RESTRAINT AND MODERATION, ANYONE?
Nazlan Ertan

The New Anatolian, Turkey
May 22 2006

Last week was a difficult one, both at home and abroad. On the
international front, Turkey struggled with the Armenian genocide
revisionism bill, which, if it had passed, would have made denial of
the 1915 Armenian “genocide” a criminal offense in France.

On the domestic front, the tentative “national consensus,” on the
decline since November, suffered a serious setback at Kocatepe Mosque,
where Cabinet members were booed as they attended the funeral of a
Council of State judge assassinated by a gunman.

Armenian knot

When French Socialists wanted to introduce a new bill on the Armenian
genocide allegations, officials and civil groups alike in Turkey
were duly alarmed and got mobilized. Unlike the first such bill,
passed in 2001, which had no practical effect as it was limited to
a simple “recognition of the 1915 Armenian genocide” by France, the
new law would enable anyone who denied the allegations to be fined
or imprisoned.

Given the highly organized nature of the Armenian lobby, the easy
passage of the first bill and, finally, the Turkish incapacity to
lobby effectively and moderately, there was very little doubt that
the second law would pass and erupt into a full-fledged crisis between
Turkey and France.

Then, both the Turkish government and civil groups did something that
surprised us all. Keeping public threats and insults to a minimum
(again something that contrasted deeply with the Turkish policy during
the first bill), the Turks started a steady flow of “persuasion tours”
to France, ranging from Parliament officials to government figures
to university academics. French intellectuals were mobilized in the
name of freedom of expression. And, of course, the economic stick
was also shown to France.

The first signal that these efforts were going somewhere came when
a commission of the French Parliament voted against the bill. A week
later, France shelved the critical vote. In the very lively debate that
the Turkish audience could watch live on news channel NTV, the speech
of French Foreign Minister Douste-Blazy was a notable act of balance:

“France is a loyal friend of Armenia — it was one of the first
countries to recognize its independence and since then, supported
the young republic with all its efforts. But France is also a friend
of Turkey, to which it was an inspiration during the foundation of
the republic. Since then, Turkey and France have enjoyed strong,
consistent ties. In the face of his double friendship… France must
continue to pursue a policy of peace and reconciliation.”

Was the decision a partial victory? Perhaps. As pointed out, the law
may always reappear on the agenda of the French National Assembly
although certain French sources, more optimistic than their Turkish
counterparts, think that the law, now buried, will not see the light
of day again.

But that would also depend on whether or not Turkey takes necessary
steps on its past and its relations with neighboring Armenia.

Who shot, what was killed?

The shooting attempt against five judges of the Second Chamber of the
Council of State has proved to be more than a police affair. Rather
than forge a unity against those who resort to violence, it has
sharpened the divide between the government and three key institutions
of the state which felt that they have become vulnerable due to
government policy — namely, the judiciary, the military and the
Board of Higher Education (YOK).

Those two groups, backed by remarks of the president calling for
secularism, made separate declarations which indicated all too
clearly that they found the government responsible for what has
happened. Particularly the Council of State indicated that it found
the government’s condemnation of the attack insufficient and declared
that the attack was partly encouraged by the government’s criticism
of a ruling of the chamber several months ago. The second chamber
had ruled in favor of a decision that prevented a teacher who wore
a headscarf on her way to the school from becoming principal.

The anger of the judiciary toward the government, demonstrated by the
cold reception given to the Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan at
the Council of State, spilled over to the streets and to the funeral
of a judge who died in the attack. While Prime Minister Erdogan did
not attend the ceremony, the Cabinet ministers who did were booed.

The angry public, which greeted with warmth the top brass, president
and veteran politicians such as Bulent Ecevit, shouted slogans such as
“the government is the assassin.”

While certain ministers simply downplayed the events, Erdogan, on his
way to Egypt, raged over the demonstrations. His anger also targeted
Chief of General Staff Gen. Hilmi Ozkok, who had said that he hoped the
Turkish sensitivity in protection of secularism should be consistent.

Escalation seems inevitable in the coming week. But there is something
that should not be missed in last week’s political landscape: Tens
of thousands who have marched to Anitkabir, Ataturk’s mausoleum,
were shouting slogans against the government.

Wasn’t the demonstrators precisely “the centrist voters” that the
AKP hoped to have in the next elections?

If…

There are certainly many things that can be said of Ecevit, both good
and bad. When the soft-spoken and hard-principled leader of the left
decided to go to early elections in 2002, most Turks were more than
relieved to see the ailing man bow out of politics.

But he was seen as a wise man, a model of honesty and principle —
just like the ideal man described in Rudyard Kipling’s poem “If,”
which Ecevit translated.

The firm defender of secularism lies in a coma — Turks mourn for him,
but also, perhaps, what he symbolized.