "murdered freedom of thought", he seemed
to have forgotten that Article 301 of the Turkish penal code makes
it illegal to insult the Turkish nation, ethnicity, or government.
Since its implementation in 2005, Article 301 has been used on
many occasions to prosecute writers, journalists, and scholars who
have criticized Ankara's policy of vehement genocide denial or who
have otherwise run afoul of the regime. It would seem, therefore,
that Erdogan's definition of "freedom of thought" is as fluid as is
politically convenient. Whatever the French motives for promulgating
its genocide denial legislation and regardless of whether or not such
legislation truly suppresses freedom of thought, Turkey simply cannot
claim the moral high ground when it comes to free expression.
Moreover, Turkey's hysterical reaction to the bill has made it
abundantly clear that the country is being forced to confront its
own checkered history. In an interview with HPR, Harvard Professor of
Armenian Studies James Russell shed some light on why the legislation
elicited such a strong Turkish response: "In Turkey itself, denial
of the genocide is one of the cornerstones of the culture. There
has been a very systematic effort by the Turkish state not only to
deny that the genocide took place, but also to eradicate signs that
[Armenians] lived there." Russell further believes that the French
legislation represents an important and long overdue reality check
and rejects Turkish claims that the bill is intended to be racist
or Islamophobic. "This isn't a matter of anti-Turkish bigotry. [The
Bill] stems from a desire for historical recognition." Indeed, Russell
views recognition as a move that would ultimately benefit Turkey and
expressed optimism that such recognition would take eventually gain
acceptance. "One has to encourage a change in Turkish civil values
... I think Turkey's viable future depends on this issue. There has
been a lot of progress and there will be more progress."
But ultimately, the controversy surrounding France's bill ceases to
be about the skeletons in Turkey's closet or even about the Armenian
Genocide specifically. Rather, it is a facet of a larger debate between
those who would recognize and learn from historical fact and those
who would stubbornly continue to deny the undeniable. As important
as it is for Turkey and other governments to acknowledge the truth
of the Armenian Genocide in order to reconcile the descendants of
the victims with the descendants of the perpetrators, the true value
of recognition is as a bulwark against future abuses. "The Armenian
experience was one of the signal dangers of the twentieth century"
explains Russell. The longer a crime is concealed, the longer lies
take the place of truth, the easier it is for subsequent crimes
connected to the first to proliferate and find acceptance."
While France's methods for ensuring the perpetuation of historical fact
might run counter to the American concept of constitutional liberty
and be perceived by Turks as a grave insult to their national identity,
its government is addressing a hugely important issue that deserves the
world's attention. In the almost 100 years since the extermination of
Armenians by the Ottoman Empire and the seven decades that have elapsed
since the Holocaust, the world seems no closer to the abolition of
mass murder. Tragic chapters on Cambodia, Rwanda, Yugoslavia, and
Darfur have instead been written in the annals of history with the
blood of millions. If "Never Again" is to be anything more than just
a mantra, perhaps the governments of the world would do well to play
an active role in preserving the memory of calamities past.
After all, it was Hitler who wondered on the eve of his genocidal
invasion of Poland, "Who still talks today of the extermination of
the Armenians?"