Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Here is an interesting US twist to the Armenian/Turkish issue:

Weekend Edition - Sunday, November 20, 2005 · A federal lawsuit against the Massachusetts Department of Education accuses the state of censorship and political interference for using the word "genocide" in its high school curriculum to describe the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Armenians in Turkey during World War I. Plaintiffs in the suit say that designation is up for debate - but opponents say the evidence of genocide is clear.

To listen to the story go here

by Alexandra in WMass (alexandra_wmass[a|t]yahoo[d|o|t]fr) on Wed Dec 14th, 2005 at 09:21:10 AM EST
A Boston Globe article on the topic:

THE RECENT lawsuit filed on behalf of the Assembly of Turkish American Associations, a student, and two teachers claims that the Massachusetts Board of Education is censoring history and denying freedom of speech. Why? Because educational materials about genocide and human rights, approved by the board, removed reference to a Turkish government website that denies the historical reality of the Armenian Genocide of 1915. If the board were to endorse websites denying the reality of the Holocaust, Massachusetts citizens would be justifiably outraged.

For more click here

by Alexandra in WMass (alexandra_wmass[a|t]yahoo[d|o|t]fr) on Wed Dec 14th, 2005 at 09:24:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The difference between the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust is diplomatic. Turkey considers itself the successor state of the Ottoman Empire and has never admitted that what happened was genocide. Germany, of the other hand, does not consider itself a successor state of the Third Reich, and condemns the Holocaust for what it is. As Turkey is a valuable ally of the west, nobody wants to piss them off. This could easily escalate into a diplomatic incident.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Dec 14th, 2005 at 09:43:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But that's the core of the whole insane kabuki around Turkey's accession talks: it's such a valuable ally no one wants to piss it off. Why doesn't the EU once and for all realize that, at this stage, it has much more to offer than it can possibly get in return and that it would be good thing to make Turkey finally toe the line, with no ifs, ands or buts. In my view, the same applies by now to the U.S.A. The big question is: why does the EU speak out of both sides of its mouth and appease where it knows that a more confrontational approach would be fruitful? Fear of reposibility? If so, who would want to be responsible for 'rendition flights' over the EU?
by Quentin on Wed Dec 14th, 2005 at 10:43:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, our diplomats are spineless.

I am afraid it may not even be spinelessness but a delibarate avoidance of controversial foreign policy positions because of fear that old alliances and divisions within Europe could be revived. Remember that when the former Yugoslavia broke up, Germany and France tripped over each other trying to be the first to recognize their WWI allies (France Serbia, and Germany Croatia). That was downright scary. You don't want to force a split over a hardline stance with the US (new vs. old Europe) or over Turkey (again reviving WWI alliances).

Are we Europeans too afraid of our past? Maybe. But we seem intent on tiptoeing around these dormant issues for fear of what might happen if we reopen a debate on them.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Dec 14th, 2005 at 10:48:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Because that sounds really macho and cool but won't work. Painfully slow progress will work. That's what we're doing.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Dec 14th, 2005 at 10:48:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Macho and cool? Simply: don't be afraid to annoy Turkey. At one point Turkey has to become equal and come clean in public: just like all the rest of the crowd. When France and the UK annoy each other, which they do intentionally, are they being macho and cool? Why does Turkey get extraordinary treatment for more than 40 years? Is it such a non-European entity that 40 years of behind-the-scnes, nitpicking diplomacy has been necessary to get it just to this point? It seems so. So where is the Turkish commitment? Don't fret, the Turks are more than capable of negotiating politely on the head of pin until the end of time.
by Quentin on Thu Dec 15th, 2005 at 04:47:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series