“Why did Arab Spring start at that time?” It has been asked many times; yet more reasonable question should have been: “Why was it so late?” Because considering what sociology says, it was extremely hard to understand how the societies with their demographic structure that were in a close contact with the global world were governed by those misgovernments.

 

Without doubt many other developments in the region and the world affected the process starting from Tunisia and going on in Egypt. However this incident has caused a series of regional and global effects since the day it started. First of all in terms of as one of its obvious global effects we can talk about how Tahrir Square or the style of demonstrations has become a model for the world. It was clear that Occupy Wall Street in the USA and the demonstrations in England, Spain, Greece, and Russia were in search of the soul of Tahrir.

 

In order to see broader global effects of Arab Spring, you need to take all international relations that gained speed into account since the moment it started. Indeed what Arab Spring caused has a significant effect on the developments of the recent year. Because what is happening or foreseen to happen in the region not only affected the current relations of the EU, Russia, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and of the US and Israel in particular but also it instigated the struggle for existence there more effectively or less harmfully in future. And this has triggered intensive chains of relations for new alliances and disintegrations. In short we can say that Arab Spring Revolutions will absolutely have an effect on the incidents that will happen in the world.

 

 

Of course while trying to follow the global and regional effects of Arab Spring, we should not forget the fact that the process still continues. The spring is not without storms, hurricanes indeed. It is getting more obvious day by day that military council in Egypt does not want to delegate their authorities by no means although the results of the first two elections were clear. The military council is hard put to control the process and maintain the old system by diverting the revolution. By interfering in the election system and imposing the veto power of military forces they are trying to establish their guardianship. Meaningless and merciless violence against simple things causes counter violence as a reaction; thus it seems like these are good opportunities for them to divert the revolution. For most of the people in Egypt, it causes great concern about the fact that military council will not be willing to delegate its military authorities or guardianship.

 

Is the Egyptian army trying to preserve or establish these authorities for its existence as a class? Or are they following this policy for the US that they have close relations with and are dependent on? : This is an important question. Although the US has no benefit in this process –even it has done more harm than good- which seems like a spring to Arabs, how does the US consent? This question is still waiting to be answered. Therefore, any army-originated problem is perceived as the US intervention in the end.

 

One of the regional effects of Arab Spring is that the demands of the region for democratization have been getting stronger in an uncontrolled way. If it continues, it is obvious that these people will find themselves; for most of the people tend to meet and hug each other. The artificial boundaries of nation state are working in a way that keeps each of them in their own prisons. However they speak the same language; believe in the same religion; and share the same culture. And if trade starts, there will be economical activities; and it will be ready to be the material base of this meeting. Moreover, if the demands of democratization are met, it will be enough to ruin the systems of international powers that found a way to govern the region so far just by persuading dictators. For the US, Israel, and the EU it means Islamist political parties will come to power. Although with prudent considerations, they put oil on troubled waters, it triggers serious concerns and antipathies. At least provided that it goes like this, hereupon there will be a period in which Israel –unlike in the past- will not be able to be sure of Egypt and Libya and even of Syria gradually. The state of affairs with Israel in Turkey, where democracy is more effective, may have been a serious lesson for Israel. In fact Israel need not have taught a lesson; for Israel already knew it. Therefore as it was obvious on 28^th February, Israel had been much closer to anti-democratic forces in Turkey from the very beginning.

 

 

Meanwhile there is another outcome of Arab Spring. While Islam is a symbol of “fear” and “hatred” in Western world, it was an important factor in Arab Spring process; thus it causes disappointment. Of course it is a weird situation. And it reveals a more weird reality: the western media is not ready to see that Islam is not a threat as it was claimed. They want to see Islam as a “violent shariah” that they created in their oriental imagination. For many years media has been creating a realm of imagination on how Islam and democracy or Islam and modern values conflict. This realm of imagination is where there is no room for Islam about what it says, claims, and suggests; it just projects everything about Islam as fear and hatred.

On the other hand Islamist parties in the Arab world, say “freedom”, “justice”, “development”, “democracy”, “human rights” or at most “light” or “merit” instead of usual slogans or working under the title of “Islam” and “Seriah”. Portraying these people, who came together around these values, as a great threat is of course difficult. Thus they try to find solace in saying that these values have nothing to do with Islam so Arab Spring indicates the end of Islamism. However, when the Islamist political parties won the elections; they again began to repeat their discourse of fear but without much justification. An effective democracy in Islam makes some people scared. Even when Islamist parties speak full of worldly matters, even when it is full of the concepts that they can understand very well, fear still remains. However, incidents about xenophobia and Islamophobia in western states –whose number are increasing each passing day- are more about realistic threats. 

 

We talked about how Arab Spring made way for Arabs to meet and cooperate possibly. It is unreasonable to think that this spring, which is supposed to make independent and public will-based-government review all international relations, will bring peace to the US, Israel, and Europe. Thus they are trying to do their best in order to divert the revolution. That is why the USA and France that intervened in the revolution through Libya after non-violent revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, are trying to do the same in Syria today. It is a fact that if hundreds of people die in Syria, no one will care. France did not hide the fact that the only thing they cared when they intervened in Libya was oil and other natural riches. So now expecting France to intervene in Syria for humane reasons will be simple-heartedness.

 

 

On the other hand, as –maybe- the only actor coming into prominence with Arab Spring and having a special mission, Turkey’s attitude towards the region is not like the others’, and it cannot be. Syrian government, the USA, and France can come together and maintain their relations any time. Today it is better understood that they are trying to make Turkey offside in this period. The US sent their ambassador to Syria again after a short break; are dragging their feet for sanctions on Syrian government and trying to drag Turkey to an irrevocable point. These are not overlooked. Particularly Sarkozy’s concern about Armenian draft bill nowadays is mostly about it. Indeed this year France acted earlier than the US and prepared the law that punish those denying Armenian genocide. In the light of this we can obviously feel the sense of revenge in France’s resort to it. Smelling like revenge, this step is to stand in Turkey’s way in his attempt to have zero problems with its neighbors and unquestionable gains from it.

 

Of course all is in vain. The spring has already started and futile efforts of these countries are not able to stop it. It is not possible for Turkey to stay away from it; for Turkey is just in the middle of the things. France will have no benefit from this issue; on the contrary as long as it is on the agenda it will unmask France and the others. France not only caused millions of people die in Algeria and Rwanda owing to its imperialist aims in recent past but also –and more importantly- has different missions underlying its concern on Armenians nowadays. Even France’s special history of Armenians is much more meaningful.

 

The law punishing those that do not accept 1915 incidents as massacre passed in French parliamentary. The law passed just when the parliamentary was about to have a holiday because of Christmas; so out of 577 representatives only 51 of them participated in voting. And out of 51, 44 of the participants said “yes”. This process illustrated how interestingly and tragicomically democracy works in France. It has been obvious that the people are not interested in democratic processes; yet the fact that representatives who are at the center of politics are alienated to political processes was meaningful. In general if democracy works like this in Parliamentary, France is in great difficulty. Moreover this is a matter that is to be considered in general for France.

 

 

First of all it should be made clear that the law has nothing to do with what Armenians experienced in 1915. France did not want to do a favor for the Armenians living in France and want to gain their votes; and they did not try to pass this law just for “humane reasons”.

 

We need to know that now going back to history and asking “what happened actually” will neither enlighten us nor those who will be interested in history after these incidents. This issue is not about Armenians and it is not also about history. Both history and Armenians are used as a cheap means of politics.

 

In order to understand the relationship of France –that has the similar agenda in September, 2006-with Armenians, as we mentioned in Yeni Safak (“Reading France’s Interest in Armenians in a Right Way”, 2^nd October, 2006) “France has a quite meaningful history of Armenians living in France. In order to understand this, it is enough to have a look at what Armenians experienced when they first arrived in France. Do you think Armenians were accepted easily in France? You can read a number of discrimination stories about them which are not less tragic than what the Jewish experienced in Germany before the war.

 

Now France seems to protect Armenians. However today France’s racist and discriminatory policies for the citizens with Moroccan and Algerian backgrounds affected first-generation Armenians much more severely. All in all their treatments for this “black race” that does not seem different from Turks and Arabs as a race are creepy. In the Second World War, their labor was used and they were also used against each other. No one could even record this genocide.

 

Armenians fought tooth and nail and got their status with their efforts in France; yet things changed a bit after France realized the political interest in Armenians. For France, which cannot be compared with any other county in terms of racism and skillful genocide experience, Armenians are not more than profitable investment. France’s concern is neither human rights nor love for Armenians.

 

Furthermore France’s concern makes things worse as usual. While France is pointing Turkey, it is trying to distract people’s attention not to question France’s history of Armenians. Moreover while posing an obstacle on Turkey’s way to the EU, France is using Armenians as it did before.”

 

Today in its attitude towards Turkey, France is using the same Armenians to clear the mine. In this period Armenian Diaspora was quite eager and put so much effort in passing the law; yet it does not matter. If France did not have this attitude today, there would have been 100 representatives not just 51 in the parliamentary and they would have easily repressed Armenian Diaspora’s pressure. France did not do this and it is its own choice.

 

 

In a reaction to what France did, the campaigns of all people from different groups started to prove how France’s history is darker than ours. In fact it is futile to talk about France’s other massacres because of this incident; as it is not about history or Armenians. It is just about France’s attitude towards Turkey today. Through this matter, France revealed what it felt towards Turkey; that is all.

 

To start with we need to analyze the context of relations causing these feelings. In the light of this, as we mentioned above Turkey’s foreign policy catches the attention. Turkey is following a policy that is restricting France’s all activities particularly in the Middle East. When Arab Spring started –in other words when the demonstrations in Tunisia started- by showing how unable he is to foresee what would happen Sarkozy announced that they would support Tunisian dictator until the very end.

In fact this support has been the requirement of France’s patronage in all dictatorships in North Africa particularly Algeria and Tunisia; yet it has also displayed that France is the real collaborator –even the patron- of today’s convicted dictators. When Islamic Salvation Front won the elections and came to power in Algeria in 1992, a military coup happened upon military provocation. Causing two thousand Algerian Muslims die, a civil war was controlled by France’s special will. It would have been a great catastrophe if France had left the country because of few democratic demonstrations. As a matter of fact, it was a catastrophe. When France realized the course of the events, there was nothing but lagging behind for Sarkozy. And the period of revolution that took place in Egypt at that time had already started to put Turkey in the center of Arab Spring.

 

To compensate its losses as a payoff for its contribution to military operation in Libya, France expected “a dream of Libyan oil”; yet it was clearly declined by today’s government of Libya a few days ago. Holding Turkey as responsible for its disappointment, France thought that this dream was better than nothing. France demanded something bigger: a military intervention to Libya by land and a permanent occupation. Thus, there was an option for France not to leave Libya until it guaranteed to have Libya’s oil until the very last drop. Again France changed its mind because of Turkey’s insistent and effective attitude. That is why France sees Turkey as an actor that is destroying its all plans nowadays. Therefore, France’s plan to make Turkey busy with “genocide” agenda is crazy, but not totally unplanned. In a way France is expecting to purge itself by portraying Turkey as a perpetrator of genocide to the Arab world that does not trust France because it reminds them of the massacres in Algeria, Syria, and Africa. Therefore, France is planning to destroy Turkey’s position in Arab world so that France will have strong ties with them.

 

With simple logic, Sarkozy is far away from realities by ignoring the fact that it will remind people more of France’s history of massacres. Since the day this matter came to the agenda, I have been following all readers’ comments on Arab websites –particularly Al Jazeera that talked about France’s attitude. I just read a few comments that find Turkey guilt about it. But more dominantly people are questioning France’s attempt to protect Armenians by taking the attention to what France did in Algeria. All of them say that they support Turkey, especially Erdogan. Many people consider France’s attempt as a manifestation of hatred of Israel and Zionism for Turkey. From this perspective, France has no chance. Because a great number of Arabs see France controlled by Israel and its supporters, it does not seem probable for France to benefit from a conflict with Turkey in this period. When Yusuf el-Kardavi considered this matter as an offence to all Muslim, it finished the discussion. Revealing its hostile attitude, France lost its chance in Arab Spring if it had some.

 

Therefore, in a way it does not seem probable for France that is trying to keep Turkey busy with genocide agenda to make a profit from this. However, France violated their own founding values (except brotherhood and equality), “freedom of expression”. They used the memories of Armenian citizens; their own history; and ignored all their possible alliances with Turkey and benefits. If they call it French “rationality”, what else can we say?