Turkish-French relations entered a new phase after the decision of the French Parliament to recognize the so called Armenian genocide. This phase is interesting because both sides try to teach each other "history" from their point of view. Actually, both nations history are a great history with many good and bad events. 

Therefore, the French parliamentarians were certainly not showing good awareness concerning Turkish history because they say that they are unable to judge these events. They say, "I am not an historian, but I think this has happened and it is a genocide." It is more than interesting to see again how French Parliament members also agree that it is a "political decision" and not a judgement of the history. Therefore, the view in Turkey is certainly much more interesting than the Turkish public hears thanks to Reha Muhtar, anchorman of SHOW TV, and other anchor persons during their late night "talk shows" what French history is!! 

Indeed, a "post-modern intellectual debate" is taking place on Turkish TV and the nation is getting "free lessons French and European history." Indeed, French Parliament has made a decision that will have long term intellectual after effects between the two countries and no doubt, the main share of responsibility belongs to French parliamentarians. Why France has been the "leader" in this process is another subject of the issue. 

Maybe it is a case of revenge. Does France want to show, even to the Americans, that it is Europe, again, which can judge the events from the 19th Century as they see it? Not the Americans who have stepped up like former President of the U.S. Bill Clinton did in preventing a similar recognition in the U.S. Congress last autumn. It was also a break in transatlantic relations, not only in concrete events like the European army where France is the main initiator, but also on the Armenian issue France wanted to prove that they are much more courageous than the members of the U.S. Congress and this is the "European difference" even on the issue of history. 

President Jacque Chirac and Prime Minister Jospin, who are certainly among the most influential European statesman also in the eyes of the Turkish people, have not acted as expected like Clinton did. And this is the break which is inevitable also for Turkey. When European leaders like Chirac and Jospin can "sacrifice" a nation like Turkey, whatever the interests of France would be in this respect, it helps neither side in the long run. Despite the fact that France has certain arguments responsible for the events which have taken place within the Ottoman territories in the beginning of the 20th century and because of this "post-modern pardon" to the Armenian nation, France has to be held responsible. 

Now, the increased anti-French views and arguments in Turkey have to be considered as a natural consequence of this French stance. Now, French history will be newly interpreted and Armenians or the Armenian diaspora will realize that Turkey is not going to recognize any bill or decision by any Parliament. The Armenian diasporas influence in France is well known, but this decision will complicate rather than ease it. 

In Turkey, as expected, many political parties and non governmental organizations reacted to the decision comparatively in a common sense and, when compared to Italy after Ocalan was discovered to be in Italy, less reactive. 

The Turkish governments reaction was also, until today, much calmer than expected and it used the classic methods of economic sanctions. Therefore, the decision is a political one and economic sanctions could be considered late actions. Actually what was needed was preventive diplomacy but it was not used effectively. How the relations between two governments could be repaired is an open question, but France is the biggest European investor with $4.3 billion in Turkey and it sends more than 500,000 tourists a year to Turkey. This means that there are very strong economic relations between the two countries. And let's not forget the Turks who have lived in France since the early sixties. The main problem is not the Armenian issue only, the problem is what place Turkey takes in the French strategic and economic thinking and vice versa. As it is now, Turkey has entertained relations with France for centuries and in the last 300 years French modernization became an example for Turkey. 

Actually during the Summit of Nice, the Armenian issue should have been a talking point when President Chirac met Prime Minister Ecevit and Foreign Minister Ismail Cem. However, now a "spoiled political atmosphere" exists between Turkey and France and it must be improved. How this thorny issue will be settled requires statesmanship and not an academic discussion. The governments of both sides have to settle it. Otherwise, a intellectual and political break will be inevitable. And it will not serve either sides interests. The long lasting Turkish-French relations should not become an hostage to certain events which are still being discussed. The Armenian diasporas early cries for a victory will be not heard in Turkey anyway. But they were successful enough to manipulate the French Parliament and in the past this has happened in other countries, too. But not in the American Congress and this is the difference!!!