Harper’s appeasement of Armenians comes at a cost

Monday May 15, 2006
The Chronicle Herald

By SCOTT TAYLOR / On Target

AS THIS IS obviously an incredibly sensitive issue, I wish to state from the outset that I have close contact and a good relationship with a number of senior Turkish officials. Turkish intelligence officers successfully negotiated my release from the hands of Iraqi insurgents in September 2004 and, having visited the Turkish residency in Ottawa on numerous occasions, I consider Ambassador Aydemir Erman a personal friend. The fact that Erman has temporarily been recalled to Ankara in protest over comments made by Prime Minister Stephen Harper has hit close to home. I believe the recent statement made by Harper concerning the Armenian tragedy of 1915 was not only damaging to Turkish-Canadian relations, but unnecessary.

I believe that Mr. Scott Taylor is an honest person who as editor of the "Esprit de Corps" is serving the high Canadian ethical standards that makes us proud as Canadians. I thank him for indicating outright his Turkish bias on the issue of the recognition of the Armenian Genocide by the Canadian Parliament and Mr. Harper's recent reaffirmation of that decision. Ambassador Aydemir Erman indeed is a nice amiable person and I regret that he has been recalled for consultation. But that does not change Turkey's historical truth regarding the Armenian Genocide neither its obligation to recognize it in order to stem the repetition of genocide such as the one we have seen in 1994 in Rwanda and the one ongoing now in Darfur.

Two years ago, Bloc MP Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral brought forward a bill condemning the mass deportation of Armenians from eastern Anatolia during the First World War that resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands. According to the bill, it was genocide on the part of the Ottoman Empire.

While some may wonder why Canadian parliamentarians would spend their time passing judgment on events 90 years ago in the Middle East, Bill M-380 was passed on April 21, 2004, after a free vote in the House of Commons.

The Turkish government voiced its opposition and offered up its own version of events. While not denying that the Armenians died in droves, the Turks pointed out that in 1915, eastern Anatolia was being threatened by Czarist Russian troops, the Ottoman Empire was crumbling and Armenian nationalists chose to rise up in open revolt. The forced relocation of the potentially hostile Armenian population into northern Iraq and Syria was undertaken by an Ottoman administration so cash-strapped and inept that 80,000 Turkish troops died that year on the Russian front from frostbite and starvation.

The Armenians claim the resultant death of their refugees was genocide, while the Turks say it was a regrettable tragedy exacerbated by brutal wartime conditions.

Realizing that Bill M-380 was an impediment to Canadian-Turkish relations, the cabinet of then-prime minister Jean Chretien voted against the motion and the bill was considered non-binding.

In the interim, the Turkish government has proposed a joint commission of historians from Armenia and Turkey to attempt to thoroughly re-examine the past to determine a "true" account of the 1915 tragedy. Although modern Turkey was founded in 1923 from the ashes of the Ottoman Empire, the actions of the former ruling Caliphate leadership still affects the nationalist psyche of the Turks. For this reason, Turkey has agreed to reopen the archives and share the documentation with the Armenians. Surprisingly, the Armenians have yet to agree to participate in the study.

Mr. Taylor with all his honesty should understand the plot behind such a proposal by Turkey. Turkey came out with this proposal only when it was put under pressure by the EU. It is to buy time on the recognition of the Armenian Genocide before being admitted into the European Union. Wouldn't have been more appropriate for Turkey to put a moratorium on the Penal Code Article 301 which makes discussing the Armenian Genocide equivalent to "denigrating Turkishness" and punishable with jail time? How about a moratorium on the Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan laying the wreath with full military honour every year at the mausoleum of Talaat Pasha, one of the rulers responsible for the Genocide? Are these the signs of a party who wishes to re-examine itself critically in the light of its past history? I do not believe so. There is no sincerity in Turkey's offer.

Nevertheless, on April 18, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan forwarded a letter to Stephen Harper urging him to support the study. Instead, Harper reaffirmed his support of M-380 at a press conference the next day. Somewhat prophetically, Erdogan had written warning Harper that "the Armenian lobby has not given up its intention to create problems in Turkish-Canadian relations."

Human rights and politics have never been good bed fellows. Why is the pursuit of human rights an affront to Turkey?

Although the prime minister’s official website only briefly displayed Harper’s statement concerning M-380, Armenian-Canadian websites continue to post the comments. Turkey responded by temporarily recalling Erman and withdrawing from a NATO fighter jet exercise in Alberta.

Why should the freedom of expression in Canada be curtailed in order to please the restriction to freedom of speech imposed by Turkey in its Penal Code Article 301?

While these actions may seem harmless and petty, remember that Turkey is a key NATO ally and a vital partner to the mission in Afghanistan. More importantly, if Stephen Harper is anxious to mend fences with the U.S. State Department, he should have consulted their position on the issue. The U.S. does not insist on using the word "genocide" and is prepared to wait for the study’s results. As a secular Muslim democracy that recognizes Israel, Turkey is the cornerstone to America’s Middle East policies. Maintaining good relations with Ankara is a high priority for the U.S.

Contrary to what Mr. Taylor has stated it is quite likely with the close relations and cooperation with the USA that Mr. Harper has consulted with the U.S. State department and was given the nod to make the statement he did. Mr. Taylor should have done his homework and consulted a recent statement in March this year made by U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs Daniel Fried during his visit to Ankara. Following the meeting with representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Daniel Fried declared that it is necessary to evaluate the tragedies of the past years, since the people should think about their future.

Closer to home, the fanatical elements of the Armenian nationalists have not always resorted to diplomatic measures to bring attention to their cause. In 1982, an Armenian assailant gunned down the Turkish military attache, and in 1985 the Turkish ambassador narrowly escaped when Armenian gunmen forced their way into the official residence.

Mr. Taylor the attackers were a few people belonging to an underground organization. The acts were done in desperation by individuals who are serving time in jail. Why stereotype and blame the whole community by these events? The community has only resorted to legal and democratic processes to have the historical fact of the Genocide recognized, and is grateful to PM Harper for his courageous stand. Mr. Taylor instead you must commend the Armenian Canadian community for undertaking these legal and democratic steps in order to secure their historical rights.

Historical records are all too often written by the victors at the expense of the vanquished. However, in the case of the Ottomans and Armenians, both sides lost that war and suffered terrible casualties. Clarification of this tragedy needs to be addressed by historians examining the facts, not politicians appeasing a lobby group. Canada’s current relations with a vital ally and trading partner should have taken precedence over passing judgment on a 90-year-old incident.

Mr. Taylor is a bit late in history. He is falling into the trap of revisionists who if they do not like the history, they attempt to revise it. Does Turkey want a retrial? In 1919 the Turkish government's own tribunal condemned the act and punished the perpetrators with death sentences. What changed is the Turkish government with a strong nationalistic backing by the Turkish military. Why is Turkey holding the second largest army in the NATO? What for? The answer is the Article 301 which makes it illegal to publish material that "denigrates Turkishness" and the institutions of the state, be they the government, the judiciary, the military or the state security apparatus. Under the law, doing so from outside Turkey is sanctioned more severely - it increases one's jail sentence by one-third.

( staylor@herald.ca)
Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.