!ßÈÀ="justify">Nineteen French historians issued a statement calling for the annulment of a number of laws passed by the French Parliament. These included a law passed in 2005, with the main issue being the negative reactions Article 4 of that law provoked in France and in Algeria. The article in question refers to the 'positive aspects' of the French (colonial) presence, especially in North Africa.

Gündüz Aktan
  Nineteen French historians issued a statement calling for the annulment of a number of laws passed by the French Parliament. These included a law passed in 2005, with the main issue being the negative reactions Article 4 of that law provoked in France and in Algeria. The article in question refers to the “positive aspects” of the French (colonial) presence, especially in North Africa.

  With that statement, these historians declared their opposition as well to a law dated 2001 that says slavery and Negro trading were crimes against humanity and that this should be duly taught in schools. Similarly, they called for the annulment of the Gayssot Act (1990), which bans the denial of the Jewish genocide and a 2001 law that considers the Armenian incidents of 1915 a genocide. They pointed out that history cannot be determined according to laws published in the official gazette and that this would restrict the atmosphere of free debate that should exist in a democratic country.

  Later, many historians publicly announced that they recognize the “Armenian genocide.” Some of them have placed the Gayssot Act into a different category (Henry Rousso, Dec. 24, 2005), pointing out that, unlike the others, that law has a substantial legal basis -- since it is based on the decisions of the Nuremberg Court. The law referring to the positive aspects of colonialism was obviously passed with the aim of pleasing the “Harkis,” that is, those Frenchmen that had been driven out of Algeria, while the “Armenian genocide” law was aimed at satisfying French Armenians, and the slavery law the blacks who have migrated to France from the former French colonies. They pointed out that these particular laws were an infringement upon the domain of historians.

  On this occasion let us try yet another time to clarify certain points. There is no way history can “pass judgment” on genocides or massacres. Judgment belongs to the judiciary. Due to the decisions of the Nuremberg Court it is not possible for Germans to deny that the Holocaust happened. The ”Armenian genocide” law, on the other hand, is not based on any court decision. In the absence of a relevant court decision, saying that a given incident was not genocide would not amount to an act of “denial.” That would merely be the act of expressing a different opinion. And everybody is entitled to their own opinion.

  Classifying the Armenian incidents by the more general term of “massacre” might perhaps protect one from the negative reactions the word “genocide” would trigger. However, again, only a court can decide whether a massacre had occurred. And, if a massacre did occur, only a court could decide whether that constituted a genocide or a crime against humanity or a war crime. It is for such purposes that the ICTFY, the ICTR and the ICC have been founded.

  According to the “official Turkish thesis” supported by those Turkish and foreign historians who reject the genocide allegations, a highly significant number of Armenians lost their lives between 1915 and the end of the war. (Kamuran Gurun writes about an estimated 300,000 deaths and Justin McCarthy about 680,000 deaths.) No one is denying that these deaths occurred. What those espousing the “official Turkish thesis” are denying is, obviously, that these deaths resulted from acts of genocide. Therefore, those who accuse the supporters of the “official Turkish thesis” as being in “denial” are implicitly recognizing the “Armenian genocide.” 

  In Turkey, a group of extrajudicial “intellectuals” who make groundless accusations are disregarding archival sources of information in order to avoid being “document fetishists” and avoid the law in order “to focus on the humanitarian aspect of the issue.” On the other hand, they are all too eager to immediately accept the allegations made by the pro-Armenian historians, many of whom are getting financial support. None of these “intellectuals” advocate a judicial process or arbitration as a solution. Why? Because Armenia and the Armenian diaspora do not want this issue to be pursued through legal channels.

  This issue has triggered a debate in France. Sophisticated discussions have taken place on the issue of why historians prove inadequate in understanding and explaining great tragedies. And look at the abysmal quality of the arguments put forward by the aforementioned group of “intellectuals” in Turkey. 

  These “intellectuals” do not even know that a given act can be considered an act of genocide even when people have not actually been killed. According to Article 2(d) of the Genocide Convention, sterilization of female members of a given group, for example, would constitute an act of genocide. Have you ever heard any of them accuse the Scandinavian countries, starting with Sweden, of committing genocide?

  The laws passed in Europe to ban Holocaust denial are not mainly intended to keep the feelings of Jews from being hurt. The real aim is to prevent the re-emergence of anti-Semitism, that is, racism, and thus avoid a recurrence of such a tragedy. This is the right kind of approach. However, there is another litmus test that would indicate whether Europe has really achieved normalization in this sense: Europe must cast aside the Armenian genocide allegations -- that has itself acquired an anti-Turkish racist nature by now -- in the absence of a relevant court decision. Meanwhile, there is no way Armenia can gain a normal identity and enhance its democracy without freeing itself from “Holocaust envy” and from the traps of its “transmitted memory.”