05 December 2006, Resource : Peace Journalism
An account of the French Parliament bill recently passed condemning the Armenian Genocide of 1915-1917. The three articles below providing French, Armenian, and Turkish perspectives highlight the controversy and possible implications of the legislation. Varduhi Tovmasyan is responsible for commissioning all three pieces.
Benefits of Waiting
Gündüz Aktan
Some time has passed since the French Parliament passed the bill that criminalizes denial of the Armenian Genocide. Now that it has lost its newsworthiness, we can better analyze the matter.
Passing such a law caused some problems for France, but we should not exaggerate them too much. The criticisms directed against France were all for needlessly limiting freedom of expression. Most EU citizens, especially the French, believe the Armenian incidents in 1915 constitute genocide. All those who have anything to say first voice their belief that the genocide actually occurred before criticizing the bill. Maybe they get the right to raise such criticism only after they present their credentials.
Most of the criticisms in Turkey are also for France limiting freedom of expression. That’s why some argue that annulling Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK) would prove we respect freedom of expression more than France and would provide a very wise response.
However, the problem goes beyond freedom of expression or academic freedoms.
Genocide is the worst of crimes. Just like every other crime, law defines it and the courts decide on it. Without a verdict, a person, a group or a country cannot be accused of having committed genocide. Moreover, it is impossible to refute a crime that has not been proven first.
That’s exactly why a law passed by the French Parliament in 2001 that recognizes the Armenian Genocide cannot be enforced. On the other hand, the Gaysot Law (1990), which criminalizes denial of the Jewish Holocaust, is enforceable because it is based on the Nuremberg court sentences. Professor O. Duhamel, fervently praised former minister Jack Lang as the only person who had the courage to voice this. How unfortunate for France.
If the bill becomes law in its present form, the right of Turkey and the families of Enver Pasha and Talat Pasha to defend themselves against the charges are rescinded. This is a more severe human rights violation than limiting freedom of speech.
After this injustice, the gestures of French President Jacques Chirac and the French government, as if they share our concerns, are sickening. The Armenian government has also resorted to similar deception as if it has nothing to do with such initiatives. They place the blame with the Armenian diaspora. Actually, while one tries to protect its commercial interests, the other is working to ensure that the Armenians who illegally work here are not repatriated. They are after both material and moral benefits.
Armenians used Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA) terrorism to promote their genocide claims and largely succeeded. Westerners saw the courage to resort to terrorism as proof of Armenians having been victims of genocide. They ignored the carnage of terrorism until it also harmed them.
This incited Armenians to threaten academics in the United States who said there was no genocide. They pressured universities to dismiss such academics. They prevented publishers from printing anything that went against their thesis. Those that were published were collected. Dissident voices were not permitted in the meeting they held.
They walked through the corridors of the European Parliament, brandishing guns in 1987 in order to ensure the resolution the European Parliament was debating would support their thesis. They prevented deputies from entering the meeting hall.
The threats by some Armenians made against one Armenian member of the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Council (TARC) resulted in him hiding his family at a secret location and blood clots that caused him to undergo two surgeries.
Armenian lobbies that spend exorbitant amounts of money influenced administrations and parliaments. The Armenian diaspora used their votes for political blackmail. They bought hundreds of people and made them write books full of lies. It was proven that the Talat Pasha telegraph was false. What Henry Morgenthau wrote about Talat Pasha and Enver Pasha is full of falsehoods, too. Lepsius, who never set foot in Anatolia, talked about the incidents as if he were an eyewitness. The Blue Book is only war propaganda. They have now started to bribe Turks.
There is no United Nations resolution on the matter, but they look us in the eye and say there is. Our archives are open, but they say they aren’t. They say the Teskilati Mahsusa (Ottoman intelligence services) organized genocide. Professors Lewy and Ericson smash this theory. Yet they still look the other way. The figures they quote are sheer lies and the documents they cite are a sham.
What does this disgrace have to do with freedom of expression?
———— ——— —
The Genocide Denial Bill: Charting the Armenian Reaction
Aghasi Harutyunyan
To understand the reaction of the Armenian public and leadership to the recent adoption by the lower house of the French Parliament of a bill declaring the public denial of the Armenian genocide a crime, one has to firstly understand the emotional intensity with which Armenians treat the issue of the recognition of the 1915-17 genocide in the Ottoman Empire. To put it bluntly, this issue is probably the cause which unites Armenians all over the world irrespective of gender, age, social status and even language and culture. Generations of Armenians have devoted their lives to this cause and after hard battles have managed to persuade the parliaments of a number of countries, but first of all Turkey, to join them in condemning the extermination of the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire as an instance of genocide. No wonder, then, that any and all developments on this front receive an emotional response from Armenians residing both in the Republic of Armenia and outside, in the diaspora centers spread across the world.1 The response to the adoption of the French bill was no exception in this sense.
The majority of Armenians saluted the October 12th decision of the French National Assembly although not everyone was quick to see pro-Armenian sentiment in that act. In the days following the act of adoption, the political forces and the media inside the country devoted significant attention to the issue and analyzed thoroughly the causes that made the French Parliaments lower house take the extraordinary step as well as the harsh reaction from Ankara. This article is an attempt at charting how Armenians received, perceived and analyzed the news of the adoption of the bill.
Although the Armenian authorities welcomed the approval of the bill, they somehow distanced themselves from the process showing that it was a step the French took on their own without the interference of the Armenian diplomacy. Todays approval of the bill by the French National Assembly is a natural continuation of Frances principled and consistent defense of human and historic rights and values, Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian declared in his first comment after the adoption of the bill. He noted that this decision is also a natural reaction to the intensive, aggressive and official denialism of the Armenian Genocide by the Turkish state. They have undertaken a premeditated, planned assault on the truth. What we dont understand is the Turkish governments instigation of extremist public reactions, especially while Turkey itself has a law that does exactly the same thing and punishes those who even use the term genocide or venture to discuss those events. 2 Analysts believe that this kind of passive greeting (judged by the standards of the region) of the bill is due to official Yerevans efforts at avoiding further deterioration of the strenuous Armenian-Turkish relations.3
A few days after his initial comments, Vartan Oskanian reaffirmed Armenias contentment with the French National Assembly’s vote, but declared that he would strive to normalize relations with Turkey. In an interview with the Swiss newspaper NZZ am Sonntag he stressed that these events… have not been condemned and not recognized once so far, is in reality a continuation of the genocide. However, as foreign minister I have a duty to look to the future and to seek to establish normal relations with Turkey. Interestingly the Foreign Minister noted, Whether the French or the Swiss legislation is a good starting point is hard to say,adding that the recognition of the genocide by other countries is not a goal in itself. Armenia also has no interest in humiliating Turkey, emphasized Oskanyan.
le for the recognition of the atrocities committed at the beginning of the 20th century. On October 13th, hundreds of students gathered at the premises of the French embassy in Yerevan to express their gratitude to Frances parliament for passing the bill.
Chanting Long live France! and waving French and Armenian flags the students who carried banners reading Justice won over Turkish blackmail and France – the standard bearer of justice in the European Union, marched through the city center in two separate demonstrations organized by the student organizations of one of the ruling parties, the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnaktsutyun) ,4 and another youth organization. We express our sincere gratitude to our French friends and welcome this historic step, an organizer of the first rally representing the Social Democratic Hnchak Party (the oldest Armenian political party) said, presenting the organizations thank-you declaration outside the embassy building.
Most of the political forces in Armenia, too, were satisfied with the action of the French National Assembly. For instance, a local member of Dashnaktsutyun took the view that the law would serve a good purpose for Armenia. It would become a lever used by France to put pressure on Turkey to make them recognize the Genocide, said Kiro Manoyan, adding that France has expressed its viewpoint which will finally force Turkey to reckon with its history. Remarkably, the government forces were quick to downplay the reports (that appeared in the Turkish state media) that the French president Jacque Chirac (whose administration was against the passage of the bill) had apologized to the Turkish Prime-Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoghan for the act of the National Assembly reminding that few weeks before Chirac on his first state visit to Armenia had urged Turkey to recognize its past.
However, as mentioned before, the omnipresent enthusiasm does not mean that there was no public discussion on the causes and consequences of the approval of the bill. Despite the heavily favorable attitude towards the bill there was also some dissent in the Armenian society. The opposition press put forward several points for consideration. One of the papers (168 Zham) was quick to note that the bill was approved not long before the French parliamentary and presidential elections. France has the biggest Armenian diaspora community (approximately 500,000 people) in Western Europe and the Armenian votes are naturally important for the French lawmakers. The same paper believes that the bill can not bring any tangible benefits to the Republic of Armenia itself, but will further rouse the anti-Armenian nationalist sentiment in Turkey, and the latter will respond by adding the pressure on the small Armenian community (around 60,000 people) that was left in the country after the massacres of the last century. The gist of these and similar arguments, of course, is that the Armenian woes have yet again been used for the attainment of internal and external political interests, something which has sadly happened too often in the distant and near past.
But it was not only the Armenian Armenians who had a somewhat mixed reaction to the French bill. Hilda Tchoboian, the president of the Brussels-based Euro-Armenian Federation, an association representing the interests of the Armenian Diaspora in France and other European nations, echoed in a statement the mainstream Armenian sentiment. We welcome with emotion this historic step forward through which, once again, France points the way down the path of progress, humanity and dignity. The hydra of denial is a tumor on freedom of expression and a threat to public order that must be eradicated, she said in a statement. A few diaspora Armenians, however, were reluctant to endorse the approval of the bill and had the opposite opinion. Among them was Hrant Dink, the editor-in-chief of Agos, an Armenian paper published in Istanbul, who reportedly told Radio Liberty that the bill will not be beneficial in terms of the future of Armenians and in terms of the process of the recognition of the genocide in the world. Dink, one of several journalists in Turkey facing possible prison term for using the word genocide (under the same infamous Article 301), labeled the bill a trick by those who want to keep Turkey out of the EU. The journalist emphasized that in case it is necessary he would go to France and would break the new law just as he had broken the one in Turkey, simply to prove the idiotic nature of the law. Dinks position is interesting not only because of its dissenting nature but also because it gives some credit to the above-mentioned allegation that as a result of the adoption of the bill Armenians residing in Turkey can become targets of coercion.
To sum up, the approval of the landmark bill that makes it a crime to deny that Armenians suffered genocide during World War One received an overwhelmingly warm response from Armenians across the globe. Although many Armenians understand that the bill might not be approved by the upper house of the French Parliament, the Senate, and even if approved might not be signed by the Chirac administration (which is weary of damaging the ties with Turkey and receiving another dose of criticism from the European Union and the United States officials for creating additional obstacles on the Turkish path of entry into the EU) they continue believing that the controversial legal act can bring them closer to the ultimate goal of persuading Ankara to accept its past faults. Nevertheless, as the following remarks made by the renowned French-Armenian chanson singer Charles Aznavour suggest, The law against denialism should have been passed for all crimes, not only the one against Armenians, because otherwise it leaves a bizarre impression.
———— ——— —
French Politics and the Armenian Genocide: An Uncomfortable Relation
Morgan Poulizac
Thursday October the 12th , the lower house of the French Parliament Assemblée Nationale approved a bill making it illegal to suggest the 1915 Armenian Genocide did not occur.
This bill has been initiated by the Socialist Party. Contrary to a former law, voted for in 2001 (loi Gayssot), which already recognised the existence of genocide in Armenia, the new bill proposal criminalizes the disregard of the genocide atrocity. Despite the unlikelihood of the legislation being passed subsequently needing to be backed by the upper house and signed by the President the vote has created a division within French opinion.
Ten days before, Jacques Chirac, the French President, visited Armenia and declared that the recognition of the Armenian Genocide might be a precondition of the Turkish entry into the European Union. However, when it came to vote, the French government declared the initiative unnecessary and untimely, in order for the MPs in the Chirac majority to abstain from voting.
The Chirac administration noted that the 2001 law already asserts the existence of the Genocide and that the new text would only have some counterproductive effects. This new initiative could indeed damage the trade relations between the two countries, as Christine Lagarde, the French Minister of Trade, told to the press.
In 2005, French firms exported more than 4.7 million euros in goods to Turkey. Moreover, as long as Turkey remains an important trading partner of the French, its important to keep tension between countries at a minimum.
The parliamentary initiative raised, indeed, the anger of the Turkish government, which now threatens to boycott French products. The day after the vote, Turkish protesters threw eggs at the French consulate in Istanbul. The Turkish Minister of Finance, Ali Babacan, said he will reconsider the contract deal the Turkish government had with Eurocopter, a French helicopter firm.
The bill did not solely spark a wave of protests in Turkey, but also created notable strife in France.
This story is the latest episode of the bitter debate over the fate of the Armenians slaughtered in the 1915 Ottoman Turkey territory, yet also reveals the domineering relationship French politics have with history.
Last year, some MPs tried to pass a law underlying the benefits of past French colonialism. At a standoff with waves of popular criticisms of their opinion, the MPs decided to give up the legislative effort in the end.
There is, in fact, today, and since the beginning of 1990s, a large debate occurring in France about the legitimacy of the Parliament to write history. The divide between historians and politicians is profound. While historians insist that politicians refrain from intervening and misinterpreting history, politicians are progressively trying to impose their view on it.
Several reasons may explain the opposition. One the one hand, MPs will always play to their constituencies and manage their agendas accordingly. On the other hand, media is perfectly content thrashing politicians on television and in print, giving them a difficult name to work with nationally and discouraging a vote in favour Armenian-appeasing legislation. Notwithstanding medias wrath, expect politicians to throw themselves in front of coming traffic to assuage their respective constituencies that is where the votes come from after all. So with elections approaching near the beginning of 2007, the well-established Armenian communities may, in fact, hold some weight.
It shows once again how history is a political matter in France.
———— ——— —
1Up until 1991 the battle for the recognition of the genocide was mainly fought by Armenians living in the diaspora centers whose ancestors had been slaughtered in the Ottoman Empire. Since the independence of the Republic of Armenia from the Soviet Union (1991) activists in the country have joined their diaspora compatriots in demanding that Turkey recognizes the genocide. Interestingly, the administration of the first president of the country, Levon Ter-Petrosyan, was reluctant to officially put the genocide issue on its foreign policy agenda. The administration of the current president Robert Kocharyan, however, has officially included the issue in the list of its foreign policy priorities since it came to power in 1998.
2Oskanyan refers to the controversial Article 301 of the Turkish criminal code which has recently been used to prosecute a number of public figures in Turkey, including a leading Turkish novelist Pamuk who went on trial for insulting Turkishness after telling a Swiss newspaper nobody in Turkey dared talk about the Armenian massacres. The court eventually dropped charges, and Pamuk received the Noble Prize for Literature on the same day when the bill under discussion was adopted.
3Armenia and Turkey do not have any diplomatic relations and the border between them has been closed since Armenia gained independence in 1991. Apart from the genocide issue the relations between the neighbors are also soured because of a conflict between ethnic Armenians living in Nagorno-Karabakh (effectively, Armenia itself) and Azerbaijan, a neighboring country to which the region of Nagorno-Karabakh belonged during the Soviet times (at the beginning of the 1990s Nagorno-Karabakh fought a local war with Azeri forces and established a de-facto independent state strongly supported by Armenia). Azerbaijan and Turkey are close allies, and Ankara demands that Yerevan returns Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijan. Until then it refuses to talk about the establishment of diplomatic ties with Yerevan. In recent years, however, both the European Union (EU) and the United States have strongly urged Turkey to reopen the border with Armenia, and many believe that Ankara will have to normalize its ties with Armenia before the possible entry into the EU.
4This party is often characterized as nationalistic, and its representatives have for decades been at the forefront of genocide recognition efforts in foreign countries. Dashnaktsutyun, a junior partner in the current coalition government, is believed to have a rigid stance in the genocide issue and thinks that the Republic of Armenia should not talk to Turkey unless and until Ankara has recognized its gruesome past.
Yorumlar kapatıldı.