To be specific, the two largest Dutch political parties, the Christian Democrats CDA and the labour party PvdA have thrown out the Turkish party members who continue to deny the Armenian massacre. As a background for those of you who don't know I copied this from wiki: "Events of 1915 to 1917 are regarded by Armenians and the vast majority of Western historians to have been state-sponsored mass killings, or genocide. Despite overwhelming evidence of genocidal intent, Turkish authorities maintain that the deaths were the result of a civil war coupled with disease and famine, with casualties incurred by both sides. Most estimates for the number of Armenians killed range from 650,000 to 1.5 million. Armenia and the Armenian diaspora have been campaigning for official recognition of the events as genocide for over 30 years. These events are traditionally commemorated yearly on April 24, the Armenian Christian martyr day." Anyway this has always been a major issue in Turkey's EU accession talks as the EU demands that Turkey acknowledges the genocide. Now the issue has been taken to another level, there were apparently a number of Turkish film crews in Holland yesterday to report the news of the party members being thrown out and they're outraged about it in Turkey. Can other European posters see this happening in their country? Will this be the end of accession talks for Turkey?
Is it illegal to deny the Armenian massacre in Holland? Or have they done it on principle? I'm assuming the Turkish members are either born in Holland or naturalised Dutch people, so why would they have to speak up for Turkey's stance? Turkey will find it very difficult to join the EU irrespective of them confirming or denying the events in 1915-1917 IMO. There's the cyprus issue and also the fact that Turkey would be the largest in terms of population (and a Muslim population at that) in the EU IIRC which scares the crap out of most European nations. It is also viewed as having economic and democratic reform issues. The only country i can think of which really wants the Turks in the EU is the US.
The reason why Turkey isn't allowed into the EU is because the turkish government can't do crap without the approval of the military. It's practically a military junta.
Actually, the military junta is the one kept Turkey westside orientation. EU is pushing for more demacratic means, which may also turn Turkey to "wrong" side because public sentiment. Junta intervened couple times in the past to prevent popular election results to carry out, but now the EU-sponsored change may prevent it. Turkey-US relationship was wrecked by Iraqi war with Turkey refused to give US a road on Northern front. Turkey also threat to invade Iraqi Turkstan to fight PKK which in collision course of US troops. Charic just joined call for Armenian issue as one of pre-conditon for EU membership. Cyprus is also an issue within EU. But looks Turks may not care EU membership anymore by viewing EU a "Christian club". Oh, forget about Pope's talk and visit to Turkey.
Turkey related, but not Armenian related: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5395102.stm The PKK, the main Kurdish separatist group, has declared a unilateral ceasefire. The Turkish Government has rejected it outright, saying only states can declare ceasefires, and saying that the PKK is a terrorist organisation.
I'm not sure if its illegal to deny the Armenian massacre in Holland. I'm pretty sure its illegal to deny the Holocaust, as it is in Germany. Nevertheless, Turkey aren't doing themselfs any favor with this. There are enough Europeans against them joining the EU. This won't make anything easier for them.
^^They haven't just recently taken up this position. They've remained consistent on this issue since 1915, way before anything to do with the EU.
Right, still won't help them get into the Union. There are some Turks who want to enter but this is an example of why a large portion of the public opinion is against entry.
At the other hand, if they don't want to join, it's fine. Our money can go to the Ukraine or the Balkans, that's ok.
Depends on how much Europe needs Turkey or Turkey needs Europe. Currently, there is an oil/gas pipeline running from Baku of Azerbajan, through Tblisi of Georgia, to Cellyan of Turkey. This is the ONLY Central Asia oil goes to Europe without Russia turn on/off the faucet. This pipeline is no good if Kazakhstan oil/gas isn't joining. This is the main reason to explain why tensions between Russia and Georgia this week, or why Bush puts a red carpet for Kazak Tsar. But everything depends on which side Turkey is stand on. If Turkey is going into Russia/Iran block, then Europe will have a big headache.
It is not illegal to deny it, we have freedom of speech in this country. But it is an official party stance to acknowledge the massacre so it is completely legal to throw out those who don't go along with this point of view. It IS an official EU point of view as well. Most of the EU population don't want new members full stop, Turkey having a muslim majority is fairly irrelevant in that respect. What irks most European people about the EU is its dodgy, seemingly undemocratic decision-making. No-one asked the citizens of the EU if they wanted Bulgaria and Romania in, for example. Surveys in fact show that a vast majority did not want them in. So as far as I'm concerned, I'm not against the admission of new member states, including Turkey, on principle. But not before the EU sorts its decision making out.
If the citizens of the EU countries had decided about the new members from the beginning, the EU wouldn't even exist. Therefore, this statement is irrelevant.
Just to put a few myths to rest. 1. Recognition of the Armenian genocide had been one of the pre-conditions, however this requirement seems to have been diluted recently. It is no longer deemed by the EU as a major hurdle (if a hurdle at all). 2. José Manuel Barroso recently made comments that after Bulgaria and Romania's membership, there should be a delay prior to further expansion (aimed at Turkey and Croatia's membership). 3. Turkey had been promised membership once certain conditions were met. These have been made more difficult in recent times (and in all reality according to someone else, Bulgaria and Romania would not be able to meet before their accession but that doesn't seem to have had much weight in the decisions). 4. With regards to the issue of energy, Turkey is all but irrelevant. If the EU wants to improve energy resources (without switching to alternative renewable sources), Scandinavian countries are the key and not Turkey. 5. The main problems in Turkey's membership are Turkey's current system of governence (as has been pointed out), problems of corruption and crime (although similar problems are also prevalent in Bulgaria), economic requirements which Turkey has not been able to fulfil and finally the religion of Islam. While never overtly referred to as such, Turkey's majority Muslim population has been a major contensious issue. 6. Finally, johan, I could be wrong about this but I believed that Holland also had laws against the denial of the Holocaust.
I didn't say I disapproved of the EU's actions in this respect. I was just trying to explain where the anti-EU feelings come from. People increasingly feel they're no longer in control of what happens in their own country.
We do have a law against the denial of the Holocaust, use of nazi emblems etc. But not against Armenian massacre denial.
Sorry, my point was when you reacted to talks of Armenian genocide with "we have freedom of speech", I just wanted to put that in context.
Someone tell me how their historical position on the Armenian issue is anyway related to the job they would have done as MP's in your parliament. What does the Armenian controversy have to do with any Dutch domestic policy? This smacks of pure bigotry to me. The EU is telling Turkey to open up freedom of speech (which Turkey needs to do and is doing after the consecutive acquitals of Hrat Dink, Orhan Pamuk, and Elif Safak), yet one of these ultra-liberal EU countries is becoming quite bigoted in the way it handles diversity of opinion at home.
This isn't about diversity of opinion though. 99% of historians agree that the massacre DID take place, and the 1% who disagree are Turkish. Someone made the holocaust comparison earlier on, and you can compare this issue with the holocaust in the sense that you don't want to your party associated with people denying horrific historical facts. But even if you do think it's debatable that the massacre took place, a political party has every right to throw out members who don't agree with its policies. Just like a Christian party has a right to throw out pro-abortionists. It's about members not following the official party line and it's nothing to do whatsoever with bigotry.
Armenian issue right now is a big bone in Turkeys throat, and whatever happened during 1915-1923 has description genoceide, and not only against Armenians it was against christians which included Greeks, Bulgarians, Assyrians and so on Armenians they got the main punch. Its not about freedom of speech, its about denying historical fact. In Switzerland this spring somebody already got arrested for denying Armenian Genocide. 2 weeks ago Z.Shirak visited Armenia and he also went to "Tsitsernakabert" monument for genocide to give his respect for those who died, and in this month France is gonna accept resolution about denying Armenian genoceide. Turkish leaders said that they are going to have some sanctions against France, which is baisicly funny. And at last I don't really think that everybody wants to help Armenia with recognizing genoceide, they just want to punish turks, its like a joker card as soon as turks dont obey to USA they use that card to keep them in control, most recent example is whne turks did want to provide teritory for US in Iraq campaign they almost recognize it, then turks just bend over and said do it guys. Whatever happens now is because of big and STRONG Armenian diaspora.
Look, I am not out here shilling for the Turkish ultranationalists. But there are several premises wrong in your argument. First there are many non-Turkish historians who dispute the Genocide thesis (Stanford Shaw, Bernard Lewis, Justin McCarthy, Heath Lowry). The Turkish position is wrong because it overestimates the number of Armenians who rebelled and underestimates the number of Armenians who died. The Armenian position underestimates the number of individuals who died due to the poor infrastructure of the marches. Almost as many Turkish soldiers were dying of disease as being killed, that's how bad the Turkish infrastructure was in the east at that time. The marches were inhumane and strategically the wrong move. But they did not happen for reasons of ethnic supremacy akin to the reasons beyond the Holocaust. They happened in response to Armenian attacks. The Turkish response was way disproportianate and that they need to admit. They need at Turks to come to terms with that. But it is not proven that Armenians were a demographic majority in much of Eastern Anatolia. The Dashnag movement was a victim of demographic inferiority. Direct comparisons between the two truly struggle to deal with the two different sets of historical fact patterns. I don't think you can use the word genocide because it is a legal term that didn't exist at that time, you can't easily apply the word genocide retroactively. People have the right to dissent in what is supposedly a free society in Holland. In the US we would never create a litmus test where anybody who wanted to be a Republican or Democrat and run for office would have to see there was a Native American Genocide. This litmus test is political sop and shows that Dutch parties don't have a clue how to run based on real issues.