If we put aside Turkey’s well-known official thesis on this subject, we must admit that there must also be a theoretical debate about this topic. A theoretical analysis of the role of third countries’ parliaments that make decisions about events that occurred in a foreign country around a century ago is necessary because if one admits that this must become a customary practice without geographical and temporal limits, then it will be necessary to reconsider the whole of human history, from Attila the Hun to Roman times without forgetting colonialism.A second debate must be conducted about the relationship between the legislative and the executive bodies in a country. The Swedish government has clearly declared that their parliament’s decision will not dictate the government’s policies. Then, one must ask if parliaments’ decisions will only be valid for those who back these decisions and will be irrelevant for those who oppose them from now on.
Staying on theoretical grounds, there is another point. It’s obvious that through their decisions, parliaments try to put pressure on foreign countries. This pressure may be accepted as positive action if the only concern is to apply pressure in order to preserve human rights in that particular country. However, this always turns into a bargaining process in which states, firms, political parties and parliaments take part. This creates a situation in which the sufferings of the people are manipulated for the sake of political deals. Besides, if every ethnic or religious group asks for a parliamentary decision about the “genocides” they have been subjected to, interstate relations may become much too complicated.
In the practical domain, the fact that parliaments all over the world agree to consider laws about the genocide issue shows how global and widespread opinion on the Armenian issue is. Maybe this should be thoroughly analyzed. As Turkey is considered an interlocutor of these laws and declarations about the “genocide,” and as Ankara itself considers these an insult to Turkey, it’s obvious that the heaviest part of the burden is on Turkey’s shoulders. However, these legislative developments create an atmosphere that pushes Turkey to adopt an intransigent official position and makes it impossible for Turks to consider this issue only from a humanitarian perspective. Because of this negative atmosphere, strategic struggles emerge against European countries and the US, new diplomatic problems are created (as if already existing problems weren’t enough) and the democratization process in Turkey is seriously damaged. Under these circumstances, the government is easily accused of “treason” when it talks about reopening the Heybeliada Greek Orthodox Seminary or the resolution of the property problems of non-Muslim foundations in Turkey.
Doubtless, Turkey has serious steps to take on the Armenian issue. However, one mustn’t expect that these steps will be taken if third countries keep putting pressure on Turkey. A positive atmosphere is necessary to make governments, individuals or civil society contribute to resolving this problem, along with the problems with Armenia, and to ensure the rapprochement of the peoples and the development of mutual empathy toward the other’s sufferings. The current situation helps nobody but the lobbies in Turkey and elsewhere that benefit from an atmosphere of conflict.
