Gündüz Aktan - OPINION & EDITORIALS

13.10.2006
Gündüz Aktan - Radikal
OPINION & EDITORIALS
12 October 2006, Resource : Turkish Daily News

Today the French Parliament votes on a bill that would make the 'denial' of the 'Armenian genocide' a crime punishable by law. Cacophony. Displays of patriotism by those who fail to read anything about this issue, giving it only minimal attention.

Today the French Parliament votes on a bill that would make the denial of the Armenian genocide a crime punishable by law. Cacophony. Displays of patriotism by those who fail to read anything about this issue, giving it only minimal attention.

The prime minister is not merely speaking for himself. He seems to have undertaken the task of expressing the sentiments on this issue of the foreign minister, the Foreign Ministry spokesman, the entire rank and file of his Justice and Development Party (AKP) and even the coffeehouse-goers.

People are already fed up with the European Union. They believe the EU (in what goes well beyond having a double standard) clearly treats Turkey in a hostile manner on issues such as Cyprus, freedom of expression and the Armenian genocide. All these developments coincide with remarks made in America in favor of partitioning Iraq. So, in the realm of Turkey's foreign policy, anti-Westernism now goes well beyond calculations of interest. The need to react prevails.

Governments exist for the purpose of managing crises in ways that would protect both our honor and our interests. Yet this government has, with the policy it has conducted to date, projected an un-national image. Now it is trying to benefit from the current crisis to add nationalism to its portfolio as well. After all, a presidential election and a parliamentary election are looming on the horizon. (By the way, we must not get carried away by the genocide crisis and fail to notice the Cyprus developments.)

Both the government and nongovernmental organizations are hurling threats. The Turkish Parliament is to pass a law envisaging even heavier penalties for the denial of the Algerian genocide. However, even Algeria itself has not passed such a law. Would we contemplate enacting a law for the Algerian case if the French parliament did not attempt to pass the aforementioned bill? I mean, would it become us to act with political motives on an extremely moral issue such as genocide?

Meanwhile, there is also the issue that, in the face of the genocide allegation made by Algerian President Buteflika, France has avoided a dialogue with Algeria on this issue by saying that the issue should be left to historians.

If we want to do something meaningful on this issue we can create a crimes against humanity park, for example, on the shores of the Golden Horn. We could place monuments there representing all the genocides and massacres in human history, monuments to be chosen through an international competition. We can found an institute that would publish its findings and organize meetings on these issues.

Such a project would involve the Armenian question along with the massacres perpetrated against the Ottomans and the way the native civilizations of Latin America were wiped out and the American Indians were killed. An effort would be made to provide a scientific explanation for the fact that almost all big massacres and genocides were perpetrated against peoples of Central Asian origin. (The Khazar Turks, who converted to Judaism, for example, were subjected to the Holocaust.)

Even if the lower house of the French parliament passes it, the controversial bill will still have to clear the Senate. Supposing that it cleared the Senate some time in the next six months. It would still have to be approved by Chirac. Meanwhile, Chirac says such a law is not necessary since the country already passed a law in 2001 on this subject. However, if the bill were presented to him he would hardly be in a position to avoid signing it. He already acknowledged the Armenian genocide during a recent visit to Yerevan, and he wants Turkish acknowledgement of the genocide to be a precondition for Turkish membership in the EU. To be consistent even at a minimal level he would have to approve the bill.

French judicial experts are mostly saying that the bill would go against the grain of the French legal system. However, somebody would have to actually apply to the French Constitutional Court to have that law abolished. Since no one would be likely to take that step, the result would be a scandalous situation: The punitive provisions of an unlawful law would be implemented.

Under the circumstances, the wisest thing we can do is to calmly wait for the enactment of the bill and then file a complaint against the French state at the European Court of Human Rights on the grounds that the law is contrary to the freedom of expression cited in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. France would argue that the Armenian genocide did happen and invoke both French legal provisions and Articles 4 and 7 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965) to justify the punishment of those denying the genocide. We, in turn, would stress that according to Articles 6 and 9 of the genocide convention no case can be called genocide in the absence of a court decision to this effect. The European Court of Human Rights is not competent to deal with a case on whether a given incident constitutes genocide or not. So it has to accept our thesis. Our winning the case would constitute a big defeat for the Armenians.

Why should we take that path? Because if we scare France into backing off by making a big noise, we will be missing a huge opportunity to have our day in court.