PULSE of TURKEY No11.................. WEDNESDAY,JUNE 3^rd 1998

CONFUSION IN TURKISH-FRENCH RELATIONS

French National Assembly “recognizes Armenian genocide”. What is the significance of “unanimity”? Turkey reacts promptly and resolutely. Who will be the loser of irrational move?

One of the basic rules in conventional journalism is that an article or a dispatch should answer in the first paragraph some simple questions such as “what”, “when”, “where”, “how”, “why”, and “who”.

Recent developments in Turkish-French relations over an unexpected Armenian bill have been so confusing that it is rather difficult to provide answers to these questions in such an article, much less in the first paragraph.

Above all, take the question “what”. “What happened?”. The French National Assembly recently took some steps to “officially recognize the Armenian genocide.” As for the exact nature of these steps – was it a decision, consensus, motion, declaration or a draft bill, confusion begins when an answer is sought. According to the Turkish press and Foreign Minister İsmail Cem, it is a draft bill moved by two socialist MPs that will become a binding law in France if the Upper House, Senate, also passes it and if President Chirac signs it into a law.

However, the French Ambassador to Turkey, Daniel Lequertier, says in a letter to the mass circulation daily “Hürriyet” (May 31^st), “As you know, for this decision to be enacted it has to be adopted by the Senate too and this is a remote probability.”

This remark evokes the questions “why” and “how”. The answer of theTurkish press to the question “how” is “unanimous”. The decision or whatever it was, was unanimously taken by the National Assembly floor. Such decisions are usually called a “consensus” or “declaration” and are not binding resolutions. Neither do they require voting. Dissidents usually keep quiet and let such decisions pass without much fuss, fully aware of the fact that they are of no practical value. This is the case especially at international conventions and gatherings. At the Islamic Conference Organisation Turkey frequently keeps quiet about these unanimously passed consensus recommendations, even though most of them go totally against Turkey’s Constitution and the basic principles of its foreign policy.

The unanimity in the French Parliament gives the impression that it was a consensus, rather than a draft bill. The fact that there were only 30 MPs present at the session and that the quorum was absent also confirms it. In fact, Ambassador Lequertier says, “Even though the decision of the National Assembly may disturb the Turkish people, it is only symbolic and has no legal consequences.” He also expressly says that the decision is not binding on the government.

About “why such a resolution” and “why unanimously”, the Turkish press and people blame the French politicians’ cashing in on Armenian votes. The Ambassador says, however, “The French government does not support this bill, but as a requirement of the principle of separation of powers it has done nothing else but invite the Members of Parliament to common sense.” The Ambassador’s statement does not explain why the French Government did not act with “common sense” by voting against it, even though it may not be able to obtain the necessary majority to reject it, as frequently happens to Turkey’s minority government in Parliament these days. It was probably for the same reason as Turkey acts in the Islamic Conference Organisation, to pass it off quietly, rather than create consciousness of it by exchanging arguments.

Ambassador Lequertier stresses that far from naming the Turkish Republic, “which would be nonsensical anyway”, the decision does not even mention the Ottoman Empire by name. “Our government would not allow this motion, which aims at commemorating the historic pain of French citizens of Armenian descent, to turn into an anti-Turkish movement,” he affirms. He expresses condolences for the Turkish diplomats who were victims of Armenian attacks in the 1980s and confirms that France has always been against terrorism.

Turkey’s strong reaction to France 

Turkey’s answer to the French move was prompt, almost unanimous and maybe hectic.

FM İsmail Cem announced in Luxembourg on May 29^th that this move by the French National Assembly was “extremely dangerous and perturbing”. It would “encourage terror and hearten terrorists who have already claimed the lives of 34 Turkish diplomats” .This “racialist” move would undermine Turkish-French relations and endanger Turkish diplomats’ lives in France, he said. Turkey officially demanded that France protect the Turkish diplomats more carefully against attempts on their lives, after this move. “I hope the French Senate will act with common sense and halt this erroneous development,” he said.

In a televised interview on NTV Ismail Cem blamed the new extremist government of Armenia, the Kocharian administration, for being instrumental in this development. He noted that Robert Kocharian had close relations with the Armenian diaspora, especially in the USA and France. “It legalised the Tashnak Party which aims at attaining its goals through terrorism,” he said of the new Armenian administration.

“What concerns us about this move is that it may encourage terror against Turkey. We have been through this in the past. We do not want to live through it again”

The security mechanisms established against ASALA terrorism in the late 70s and throughout the 80s have been reactivated in France by Turkish diplomatic missions. The French police have also been put on the alert.

In other words, France has now undertaken the responsibility for safeguarding the lives of Turkish diplomats, especially in that country, because whoever was behind this erroneous move is now being frustrated in his ambition of making Turkey and France fall out, assuming that the Senate is not going to pass the bill. Will that force not resort to terrorism against Turkish diplomats to complete unfinished work? Ankara has already squarely warned Paris about the possibility of such a disasterous development. What would happen to Turkish-French relations if this ever happened? Furthermore, Ankara is blaming the new Armenian Administration for these developments, as Foreign Minister Cem has said in so many words.

Who will be the real victim of this unpalatable development?

Turkey is now considering measures against Armenia and may well close the air corridor that was allowed with American and Western initiatives, after the eradication of ASALA terrorism. Considering that this air corridor is the windpipe of Armenia, a small, landlocked country, it is obvious how effective such a move would be for this underdeveloped nation.

A former Foreign Minister and DSP deputy, Prof Mümtaz Soysal, says that the Armenians who live in Turkey and the Armenian diaspora throughout the world are alright. They will not suffer from President Kocharian’s antic-Turkish hard line, but the Armenians in Armenia will and it will be a pity.

“The Armenians living in this country are, as were those who lived in the Ottoman lands, loyal and valuable citizens of the Turkish Republic, with their hard work, affiinity for fine arts and crafts and their unforgettable contributions to the common culture of Anatolia. They have no cause to worry over