There seems to be two important arguments in the debate between Alliansen and the Red-Greens. Politicizing history and the reconciliation process between Turkey and Armenia.
From reading around, and from what I have heard earlier in my life, it seems like there is overwhelming support for the idea that we are talking about a genocide. This means that historic research is fact, as hard as it gets, which in turn means that the Red-Greens have voted and so has a few from The Alliansen but is seems like there are in fact more conscientious dissident voices. Fredrik Reinfeldt has apparently changed his opinion from 2006.
Our minister of the environment, Andreas Carlgren, said that he wants results from the research on the environment from scientists to be able to make decisions on political matters. Is this politicizing meteorological research? Most people would say that it is not.
There is also an argument put forward from Alliansen, which Hilary Clinton also used in the recent American debate on the same issue, that the reconciliation process between Turkey and Armenia would be disturbed. As Mona Sahlin said during her interview on the radio yesterday, there will be a temporary disturbance. However, in the long run reconciliation will never be possible between Turkey and Armenia if Turkey does not conform with the brunt of international knowledge on this matter and goes through the process of acceptance of this fact.
On October 12, 2006 France passed a bill making it a crime to deny the Armenian genocide of 1915. This was not popular in Turkey either but it demonstrates how important this issue is and that Turkey's aggressive overreactions seem typical of a collective bad conscience, if anything. I don't know about Alliansen but if prefer to be on the same page as twelve European nations than with Turkey on this issue.
Amorteringskravet är symbolpolitik – artikel i UNT
8 timmar sedan