The law punishing the denial or outrageous minimization of the Armenian genocide of
1915 has been adopted
by the French parliament. In this pre-electoral period, the Senate has
decided to reconsider its earlier rejection of a text whose purpose was identical. Let us hope
that the passage of this law by the French parliament will soothe the moral wounds that the
Turkish authorities' obstinate refusal to recognize the Armenian genocide of 1915 has caused
the victims. I know, from my own personal experience, how cruel negationism is for the
descendants of the victims of a genocide. But apart from this therapeutic function, I believe
this law will bring only difficulties, including those that will afflict the Armenian community
Let us suppose, for example, that a Turkish high official or specialist of public law
questioned, in France, about the Armenian genocide should offer the official Turkish
version of events. The Armenian associations will file suit in the French courts. The
individual prosecuted will not fail to point out that the law is unconstitutional as it conflicts
with his liberty of opinion and expression, as based upon the QPC (Priority Question of
Constitutionality). In the debate, the Constitutional Council will necessarily be obliged to
consider the question of the constitutionality of the memorial law of 2001 recognizing the
Armenian genocide, as it has never been compelled to do so before. If, as a number of jurists,
particularly the doyen Vedel, who expressed his viewpoint in 2002, believe this law of 2001
is tainted with unconstitutionality, both the memorial law of 2001 and the current repressive
law will disappear from our legal statutes at the same time. This judicial boomerang will turn
against its authors. Law will prevail and take vengeance on politics.
Parliament does not have the competence to dictate history, as was excellently expressed by Pierre Nora and the members of the Liberté pour l'histoire association. Only totalitarian regimes
accept an official line of history, determined by the powers that be and imposed by the
judge. French justice offers others means of condemning those who would forge history,
who fail in their scientific duty to intellectual honesty, rigor, and objectivity in their work.
But it is not up to French legislators to put themselves in the place of historians and judges
by proclaiming, in a French law, that a crime of genocide was committed in Asia Minor a
Judicial authority is the only one competent to declare if a crime has been committed and
who its perpetrators are. Thus the Jewish genocide by the Nazis was established by the
International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. This tribunal, in which French magistrates
participated, was the result of the London Accords, signed by France in 1944. The judgments
of Nuremberg were considered res judicata, hence authoritative, in France. The same is true
of crimes against humanity that occurred in ex-Yugoslavia and Rwanda and were judged
by international criminal courts. No such thing exists for the Armenian genocide of 1915,
committed before the international community became conscious of the moral imperative that
butchers of humanity should not go unpunished. But this mission is the duty of international
jurisdictions, first of all the International Criminal Court. The French parliament has no competence whatsoever in this respect and cannot set itself up as a universal judge, capable of proclaiming by French law the existence of crimes that, since they are historic, are in no
way within the realm of their competence.
This hubris on the part of the French parliament shall not fail to inspire reactions against
France. First of all, in the international domain. The Turks are a great people who play a
great role, particularly in the Middle East. They are proud of their history, even though it
bears the stains of crimes and exactions of all kinds, just like that of all conquering peoples.
We can call upon the Turkish authorities to go back over their history, as other European
states have done. But to condemn (for that is the implicit meaning of the law of 2001) the
Ottoman predecessors of a Turkish state that is our friend, to register this condemnation in our
laws, this measure intended to soothe the pain of one will inevitably cause the furor of others.
Since we're talking especially about Franco-Turk cooperation that currently flourishes in
university and cultural spheres, we are bound to feel the weight of Turkish resentment against
this legislative intrusion into an already long ago past.
I do not know if the Turkish constitution allows the parliament to vote on laws concerning
history, including that of foreign nations. If such is the case, we should prepare ourselves for
a rejoinder on the part of Turkish nationalist legislators proclaiming that France is the author
of crimes against humanity committed in its former colonies, especially in Algeria during the
war of independence. Will we protest that these tragic events do not concern Turkey? But
what did the French parliament do with regard to her yesterday? Our long and tragic history
should place us today on the side of international justice. It does not qualify us to appoint
ourselves the judge of universal history and the moral conscience of the world.