PERINCEK VS SWITZERLAND IS POST-COLONIALISM VS POST-9/11-ISM
Daily Sabah, Turkey
Dec 10 2014
Tal Buenos
Freedom of expression has already won the day in Perincek versus
Switzerland thanks to the decision of the European Court of Human
Rights (ECtHR) to reverse the Swiss criminalization of Dogu Perincek’s
expressed view of the past and in particular his characterization of
the events of 1915 and 1916. Article 10 of the European Convention
on Human Rights was held high.Being that the characterization of the
events has been a political matter, involving both historical and
legal aspects, Perincek did not abuse rights, but rather exercised the
freedom to express himself on an accusation regarding which Turks,
Muslims and Turkish Muslims in Western societies cannot be expected
to remain silent.
The honorable judges of the ECHR articulated that the idea of there
being a “general consensus” in Western societies – especially in the
Western academic community – about the characterization of the events
is vague and has no legal merit. However, while it was clearly stated
that this idea of a general consensus does not equate to established
facts and did not present a pressing social need to convict Perincek,
an actual pressing social need was not mentioned at all: The fact that
Perincek’s freedom of expression was denied in Switzerland reflects
a prejudice against a non-Western historiography.
This prejudice conveys an air of hostility that has a negative
effect on the civic integration of citizens of non-Western heritage
in Western societies. There is a failure among the leadership of
these Western liberal states to recognize that the biased view of
history that is taught in schools and controls the language used
by the media must be addressed in keeping with the changing social
makeup of these societies. It is important to ask why Perincek was
convicted in the first place. What aspects of historiography have
not been reconciled between those who colonized and those who were
affected by the colonizing efforts? How has this split been covered up?
In the Armenian case, which was put under a rare legal examination in
the Perincek case, the split is monumental. In certain Western states,
the desire to suppress shameful aspects of the colonial period, and
the political purpose served by controlling the discourse on genocide
and putting pressure on Turkey, has led to an institutionalized
campaign to disseminate a narrative according to which the Ottoman
state intended to cause Armenian suffering during World War I.
Conversely, a study of the events that is not affected by imperialist
bias, shows that Armenians had been used by the British as colonialist
pawns since the 1870s, which explains both the change of attitude
among Ottoman Armenians after centuries of coexistence with Muslims
and the catastrophe that took place during World War I when the
Armenian leadership was incentivized to assist the Entente in the
mission to destroy the Ottoman Empire. It also explains why the
current administrations of the Western governments that set up the
Armenians for this easily anticipated tragedy are still in denial of
doing so via the promotion of a convenient narrative that feeds on
anti-Turkish and anti-Muslim prejudice.
Post-colonialism provided a good measure of faith in the ability to
harmonize historiographical views. Starting from the 1970s, before
the advent of genocide as a field in academia, the colonialist
experience began to be analyzed to a greater extent in Western
academia. It was understood that the language used by imperialists to
describe historical events was informed by colonizing perspectives and
interests that were presented as universal and objective. Furthermore,
scholars began to demonstrate how the treatment of the colonized and
semi-colonized was justified through the belief that the race and
culture of the colonizer was superior. The field of post-colonialist
study established a clear distinction between the modern-day Western
sensibility and the old Western consciousness of the imperialist
conqueror. The physical arrival of the “otherized” on Western
university campuses played a major role in developing a new and
exciting brand of academic inquiry and Western reflexivity.
In congruence with the rise in number of non-Western immigrants in
Western societies and the rise in the popularity of post-colonialism,
multiculturalism became increasingly accepted as a state policy
toward civic integration. Multiculturalism is based on the view that
cultural diversity in Western societies is a fact, and it supports
recognizing and respecting the heritage of the formerly colonized
and semi-colonized peoples who are now citizens with equal rights in
Western states. “Post-9/11-ism,” however, seems to be descriptive
of the current era. It has halted the historiographical progress
that was introduced through post-colonialism. The shocking events of
9/11 politicized the discussion on multiculturalism, and popularized
pre-post-colonialist generalizations for Muslims as unchangeable
“others” who cannot meet the standards of Western liberalism. Consider
that statements such as “in the aftermath of 9/11,” “in response
to 9/11,” and “in the wake of 9/11,” with which many articles and
speeches begin their narrative nowadays, have supplanted “in light
of post-colonialism.”
For instance, even among Westerners who criticized the U.S.-led
invasion of Iraq in 2003, the criticism was done within a post-9/11
frame of discourse. Most critics in the U.S. did not say that this was
imperialist behavior, but rather that it was not the right reaction to
9/11. The post-colonialist sensitivity in recognition of a long history
of aggressive Western domination has been replaced by a terror-centric
narrative in which the West is depicted as a victim of exploitation
and attacks. According to this frame of thinking, if the West appears
to be actively aggressive in its attitude toward formerly colonized
peoples and countries, it is only because it is reacting after having
been tolerant and passive for too long. In other words, colonialism
has reached a dialectical height in the form of “de-post-colonialism.”
In “post-9/11-ism,” single acts of aggression by a Muslim are
magnified and manipulated into fitting within a narrative of
international terrorism and acts of Muslim firmness are interpreted
as aggression. Also in “post-9/11-ism,” every Turkish appeal for
historiographical fairness concerning the Ottoman Empire, which is
viewed in British historiography as a prototypical Muslim entity
that was run by an inferior race of uncivilized brutes, is readily
rejected because of prejudice.
David Cameron, in his first speech as prime minister of the U.K. at a
security conference in Munich in February 2011, ceremoniously turned
a post-colonialist question of Muslim integration in Western societies
into a matter of national security. He related – in post-9/11 fashion
– the existence of “Islamist extremism” to multiculturalism. Cameron
stated that “the doctrine of state multiculturalism” had “encouraged
different cultures to live separate lives.” This, he claimed was done
instead of giving people “a clear sense of shared national identity
that is open to everyone.” By making it seem as if the problem is
that Muslims abuse the “passive tolerance” of Western societies,
Cameron failed to recognize that British national identity is not
shareable as long as the anti-Muslim aspect of British historiography
is not addressed in a post-colonialist discourse.
It must be recognized that James Bryce, who masterminded both Armenian
rebellion and Armenian victimhood during World War I, is the same
person who already in 1878 announced the Ottoman Empire’s death and
described the territory for an independent Armenian state on Ottoman
land. It must be recognized that this same Bryce, who held various
prestigious positions in the British government, stated in the Romans
Lecture in 1902 at Oxford that there are “cases in which the exclusion
of the Backward race seems justified, in the interests of humanity
at large,” and asked to “[c]onceive what a difference it might make
if Islam were within two centuries to disappear from the earth!”
It must be recognized as a problem that William E. Gladstone, the
four-time British prime minister and a staple in Britain’s modern
history, whose mastery of the Bulgarian agitation in 1876 inspired
Bryce’s raising of the Armenian question, stated: “… from the black
day when they [Turks] first entered Europe, the one great anti-human
specimen of humanity.” What really makes this a problem is that British
historiography still characterizes Gladstone as having had a foreign
policy that was guided by moral fortitude, and this still serves as the
basis for a false anti-Turkish narrative on the Armenian issue. Why not
begin to solve this problem by recognizing that the false premise of
the anti-Ottoman, anti-Muslim and anti-Turkish claims to this day is
rooted in the outdated British portrayal of “the White Man’s Burden”
as genuine morality?
Without the restoration of a post-colonialist mindset, this problem
will linger. As the Grand Chamber is about to present a final and
decisive judgment on the Perincek case following the Swiss referral,
there is a chance that the honorable judges might identify that the
case is significantly reflective of a national identity crisis for
people of non-Western heritage within certain states of the EU. They
might find that the crisis is to be explained by “post-9/11-ism” and
the historiographical bias that directed Swiss injustice in this case.
* M.A. in Theological Studies from Harvard Divinity School, and is
currently a Ph.D. candidate in Political Science at the University
of Utah
http://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/2014/12/10/perincek-vs-switzerland-is-postcolonialism-vs-post911ism