News.Az interviews Emiliano Alessandri, Transatlantic Fellow, the German Marshall Fund of the United States.

- How would you assess the Senate’s law on genocide denying? Was it politically motivated?
When parliaments do history, there is some problem. In this particular case, there were pressure groups at work in and around the Armenian communities. But of course the law was passed because, leaving aside the genocide issue, certain uneasiness with contemporary Turkey is a widespread feeling among sections of the political class. The politics of this does not explain everything, but parliamentarians who are voting on this should know that their decision will have an impact on the politics of Turkey’s EU accession and on the development of French-Turkish relations.
- May this decision affect somehow the relations between Turkey and France?
The relationship was not great before, and will only worsen as a result of this recent move. In fact, reactions in Turkey have been clearly negative since this issue was taken up by French institutions. Turks might be willing to face the dark pages of their past, but will not accept that it is France that teaches them a history lesson. In fact, it is disturbing that French legislators take this action when France seems to have so much more to do from its side when it comes to facing dark pages of French history, such as violent colonization or France’s times under the Vichy regime. Politicians should leave it to historians to set the historical record. They should discuss the past, but should focus on the future. And the future speaks of the necessity for France and Turkey to find a new normal - a way to work together in a common space, from Europe to the Middle East. Businessmen from both countries want to profit from opportunities of cooperation. The two peoples would benefit greatly from deeper knowledge of each other cultures. The manipulation of the past is certainly to be condemned, and both Turks and Armenians need to come to an agreement on what happened during those tragic times. But a more cooperative future is what Turks, Armenians, and French are really called to build.
- How may Turkey respond to this step and how effective these measures could be?
What Turkey should avoid doing is to reciprocate with similar accusations, as they have already done by accusing France of the genocide of Algerians. Genocide is a terribly serious thing. It should never be part of a blame game. The best response for Turkey would be to show disappointment but also renewed willingness to let a free and open debate, particularly among scholars of different nations and background, to develop.
- How can you explain turkophobia of N.Sarkozy and how popular is this trend in Europe?
I am not sure that ‘turkophobia’ is the correct characterization. Sarkozy definitely does not want Turkey as a member of the EU. This is not an isolated opinion. It is in fact a very popular position in Europe, especially at a time of crisis and uncertainty like the present one, when it becomes a strong temptation to see any outsider who wants to have a seat at the same table as a competitor, or as a burden. But Turks should not feel so special. France long opposed Britain’s accession. Things can change. Politicians come and go. And public opinion can change its mind. In fact, we have also seen less EU-oriented Turks in recent years. In the end, it will be the idea of a future together, not present tensions or difficult legacies that will determine Turkey-EU relations
- Armenian Diaspora expects the same law to be adopted in other European countries. How real is this? Which countries may follow the French example?
It may happen. But we have to hope that the undesired negative consequences of this crisis will teach lessons to all parties moving forward.