|
|
This fascinating account of
the 1987 European Parliament Armenian Genocide Resolution exposes what really
lies behind such exercises in pseudo-morality, and it's obvious the forces
driving such resolutions have nothing to do with the truth.
How ironic the French are so unshakeable in their genocide beliefs, when the
French, along with their WWI British and Russian allies, bore a huge responsibility in the
tragedy the Armenians would go on to suffer. What did they think would happen
to the Ottoman-Armenians, when Boghos Nubar negotiated with the French to
allow Armenians to join the Entente, since they "indignantly refused to side with Turkey"?
Ottoman-Armenians who fought in Musa Dagh were not picked up by the French
because, as the story goes, the Armenians hung out a bedsheet with a cross
painted in it.
Yet, the French are as sanctimonious as ever. Their politicians are beholden
to the Armenian Diaspora, no different than American politicians. These people need to be ashamed,
allowing themselves to be so taken over by their ugly prejudices.
|
|
|
| THE
TALE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT’S 1987 RESOLUTION ENTITLED “POLITICAL SOLUTION TO
THE ARMENIAN QUESTION” |
Pulat TACAR[1]
Ambassador Retired Turkish Forum Advisory Board Member
ABSTRACT:
Recently the basis of the1987 Resolution of the Parliament that accepted the genocide
allegations committed towards the Ottoman Armenians in 1915, Vandemeulebroucke Report,
illegally came to the agenda of the General Council although rejected with the votes of
the Political Committee. This report was later approved through intimidation of those
parliamentarians opposing the report and the draft of resolution. The resolution is a
political maneuver of those politicians who want to slander and exclude Turkey from
Europe, by making it a condition for the full membership of Turkey to the European Union.
Turkey should maintain that genocide is a legal concept and should stress the
impossibility of declaring someone of being a criminal before the decision of the
competent court. In doing that, Turkey should bring the issue to the agenda of the
Turkey-European Parliament Joint Parliamentary Commission and defend her views in order to
state that there is no legal way for suspects to be accused of committing the crime of
genocide.
Key Words: European Parliament, Armenian Diaspora, Ottoman Armenians, France, Armenian
Terror
I was appointed as the Permanent Representative of Turkey to the European Union in
November 1984. During my three-year service, each month, I spent one week in Strasbourg,
except for the months of August when the European Parliament (EP) did not convene. I
participated in the EP meetings and discussed several issues with the members of the EP.
In that period, Turkey was brought to the agenda of nearly all of the EP meetings; many
reports were written and many resolutions were adopted regarding Turkey and in almost all
of them Turkey was criticized and condemned.
After my appointment, the first problem about the relations with the EP was the initiative
of the French members of the Parliament in order to make the EP adopted a resolution
recognizing the claim of the ‘Armenian genocide committed by the Ottoman Empire in 1915’.
 |
|
Pres. Pierre Plimlin,
exercising classic
French arrogance
|
I went to the EP and met with its President, Pflimlin, in December
1984. At the beginning of our conversation, he asked me why Turkey had not accepted the
so-called ‘genocide’. His discourse resembled a discourse used in a conversation
between an employer and employee or between the strong and the weak. During my three and a
half year embassy work in Indonesia, I was treated quite well by the Indonesian political
elite because of their admiration towards Turkey and its founder, Atatürk. Earlier, I had
experienced multilateral diplomacy in the International Atomic Energy Agency for nine
years. Such a style, as I was exposed to at the EP, which I had never witnessed before,
disturbed me seriously. Later, I would perceive that the diplomacy of European integration
developed a sui generis style regarding the communication of the European Communities’
institutions with the member and candidate states. It was necessary to use this style as
soon as possible. But, let me turn to my first meeting with President Pflimlin.
|
|
 |
|
Pulat Yuksel Tacar
|
I thought that I had to stay calm against the
disturbing style of the President towards a partner state’s ambassador, which was
not in accordance with the diplomatic customs, while I should not give up my firm
stance. He was a lawyer, thus I should bring the issue to that field. I told him
that the concept of ‘genocide’ emerged with the 1948 United Nations Convention
on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and it should not be used
so carelessly. I added that without any decision by a competent court or any other
judicial authority, one could not be accused of any crime; and this was a rule not
only in Turkey but also in France. I also said that the European Communities had
established a judicial framework and it was expected from the President of EP not to
act contrary to international law. I added that Turkey had accepted the 1948
Convention and transformed it as a part of internal law, thus it was impossible to
breach our internal laws. What is more, I said that many Turkish diplomats had been
victims of Armenian terror and this conversation – according to me — was carried
out under the shadow of these awful murders. My remarks disturbed him and he said
that he also condemned terrorism, he loved the Turks and he had many Turkish
friends. Then he tried to bring the conversation to the political field, and said
that accepting the so-called genocide would only glorify Turkey while Turkey could
not be held responsible for the events occurred prior to its foundation. I told him
I believed that it was unfair to voice the atrocities suffered solely by the
non-Muslims residing within the multicultural Ottoman society while overlooking the
Muslim Ottomans that were killed. He stated that the French society was very
sensitive with respect to this issue. I replied by stating that I knew this subject
quite well, and added that in the 1920’s, Armenians were sent to war at Çukurova
having been dressed up in French uniform, and that previously Ottoman Armenians were
dressed up in Tsarist Russian uniform. I told him that the Armenian representative
participating in the Sevres negotiations, Bogos Nubar, stated that they were the
belligerent party and that when France was retreating from Çukurova he brought a
part of the ‘Anatolian Armenian soldiers’ to France. I told him that there
existed at cemeteries in France memorial graves for ‘the Armenians that perished
for the French’, and that for this reason I was not surprised that he felt close
to Armenians. I added that I was against a one-sided review of history, that my aim
was not to remind him of certain passages of history he may not want to read or the
existence of which he may not know of. I said that I just wanted to make a courtesy
visit to the President of the European Parliament and added that if he wanted more
detailed information on this topic, I was ready to provide for it in the future.
During this visit, the French openly put forth how they were resolute about bringing
the Armenian question before the European Parliament. Their first initiative was
made in 1981, with French Parliamentarian Jacquet’s draft entitled “The
Condition of the Armenian People”[2]. Thereafter, a draft carrying the signature
of French Parliamentarian Miss Duport and Belgium Parliamentarian Glinne was
presented on behalf of the Socialist Group.[3] On behalf of the new EP’s Socialist
Group elected as of June 1984, French Parliamentarian Saby and his friends renewed
the Armenian draft.
At the beginning of 1984, Israel, the French Parliamentarian who was appointed to
write a report on the Armenian issue, resigned from this assignment. I believe that
the Jewish lobby, which did not want to share the characteristic of being victims of
genocide with the Armenians, influenced him. Upon Monsieur Israel’s refusal, this
time an agreement was made with Belgian Parliamentarian Mr. Vandemeulebroucke who,
at that time, was a member of the Vlamski Block party known for being
extreme-rightist, nationalist and racist. I invited Vandemeulebroucke for lunch in
the days following his appointment as a reporter in January 1985. I stressed that we
were prepared to submit all the information and documents he wanted on the topic on
which he was to write a report, and stated that he could meet with all pertinent
individuals and officials including the Armenian community by coming to Turkey and
that he could conduct research in our archives. I told him that we expected him to
be objective and include allegations as well as counter-arguments in his report. I
added that we expected his prospective report would help heal the deep wound
inflicted on the Turkish and world public’s conscience as a result of the bloody
activities carried out by terrorist groups voicing that they acted on behalf of the
Armenians. I told him that this report carried the prospect of aiding in the
creation of an atmosphere of mutual dialogue and understanding between the Armenians
and Turks. I stated — upon his question — that we do not expect anybody to
suppress his memory or disregard tragic events of the past. I added that the report
also needed to include passages of history that certain historians and politicians
denied, and that I desired all pages of history and the causes of events to be
evaluated together. Otherwise, people would be constrained to read history for
personal satisfaction or to reinforce their prejudices. Furthermore, I explained the
basic elements of the Genocide Convention, and pointed out to my counterpart that he
was not a competent judge, prosecutor, nor lawyer. I added that the European
Parliament was not a court and stated that genocide was a legal term. I also said
that this crime could be carried out by individuals; therefore, it was not in line
with justice for a politician to write a report on a legal matter as if it were
handing down a sentence without listening to the pleas of the defendants none of
whom are alive today. Upon my counterpart stating how he heard that the massacres
inflicted upon the Armenians went unpunished and that he wanted to analyze this
matter, I explained how approximately 1300 Ottoman leaders were tried for
wrongdoings during the relocation, a big portion of which was tried by the Courts
set up during the Committee for Unity and Progress period, some were executed, and
some were deported to Malta but set free due to the lack of evidence. During this
first meeting, my counterpart accepted our invitation stated that he would come to
Turkey, and wanted us to be sure that he would be objective.
However, The Belgian Parliamentarian never came to our country, nor explained why he
did not. As time passed, it became more apparent that the reporter was acting on
behalf of the diaspora. He did not accept to meet me in his room and during our
discussions carried out in the Parliament’s canteen there was always a “party
commissar” accompanying him, who listened to our conversations without uttering a
word. I told the reporter that he took upon himself an important duty, since his
prospective report could serve to bring the Turks and Armenians together. I
insistently requested for the report to contribute to a culture of peace, not to a
culture rancor and revenge, and gave him books and documents to be put to use in his
report. As time passed, information started to reach us through indirect ways
regarding the points that he elaborated in his report. Within this information there
existed documents, the fraudulence of which were ascertained, and factitious
assertions such as the genocide claim that was accepted by The United Nations
Economic and Social Council, Human Rights Sub-Committee. We analyzed all of this
material and prepared counter documents, approximately 200 pages in length. We
distributed these documents to the Belgian reporter and also to the other
parliamentarians. We observed a group of parliamentarians throwing away the
documents they retrieved from their post boxes into a big trash box next to the
document distribution section, without reading them, as the parliamentarians did not
have the time to read those documents that did not fall within their own areas of
priority. Everyday they received a heavy load of letters and documents. Also, during
that period, a group of European parliamentarians came to Strasbourg on Mondays,
signed the attendance registry, and then returned. They came again on Fridays to
sign the registry again, and they took their daily payments as if they were present
the whole week. This resulted in the overflow of their post-boxes.
|
| |
Those elected to the European Parliament that term, with the exception of 50-60 of them,
were second class politicians who could not be elected to their national parliaments. Due
to these observations we made, we figured out that it would be of greater use to send the
information and documents we wanted to deliver not to the parliamentarians themselves, but
to their political assistants and in fact to the advisors of the political groups they
were affiliated with, both of which we got in touch with as well. During that period, I
discussed this issue with approximately 100 European parliamentarians face to face. During
these discussions, excluding the French parliamentarians, they stated that they understood
our views but that the subject matter was a problem having top priority amongst the French
members of the European Parliament. They stated that the Greeks supported the French and
that the reciprocal concessions granted and balances formed in Parliament left no
possibility of going against this demand of the French. As a matter of fact, this subject
carried no priority for the other European parliamentarians. Furthermore, they pointed out
how there existed a wide spread conviction among Europe that in 1915 the Armenians were
subjected to a grave massacre and that we should not pay much attention to political
resolutions taken by the European Parliament that was not binding such as the one in
question. The main justification of those who were opposing the matter being taken up by
the EP, stemmed from how the parliament was not a place to try history, and from how they
were against distorting the past for political motives. Those in opposition displayed
resistance towards the matter not as a result of its essence but out of procedure. They
either were unaware or did not attribute much importance to the sufferings of the Ottoman
Muslims who encountered the same hardships during that period, such as the Van massacre in
April 1915 inflicted by Armenian armed units. French parliamentarians adopted a highly
unreliable attitude, and were voicing how this issue was a domestic political problem, and
that it did not target Turkey. Their prejudices on this matter were deeply entrenched;
they did not even want to hear any counter arguments.
I should point out that during that period, I meticulously analyzed social-psychology
books on opinion formation and alteration techniques, and benefited greatly from this
inquiry. Due to our profession also entailing the persuasion of one’s counterpart, I
believe it would be highly useful to teach social psychology to all young diplomats.
 |
|
Pulat Tacar in 2001,
combating Kurdish
propaganda-accepting
Europeans (a Swede,
Peter Curman, mainly
accepting the word of
a Kurd living in
Sweden, Mehmed
Uzun), in Montreal
|
Let us return to our topic. To my mind, the Vandemeulebroucke report
was drafted by the Armenian diaspora. It was full of biased and erroneous information. The
report was presented to the Political Committee of the European Parliament. At the
Committee’s meeting held in The Hague, the main justification that the EU was not a
historical institution and was not competent to try history took over and the report was
rejected by a single vote. In fact, as I personally listened to the meeting’s
recordings, I have no doubt that the Political Committee’s Chairman (Italian) Formigoni,
held the voting twice —to avoid any mistakes— and that the outcome of both was
rejection. The recordings of the meeting were presented to us on the same day by an
official present in the room where the meeting was held. According to the procedural
by-law, the rejection of a report in a Committee through voting necessitated that it be
dropped from the agenda and that the matter would not be dealt with again. Actually the
Chairman of the Committee had drawn attention to this fact before the matter was subjected
to a vote. However, when so desired, issues were not taken up in a fashion falling in line
with law at the European Parliament, alleged to be a legal institution. It was a political
arena and all kinds of maneuvers were deemed legitimate. Due to the Turkish
parliamentarians not being members of the European Parliament, our adversaries had an
advantage. Pressure was exerted upon the Committee’s Chairman for the report to be
reassessed. However, the Chairman Formigoni resisted such pressures towards this end and
stated that the report was put to a vote and that this case is closed. This time, they
waited for Formigoni’s tenure to come to an end. He was replaced by another Italian, {Sergio} Ercini. I knew Ercini as well, he was unreliable, would
smile to your face but carry out deeds of a contrary nature behind your back. We overheard
that the report was brought to the agenda of the Political Committee once again — as if
it were a fresh issue— by the new Chairman. Fellow parliamentarians wanted to bring the
issue to the By-law Committee. The By-law Committee rejected this appeal.
On the other hand, the Political Committee’s new Chairman Ercini once again brought the
Vandemeulebroucke report to the fore. As a result of the efforts of German Klaus Haensch
—a member of the Political Committee and who thereafter was the President of the
European Parliament— references made to the genocide were removed from the draft
resolution pertaining to the report. The French initially opposed this. Subsequently, when
the General Assembly convened, they conceded to the changes made at the Committee,
presuming that they could insert whatever wordings they desired through various motions
for amendment. A group of members of the Political Committee who had voted against the
report at the first meeting came to me and stated that they were being threatened, and
added that they would not take part in the meeting where the votes would be cast and what
was being carried out went against all the rules. The report and draft resolution were
passed from the Political Committee and were brought to the General Assembly. On 18 July
1987 the European parliament was encircled by Armenians, coming from various locations.
One evening the groups of Armenians who went down town placed up notices at the corner of
every street. The French police took no measures. Very few parliamentarians had
participated in the session. During the Parliament’s session, the French
parliamentarians who ascended a platform that was placed outside, explained what was going
on inside to those demonstrators waiting under the rain. They applauded those who
supported the Armenian thesis and heckled those who did not. The terrorists that seeped
into Parliament threatened certain parliamentarians, for example when German Wedekind had
the floor he disclosed that he had been threatened with a gun, that this was a scandal and
stated that under these conditions this matter could not be dealt with. French
parliamentarian and member of the Socialist Group Miss Pery, who was deliberately chosen
to hold the presidential chair of that session, turned a deaf ear on these developments.
The very same person, during a lunch break, acting in contravention of the rules of the
procedural by-law, and despite all objections, passed a resolution in the General Assembly
where approximately 40 people were present, denouncing the military operation carried out
by Turkey towards the PKK terrorists. To sum up, everything unraveled according to the
scenario construed by the French parliamentarians who were taking directives from the
Armenian diaspora. Almost all of the strict amendments proposed during the session of
General Assembly regarding Vandemeulebroucke report entitled “A Political Solution to
the Armenian Question” and the pertinent draft resolution were adopted and in this
fashion the resolution was accepted by the European Parliament. For me and for those who
are aware of the realities I explained above, this resolution is a shame for the European
Parliament and is of less worth than a piece of dirty tissue paper. Now let me try to
summarize and curtly evaluate the points incorporated in the resolution endorsed by the
European Parliament. This exercise shall help us understand the expectations and stance
against Turkey of those who prepared the draft resolution and of those who made
alterations to it of a stricter nature. As additions were made to the draft resolution
during the General Assembly the final text is of a highly complex nature. The ensuing
analysis deals with the same topic, yet I brought together various articles which do not
succeed one another in the text and added sub-headings.
|
Genocide and
Consequences of Its Recognition
|
The Armenian side regards these events as planned genocide within the meaning of the
1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
The Turkish State rejects the charge of genocide as unfounded.
(In the first text, perceptions of two sides were given separately in these two
paragraphs, thus a balance was provided. With the inclusion of the following
paragraph to the resolution of the European Parliament, it was shown that the events
had been believed to be genocide.)
[European Parliament] believes that the tragic events in 1915-1917 involving the
Armenians living in the territory of the Ottoman Empire constitute genocide within
the meaning of the convention on the prevention and the punishment of the crime of
genocide adopted by the UN General Assembly on 9 December 1948; Recognizes, however,
that the present Turkey cannot be held responsible for the tragedy experienced by
the Armenians of the Ottoman Empire and stresses that neither political nor legal or
material claims against present-day Turkey can be derived from the recognition of
this historical event as an act of genocide. (The expression of “…neither
political nor legal or material claims against present-day Turkey can be derived
from the recognition of this historical event as an act of genocide” implies that
the consequences of recognition is not material. However, the representatives of the
Armenian organizations state that the recognition of genocide would have
consequences regarding compensation and the Turkish governments must be held
responsible for the payment of it. In the meetings that I attended after the
adoption of the resolution, there were parliaments, which tried to attract my
attention that only the verb ‘believe’, instead of ‘recognize’ was used in
the resolution; they claimed that they could succeed to prevent recognition by this
usage.
In my opinion, the European Parliament interpreted the 1948 Convention wrong and
acted contrary to it. Because, only a competent court, not a political body such as
the European Parliament could decide whether there is the crime of genocide. If this
wrong interpretation was to be done by one of the governments, which was a party to
the Convention, other parties to the Convention would have the right to apply to the
International Court of Justice with the legal ground that there was a mistake of
procedure if not substance.)
|
| |
The historically proven Armenian genocide has so far neither been the object of
political condemnation nor received due compensation
(With this paragraph, the concept of genocide, which is a legal concept, is excluded
from the legal framework and put into a historical and political structure. By
stating that the genocide is historically proven, the arguments of some historians
recognizing the 1915-16 events as genocide were accepted as evidence, while opposite
views were simply disregarded. Today the same approach continues. For example, those
scholars who argue that these events can not be accepted as genocide (such as Justin
McCarthy, Bernard Lewis, and Stanford Shaw) are accused of being Turkish agents;
their works are denied; they are not invited to the scientific (!) conferences that
the other side organize; even expression of their views are feared. Moreover the
expression of ‘due compensation’ simply contradicts with the former paragraph
articulating that “…neither political nor legal or material claims against
present-day Turkey can be derived from the recognition of this historical event as
an act of genocide”. Those who demanded compensation tried to be satisfied with
the ‘due compensation’)
The Turkish Government, by refusing to recognize the genocide of 1915, continues to
deprive the Armenian people of the right to their own history.
(With this paragraph Turkey was demanded to take some steps to cure the ‘psychological
crises’ of the Armenians. In the former paragraphs the years ‘1915-1917’ are
stated, whereas here only ‘1915’ is written. The claim of the Armenian Diaspora
that Turkey is responsible for all the problems of Armenians is reflected here as
well. Otherwise it is impossible for a state to deprive another state to read,
understand and evaluate its own history.)
|
| |
The recognition of the Armenian genocide by Turkey must therefore be viewed as a
profoundly humane act of moral rehabilitation towards the Armenians, which can only bring
honor to the Turkish Government
[European Parliament] calls on the Council to obtain from the present Turkish Government
as acknowledgment of the genocide perpetrated against the Armenians in 1915-1917 and
promote the establishment of a political dialogue between Turkey and the representatives
of the Armenians.
(Here again the period of genocide is expressed as the years 1915-1917, thus the massacres
committed by the Armenians much later, particularly during the War of Liberation, is
excluded. However, the Van Massacre of April 1915 is forgotten as well since the blame is
tried to be put on the Russian army, commanded by Armenians who were former deputies of
the Ottoman Parliament. The Council, on the other hand, did not act in accordance with the
EP’s demand and there was no initiative on this issue towards Turkey. The expression of
‘representatives of Armenians’, implies not the Republic of Armenia, which had not
been an independent state at that time, but the Armenian Diaspora. Some of them openly
supported the Armenian terror both financially and morally.)
Armenian Terrorist Activities – Establishment of Jewish-Armenian Connection
[European Parliament] profoundly regrets and condemns the mindless terrorism by groups of
Armenians who were responsible between 1973 and 1986 of several attacks causing death or
injury to innocent victims and deplored by an overwhelming majority of the Armenian
people.
[European Parliament] condemns strongly any violence and any form of terrorism carried out
by isolated groupings unrepresentative of the Armenian people, and calls for
reconciliation between Armenians and Turks.
The obdurate stance of every Turkish Government towards the Armenian question has in no
way helped to reduce the tension.
[European Parliament] calls on the Community Member States to dedicate a day to the memory
of the genocide and crimes against humanity perpetrated in the 20th century, specifically
against the Armenians and Jews.
(These four paragraphs reflect the balance within the European Parliament. In the first of
them, Armenian terrorism is condemned, while this condemnation is somehow moderated with
the expression that these events are individual acts. In the third paragraph, it is
implied that these acts of terror have a reason. The attitude of European televisions,
radios and press right after the Armenian terror was not much different. They perceived
these events as an opportunity to reflect Armenian allegations. Those European
parliamentarians, whom I met, argued that this was a text of compromise and it was aimed
to satisfy the French and the Greek; and they ‘laughed’!)
|
Package
Paragraphs Condemning Turkey
|
The refusal by the present Turkish Government to acknowledge the genocide against
the Armenian people committed by the Young Turk government, its reluctance to apply
the principles of international law to its differences of opinion with Greece, the
maintenance of Turkish occupation forces in Cyprus and the denial of existence of
the Kurdish question, together with the lack of true parliamentary democracy and the
failure to respect individual and collective freedoms, in particular freedom of
religion, in that country are insurmountable obstacles to consideration of the
possibility of Turkey's accession to the Community.
(This paragraph is a package paragraph. The European Parliament filled whatever it
founded about Turkey into this package. Moreover, it reflects the negative attitude
towards Turkish application for membership to the European Communities in April
1987. The interesting thing is that the European Parliament mentions ‘insurmountable
obstacles’.)
Conscious of those past misfortunes, [European Parliament] supports its desire for
the development of a specific identity, the securing of its minority rights and the
unrestricted exercise of its people's human and civil rights as defined in the
European Convention of Human Rights and its five protocols
(This is also a package paragraph in which the‘civilizing’ mission of Europe is
reflected.)
|
| The
Rights of the Non-Muslim Minorities in Turkey and Their Cultural Heritage |
[European Parliament] calls on Turkey in this connection to abide faithfully by the
provisions for the protection of the non-Muslim minorities as stipulated in Articles 37 to
45 of the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne which, moreover, was signed by most Member States of the
Community
(Whenever a report, a draft or a question regarding Turkey came to the agenda of the
European Parliament, anti-Turkish Greek parliamentarians perceived this as an opportunity
to denigrate Turkey. This paragraph was put into the text as a result of the Greek
demands.)
[European Parliament] calls for fair treatment of the Armenian minority in Turkey as
regards their identity, language, religion, culture and school system, and makes an
emphatic plea for improvements in the care of monuments and for the maintenance and
conservation of the Armenian religious architectural heritage in Turkey and invites the
Community to examine how it could make an appropriate contribution
[European Parliament] considers that the protection of monuments and the maintenance and
conservation of the Armenian religious architectural heritage in Turkey must be regarded
as part of a wider policy designed to preserve the cultural heritage of all civilizations
which have developed over the centuries on present-day Turkish territory and, in
particular, that of the Christian minorities that formed part of the Ottoman Empire
[European Parliament] calls therefore on the Community to extend the Association Agreement
with Turkey to the cultural field so that the remains of Christian or other civilizations
such as the ancient classical, Hittite, Ottoman, etc., in that country are preserved and
made generally accessible.
(These three paragraphs are taken from different parts of the resolution. In preparing the
first paragraph, the views of the Armenian community in Turkey was not addressed. This
paragraph only reflects the demands of the Armenian Diaspora. In this respect, the advices
of the representatives of Armenian community in Turkey were disregarded both by the
reporter and the European Parliament. Greek parliamentarians who were discontent of the
reference to the Armenian cultural heritage in Turkey, and other parliamentarians who
supported them, tried to transform the question into a question of Christian heritage by
adding a reference to the whole Christian heritage.)
|
Armenians in Iran and
Soviet Union
|
[European Parliament] condemns the violations of individual freedoms committed in
the Soviet Union against the Armenian population.
[European Parliament] expresses its concern at the difficulties currently being
experienced by the Armenian community in Iran with respect to the Armenian language
and their own education in accordance with the rules of their own religion.
(These paragraphs were included by the demand of the Armenian Diaspora)
|
| Final
Provisions |
[European Parliament] instructs its President to forward this resolution to the
Commission, the European Council, the Foreign Ministers meeting in political
cooperation, the EEC/Turkey Association Council and the Turkish, Iranian and Soviet
Governments and the UN Secretary General
 |
|
Patrick Devedjian is the
"first Armenian
member of the French government,"
according to an Armenian site. (Ironically,
even the Ottoman Empire had Armenians in
government way
earlier.) On the monsieur's
own web page,
we learn that his father, born
in Sivas (Turkey),"had to emigrate to France
because of the Armenian genocide." (His
mom's French.)
|
(European Communities did not take any action
in line with this paragraph. The issue was brought to the agenda of the European
Parliament several times. Political authorities of the Republic of Armenia think
that Turkey could not be a full member of the European Union without recognizing the
Armenian genocide. It is argued that some French Parliamentarians and Patrick
Deveciyan, a French Minister, assured them about that. Within this context French
and German newspapers wrote that during the meeting of French Interior Minister,
Nicholas Sarkosy, and the leader of the German CDU party, Angela Merkel, on the
prevention of Turkish full membership, the Armenian question came to the agenda and
German recognition of the Armenian genocide was in line with this policy.)
|
| Conclusion |
In the resolution adopted on September 2005, European Parliament stated that recognition
of 1915 events as genocide is a precondition for Turkish full membership to the European
Union. Although it is argued that the resolutions of the European Parliament are not
binding, in the final stage, European Parliament will approve Turkish membership and
before that it will bring these resolutions to the agenda. In order to reduce tension,
Turkey should seek an immediate dialogue with the European Parliament. In addition to our
discourse which stipulates that the archives should be opened, the Armenian question
should be left to the historians and a joint commission should be established; Turkey
should explain why 1915 events can not legally be accepted as genocide.
The attitude of the Turkish governments and the majority of the Turkish people are still
perceived by the Europeans as a ‘denial’. However, the legal, psychological and
historical reasons of this attitude can not be explained well. On the other hand, Turkish
media argued that the resolution adopted by the German Parliament recognized Armenian
genocide; while German Parliament especially avoided using the term ‘recognition of
genocide’. Although not approving this resolution, I think that this was a significant
detail, because if the claim of genocide could be drawn out of the equation, it would be
possible that these events would be examined more objectively by those who had developed
an opinion on this matter. At least, they could accept that other interpretations are
possible.
The institution that Turkey could initiate a dialogue with the European Parliament and
other parliaments is the Turkish Grand National Assembly and its EP-Turkey Joint
Parliamentary Commission. Within this framework the following themes should be stressed:
a.. The concept of genocide is a legal concept,
b.. It is impossible to try the suspects of these events, all of whom are not alive,
without their presence and to declare that they committed the crime of genocide,
c.. The elements of the crime of genocide and the authority to decide on this matter is
defined in the 1948 Convention
d.. This Convention should be examined carefully
e.. Those parliaments, which had acted contrary to the Convention, might be referred to
the International Court of Justice.
f.. 1915 events were a tragedy both for Armenians and the Muslim population, and this
reality is undeniable
g.. Necessary precautions should be taken to prevent similar events in the future and
education should be given primacy
h.. However, regarding a subject of international and internal criminal issue, a
government can not be forced to adopt a political decision. This is contrary to the basic
premises of the international law such as equity.
i.. Even if such a decision is adopted, it can not be accepted by the Turkish nation
j.. Regarding ethical and moral responsibility, every individual or group can form an
opinion based on historical data, and they should be free to express this opinion.
k.. One can not expect to erase the memory of a group of people
l.. However, historical data should not be gathered selectively.
m.. It is impossible to force others to accept the established dogmas and insistence on
that matter will create new conflicts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Rtd. Ambassador, Vice-President of UNESCO-Turkey National Commission
[2] Doc. No. 1 782/81
[3] Doc. No. 1-735/83
|
|
