Armenian lobby is strong

Het Parool (Dutch Daily Newspaper)
7 October 2006

By Addie Schulte

Never before the Armenian Genocide got as much attention in the Dutch
politics as in the previous weeks. A small lobby with many branches in
Binnenhof had unexpected success. ?I think that the Netherlands has spared
herself a big deal of misery¹.

It started a month ago with a letter to CDA (Christian Democrat Party) and a
press release. The Federation of Armenian Organisations in the Netherlands
(FAON) and its 24 April Committee asked if candidate Member of Parliament
Ayhan Tonca distances himself from his earlier denial of the Armenian
Genocide.

³Tonca were a straight denier², says Inge Drost, spokeswoman of the Armenian
organisations. The Armenian lobby did not get a direct answer to the letter
to CDA. But after the attention paid by media, the matter gained momentum,
which seems still to continue.

That was quite different when the Armenians achieved a first success in The
Hague. In December 2004 the Parliament unanimously adopted a motion,
submitted by the chairman of Christian Union faction André Rouvoet and
signed by other factions, wherein the government is asked to bring the
recognition of the Armenian Genocide under the attention of the Turkish
government. A topical subject, because the Parliament was discussing the
starting of negotiations for the accession of Turkey to the European Union.

We insisted for many years on this matter. But with this motion the
recognition was not a requirement for the accession of Turkey. Last year Mr.
Rouvoet tried to achieve this point in a debate with foreign affairs
minister Ben Bot. Mr. Bot refused, because according to him it was
implicitly clear that Turkey would have to recognise the genocide. ³Mr.
Rouvoet said: ?Let¹s take this¹,² according to Mrs. Drost.

But in the minutes of the report there was nothing mentioned on this matter.
Mrs. Drost continued to insist. ³I have asked Rouvoet to inquire about this
statement in a plenary debate once more². These debates are recorded
textually. Mrs. Drost: ³But then the answers were quite different.²

It is not surprising that Mr. Rouvoet repeatedly raised the Armenian matter
and thereby received quite broad support. He is a member of the Recommending
Committee of 24 April Committee just like the Parliament Members Harry van
Bommel (SP), Kathleen Ferrier (CDA), Farah Karimi (Green-Left), Cees van der
Staaij (SGP), PvdA senator Ed van Thijn and former MP Leen van Dijke
(Christian Union).

The small Christian political parties have been therefore well represented.
The majority of Armenians are Christians. The 24 April Committee was also
particularly involved with the bill concerning the punishment of the
Genocide denial in some cases submitted by the Christian Union faction.

In fact it concerns a historical question, and the struggle for its
recognition is not political, says Mrs. Drost. ³But the policy of denial is
guided by Ankara². ³Turkey is doing a rearguard action: almost all
historians recognise the Genocide. But we cannot just pass over, because
Turkey wants to become a member of the European Union. That is unthinkable
without recognition of the Genocide.²

The Turkish embassy plays enormous role in this matter, according to her.
Mrs. Drost does not accept the criticism that the Dutch candidates of
Turkish origin are sharply followed. ³We have not damaged someone
unnecessarily. We asked clarity and we have mainly succeeded to get that. I
think that the Netherlands has spared herself a big deal of misery. A
Turkish problem is imported here. Some people are connected with hundreds of
ties to Ankara. Many people do not want believe that the Dutch policy was
already influenced, even before the motion of Mr. Rouvoet. The Members of
Parliament Fatma Koser Kaya (D66), Nebahat Albayrak (PvdA) and Fadime Örgü
(VVD) have given then an interview wherein the Turkish point of view was
presented².

Following Tonca also other Dutch candidates of Turkish origin came in the
sight. Particularly Mrs. Albayrak owes that to herself with her statements
in the newspaper Trouw, Mrs. Drost thinks. ³We could unfortunately not
neglect her judgments. Unfortunately, because it concerns persons.²

According to her many people did not understand that the statements of Mrs.
Albayrak are very close to those of negationists. ³The position of Mrs.
Albayrak is still not clear. It is, however, remarkable that Albayrak now
shows victim behaviour.²