ORHAN PAMUK IS NO TRAITOR: INFORMED SOURCES

National Post (Canada)
September 16, 2005 Friday
National Edition

source The Spectator

The following editorial appeared in Britain’s Spectator magazine on
Sept. 10.

Over the past years, The Spectator has been a staunch defender of
Turkey and its right to join the European Union, negotiations for which
begin on Oct. 3. We have praised its economy, its founder-membership
of Nato and condemned the many Turkophobes within the EU.

A rarity among nations with Muslim majorities, it holds proper
elections and, for the most part, maintains a legal system that most in
the West would regard as fair. It has 70 million industrious citizens
who want to trade on equal terms.

It would be a tragedy, therefore, if Turkish membership of the
EU were to be jeopardized by Turkey’s ugly treatment of its most
prominent novelist, Orhan Pamuk. Last week, Mr. Pamuk was charged
under Article 301/1 of the Turkish penal code, which makes it an
offence to insult the Republic of Turkey, punishable with between
six months and three years imprisonment — increased by a third if
the offence was committed abroad.

Mr. Pamuk’s crime was to make reference, in an interview with Swiss
newspaper Tagesanzeiger in February, to Turkey’s ethnic cleansing
of Armenians between 1915 and 1917 and to its ill-treatment of Kurds
since 1984. “Thirty thousand Kurds and a million Armenians were killed
in these lands and nobody but me dares to talk about it,” he said.

It goes without saying that jailing people for raising such issues is
unacceptable in a modern democracy. Orhan Pamuk is no traitor. On the
contrary, he is seen in the literary world as a great ambassador for
his homeland, whose work shows a deep love of his country and who has
been able to straddle the gap between East and West. He simply wishes
to be free to discuss a couple of dark episodes in Turkey’s history.

To give it some credit, the Turkish government does not entirely deny
that a large number of Armenians came to a bad end around 1915. The
prime minister, Tayyip Erdogan, recently announced his desire to
establish a commission of historians to judge whether or not genocide
took place. Yet no democracy should seek to legislate in favour of
one official version of history.

Rather, it should tolerate a free market in ideas, knowing that it is
lively debate which best ensures that the truth eventually seeps out.

Orhan Pamuk’s accusations of the scale of Turkish maltreatment of
Armenians and Kurds are supported by eyewitness accounts.

An American diplomat filed a report at the time speaking of Ottoman
soldiers, aided by Kurdish tribesmen, “sweeping the countryside,
massacring men, women and children and burning their homes. Babies were
shot in their mothers’ arms, small children were horribly mutilated,
women were stripped and beaten.” Pamuk’s accusations are supported,
too, by Halil Berktay, a professor at Sabanci University, who puts
the numbers of dead at between 800,000 and one million.

But even if Pamuk’s charges were nonsense, it would be no excuse for
jailing him. A confident nation has no need to suppress free speech,
knowing that anyone who makes false accusations against their country’s
past for political reasons will rapidly be crushed beneath the weight
of counter-evidence.

Admittedly, Turkey’s problem over Armenia and the Kurds is not limited
to the government: 80% of respondents to a recent opinion poll said
they could do without EU membership if it meant having to admit to
past genocide. But if Turkey wants to join the EU, and become a full
member of the wider club of Western democracies, it simply has to
face up to its past, and to its present democratic failings. Article
301/1 of its penal code must go.