JOINT STATEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN CIVIL SOCIETY

ABHaber 26.09.2006 Strasbourg
[...]
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

JOINT STATEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN CIVIL SOCIETY

Signed by 261 associations throughout Europe

Dear Members of Parliament,

We, European citizens, follow up with a sustained attention the Union enlargement process and especially the developments relating to Turkey’s controversial candidature.

We took note of the report on “Turkey’s progress towards accession” voted on Monday September 4 by the Committee on Foreign Affairs. We particularly noticed with delight that the European Parliament “reiterates its call on Turkey to acknowledge the Armenian genocide, as called for in the previous European Parliament resolutions of 15 December 2004 and 28 September 2005” and “considers such acknowledgment to be a precondition for European Union accession”.

We were also informed about threatening pressures exerted on you by Turkey and the disinformation campaign in order to remove this mention. As citizens of the Union, we are absolutely indignant that a foreign power with radically anti-European values can thus alter the sovereign appreciation formulated by our European representation on this issue.

This is why we take the liberty of reminding you the following facts:

1. The call for the Armenian genocide acknowledgment as a precondition by the European Parliament does not constitute at all an additional requirement towards Turkey. This requirement was clearly formulated in almost the same wording, less than a year ago, in the resolution on “opening the negotiations with Turkey":

“The European Parliament calls on Turkey to recognise the Armenian genocide; considers this recognition to be a prerequisite for accession to the European Union” (P6_TA(2005)0350, 28/09/2005);

This formulation is in the political line of those written in the preceding resolutions of 18 June 1987 and 15 December 2004. To water down or to remove it would constitute an obvious sign given to Turkey that the European Parliament is on the point of denying its principles,

2.The fact that such a condition was not formally imposed to other Candidate States does not constitute an argument proving its non-admissibility. The application of other States even would not be taken into consideration. The acknowledgement of its crimes by the State who perpetrated it is an accession criteria,

3.the calls reiterated by the European Parliament concerning this issue allowed the beginning of timid debates in Turkey. Weakening these demands would constitute an objective support to nationalists who want to eliminate in Turkey some dissident voices on this matter and to keep Turkey away from our European standards,

4.Turkey, who claims to wish to debate on this question, still has not answered to the Armenian president proposal which consists in establishing an intergovernmental commission in order to examine how to solve all the problems between the two countries and to create diplomatic relations. On the other hand, Turkey continues to deploy its denialist strategy in terms of historians committees and opening of archives in order to extract the genocide question from the political context of its candidature for the Union,

5.The denial policy of Turkey is not only a permanent offence to our European values, it is also the mark of an ultranationalist and racial ideology which constitutes a concrete threat towards our societies and our children.

Communities throughout Europe which are watching with anxiety the negotiating process with Turkey will be terribly disappointed seeing the EP retreat from the very laudable position established by its Foreign Affairs Committee on such a fundamental principle. We urge you to come forward with a proud vote upholding the Parliament's commitment in this matter."

Consequently, we urge you to maintain in plenary session the clear and adequate formulation of the paragraph 49 adopted by the Foreign Affairs Committee.

[...]

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.