İçeriğe geçmek için "Enter"a basın

France and Armenian Issue: Turkey Should Remain Calm

Prof. Dr. Beril Dedeoglu

Monday , 23 October 2006

If the bill in France that makes it a crime to deny the so-called Armenian genocide passes in the Senate and is approved by the president, it will become an effective law.

Although it is probable that it won’t pass, the Senate and the president won’t approve it, the heart of the matter doesn’t change. In fact, perhaps the law’s waiting before the Senate, which is known to be comprised of intelligent men who aren’t worried about elections, and a president who doesn’t show much of a tendency to go beyond the demands of society, can spark further serious tensions. The probability of the law passing can become more important than the law itself. In this state it can be used more consciously as a vehicle for imposing action, and from Turkey’s perspective it will serve as Democles’ sword.

First, we shouldn’t make the mistake of asking France questions as long as the bill doesn’t become law.

The opposition Socialist Party is the architect of the bill and is responsible for it. It is as meaningless to criticize all French citizens for this bill as it is to leave all Turkish citizens under genocide suspicion.

There is benefit in discussing the probabilities of what is happening in France. It can be claimed that the bill is a tactic that will cause Turkey to break off from the EU negotiations process. Perhaps there are members of parliament from both the party in power and the opposition who would approve such an understanding. In fact, if the law leads to ending Turkey’s EU negotiations, there may be others who would be very happy about it.

However, the tactic to drive Turkey away from the table can only succeed if Turkey actually chooses to do this. In other words, this points to a process tied to Turkey, not France. Actually, this strengthens the hands of those in Turkey who, seeing it as their duty, defend abandoning developments on the EU road and support efforts for democratization. However, it is difficult to say that French representatives had planned this. If France wants to drive Turkey away from the European Union, it is already doing it with the Cyprus problem. Besides, France will have several more opportunities to push Turkey away during the negotiation process.

For the Votes of 400,000 Citizens

Another possibility that can be considered is barring the way of any improvements in Turkish-Armenian relations. It can be said that as long as Armenia’s isolation continues in the region and tensions with Russia are increased, France remains Armenia’s only hope for political breakthrough and France will protect Armenia because it is its only avenue for activity in the Caucasus. The biggest weakness of this possibility lies under the question of whom the tensions between these countries harm the most. Just as preventing Armenia from opening to the world will increase its political and economic weakness, it will bring the problem of taking on more responsibility before the Armenian Diaspora in France (it can’t be claimed that there are serious contributions to the root country). In addition, this kind of implementation that points to Armenia would nurture radical movements that are fed by enemy politics, which, in turn, support authoritarian structures. In this situation, those who don’t want to be authoritarian would be negatively affected, rather than authoritarians. This process would not benefit Armenian citizens and would prevent Turkey from taking any possible steps toward Armenia.

We can assume the kind of results the Armenian Diaspora’s expectations will yield. Armenians are continuing to organize in many regions of the world. We know that genocide claims form the basis of the Diaspora’s ethnic references and that it sometimes becomes more important than those of the citizens of the country they live in. While such a claim can sometimes have a positive effect on the status of the people and a negative one, it also gives them political power. It helps them to receive direct decisions and obtain the capacity to influence processes. The Diaspora largely uses the positions they have gained in the country to meet its expectations. The Armenian Diaspora in France mainly supports the Socialist Party. Situations like the Socialist Party being an opposition party, their loss to an ultra-nationalist party in the last elections, and not being sure about the vote potential of Segolene Royal, the female candidate they brought out to oppose Sarkozy who is in the party in power as the presidential elections approach, have led the party to increasingly lean toward more aggressive policies.

It’s is unknown if there are still people who are surprised at the socialist parties coming to the point of acting along the same lines as the ultra-nationalist parties. However, as a result it is obvious that the Socialist Party needs the votes of the estimated 400,000 Armenians living in France. In a similar way, the parties in power need every vote they can get, strengthening the nationalist game. Consequently, the administration doesn’t verbalize the meaninglessness of the bill; on the contrary, it is said that if this policy gains votes. If so, why should it fail? One of the reasons why certain parties want these votes could be to turn the raison d’etre of the Armenian Diaspora, which supports it, into law. Moreover, this effort is a matter of urgency for the Diaspora, because Turkey has opened a different door to approach the issue.

Turkey has announced that it is ready to “officially” open this issue for discussion on an international level outside of state players and has made progress to some extent. It is clear that the beginning of discussion of the issue on an international basis in the fields of science, politics or law will lead to the watering down of the claim that genocide was perpetrated and the posing of the proposition in many places throughout the world that maybe there was no genocide. In this situation, there can be a weakening of the raw material within the genocide claim from which it feeds.

For certain, the law related to the benefits of exploitation, which was passed previously and is still being discussed, and the law that counts the denial of genocide as a crime will continue to be debated in France. It is also evident that even if this type of law is a result of a political party presenting it to the parliament, these subjects are not that contrary to general perceptions in France. There is a broad, wide-spread and deep belief in France that there was an Armenian genocide. When the Socialist Party puts this on the agenda, there’s no great uproar. As communication increases among societies, it’s possible for fixed opinions to change. There are lessons here for Turkey. Instead of producing policies based on pushing possibilities for communication among societies and drawing closer through cooperation, looking for counterattack policies that encourage introversion hasn’t provided Turkey with any permanent benefits to date. If Turkey is a country that trusts its theses, documents, philosophy and, most importantly, its system, it shouldn’t rush to take harsh actions that can be seen as expressions of helplessness.

Professor Beril Dedeoglu – Galatasaray University Faculty Member

Source: Zaman.com, October 2006

http://www.turkishweekly.net/comments.php?id=2330

Yorumlar kapatıldı.