The EUObserver has an article on yet another clash between France and Turkey over the Armenian Genocide. The two countries clashed again over the same issue in the early months of 2001, when the French Parliament officially recognised the Armenian Genocide, joining a host of other European countries and institutions, 39 of the 50 U.S. States (according to Wikipedia) and several other countries including Canada and Russia. At that time, Turkey recalled its ambassador to France and canceled a number of high profile deals for the provision of military equipment. It is widely believed that the few European countries as well as the U.S. federal government have not yet recognised the Armenian genocide, due to past, ongoing and potential business and strategic relations with Turkey.
The reason for the dispute this time (and the subsequent ‘new’ recall of the Turkish ambassador in France) was the debate in the French Parliament on whether to render the denial of the Armenian Genocide a criminal offence. I am not going to delve into the appropriateness of such a law in this post, although I have — in the past — made my position clear in several blogs with regards to the importance of free speech of individuals in a society.
Politics aside, Turkey’s official stance lies very far from the internationally accepted historical fact. The basic texts employed by the Turkish government in support of their position are the Ottoman Archives. Those largely contradict western archives of the time and portray a very neutral picture of the Empire, although they do contain record of several hundred thousand Armenians dying (about 2-3 times less than the commonly accepted figure). This information is the official Turkish line taught in schools and thus enjoys a very large acceptance in Turkey.
But, while the vast majority of the Turkish population opposes the genocide, there are exceptions. Last year an internationally acclaimed Turkish intellectual, Orhan Pamuk, openly supported the existence of genocide. He faced criminal charges, was charged with insulting the republic and faced imprisonment. Ironically, near that time Turkey was in discussions with the EU about the commencement of the negotiations for its possible accession to the Union, and the EU was quick to make vocal its strong disagreement with the proceedings against him and a number of other authors and intellectuals in his position. The case was dropped in January 2006. A few days ago Orhan Pamuk was interviewed by the BBC. You can find his interview online here.
The denial of the Armenian Genocide is an example of how states can appear so frustratingly in denial about their history in lieu of protecting political interests, or foreign relations or the appearance of lawfulness in support to their position in other (not necessarily related) diplomatic conflicts. Most states do it, albeit not typically at that level.
Yet, it is unfortunate that it is still the case, even within the EU, that politics dictate whether a historical fact of this magnitude gets recognised as part of
