As always, the US administration is against the draft bill. But this time, political stability is somewhat different. Tensions between the Democrats and the Bush administration are high after it lost its Congressional majority in the last elections over which many see as the war in Iraq. Besides, the US House of Representatives has Nancy Pelosi as the Democratic speaker, who has constantly approved of the genocide thesis and who is so tough and uncompromising in her views that she did not even accept to meet with Turkish FM Abdullah Gül. For reasons that relate both to the significance and weight of mutual relations for the world, a possible American approval of the draft bill will of course lead to various interpretations. But, this will not be the first time the draft bill gets parliamentary approval. Unfortunately, many countries, including Russia, Canada, France, and the Netherlands, have approved of similar draft bills. As you may also know, Argentina joined in January the list of countries that recognized the genocide claims. Unanimously passed by the Senate on Dec. 13, 2006, the draft bill began to take effect on Jan. 11 after Argentinean President Nestor Kirchner granted his official approval to it. The Argentinean version of the bill suggests announcing every April 24 as a day remembrance to improve tolerance and respect among people in memory of the Armenian genocide, as well as allowing students and employees of Armenian origin to take April 24 off each year.
Turkish Foreign Ministry officials in Argentina worked hard to prevent the draft bill from being granted parliamentary approval. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan personally wrote a letter to the Argentinean president to convey his concerns. But none of this worked.
One cannot help asking: Why is it the Armenian thesis, and not the Turkish one, that finds acceptance? There may be more than one answer to this question, though it is difficult to cite animosity toward Turks or sympathy for Armenians as a reason. Obviously the Armenian lobby is working relentlessly, and it is getting the results it wants. We cannot, however, even succeed in explaining our thesis plausibly, accounting the real story and making clear how some Armenians were promoted to important positions in the Ottoman system of government, or elucidating the conditions that existed during World War I, in spelling out the corporation of Armenians with the enemy, and in arguing that there were Armenians living in many parts of the country at a time when the genocide is argued to have happened, and even that some Ottoman officials were convicted and sentenced to prison because they made mistakes with the immigration process. Our thesis remains so unknown across the world that some senior foreigner officials who think about this issue do not even know that the incident happened during Ottoman times.
After the draft bill was passed in Argentina, I asked Mauricio Bossa, an Argentinean deputy, whom I met at an international meeting, why they made a decision of this kind. Bossa's letter of response showed how the Armenian claims received acceptance and highlighted the fact that the Turkish theses remain almost unheard-of. The following are statements from Bosso, who left the parliament in early 2006: "As you may know, there is a very important Armenian community living in Argentina. In my country, there are people of Armenian descent who occupy significant positions. A considerable proportion of those people are wealthy. And as you may guess, the Armenian lobby here is quite organized and powerful. The lobby has been working toward this goal for a long time. In my view, the Argentineans are taking sides with Armenian theses as they maintain very little contact with people who support the Turkish theses. In fact, we had a similar draft bill in the 1990s, when the politics at the time played a major role in convincing former President Carlos Menem to veto it because he had strong ties with the US administration.
"My personal approach to this subject is complex. I have many friends of Armenian origin and, naturally, I know quite well of their position. Besides, I have special sensitivity toward people who were exposed to religious or political discrimination. This is my impression of this situation: This incident took place many years ago. And it happened before the 1920s when Turkey was not yet politically transformed. Is today's Turkey the same as the Turkey in the early 20th century? Turkey is trying to become a member of the European Union as a country with strong ties to the West. Under these circumstances, I have difficulty in making sense of discussions over something that happened one hundred years ago. "Most importantly, I want to better know the Turkish thesis about the issue. I admit that I only know about the Armenian thesis and nothing about the Turkish one, if we don't count the meeting we had."
Bosso concluded his letter suggesting that I speak to an Armenian journalist who wanted to know more about the Turkish thesis.
Isn't it obvious that we have a long way to go to make ourselves understood? As long as we do not walk this way, will we ever have the right to be put out with anyone else?
Benzer Haberler 
