'Will you throw me in jail, too?'

Saturday, May 13, 2006
TDN editorial
by Yusuf KANLI

Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül is asking his French counterparts, “Will you throw me in jail, too?” The Turkish minister is reacting to moves in Paris to legislate a new law criminalizing denial of Armenian genocide claims. Indeed his question is quite a valid one since the law under consideration stipulates imprisonment as well as a heavy fine for those who speak against Armenian claims. For example, use of the qualifying words “alleged” or “so-called” before referring to the genocide claims, under the draft to be voted on May 18, could land one in prison in France. Even the use of the word “claimed” can be very dangerous.

Yusuf Kanli is not grasping the gravity of denying a genocide specially by those that inherited the country from the Ottoman government that committed the Armenian Genocide.

We are already facing a similar situation in Switzerland, where veteran politician Doğu Perinçek and Turkish Historical Society chief Professor Yusuf Halacoglu have been testing for some time the applicability of such a law that contradicts the basic norms of freedom of expression, to say nothing of the oddity of providing a legal perspective to a historically contentious issue that ought to be settled by historians.

The latest indications from Paris make us hope that common sense will eventually prevail at the French Parliament and that rather than trying to make decisions on historical events, the issue will be left to historians and researchers. Anyhow, even if the bill is not passed, Turkish-French relations are being seriously damaged by this rather opportunistic and unethical move.

History has spoken. France was there and saw the Genocide. There is inherently something sinister when Turkey resorts to veiled threats to block the recognition of the genocide.

As regards the officiousness of the Canadian prime minister, it is just plain unfortunate. Relations with Turkey are either not that important for him or he just doesn't care too much about the intense efforts exerted by diplomats from both sides in past years to bring an end to the stagnation of relations between the two countries after the Canadian Parliament voted to recognize the alleged genocide. We believe our bilateral as well as allied relations with Canada are valuable. Unfortunately, it will take years again to revive the relationship to a satisfactory level, and even when we achieve that, both the parliamentary decision and the officiousness of the prime minister will remain as constant irritants to our ties.

Another veiled threat from Turkey? Canada is not impressed.

Unlike most Turks, we have no psychological obsession regarding what might have happened in the first quarter of the last century to Armenians, Turks, Arabs and other ethnic groups of this country when the Ottoman Empire was in the process of dissolution. There is an official Turkish thesis on the issue; there are Armenian claims as well. Which is true, how many people perished under what conditions during those years, whether there was an official position of the Ottoman palace regarding the “extermination” of Armenians and such questions cannot be resolved through what individuals might say or by the laws legislated by the parliament of this or that country.

"Unlike most Turks, we have no psychological obsession regarding what might have happened in the first quarter of the last century.." Did you mean "unlike most Turks"? probably not you meant "unlike most Armenians" what a slip of the tongue! Probably it is closer to the truth!

There are two aspects to the problem. One is political: the Armenian territorial claims on Turkey as outlined in Armenia's declaration of independence -- which must be resolved through dialogue between Turkey and Armenia. The other is what happened during those times, which must be addressed by a credible commission of historians and researchers that Turkey and Armenia must establish together.

Another way of resolving all this might be through Turkey or Armenia or the two states together taking the problem to the International Court of Justice in The Hague and letting the international court make a decision after reviewing documentation provided by the two sides justifying their positions.

Armenia can but does not have to. Turkey is the one on the hot seat. Why is not Turkey taking a unilateral step? It has been accused by an increased number of countries for denying the Armenian Genocide. Against the rest of countries such as the USA it is using veiled threats against the acceptance of Genocide. The reason why Turkey is not taking the case to the International Court of Justice is that it will be defeated for sure. Imagine facing the lawyers of a host of some two dozen countries? That is why Turkey is dragging Armenia along. No Armenia does not have to take it to International Court of Justice.

Turkey has already suggested to Armenia the establishment of a joint commission of historians that would work under the auspices of the United Nations, declaring that whatever the outcome, it would accept and undertake whatever is required of it. Turkey has also declared its readiness to engage in a constructive dialogue on this issue with Armenia.

Armenia is not budging an inch towards resolution of the problems. It has rejected all Turkish offers and instead has demanded unilateral moves from Turkey, such as the opening of the border.

The Genocide is not negotiable. Turkey again is resorting to a veiled threat to force Armenia to abandon the pursuit of the recognition of the Armenian Genocide. Let Turkey take the case to the UN by itself.

While we wholeheartedly support the demand for the opening of the Turkish-Armenian border for humanitarian reasons, as well as because we consider such a move in Turkey's national interest because it would then have direct land and rail connections with Central Asian and Caucasian countries, we cannot understand why Yerevan is so adamant about engaging in a process with Turkey to resolve the problems and why it continues its occupation of Azerbaijani territory in contravention of international law, thus further complicating the already delicate situation.

The "occupation" I am sorry the liberation of Nagorno Karabagh from sure annihilation by Azerbaijan is an issue to be resolved between Nagorno Karabagh and Azerbaijan.

Perhaps we are in need of a trustworthy mediator that will help us and the Armenians overcome the obsessions and enable the two countries to instead join hands in building a better future.

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.