Op-Ed: Breadcrumbs to Nowhere
Commentary — By Guest Author on January 31, 2012 11:00 amBy Lorky Libaridian and Edgar Martirosyan
The recent passage of the French bill criminalizing genocide denial in France has caused massive rejoicing across the Armenian nation both at home and abroad. While the emotional reaction of Armenian communities is understandable given Turkey’s continued state-sponsored decades long revisionist policies, sadly, there is nothing tangible here to rejoice. If anything, the Armenian Nation has yet again become a thankful tool of foreign powers, and while there is an abundance of appreciation towards Sarkozy and France, what exactly do we have to be thankful for?
The law itself is fundamentally flawed insofar as it aims to undermine a most basic tenet of democracy, will likely hamper the issue of Genocide recognition as opposed to facilitating it, and is merely being employed by France to address its own narrow self-serving political ends. On its face, the purpose of the proposed law is to deter and punish those who deny the historical fact of genocides, including the Armenian genocide, and in doing so defend the moral interests and honor of the victims. Sarkozy stated something similar to the latter in his January 20th letter to Erdogan, writing that the intent of the bill is to heal wounds and protect the memories of victims. In short, the law, as its proponents would argue, helps restore “justice.”
But how, exactly, does it do that?
Armenians gather at the French Embassy in Yerevan in appreciation of France's Armenian Genocide bill/ by Tigran Mehrabyan/ © PanARMENIAN
If anything, France’s passage of the genocide denial bill is nothing more than a resounding endorsement of Turkey’s own notorious Penal Code 301. Similar to that code, the French law paints in broad brush strokes and does little to distinguish between a form of denial that has an element of hate speech (which is the intended purpose of EU framework decision 2008/913/JHA), and language that is purely denial without the added quality of hateful or racist sentiments.
Over the past couple of decades there have been an increasing number of meetings and conferences between Armenian and Turkish academics and members of civil society seeking to openly discuss their mutual past. Numerous Turkish scholars now openly accept that massive “atrocities” took place in the waning days of the Ottoman Empire, with a growing number of Turkish intellectuals calling it genocide. Though in its infancy, a movement is now noticeable within Turkey itself towards eventual recognition and reconciliation; this is occurring within a larger democratic movement within the country. Laws dictating what can and cannot be said stifle and run contrary to the basic principles of open forum and thought, and can arguably erode the progress made by Turkish civil society as a whole by causing each side to hold on more tightly to its “truth.” Such a bill has the potential to make denial itself a patriotic, nationalistic act, moving us further away from the discourse which has slowly but surely blossomed.
Sarkozy and France have their own political and socio-economic reasons for passing this bill at this time. Moreover, France’s seemingly gracious and honorable bill will now be used as political clout for years to come when Armenian issues are raised. The favor, as it were, has been called in; France is now considered the great friend of Armenians. It will be harder now than ever to push France in its myriad of councils and unions – from PACE to the EU to the UN which make decisions regarding the Republic of Armenia – to help promote democracy and justice within Armenia, because, well, the favor has already been called in.
But it is these issues – democracy and justice – which are most important to both the Republic of Armenia and the Armenian nation today. What is the effect of such a bill in France, or say even all of the countries of the world, if Armenia is neither safe nor secure? One of the greatest problems facing Armenia’s viability today is the massive emigration it is experiencing due to a myriad of reasons, including political, economic, and social inequalities and upheavals. Of course, France is entirely silent on those issues. Thus, France’s genocide denial bill is nothing more than crumbs thrown to a struggling people. We must stop feeding off such crumbs, and demand our rightful place at the table.
In the end, nothing can bring back the 1.5 million souls that were lost during the Armenian Genocide. What then, does healing entail? Recognition by Turkey, and the world? What would best allow us to honor and memorialize the victims of the Genocide? First, various organizations and countries must stop using these crimes of humanity as mere chess pieces in their own political and economic games. Second, to bring about a world where such atrocities cannot and do not take place, a more ethical, open and responsible world. And finally, to have, in spite of our history and all which comes with it, a free, strong and independent Armenia.
Yet nothing close to any of these will result from the French bill. Instead, those who question and challenge aloud will be deemed criminals. As much as this pains those of us who are descendants of the victims of 1915, we must be able to look beyond that pain and seek justice not by imposing restrictions similar to those forced upon our ancestors 97 years ago, but by making sure such restrictions are never again imposed on others, Turks or otherwise.
Edgar Martirosyan is a practicing Attorney in Los Angeles, California. Edgar received his B.A. in Political Science from UCLA, and his Juris Doctor degree from UCLA School of Law. He is a Fellow with Policy Forum Armenia, and a member of the Board of Directors of ARPA Institute.
Lorky Libaridian is a practicing Physician in San Francisco, California. Lorky received her B.A. at Yale College, majoring in Evolutionary Biology and Behavior, and her M.D. at Yale University School of Medicine. She has worked with various healthcare institutions in Armenia for almost two decades.
Digg This
Bookmark
Stumble
27 Comments
“Though in its infancy, a movement is now noticeable within Turkey itself towards eventual recognition and reconciliation.”
Close down all the advocacy work around the world. The authors have found the solution to decades of Turkish denial and historical revisionism. It only took 97 years, but an infantine movement is budding in Turkey and this should be left alone to grow. As Armenians, we should embrace the democratization of Turkey and hope and pray and wish that perhaps, maybe, somewhere down the road, mayybe if we stay quiet long enough and maybe if we behave ourselves, and if we stay out of Turkey’s taboo topics…just maybe hopefully they’ll realize that a genocide was committed.
Great plan.
Dear Hagop,
Your comments are irresponsible at best, but more likely disingenuous than anything else. I say disingenuous to give you credit. That is, I am assuming your reasoning and analysis skills are far greater than taking a mere factual statement, blowing it out of proportion, then suggesting that the authors recommend “clos[ing] down all advocacy work around the world.” We don’t. Nor do the authors suggest “an infantine movement is budding in Turkey and this should be left alone to grow.” On the contrary, the article suggests that we should not support bills that amount to resounding endorsements of Turkey’s Penal Code, It suggests pursuing justice through principles and ethical action, and not short-sighted expediencies provided by this useless bill. Please don’t attempt to read your disingenuous sentiments into the article… Debate the notions raised therein, not the ones you create (for the sole purpose of undermining) and attribute to us.
I’m having a hard time trying to figure out if the authors are denialists. It seems as if the authors are trying to water down and side step any recognition or validity to the Armenian genocide. Shame on you Lorky and Edgar. It’s as if they want to put a complete stop to achieving justice for the 1.5 million victims. The reason I view it as so is because instead of telling various organizations to continue the fight, they are asking them to put a halt to the pursuit of justice without providing a single bit of advice to how to gain recognition and pursue justice. Lorky and Edgar you will not deter genocide recognition, pursuit of justice and the preservation of truthful history. Keep your defeatist ideals away from our communities.
And Hagop, good luck with the plan of sitting back, and doing nothing while you wait for turkey to admit what they did. You can wait infinite lifetimes, if you don’t act, you won’t achieve justice. Don’t fall into defeatism.
Dear Patriot – Neither Edgar nor I are denialists, and if that is what you got out of the piece, I honestly hope you will read it again. The piece is not at all about the denial or existence of the Genocide, which is not up for debate. The piece is about how best to obtain justice and recognition, or rather, that telling people what they can or cannot say is not the way to get justice or recognition. Limiting what others can say, in fact, can be counterproductive, as in this case. This has nothing to do with defeatism, and everything to do with finding the best way to bring our families and nation the justice and respect they deserve. There is much much more to say here, but perhaps you will reread the piece with some of the above in mind.
Edgar and yourself state, “The law itself is fundamentally flawed insofar as it aims to undermine a most basic tenet of democracy. . . .” why is it that it’s only the Armenian genocide law that would “. . . .undermine a most basic tenet of democracy . . .” ? What about the gayssot act? Is there something about the holocaust that makes it any different than our genocide? I would like to know why it’s ok for Jews to have a similar law in place In France and have no one say “The law itself is fundamentally flawed insofar as it aims to undermine a most basic tenet of democracy. . .” Yet the holocaust has worldwide recognition. This is a contradiction on your part. imagine a world where false history of the Armenian massacres (instead of genocide) is taught and Armenians or anyone that says it was a genocide would be laughed at and discredited. This law would help preserve truthful history and to stop the spread of false history, at least in France. I would like to take back and apologize for my denialist comment. I may not agree with you on some matters but both of you did not deserve to be called denialists.
Patriot, Though using the standard of the Holocaust as a frame of reference is understandable, something many of us often do, I have to point out that the memory of the Holocaust has been abused by opportunistic American politicians and the Israeli state as they justify its crimes against the Palestinians. Frankly, we are not the Israelis. They have just criminalized anyone publicly calling for a boycott on Israeli products, for example. I bring this up because, though denying the preconceived extermination planned by the Ottomans is despicable, criminalizing speech does not constitute activism not is it productive. As Lorky states, it will suffocate Turkish civil society by making it easier for nationalists to paint progressives as “foreign”. Moreover, it’s about time Armenia became the last nation in the region (as far as I recall) to recognize the Palestinian state. Trying to court the Israelis to “recognize” our genocide is not justifiable in light of the humanitarian crisis we are implicitly supporting. We are so much more than victims. It’s time we started acting as such.
This is a painful topic for many of us – I’m glad you were able to see that we are in no way denying Genocide. With regards to the Gayssot act, I agree. Please see my comment further down, in response to Victor, on 2/2/12 at 5:47 am.
Clarifiction – that was in response to Patriot.
At last…I see two people who do agree that the more pressing issue is the very sad fact of the depopulation of Armenia and the urgent requisite of an independent and free Republic.
I still do not understand why we as Armenians need a French (or other) Government to decide for us. And still cannot comprehend why the RA erected the statue of Rodin in the center of Mashdots Ave in the RA?
We as Armenians need to believe in ourselves…We need to do that before it is too late!
Finally we hear the voice of reason! Unfortunately, inArmenian reality, patriotism has been equaled to being unreasonable in recent years. If you see, notice and talk about real problems, you are almost a traitor. Thanks, guys!
It’s funny how so many liberal Armenians try to be politically correct when facing the genocide issue, or any other Armenian issues. I don’t think anyone understands what the roots of politics are. You need to cheat and lie to get things done. It’s not about doing what is considered to be ethically correct. Look at Israel, a country that just keeps on spitting in the face of Palestinians, and getting away with it. They should be the first country to accept the Genocide, but hey we need to be really nice to them and perhaps one day if we’re good boys and girls they will recognize the Genocide. Whenever the Genocide issues comes up, I’m always reminded by what Albert Einstein said, “Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” If it hasn’t worked this long, shouldn’t we be using a different approach? Shouldn’t we be bullying a bully? Think about it….
I meant to write,”Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
I really hate this web site and I don’t know why google keeps on showing it when I search for keywords. What P.O.S. article. If you are so devout in allowing racism and history revisionism to occur in the name of free speech, where were you when denying the holocaust became a crime in various countries including France? I don’t recalling reading that in this article. You would think that should be mentioned, but no.
It’s no secret that there are Armenian professionals here in the US, including professors, that work for in the interests of Turkey. There were traitors at the time of the massacres and there are still traitors out there today. You’re a disgrace.
Same ruckus by the Armenian Community [unfortunately] when someone points out uncomfortable truths.
Great Article Lorky & Edgar.
It’s hard not to speak from a position of pain, anger, and emotional anxiety when you, yourself, are a byproduct of genocide.
But trampling freedom of speech (denialist or not) is not the way to open to the valves of communication, exchange, and reconciliation.
Playing the devil’s advocate, who is government to tell you what to accept or what to deny? (whether it is the holocaust, genocide, or the mere notion that the earth is round)
Indeed, the largest problems facing the Republic of Armenia today are not genocide-related. Armenia is a land-locked country and our economic prosperity is directly linked with blossoming trade with neighbors.
Shant – Thank you for your comments.
Garo – This is not a matter of trying to be liberal, or not. You mention being “ethically correct.” Trying to ‘remedy’ a matter or get justice for something such as Genocide which is very ethically incorrect by doing something ethically incorrect is problematic. Bullying a bully is not necessarily the right path. The even greater point here, I think, that you raise is your phrase “get things done.” What exactly IS it you think we should try to get done? What is Justice in this case?
If you (me, anyone) HAD to choose (just for discussion’s sake), would you choose recognition by the Turkish government, with every Turk thinking the recognition was just political and personally denying Genocide OR would you choose denial by the Turkish government, but every Turk acknowledging that Genocide had occurred, and knowing that government denial was just a political issue?
@Lorky,
Bullying a bully is the right path. That’s how most things get done in society nowadays. What is it exactly that should get done? I think it’s obvious that we all want recognition and respect for the most part. I’m just sick of seeing the same tactics used over and over again and not getting done. If we haven’t succeeded this long by the approach of being “ethically correct”, shouldn’t we try at least something different?
I would love for you and your co-author to go and read the 8 stages of genocide. In particular, read the 8th step which speaks about denial. I’m flabbergasted by individuals who speak about freedom of speech when it relates to the Armenian Genocide. For “discussion sake”, lets make a hypothetical comparison. Imagine if someone killed your child, mother, father or sibling, got away with it, bragged about it, and took your house along the way. The killer and his family parade around town bragging about what they’ve done. And hey, they have the right to brag because of freedom of speech.
The fact of the matter is it was Genocide. The genocide committed by the Ottoman Empire were and are still very well documented. By allowing freedom of speech on this issue, you are committing the 8th step of Genocide.
Look what happened to Hrant Dink, who was actually for freedom of speech. He got shot execution style, the killer was portrayed as a hero by Turkish officials, and after 5 years of hard evidence against 20 Turkish government official, the we all acquitted. Wait, did the atrocities of 1915 just continue to the modern day and age in the case of Hrant Dink? I think it did, because we all know very damn well that 1915 and Hrant Dink’s murdered were linked.
The logic used to silence Hrant Dink, is not dissimilar to the logic of silencing denialists. As heinous and incomprehensible and horrific the act of Dink’s murder was/is, those who did it wanted to silence him because they did not like what he had to say. They believed they were right to the core. Now obviously, what they believed they were right about is fundamentally different than knowing the Genocide happened, but what I’m questioning is whether silencing another because we do not like their opinion is the correct method of solving the problem… And whether it should be law, in fact, that makes it legal or illegal to voice such an opinion – as is pointed it out in the article, with regards to Turkey’s Penal Code 301, for example, and its application against Orhan Pamuk for stating there was murder of 1million Armenians.
With regards to the 8 stages of Genocide, if you think we are denying Genocide, or condoning the denial, then you have misunderstood the article. Please read it again, as well as some of the evolving comments which may be helpful.
I want respect, too. In fact, that is EXACTLY what I want (but not all). And I do NOT think we get it by going around and basically begging other countries to pass a bit of legislation here and there, and being happy about breadcrumbs. In doing so, we act like poor little Armenians, the little beggar child with palm in the air, pulling on their coat tails… they say the word Genocide, and suddenly we’re grateful – ‘thank you sir, you’re so wonderful sir.’ Are you following what’s happening now in France? Do you think Sarkozy or most of these other countries recognize Genocide out of the goodness of their hearts, or are we just pawns, selling ourselves for recognition, getting the short end of the deal? Is that respect? Is that even self-respect?
Lorky,
We can go back and forth about this for months. The point that I’m trying make is that this has nothing to do with freedom of speech. To me, this has to do with human rights. You might say that freedom of speech and human rights go hand in hand, but not when ignorance plays a big factor. As I stated before, you need a different approach to the Genocide issue. France’s law to penalize a person denying the Genocide is a monumental step in showing Turkey and Turks around the world that two can play at their game. How many examples do you want me to bring up about their tactics to get the world to deny genocide? Should we talk about what occurred in the Ohio elections of Krikorian vs Schmidt? Should I bring up the comments recently released by Condoleezza Rice? Or maybe we should rewind to the past 25 years of how we’ve been lied to by every president. There is a saying that I’m sure you’ve heard by every Armenian mother, “Meenchev toon ko mashky vra chuskaz…”
Turkey has made us look like the, “poor little Armenians, the little beggar child with palm in the air, pulling on their coat tails… they say the word Genocide, and suddenly we’re grateful – ‘thank you sir, you’re so wonderful sir.’” for decades. France’s law is the exact opposite of what you yourself stated. This is a country with a substantial amount of Armenians flipping Turkey the bird. Saying enough is enough, we will treat you the way that we’ve been treated for almost a century.
As far as the 8th step goes, I never said you are denying anything. What I was trying to reference is that there is still Genocide taking place because of the 8th step. Once again, peoples ignorance should not be mistaken for freedom of speech, especially in the case of denying a genocide. The 8th step of genocide has opened doors to what’s happening in Rwanda, Darfur, and Hrant Dink.
Garo, Turkey may have created orphans, but we have created and maintained a victim mentality. Sure, Turkey got flipped the bird, for some moments by Armenians in France… but there is significant question as to whether this bill will ever truly become law. Why? Because it is a tool for France, not an ethical question, not a question of human rights or humanity. And sometimes, maybe, thats useful. But when horrific human atrocities become tools and playthings of countries, that is only further degradation – and we are putting ourselves in that position when we beg for those breadcrumbs.
Victor – You raise an important point (or what I think it is, amidst your initial and final hate soaked sentences). Laws criminalizing denial of Holocaust are very relevant in this case. I have the same general feeling about The Gayssot Act. That is, denial can exist without racism, and criminalizing denial is an act against freedom of speech. We considered adding more with regards to the EU Framework Decision, which is supposedly a basis for this Armenian Genocide bill, and more on arguments regarding parallels with the Gayssot Act. However, we decided against it in the end for numerous reasons, ranking very high among them the desire to keep the piece short and concise.
But, since you are interested, I’ll mention that I ran into a number of interesting articles for and against the act – for starters, I’ve put just two of the pieces below (they’re both online). And as to why I don’t write on every topic I have an opinion on is related to time limitations and the resultant need to prioritize in life that I believe we all have. If you have found the key to adding more hours in the day, or living multiple lives at once, and are thus able to do everything you imagine, please do share.
Making “Holocaust Denial” A Crime: Reflections On European Anti-Negationist Laws From The Perspective Of U.S. Constitutional Experience by Peter R. Teachout, Vermont Law Review 2006
Combating Holocaust denial through law in the United Kingdom, 2000, Institute for Jewish Policy Research Report
I, too, strongly disagree with the authors of this article. I think that their claim is short-sighted and simplistic. It refuses to see the broader and complex picture. For one thing, Lorky and Edgar seem not to understand that the vote in the French parliament was not a mere political game, although it may also be that, but that it was due to the hard work and devotion of the French-Armenian community and the understanding of the people(s) of France. Even if the law was political, it still upholds the memory of the dead, which, regardless of the utilitarian implications, is something that I welcome psychologically and culturally, especially when confronted with A CENTURY OF STUBBORN ORGANIZED DENIAL from the very organization (the Turkish state) that committed the genocide. Here, in the face of such outrageous organized denial, there can not be any talk about the costs of restricting freedom of speech, since, given the international context of the problem, the law in France can only address individuals and groups of them that organize in denial there.
Once again, I listened to what the authors of this article try to say and couldn’t agree with them.
Of all the criticism leveled above, not a single one, particularly those with stunted intellectual prowess who can’t help but resort to insults, provide one counter argument as to what tangible benefits we stand to gain as a Nation and State. I would argue that name calling should be beneath you, but unfortunately I know better.
Garo is the only one who argues that the passage of this law is “just” insofar as it resorts to tit-for-tat diplomacy with Turkey, something we’ve failed at for some time. I respectfully disagree, but respect his criticism insofar as Garo identifies his particular disagreement with our article, and advances his own hypothesis.
As for Karo’s point, I simply disagree with his sentiment that the law upholds the memory of the dead (given the context of the law, I don’t think it does; if anything, I think it trivializes the memory of the dead by using it as bait to further France’s national interests and insecurities). Nor do I think there is any real psychological or cultural gain to be had by a law that compromises much more than it gives. Again, the argument isn’t about just freedom of expression, but the very freedom of expression our ancestors were denied (given their treatment as second class citizens preceding the genocide). That is, I genuinely believe we honor the memory of our ancestors far more by taking a principled stance against fostering the type of restrictive environment they were subjected to, then by attempting to mete out justice by supporting stronger (than ours) states willing to do the same.
Let me start by saying that I disagree with the conclusions reached in the article (as I will detail below). That said, I know Lorky and Edgar personally, and neither is a denialist or a defeatist. Let’s not throw around those terms when what we have is a difference of opinion on approach (Victor, I am particularly talking to you).
My disagreement with the article is based on two things. First, speaking of freedom of speech is wholly immaterial when discussing France and other European socialist countries. Socialist states have all sorts of speech codes, genocide denial laws being only one. It really is silly to argue about speech codes in France or Europe when they are the norm. If we were talking about the same in the US, I’d understand and agree with your point. In this case though, we are not. I also disagree that this will be used by France to screw us on more important points. The fact is that the French are deadset against Turkey joining the EU. I have no problem with them using our issues to our benefit to advance their cause. That’s realpolitik, your enemy’s enemy is sometimes your friend.
My second issue is that the Turks use these types of well-intentioned articles against us. I remember this clearly a few years back when the Turkey media was rife with reprints of Garin Hovanissian’s article arguing basically the same. While I appreciate the need for academic debate, something this article does, I think we do ourselves a disservice by strenuously arguing against the hard work of our community (in this case the French Armenians). Genocide recognition is far from an end, it is merely a means. It is a means to a much greater objective, not Turkish recognition, but rather reparations, both in terms of land and money. Let us not forget that Israel would likely not have survived were it not for the reparations paid to it by the Germans. The parallel with a fledgling Armenia are too hard to ignore. Turkish reparations must include access to water which is crucial for the survival of our state. For this reason, the genocide issue is not just one of justice, but also one of security for Armenia.
You bring up some really important points, Armen. In my readings, I came across the differences that you mention in legal norms in Europe vs the U.S. frequently, at least in regards to the concept of freedom of speech and laws such as this one. I can’t comment on the legality of it in the French legal framework, though apparently many in the Senate in France are currently. I, however, am commenting on what I think are the ethical and practical aspects of it. I do admit freely, however, that having grown up in the US, and not France, I clearly am coming from a biased perspective.
With regards to your second point, I understand your concern. I personally think, however, that open discourse and education, while painful for many of us, will result in a more satisfying and just outcome. There are always have been, are, and will be those who twist words around to serve their own ends, but I still believe open discourse, understanding, and free thought, is a better path. The issue of linking recognition to reparations is a very complex one, and at the core of many differences in approach to this issue, and is a lifetime of a discussion in and of itself… one I don’t think we can tackle in the comments section, unfortunately. I, too, would like a strong and secure Armenia, but I disagree that access to water is what is necessary and what we should focus our efforts on. I applaud the hard work of the Armenian community in France, but cannot help but then imagine what they, and all of us, could do, if we directed our efforts towards a strong, secure, and independent Armenia, directly, and not indirectly by criminalizing free speech, attempting to force recognition linked to reparation, which would then hypothetically extend the land (to water), boost the finances of Armenia, and then lead to a secure Armenia. That is not to say that we should abandon efforts at genocide recognition, quite the contrary. But a strong, secure Armenia now will only help the cause of recognition further.
Please read the following article by Violen Grigorian on the question of ‘freedom speech’ being restricted by this recent French law:
http://www.ejournal.am/news/society/2012-01-31/601/
And finally, dear Lorky, even you at the end of your response to Armen’s comment, mention recognition of the Armenian Genocide. But we are at the recognition and events can develop simultaneously, strong Armenian, sure, regardless, even if there was no Genocide, lets say we were Georgians, next door neighbors, we still would like to have a strong country, and that claim of directly aiding Armenian instead of sort of ‘wasting time’ here in the diaspora contains a hidden either an accusation against Armenians, which is not quite justified, or a hidden self-hatred for being in the ‘diaspora,’ (or rather both) whose boundaries are porous nowadays as they have never been before.
Good try. Greetings to sunny California!
Hajoghutyun
Karo, thank you for posting the link. It looks quite interesting, and I look forward to reading it.
With regards to ‘wasting time,’ my intention was not to be accusatory, nor do I harbor any self-hatred. What you are sensing, perhaps, is my very strong feeling that the Republic of Armenia should be the priority and center of the Armenian nation.
Trackbacks