The difference in the Dutch parliament's and government's view of history

three days ago the Dutch Parliament took up and adopted a bill recognizing the events of 1915 as "genocide." Thus the Netherlands became the first country this year to play, through its own Parliament, the genocide card that is played against Turkey every year in the US and EU countries.

We say that the Netherlands played this card this time "through its Parliament" because the Dutch government had announced in advance that it would not regard this decision of the Dutch parliament, which supports the Armenian claims about the events of 1915, as binding.

During the vote, the government's advisory report on "the use of the concept of genocide" in fact said many of the things that needed to be said about the twisted logic, tone, and style of this bill's coming onto the parliament's agenda. No member of parliament with sound mind and conscience, if he took this report into account, would show the audacity to decide in today's parliamentary agenda on events that took place in 1915, that is, 103 years ago.

Acting Dutch Foreign Minister Sigrid Kaag, basing herself on this report, warned in her speech in the committee before the vote that the Dutch government could speak of genocide only "when there is a binding decision by the UN or a ruling by an international court, as in the case of the Srebrenica events."

Kaag, who described the events of 1915 as an issue between Armenia and Turkey, called on her own members of parliament to show restraint, saying that a unilateral decision should be avoided.

By also stating that in deciding on or recognizing a genocide the Dutch government could be guided only by the rulings of international courts and by clear and unambiguous conclusions in UN scientific research and findings, Kaag, we can say, thereby admitted that a decision on which almost the whole of the Dutch parliament (apart from the 3 members of the party founded by Turks) had united was far from reason and conscience.

This difference of views between the government and the parliament is a matter worth dwelling on from many angles. From one angle, it concerns how assuming responsibility for governing forces people to comply with scientific criteria and objective, acceptable standards. Otherwise, without governing responsibility, the Dutch government's representatives too would probably not be heading in a direction different from the members of Parliament on the question of genocide. That, apart from the 3 members of parliament belonging to the Turks' party, all the remaining members voted unanimously for such a decision, so far from reason and so close to sentimentality, narrow ideological outlook, and ethnocentrism, presents an important and, of course, worrying situation regarding the atmosphere prevailing in the Netherlands.

It is not possible for all, or even most, of the members of the Dutch Parliament to have detailed, objective knowledge of what really happened in the Ottoman geography in 1915. Many of them have been exposed to intense Armenian propaganda. And in fact it is not only a matter of propaganda. It is a matter of being in a position to buy that propaganda very easily.

There is an undeniable emotional, ethnic, and religious bond that makes the Dutchman more inclined to buy Armenian propaganda than Turkish propaganda. However secular, however atheist most of its population may be, the crusader motivation has taken root in the Dutchman's ideological world as an identity that goes beyond religiosity and determines his view of the Turks. Even if he knows nothing about 1915 and has no evidence, it leads him, the first time he hears it, to declare his conviction: "The Turks surely did it."

This is more than enough reason to say that Armenian genocide claims can in no way be a subject today for European or American parliaments, or even courts. And bringing onto the agenda of parliaments a matter that cannot be a subject for courts anyway because of the statute of limitations can never have a motivation like the pursuit of justice.

The only motivation behind it is ethnic hatred and hostility. From this hatred and hostility justice never arises, and certainly no feeling of empathy or condolence for the sufferings of those who were victims of the events 103 years ago.

The UN's sensitivity toward preventing new genocides is very fitting, but it is obvious that bringing events from 103 years ago onto today's agenda is far from serving this aim. The indifference shown by those who raise this very issue toward massacres and genocides taking place in our own day clearly reveals that their sensitivity is not the protection of human values but hostility toward the Turks.

If the issue really were sensitivity toward genocide or crimes against humanity, we should have heard a reaction from the Dutch parliament itself about the Netherlands' own contribution to the Srebrenica genocide.

Nor have we heard that the Dutch have more recently confronted their sins in the racist-discriminatory Apartheid regime in South Africa, the disgrace of humanity. And where, would you say, is the Dutch Parliament watching from the massacres of the Assad regime that have cost hundreds of thousands of lives today?

Of course, it is easy to go back 103 years and take shots from there.

It is very clear that behind this decision, which the Dutch government did not endorse but which passed almost unanimously from its Parliament, lie Islamophobia and Turkophobia, which are taking a dangerous form in Europe.

This racist-religiously bigoted hatred shown toward Muslims and Turks has the dimension of a worm gnawing at Europeans from within, rather than harm to Muslims and Turks. Instead of producing hostility from the events of 103 years ago, it would be much better for them if they worried about their own situation.