DEBATING NON-RECOGNITION OF THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
By Yasmine Ryan

Scoop, New Zealand
Oct 30 2006

Les Yeux on France: Debating Non-Recognition of the Armenian Genocide

Scoop Audio (click here to listen): to this edition of Yasmine Ryan’s
Les Yeux on France.

(AIX-EN-PROVENCE) – Two different approaches by French politicians in
the past few weeks have stirred debate in France on how Turkey might
be made to recognise the Armenian Genocide that took place during
World War One. The first is President Jacques Chirac’s symbolic visit
to Armenia; the second is a move to legislate against any denial of
the Genocide in France. A large majority of the French population
want Turkey to confront its demons, as does France’s significant
Armenian minority. And the issue is becoming increasingly relevant
as the European Union debates Turkey’s membership. Image of Yasmine
Ryan by Jason Dorday.

Back in the dying days of the Ottoman Empire, a strong Turkish
nationalist ideology was forged. Although the regime had ruled
over its diverse multiethnic populations in relative harmony for
centuries, it became increasingly suspicious of its Armenian and Greek
minorities. The Armenian separatist movement Dachnak, supported by
Russia, was seen as a threat to the nation’s very survival. Rising
tensions led eventually to the drastic decision to deport, not just
those involved in the independence struggle, but all Armenians.

And whilst these people were being transported out between 1915 and
1917, a series of extensive massacres occurred. The Turkish government
claims the death toll was between 250,000 and 500,000 and that the
victims died mostly from cold, exhaustion and hunger, or else were
massacred by bandits acting in isolation. The evidence, however, puts
the number at approximately 1.5 million. And it is widely accepted
that the massacres were ordered from the top level of the Ottoman
regime and that they were part of a broad strategy of extermination.

ADVERTISEMENT This massive figure makes the Armenian Genocide, in terms
of shear scale, second only to the Holocaust. Indeed, Robert Fisk’s
account details how the Ottoman Empire’s ideology of extermination
had an influence on the Nazi regime. Yet the Armenian Genocide has
long been blatantly ignored by the international community, and
Turkey’s refusal to acknowledge its past has not been the subject of
much criticism.

It is this irony that has captured the French public’s attention
in recent years. Turkey’s desire to join the EU is seen as a unique
opportunity to pressure the state to change its attitude. In 2001, the
Armenian Genocide was officially recognised by the French parliament.

President Chirac’s visit to Armenia was another way to place indirect
pressure on Turkey to recognise the atrocity. The Head of State made a
series of meaningful public appearances in the small and impoverished
state from 29 September to 1 October this year. He stopped off at the
Tsitsernakaberd Memorial, which honours those who died in the Armenian
Genocide, and attended the inauguration of ‘La place de France’,
where he spoke of ‘the heroic and tormented history of this people’
and of ‘all the survivors of this tragedy who must take the path of
a heartbreaking exile’.

Significantly, Chirac stated in a press conference that he believes
Turkey must recognise the Armenian Genocide before it can be admitted
into the EU. He made the comparison with the importance of Germany’s
recognition of the Holocaust. This is the most forceful statement on
the Armenian Genocide that a Western Head of State has ever made. For
a people long accustomed to being overlooked, the visit was gratefully
received amidst much emotion.

In addition to this bold move by the French President, on the 12
October, Parliament voted in favour of a bill, sponsored by the
Socialist Party, which would outlaw any denial of the Armenian
Genocide. If it is to pass into law, the parliamentary initiative
must now be validated by the Senate. This will be more difficult.

Ankara’s anger at France’s zeal over what it considers to be a
private dispute with a neighbour is growing. The Turkish government
fears that its acceptance into the EU is at risk. While there was no
real vocalisation at Chirac’s more diplomatic gesture, the move to
legislate provoked a storm of outrage in Turkey.

Chirac managed to sooth things somewhat by phoning Recep Tayyip
Erdogan, telling the Turkish Prime Minister he was very sorry and
that he believes the existing legislation is sufficient. Erdogan was
appeased by Chirac’s promise to do what he can to prevent the Bill
becoming law. Consequently, the reaction against France was moderated:
there is merely a semi-boycott. France exports to Turkey were valued
at 4.7 billion euros in 2005.

In contrast to Chirac’s visit to Armenia, there have been widespread
criticisms of the proposed bill. For many it is a confrontational
approach that in fact undermines the cause of those pushing for
more honest dialogue within Turkey. It is ironically similar to the
Turkish repression of recognition of the Genocide, a point not lost
on Turkish critiques. ‘Liberte, egalite, stupidite’ was the headline
in the daily newspaper Hurriyët. PM Erdogan called it a ‘primitive
law’ pushed through by ‘a few stubborn legislators’. He stated that:
‘Thanks to a few stubborn MPs, the France we know as the nation of
liberties must live with this shame. If France doesn’t stop this bill,
it’s her that will lose and not Turkey.’ Even Nobel Prize winner
Orhan Pamuk, viewed as a traitor by many Turks for his recognition
of the Armenian Genocide, points out that ‘freedom of expression is
a French invention. This law is contrary to this culture of liberty.’

France should continue to encourage the recognition of the Armenian
Genocide by Turkey, but not by compromising its principles. Pushing
too hard risks fuelling Turkish nationalists and creating conflict.

Public debate on the issue is growing within Turkey, and gentle
diplomacy, such as the example given by President Chirac, could
substantially help the nation come to terms with its past.

****** Yasmine Ryan is a graduate of the University of Auckland, in
Political Studies and French language. She is currently completing a
Masters degree in International Journalism at the Institut d’Etudes
Politiques, Aix-en-Provence.

L0610/S00430.htm

–Boundary_(ID_vHarMwqF7tCvOiVNE 7Mqig)–