Hurriyet Daily News, Turkey
Jan 14 2012
Turk businessman: Boycotting France wrong, unsustainable
By Barçın Yinanç
ISTANBUL – Hürriyet Daily News
Economic sanctions against France would be detrimental to both sides
even though France would stand to lose more, the head of
Turkish-French Business Council, Yılmaz Argüden, says as Ankara warns
Paris of economic consequences if a motion criminalizing the denial of
the 1915 events as genocide passes the Senate
Turkey should not shoot itself in the foot in reacting to France as
the country’s Senate prepares to vote on a motion criminalizing the
denial of Armenian genocide claims on Jan. 23, according to a Turkish
businessman.
Both Turkey and France will suffer in the event of an economic
boycott, said Yılmaz Argüden, the head of the Turkish-French Business
Council at the Foreign Economic Relations Board of Turkey (DEÄ°K).
There are several French businessmen genuinely working to prevent the
adoption of the bill, yet Turkey needs a more organized and
sustainable approach to fight Armenians’ claims of genocide, he told
the Hürriyet Daily News in a recent interview.
What will happen on Jan. 23 in the French Senate?
There is a possibility that [the genocide motion] could pass, and the
fact that French President Nicolas Sarkozy is putting so much effort
behind it strengthens this possibility.
What can be done about it now?
Unfortunately, we started acting at the last minute. From this point
on, what could be done is that Sarkozy should be told by those whom he
might listen to that what he is doing is not right; and these [people]
are not Turks.
Who are they?
Other powers in the world.
Would Sarkozy listen to them?
Everyone has somebody to listen to. Would this be enough? No, but I
think it might be helpful. Another thing to do is to raise the
awareness in France about the subject. We need to have our arguments
heard by larger segments of French society. Of course, from this point
on, nothing is easy. Our approach to the Armenian issue is very
passive. It’s been like this for many years. This is an issue that we
don’t even have in the curriculum. I only became familiar with this
issue when I went abroad. The Armenians, on the other hand, have been
very consistent.
French businessmen are working against the bill. This also depends on
the potential for a positive outcome. Their efforts might weaken when
they see a decided Sarkozy.
So you think we should include it in the curriculum?
Of course, societies can only endorse and defend all the positive and
negative arguments that they are reproached with when they have deeper
knowledge about them.
We don’t even discuss it in Turkey, we say, `Let’s leave it to the historians.’
Yes but we should not sit and wait for the historians. If there are
20,000 books defending the Armenian arguments but not even 200 books
about the Turkish arguments, this shows that we are not working. If we
are opening the archives, we need to get the historians to come and
work; it’s not enough to say `go and work.’ We need to encourage and
allocate resources. But we also need to be honest. Sad events have
taken place. I don’t think it is appropriate to mention what the
French have done in Algeria. The fact that the French have done bad
things in Algeria does not vindicate the Turks. In fact, if you
mention this argument, this means an implicit acceptance of what you
are being accused of.
If we are really confident about our arguments, about our archives, we
have the responsibility to work on those archives and explain our
arguments to world opinion in a way that they can understand. This
responsibility does not belong to others: it’s not enough to say that
if you have accusations, then come and look at our archives.
In this respect, you probably don’t think that the Turkish campaign on
France has been effective so far.
I am not sure it has created a positive effect. We acted too late.
Plus, we get reactive very fast but we cool down with the same speed.
We don’t have a sustainable effort. When we don’t have enough
information, we give different type of reactions. What we need to say
is that, yes, there were sad events, that a lot of people lost their
lives, but that this cannot be identified as genocide.
But even if you give this more-balanced message, it falls on deaf
ears. There is a widespread and strong belief in global public opinion
that there was an Armenian genocide.
This is because we have been late. What breaks the stone is the
continuous flow of water. The Armenians have been working for the past
90 years, whereas we talk about it when the issue comes to the agenda
and then forget about it.
What is your view on the government intention to implement economic sanctions?
We should not forget that initiatives to block trade are detrimental
to both societies. But especially at this time around, France stands
to lose more than Turkey. There is an incredible competition in the
world and all countries are looking for markets. It is obvious that
the French economy will have problems in the near future. Turkey has
alternatives.
Turkey’s alternatives as trade partners are diminishing as well with
the Arab Spring.
A: This is why I say both sides will suffer. And I don’t think this is
sustainable. As a society, we are very quick-tempered and then, in
time, this temper cools down. But this time it could be different.
There are several infrastructure projects in Turkey. And these
long-term projects are decided by states. Naturally, the tendency of a
state to enter into a long-term project with a state that is hostile
will be weaker. But at the end of the day, we as the Turkish-French
Business Council want to increase business. I see business as an area
where people get to know each other more. Instead of turning inward as
a reaction, if we are confident of our arguments, then we should
explain these arguments with stronger means of communication.
Yes but in the short term, the Turkish government is looking for ways
to hurt France.
I don’t think it is right to say I am boycotting France as a reaction.
But for many Turkish decision-makers, Sarkozy’s attitude is an element
that affects their decision; whether we like it or not, it has already
started hurting bilateral trade. If there are alternatives,
preferences slide to the alternatives.
Whenever there are problems with France, all eyes turn to economic sector.
This is one of the means of pressure, but we know that politicians
don’t change their stance just because businessmen want it. This is a
tool that can be used, but we can’t rely on that tool alone.
Q: Are French businessmen with economic ties to Turkey working enough
to prevent the adoption of the bill?
There are representatives of the French business community that are
showing a genuine effort. But this also depends on the potential of a
successful outcome. If they see an incredible resoluteness from
Sarkozy, then their efforts could remain at 80 percent rather than 100
percent. But we know that there are many French businessmen that are
genuinely dedicated and expending efforts.
Some say we should not give such a strong reaction, as that only makes
the Armenians happier.
We need to react but not through blackmail. In the interdependent
world that we are living in today, there should not be a policy of
hurting the other side. Trying to hurt the other side can hurt you and
become very exhausting; the reaction should not [make] us shoot
ourselves in the foot. It should be through law, information and
communication.
Europe suffers from the shortsightedness of its leaders. Europe has
not faced the truth that it has an unsustainable system. There is no
awareness that Europeans need to change. Leaders just think with the
perspective of the next elections; they have difficulty dealing with
long-term problems, so instead of leading their societies in the right
direction, they look out for short-term scapegoats. This analysis is
true for France as well.
Empires start falling once they start clashing with their own values:
What France should be alarmed with is not the Turkish boycott, but
that it itself is taking a decision based on short-term ethnic
politics at the expense of a sacred value like freedom of expression.
France should be alarmed that it could accept a restriction on freedom
of expression. One of the keys to governance [the title of Argüden’s
book] is consistency. France fails to meet these criteria. We need to
underline that point.
The restrictions on freedom of expression in Turkey make it difficult
to criticize France. Don’t we need to be consistent as well?
Of course. I’m not saying that we are wonderful, but the French are
bad. I believe consistency and freedom of expression should be
[practiced] everywhere. But for those who think we can’t criticize
France on freedom of expression, I’ll recall the mistake of using the
Algerian case. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
WHO IS YILMAZ ARGÃ`DEN?
Yılmaz Argüden is the chairman of ARGE, an Istanbul-based strategy
consultant. He is also the chairman of Rothschild Turkey. His career
spans the private sector, public sector, multinational institutions,
NGO’S and academia.
A graduate of Bosphorus University, Argüden received his Ph.D. in
policy analysis from the RAND Graduate Institute. He worked in the
World Bank. Upon the Turkish government’s invitation, he returned
home, where he helped lead a privatization program. In 1991, he served
as the chief economic adviser to the prime minister. He has served on
the boards of more than 50 institutions. He is the author of several
books, including `Keys to Governance,’ and `Boardroom Secrets,’ both
in English.
January/14/2012
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turk-businessman-boycotting-france-wrong-unsustainable.aspx?pageID=238&nID=11423&NewsCatID=338