![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Via Alexander Bossy, I've just been informed about the latest apparent French precondition for Turkish accession talks to the European Union. This precondition might well be the deal-breaker, more than immigration or Cyprus or regional subsidies.
I've written about Turkey's European vocation here and about Turkey's denial of the Armenian genocide here. I'm strongly in favour of Turkish recognition of the fact that, yes, the Ottoman state did organize the 20th century's first genocide, and I find it exceptionally creepy that the Ataturkist republic founded in direct opposition to the Ottoman state continues the latter's policies of denial. Would the European project ever have gotten off the ground in 1956 if West Germany had denied that its putative partners had suffered under Nazi German occupation? It is not reassuring that Turkish pro-Europeans partake in Turkey's state-sanctioned version of Holocaust denial. A full accounting of Turkey's past on the eve of its formal acceptance as a future member-state of the European Union is quite necessary.
And yet, I wonder if this is really the best way or the best place to bring it up. Given Turkey's extreme sensitivity over the issue, and the obstacles that (rightly or wrongly) it has already encountered, it might well be that the question of the Armenian genocide is being misused, that instead of being a way of forcing Turks to confront their country's past genocide it's being used instead mainly as a way to block Turkey's modernization in a European context.
And yet, the issue has to be brought up.
Turkey 'must admit WWI genocide'
France has said it will ask Turkey to acknowledge the mass killing of Armenians from 1915 as genocide when it begins EU accession talks. French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier said Turkey had "a duty to remember".
Armenians say 1.5 million of their people died or were deported from their homelands under Turkish Ottoman rule.
France is among a group of nations that class the killings as genocide. Turkey denies any organised genocide, claiming they were quelling a civil uprising.
Mr Barnier said France did not consider Turkish acknowledgement a condition of EU entry, but insisted his country would raise the issue once talks opened.
Speaking to reporters after a meeting of EU foreign ministers to discuss plans to invite Turkey for accession talks, Mr Barnier said Turkey "must carry out this task as a memorial".
I've written about Turkey's European vocation here and about Turkey's denial of the Armenian genocide here. I'm strongly in favour of Turkish recognition of the fact that, yes, the Ottoman state did organize the 20th century's first genocide, and I find it exceptionally creepy that the Ataturkist republic founded in direct opposition to the Ottoman state continues the latter's policies of denial. Would the European project ever have gotten off the ground in 1956 if West Germany had denied that its putative partners had suffered under Nazi German occupation? It is not reassuring that Turkish pro-Europeans partake in Turkey's state-sanctioned version of Holocaust denial. A full accounting of Turkey's past on the eve of its formal acceptance as a future member-state of the European Union is quite necessary.
And yet, I wonder if this is really the best way or the best place to bring it up. Given Turkey's extreme sensitivity over the issue, and the obstacles that (rightly or wrongly) it has already encountered, it might well be that the question of the Armenian genocide is being misused, that instead of being a way of forcing Turks to confront their country's past genocide it's being used instead mainly as a way to block Turkey's modernization in a European context.
And yet, the issue has to be brought up.
