The Dutch Parliament accepted into its agenda and passed the motion recognizing the events of 1915 as a "genocide" three days ago. Hence, this year, the Netherlands became the first country to open the genocide card – which has been pulled against Turkey annually by the U.S. and EU for a while now – through its own parliament.
We say the Netherlands, this time around, opened the card through “its parliament,” because the Dutch government had previously announced that it would not accept this decision supporting Armenian claims in regard to the 1915 incidents by the parliament as binding.
In its recommendation report on “the use of the genocide term,” prepared during the voting, the government was actually expressed what needed to be said in relation to the twisted logic, style and attitude of this decision that entered the parliament’s agenda. No person in their right mind would dare to recognize the decision by the parliament about the 1915 incidents, in other words, events of 103 years ago.
In her committee speech ahead of the voting based on the recommendation report, Dutch Foreign Minister Sigrid Kaag warned that the Dutch government can speak of genocide only “when there is a binding decision by the UN or a judgment passed by the international court like in the Srebrenica incident.
Kaag said that making a one-sided decision on the 1915 incidents, which she described as a problem between Armenia and Turkey, needed to be avoided and called the Dutch members of parliament to moderation.
We can say that Kaag, who stated that in relation to taking a genocide decision or identifying genocide, the Dutch government can be steered only by the international governments’ provisions and the clear results of the UN’s scholarly research and findings, has admitted that the Dutch government considers the decision taken almost unanimously by the Dutch parliament (with the exception of the three members of parliament of the party founded by Turks), is far from logic.
This difference of opinion between the government and parliament is a matter worth dwelling on in many regards. In one aspect, it is a matter related to how taking on the responsibility of administration forces people to abide by scientific measures, and objective and acceptable standards. Otherwise, if it did not have the responsibility of administration, the representatives of the Dutch government would also likely take a similar direction with the members of parliament on genocide. Apart from the three members of parliament, who are members of the Turks’ party, such an irrational decision, so close to sentimentality, narrow ideological view and ethnocentrism, taken unanimously, presents an important and naturally, a concerning situation in terms of the prevailing atmosphere in the Netherlands.
All members of the Dutch parliament, as a matter of fact, a vast majority, cannot possibly have detailed and objective knowledge on what really happened in the Ottoman region in 1915. Many have been subjected to the intense propaganda by the Armenians. The issue is really not propaganda alone, it is that it is in a position to easily buy that propaganda.
There is an undeniable sentimental, ethnic, and religious connection that renders the Dutch more inclined to buy the Armenians’ propaganda rather than the Turks’ propaganda. Regardless of how secular it is, regardless of the majority of its population being atheists, the crusader motivation has seeped into the Dutch ideological world as an identity that surpasses religiousness, and determines the opinion on Turks. Even though they know nothing about the year 1915, even though they have no proof, it will push them to present the view that “Turks would have certainly done it” when they initially heard about it.
This is enough of a reason to say that the Armenian genocide claims cannot be subject to European or U.S. parliaments or even courts, in any way today. Bringing a motion about a matter that cannot be subject to court due to time lapse, can never have a motivation such as seeking justice.
The sole motivation behind this is ethnic animosity and enmity. Justice – as well as any feelings of empathy or condolences toward the sorrows of those who were victims of the incident that happened 103 years ago – can never be borne from such hatred and animosity.
The UN’s sensitivity toward preventing new genocides is very appropriate, but it is clear that bringing up incidents that happened 103 years ago on today’s agenda is far from serving this aim. The carelessness displayed by those who personally brought the matter up on the agenda against the massacres and genocide happening at present, reveals that their sensitivity is not to protect values of humanity, but instead, it is enmity toward Turkey.
If the matter truly is sensitivity toward crimes against humanity or genocide, we would also have had to have heard of a reaction from the Dutch parliament on the Netherlands’ direct contribution to the Srebrenica genocide.
We also never heard of the Netherlands confronting its sins in the disgraceful racist-discriminatory apartheid regime displayed in more recent times in South Africa. What about today? From where do you think the Dutch parliament is watching the massacres of the Bashar al-Assad regime that has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people?
Of course it is easy to go back 103 years and talk from there.
It is quite clear that Islamophobia and Turkophobia, which are taking a dangerous form in Europe, are behind this plan that is not adopted by the Dutch government but passed by the parliament almost unanimously.
This racist-religionist animosity displayed toward Muslims and Turkey has an aspect that is internally eating away at Europeans more so than its harm to Muslims and Turks. It would be much better for them if they were concerned about their own situation rather than produce enmity from the incidents of 103 years ago.
