JAFARLI MAMED: ANOTHER VIEWPOINT ON THE FRENCH PROJECT OF “ARMENIAN GENOCIDE”
APA
Feb 3 2012
Azerbaijan
“The toughest tyranny is the one that hides under the shadow of law
and justice”
Charles-Louis de Secondat Montesquieu
On December 22 the lower house of the French Parliament passed the bill
to criminalize any public denial of genocide approved by the country’s
legislation. The French Senate voted to pass the bill, later approved
by the president, to condemn any denial of the so called “deliberate
Armenian genocide” and to punish by a year imprisonment and a fine
of 45.000 euros, said historian Jafarli Mamed in his article.
I would like to share with my readers some of my viewpoints on
the bill, which, I reckon, contradicts the historical past and the
intellectual heritage of France.
Right and Freedom.
The legislation approved by the French National Assembly to condemn
the denial of “Armenian genocide” of 1915, violates the norms and
principles of International law, related to human rights, particularly,
to the core principle like Freedom of Speech and Expression.
Furthermore, the given principle constitutes the fundamental basis
of all the bills on the issue of human rights. Moreover, for the
1st time the principle was highlighted in articles 10 and 11 of the
“Declaration of people’s and citizens’ rights” dated to 1789 and
adopted namely by France. The articles highlight that “Freedom of
Expression is one of the most valuable human rights; as every human
is free to express, write and publish”, “no one ought to be condemned
for his viewpoints”. The most upsetting and surprising fact is that
France which is considered to be the cradle of democracy due to the
given Declaration, approved the legislation criminalizing the denial of
“Armenian genocide” and thus putting Freedom of Expression at stake.
Freedom of Expression is also reflected in basic human rights bills
of current period, including the preamble of Universal Declaration on
human rights (UNO, 1948), in articles 19 and 20 of International pact
on civil and political rights dated to 1966. In article 10 of European
Convention on human rights protection, which is also considered as the
constitution of European States on human rights issues, it is noted
that every human is free to express his standpoint. This right provides
the freedom to self express, get and disseminate information and
ideas without any interference on part of the government authorities
and irrespective of state borders.
In this respect the decision adopted by the lower house of French
Parliament being juridically groundless is opposed to International
bill on human rights. Thus, the groundless allegation of “genocide”
by Armenians was reflected neither in international law nor in
historical factors. To declare judgement on a serious allegation of
crime such as “genocide” it is vital to be based on the historical
and scientific data.
To investigate the historical source of these allegations Turkish
Republic has been trying to organize joint commission by attracting
historians in order to study the archives of Ottoman Empire. But
Armenia not believing in false genocide on the one hand and “genocide
historians” acting as “diaspora ideologists” in different countries
of the world on the other hand, try to prevent the realization of
the project in every way possible.
It is mandatory to note that the first accusation in committing
killings and crimes against humankind was put forward in the process
of Nuremberg judgment accusing people who took part in massacre of
the Jewish during World War II.
It was on the basis of resolution approved by International Nuremberg
judgment that those crimes were recognized as genocide and some
countries were criminalized for denying the genocide, the same standard
applied to Holocaust denial in France dated to 1960.
However, referring to the historical events of 1915, there is no
international bill supporting the so called “Armenian genocide”.
Furthermore, Armenian party is reluctant to all the incentives to
determine the facts reflecting the given historical events.
The bill passed by the French National Assembly slows down the
investigation process in this field and violates the principles of
international law and justice. Due to the bill, people with opposite
viewpoints or different approach on the issue of “Armenian genocide”,
including the scientific research activity, even initiatives are to
become the targets of French legislation.
Moreover, the above-mentioned bill may trigger dangerous results in
other countries threatening Freedom of Speech and Expression, because
every country for the sake of private interest, using definite events
for political purposes, will recognize these acts as genocide and will
establish the subjective legislative foundation for criminalization
of their denial.
Moral Right
Sensibility of French people, their high intellectual level, and their
role in the history of mankind are undeniable. But one should agree
that the common attitude toward the people of the country is not as
easy as it may seem.
Having been formed for centuries, the relations are mainly based on
imperialistic and arrogant expression of their caprice in the period
of the development of French State. France is a country with imperial
and colonial history. The ambiguous attitude towards the past of these
countries and their people is clear and explicable. Nevertheless,
the imperial past of France, which marked the history with certain
“rights basis”, doesn’t give France the moral right to judge other
nations and declare a judgment on a serious allegation of crime such as
“genocide”. The imperial position of French State was shown towards
the neighboring states within and beyond Europe. For instance, at
present France together with Germany is trying to save European Union
from financial crisis. But during World War II France “revenged”
severely the German people. According to testimonial evidence at
USA Senate dated to July 17, 1945 when French troops occupied the
German city Stuttgart, they drove German women into the underground
construction and raped more than 2000 of them. The number of women
raped in Stuttgart within a week was greater than the number of French
women raped by German militants within four years.
Furthermore, it is common knowledge that France has colonial ambitions
in Algeria, taking into account the fact that France has the status
of permanent member of UN Security Council, established after World
War II to prevent the similar tragedies and secure peace and safety
in the world. In post war period from 1954 up to 1962 in the course
of Liberty Movement in Algeria, during “colonial intervention” French
militants massacred more than a million of Algerians.
A new imperialistic attitude of France not capable of getting rid
of the ideology “divide and conquer” emerged in the 90s of the last
century in Ruanda. “Peace intervention” of French Army into the country
to prevent mass massacre caused the deaths of millions of people. Due
to testimonial evidence French “peacemakers” took an active part in
inciting hostility between the parties of the conflict and supplying
them with weapons.
By citing these facts we have no intention of accusing today’s France
for crimes committed by previous generations. France should review
its history before approving the similar bill and recognizing the so
called “genocide” without having any historical or legal background.
In this respect I would like to cite a passage from the article adopted
by the National Assembly of France on the last bill published in the
newspaper of Armenian lobby in Turkey AGOS issued on December 23,
2011. “The present bill targeting at preserving the historical truth
and not allowing the repetition of the genocide in the future is
aimed at the providing of justice and human rights. However, in this
reduction one of the democratic principles which sounds as “all that
is not solved is to be banned” damages the Freedom of Expression. The
real democratic culture doesn’t blame any opinion. On the other hand
it develops only in the way of exchange of opinions.
If France is really going to put an end to the denials of the events
taking place in 1915, it ought to distinguish discrimination and
critics on part of Armenian people and their claims for Freedom of
Expression. And this cannot be reached by people’s punishment. If
France is eager to make its contribution into the fair dissemination
of information primarily it should unveil the attitude of France to
Ottoman territories at the beginning of XX century.
Christianity and Great French Revolution
German philosopher Hegel assumed Great French Revolution as the
incarnation of the idea of free honest society shown in Christianity,
great thinker’s idea could be considered from two perspectives –
Christian religion and Great French Revolution.
According to Hegel” the idea of freedom “reached its perfect state
exactly in Christianity, as this religion first became phenomenon in
providing universal equality in the presence of God on the bases of
spiritual choice and beliefs. Mentioning Christianity in this article
deliberately makes France, the society in which religious values are
too strong, the object of our consideration.
I assume that French parliamentarians prohibiting people to express
their opinion freely do not have the concept of religious requirements
of the religion they possess. In fact, the small benefits they
expected to derive deprived their consideration with the perspective
of sacramental and universal values.
The level of personality is the result of his/her activities. I
think the readers will not blame me in enmity in case I state that 38
members of the French National Assembly could not pass “the probation
of personality” in the presence of their electorate, but also religion
they possess.
The next step is about Hegel’s evaluation of Great French Revolution.
This revolution laid the foundation of advancement of thinking based
on liberal values not only in France, but also all over the world.
Other governments and nations passed the period of bourgeois revolution
before French revolution could not globalize this phenomenon.
Despite of Hegel’s consideration p of French revolution as the
development of ideas of freedom and equality promoted by Christianity,
defining reasons of fulfillment of historical events especially in
France, not in any Christian society is an interesting theme for
historical analysis.
On the eve of revolution the intellectual image of French society
formed views by Rousseau, Walter, Montesquieu propagating the ideas of
free society with liberal values. Devoting their abilities and lives
to the struggling for the primacy of values such as quality, free
expression, these great personalities were the leaders of ideas from
which democracy evolved and France is considered to be the symbol of .
Nevertheless, the appropriate decisions made by the parliament of
this country directed exactly against those values. If Montesquieu
were alive, even in XVIII century he stated,” the toughest tyranny
is the one which hides under the shadow of law and justice, it is
not difficult to imagine what he thought of the present government
and the French Senate issued its subjective interests in the shape
of legislation for ” citizens of democratic government”.
Personality?!
On the stage of History the status of each nation is defined by
intellectual and moral levels of personalities emerged from that
nation.
Germans, Turks, English, Russians, and other nations who wrote
their names in the world civilization forever, with their status in
History must appreciate not just only tangible and transient values,
but also intellectual talents of their personalities. Not achieved
progress in scientific – technical innovations, but first and foremost
talents reached the eminence – such personalities as Mustafa Kemal
Ataturk , Conrad Adenauer, Isaac Newton, Sultan Mehmet Fateh, Winston
Churchill, Johann Sebastian Bach, Leo Tolstoy will live in minds of
people forever.
No doubts in different periods of the history of French people who
gifted the world science, culture with the legacy of socio – political
consciousness of great people, took their honorary place in the world.
Expectations from French people who spread the liberal bourgeois values
in Europe, put forward the idea of political and organizational unity
for living in peace and prosperous atmosphere, played the role of
pioneer in the realization of these ideas.
This factor relates to governmental and political figures of France.
The natives of this nation are famous for their perennial activities
directed to the solving of global and regional problems not only in
France, but also in senior positions of international organizations.
For this reason, various representatives of the state authorities
of France were considered as the models of political intelligence
and farsightedness, political culture and etiquette. Each and every
taken step and uttered word by them were treated not just an act of
an individual, but primarily through the prism of French people they
represented. To continue and develop splendid traditions of the past
generation, to transmit them to the next generation a political leader
is demanded to be more responsible, sensible and liberal.
Not going into the details, I would like to touch upon the status
of personality of Nicolas Sarkozy through the prism of the French
Revolution.
There are political leaders whose personalities are not easy to
assess, the reason is that even if the decisions they make are
negative in respect of other countries and nations and with regards
to national interests of their countries are fully understandable and
reasonable. That is to say such political leaders tend to change the
balance between national and international audiences in the favor of
the firsts. The case is explained as “each and every leader is the
representative of his/her nation and reports to their nation”.
The tragedy of a political leader starts then when he does not make any
choice between national and international sides, but does make choice
between particular layers and groups represented in the society. The
tragedy of a political leader starts then when made decisions serve not
to consolidate, but to separate the society they represent. Finally,
the tragedy of a political leader starts then when he/she loses
his/her moral rights to represent their society.
We are not able to state what French people think of the matter,
what decision they will make in the presidential election, but the
reality is that Sarkozy just acts like the head of government, not the
president of French people. When in 2001 French Senate adopted the
act of recognition of “the Armenian genocide ” the former president
Jacques Chirac showed great farseeing and courage to state that the
legislative initiative is not the attitude of France, only expresses
the views of voters. Not to call into confrontation between national-
ethnic groups of society and not to deteriorate relations with Turkey
that is the south- northern stand of NATO, Jacques Chirac differed in
the ability to feel sensitively the harshness of political rhetoric
without reference to his subjective opinion.
Leaders such as Charles de Gaulle, Francois Mitterand, Jacques
Chirac, who left a mark in History have also been criticized and
judged for made decision, that is natural. However, political culture,
intelligence and ability of strategic thinking of those figures never
caused any doubt.
To summarize the reflection on the theme “personality “, I hope Nicolas
Sarkozy is the exception for Hans Morgenthau who stated ” each and
every nation deserves own political leader “. Let us not forget that
everything is different in real life, even the wise sayings.
In conclusion I would like to cite from the book by French attorney –
historian Georges de Maleva “Armenian tragedy 1915” who was against
the participation of members of Senate in defining historical events.
If the competence of European Parliament includes the punishment of
those who are guilty in annihilation and beating in History, so why
European Parliament will not reject England, Madame Thatcher to enter
“the common market”, for outrage committed by France, Louis XIV?
In fact, the evidence of all has been preserved since then. The scope
of activities of such” shufflers of History”can be unlimited. For
instance; France might be punished for extortion made by Napoleon
in Spain, Spain for vandalism done by Philipp II in the Netherlands,
Denmark for excesses in Sweden etc.