EUROPE, ARMENIAN GENOCIDE, AND TURKEY
RIA Novosti, Russia
Oct 17 2006
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti commentator Pyotr Romanov) – Armenian genocide
is in the news again. There are two reasons for this.
First, the Nobel Prize for literature was awarded this year to
brilliant Turkish writer Orhan Pamuk, who had barely escaped prison
for publicly acknowledging the 1915Armenian genocide. This is qualified
as treason by Turkish law.
He was saved by international solidarity but the pressure exerted on
him by the Turkish government had its effect. Pamuk flatly refused to
talk on the subject when he arrived in Moscow for the presentation
of his book in Russian translation. On a human plane, this is easy
to understand – the author wanted to return home to Istanbul, the
main character of all his books.
To sum up, the Nobel Committee’s decision has caused mixed feelings
in Turkey – it is not often that it gives such a prestigious award
to someone who is guilty of "high treason" at home.
The law that has just been passed by the lower chamber of the French
Parliament has evoked an even bigger uproar. In a way, this is a mirror
image of the Turkish law on Armenian genocide – in Istanbul the crime
is to admit genocide, whereas in France it is illegal to refute it.
The adoption of this law in France was generated by domestic
pre-election considerations rather than international motives. It
is highly dubious that the upper chamber will approve this law,
and even less likely that the President will sign it. Moreover,
France officially acknowledged the Armenian genocide by passing a
relevant law in 2001. President Jacques Chirac was laying a wreath
to the monument to the victims of genocide at almost the same time
as the Parliament voted for the recent law.
Incidentally, the official date of the Armenian genocide – 1915 –
is largely a convention. There had been atrocious Armenian pogroms
much earlier than that. Thus, the Turkish theory of attributing the
events to the excesses of the war is not convincing. Moreover, the
Turks were also slaughtering Greeks, Serbs, and many other Christians.
The wave of indignation which has swept Turkey because of Europe’s
renewed attention to the genocide is remarkable. The recent protests
in Turkey suggest many questions. The main one is whether it is worth
admitting to the EU a country that does not want to acknowledge its
guilt for the heinous crimes of the past and repent them? Respect
for Germany only grew when it was honest about the Holocaust. What
prevents Turkey from telling the truth?
I think it would not be an exaggeration to say that the survival of
European civilization in the 21st century depends on what decision
the EU adopts on Turkey’s admission. The excessive flow of migrants
is already a heavy burden for Europe. The migrants may contribute to
its culture, but every year the Europeans lose much more, and their
identity is fading away amidst this carnival of newcomers. If Europe
cannot absorb the migrants it already has, what will happen when it
flings open its doors to Turkey? Fairy tale writers may hope that
Europe stands to gain from this, but others will have to face reality.
On top of it all, there is also the religious aspect, from which
Europe is trying to disassociate itself as much as possible.
Meanwhile, political correctness is only indispensable in everyday
life but very counterproductive when it comes to serious analysis.
Looking at life through rose-tinted glasses means deliberately
distorting reality, and making wrong decisions.
Speaking Aesopian language may help one avoid the "uncomfortable" word
– Islam. But if you want to survive in the real world, you had better
look through old newspapers, recall the names of terrorists, find out
who taught them, whom they prayed to, and who gave them money. Only
in this way will you be able to protect yourself and your children.
Why do Christians admit their old mistakes, repent, and ask for
forgiveness? And why are Muslims reluctant to do so? As Orthodox
Father Kurayev put it, instead of going into the future, rethinking
and reassessing its past, Islam goes into fits of hatred from time
to time under any excuse imaginable. On one occasion, it may be the
problem of hijab, on another, the cartoon scandal, and on still other,
a deliberate misinterpretation of an ancient quotation mentioned by
Pope Benedict XVI. Every fit of hatred is directed against Christians,
who are attacked and often murdered.
It is not surprising that German opera directors have recently decided
to cancel a performance with a Muslim motive for fear that Muslim
fanatics might go crazy. Angela Merkel made a statement against this
decision, but it did not help. Europe is already filled with fear.
It would not be correct to say that every Muslim likes these fits of
hatred. But the general goal of Islam is clear – to unite the Muslim
world along the obvious lines. Needless to say, not every believer
in Prophet Muhammad is a terrorist, but it is an indisputable fact
that in the 21st century the non-Muslim world has developed serious
problems with Islam.
Some people believe that these are growing pains rather than the
gist of the Muslim teaching. I’d like to hope this is so. But even in
this case, it is more sensible to wait until teenage aggressiveness
is over before inviting such a guest home.
Others attribute Islamic extremism to impudence towards Muslims on
behalf of people professing other religions. This also happens from
time to time. Impudence is evil, but it should not be mixed with
the right to tell Muslims the truth. In turn, they should learn to
appreciate freedom of speech, and respect the opinion of others. We
will get nowhere if Muslims can say and do whatever they like, and
we can do nothing. This is absurdity rather than political correctness.
Still others think that social inequality is the root of all evil.
This opinion is justified. We should eradicate social inequality by
all reasonable, and, let me stress, evolutionary methods.
What we should not do is to fling European doors wide open without
thinking about the consequences. The times have changed.