THE ARMENIAN ISSUE IN THE NETHERLANDS: THE REMOVAL OF THE THREE TURKISH-ORIGINATED MPS FROM THE CANDIDACY LIST
Journal of Turkish Weekly, Turkey
Oct 18 2006
The Armenian issue is nowadays quite popular in Europe. The French
brought legislation to the parliament, placing all the counter
arguments against the so-called Armenian genocide out of bounds. If it
is passed, rejecting the so-called genocide will be penalized either
by casting into prison or imposing substantial fines.
Discussions go on in the Netherlands after the three Turkish
originated MP candidates (Erdin Sacan-labour party, Ayhan Tonca and
Osman Elmaci from Christian democratic party) have been removed from
the candidate list just for not accepting the existence of so-called
Armenian genocide. A similar thing had happened to Derya Bulduk, who
was a candidate from the FDF (Democratic front of the Francophones)
in Belgium.
The two mainstream parties claim that the Netherlands accepted
the so-called Armenian genocide and base their[1][1] claims on the
recommendatory decision on 21 December 2004, recognizing the existence
of the so called genocide.
According to the General Assembly decision of the UN in 1948, genocide
is defined as; killing members of a group, causing serious bodily or
mental harm to members of the group, deliberately inflicting on the
group conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction
in whole or in part, imposing measures intended to prevent births
within the group, and forcibly transferring children of the group to
another group.
The chair of ISRO, Sedat Laciner (Laciner, 2005) defines genocide
as "the worst crime a human being can ever do", which I completely
agree with. Nevertheless, the ugliness of the case does not give the
right to accuse people without substantiating such arguments on valid
evidences. We need to post a clear difference between widely confused
themes. Being against genocide is one thing, using genocide for some
political ends is another thing. Sometimes we put critical thinking
completely aside and defend democratic values and norms so blindly
that this adherence itself becomes a deficit to democracy.
We have evidences of the Holocaust and see it as among the worst, maybe
the worst case in humanity. But do we really have such proofs regarding
the Armenian issue? What if, the Armenians were not tortured?!
Thousands of people die in Sudan right now, Israel killed thousands
of other just two months before. People died in Rwanda, former
Yugoslavia and many other places for just being a member of a
particular group. Why do we turn blind eyes to all these and are so
much insistent on punishing people denying an unproven case?
The Turkish side has opened all its archives and is very much eager to
form common committees for searching the issue. Turkish PM Erdogan
has underlined the willingness of searching this topic in many
occasions. Despite all these, keeping away from all scientific
enquiries and imposing such a heavy accusation leads to many
suspicions.
The Armenian state does not recognize the Lausanne treaty, on which the
Turkish Republic is grounded. In other words, Armenia does not accept
the current borders of Turkey. The country names the North East part
of Turkey as the West Armenia and makes claims on these territories
in its constitution. Robert Kocaryan, the PM of Armenia, states that
these territorial gains can be done in peaceful manners (Ibid).
Are all these done for the sake of democracy or is the democratic
sensitiveness used for further aims?! It is highly confusing; why
do not we talk about what the Dutch did in Indonesia and Surinam,
French did in Algeria, Spain did in South America if we are so eager
to account for our faults in past ?
Apart from these, the migration policy of the Ottoman Empire is very
irrelevant to the genocide claims. Ottomans failed in providing healthy
conditions during this depart but why should a send all the members
of an ethnicity away if it really aims a genocide? The Nazi rule did
not send the Jews away, but brought the Jewish to its concentration
camps from all around the world.
The Netherlands
A very critical approach is on rise in the Netherlands in particular
and Europe in general. Although it is not very acceptable to
discriminate openly, discrimination becomes legalized when it is
made by reference to "democratic values". For instance, if someone
criticizes Moroccans in some way under the general classification of
Moroccans, s/he will probably be strictly criticized. Nevertheless,
when Fortuyn said that gays were under threat due to the Moroccan gangs
he was very much backed. Similarly, opposing Islam itself will be not
so much welcomed. But people get credit if they manage to hinder such
points of view under the democratic doctrine.
Specifically, the argument of the repression of women under the
Islamic doctrine is in many times welcomed without a slightest
degree of critical thinking. The same thing is valid for the expel
of the Turkish originated candidates. The party leaders are really
appreciated as the guardians of democratic principles!!!
With regard to the decisions of the CDA and the PvdA; has a party
have the right to ask its members to share a common vision on this
topic? Party members have more or less similar positions and it is
quite natural to demand from these people to share a common vision.
For instance, there is no point in defending capitalism in a
highly communist party. Or members of a highly natioanlistic party
will probably not be welcomed if they act against the nationalism
doctrine. The so-called Armenian genocide is just a very slight
issue in those two parties and it is quite natural that their members
can have different opinions on that. All in all, we need different
opinions in democratic systems, also within the party.
The party position can not legitimize removing candidates from a party
list just because they have a point of view on a particular topic;
which is not a central in the party doctrine, open to debate, and
apparently not against the party doctrine. In the EP report, Turkey
is criticized due to the 301th article, which limits the freedom of
expression. It is true, Turkey has to improve its conditions in such
aspects just as the other European states have to.
However, people can be sent to jail or removed from candidacy lists
in the founding member states. This is a shame indeed.
The Armenian lobby is certainly quite effective in the international
field. But I personally do not believe the high influence of an
Armenian lobby in the Dutch society. The so-called Armenian genocide
has become quite trendy (!) in European politics.
Nevertheless some interior political aspects take place, as well.
People still talk the rise of Pim Fortuyn in 2002. Even the most
liberal parties have shifted to an anti immigration perspective
afterwards.
The Dutch Christian Appeal and labour party make some miscalculations
at this point. According to the official givens, 300 thousand Turkish
people live in this country, and many have the Dutch citizenship. A
substantial number of Turkish originated people has the right to vote
in this country. Expelling Turkish candidates will evidently not give
way to support by the Turkish society in this country. It is not a
very well advised stance to annoy such a big proportion just before
the elections.
No doubt however, the Turkish minority in Europe is very less
interested in politics and away from defending their interests in
discussions. The Turkish MPs carry great importance for both their
ethnicities and their residual countries at this point. These people
need to be represented on the parliamentary level as well as many
other aspects of life. Integration of these people and a peaceful
co-existence in this country cannot only be provided by sociological
researches, no matter how successful they are. We need successful
Dutch-Turkish people in politics, academic field, business, sport,
arts, etc.
At this point, it is worth bringing into attention that while cars
were put into fire in France and several other neighbor countries,
the Netherlands was quite still. This was not a coincidence. All
in all, the minority groups in the Dutch society are much better
integrated to the major society in many aspects. However, we do not
have a guarantee that this will be the case forever. The removed MP
candidates do not only carry significance for the Turkish minority,
but are also very much important to the Netherlands. The Dutch
government has gold in its hands indeed. We cannot continue living
within boundaries. Countries need bilinguals in the contemporary world.
Concluding Remarks:
The Dutch society made important progression after the uneasy days
regarding the tension between minority and majority. The Dutch
establishment and society are among the most tolerable people with
their multicultural doctrine. Therefore, it is highly disappointing
that all these occur in this country. The decision of those parties
is rather ill-given in the stressful atmosphere of elections
than representing the Dutch opinion in general. The Netherlands is
geographically little, but there are many other indexes of measuring
how big a country is. A country, sending its soldiers to Uruzgan,
one of the most dangerous places in Afghanistan, apparently has some
significant ambitions in the international arena. The Netherlands can
take many initiatives in line with its worldwide positive reputation
rather than just copying what the trends without searching the reality.
References:
Albayrak Nebahat and Timmermans Frans, Zie de Fouten uit het Verleden
onder Ogen, Trouw, 4 October 2006.
De Armenisch-Turksche Kwestie, Algemeen Handelsblad, 25.05.1920. (The
name of the reporter is not given)
Laciner, Sedat. (2004) Turkler ve Ermeniler, ISRO Publciations, 2004.