House of Lords: Armenian Massacres of 1915

[Hovik]

http://www.accc.org.uk/News/Lords_-_14July05/lords_-_14july05.html

House of Lords

Thursday, 14 July 2005.

The House met at eleven of the clock (Prayers having been read
earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Newcastle): The
CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.

14 Jul 2005 : Column 1212

Armenian Massacres of 1915

11.7 am

Baroness Cox asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they will reconsider their position with regard to the
recognition of the Armenian massacres of 1915 as genocide.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth
Office (Lord Triesman): My Lords, the long-standing position of Her
Majesty's Government is well known. The British Government acknowledge
the strength of feeling about this terrible episode of history and
recognise the massacres of 1915-16 as a tragedy. However, neither
this Government nor previous British governments have judged that
the evidence is sufficiently unequivocal to persuade us that these
events should be categorised as genocide as defined by the 1948 UN
convention on genocide.

Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he
agree that every unrecognised genocide encourages other potential
genocides, as shown by Hitler's infamous statement before invading
Poland: "Who today speaks of the Armenians?"?

The testimony of respected contemporary witnesses shows that the
massacres of 1.5 million Armenians by Turkey would certainly fit the
contemporary definition of genocide. What steps are the Government
taking to ensure that their refusal to acknowledge this does not give
implicit encouragement to other perpetrators of would-be genocides or,
indeed, inhibit Turkey from recognising this, which is a precondition
for healing and reconciliation?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I say unequivocally that what took place
was by any standards an atrocity of the first order. The judgment
required under the United Nations convention is that it can be
demonstrated that a state had intent. That is the element that the
lawyers have concluded is not shown in this case. That is why the
difference is made. However, that does not alter the fact that every
nation responsible for atrocities on such a scale needs to face them,
think about them and consider what can be done or said to help to
heal some of the wound that was caused, even if some time ago.

Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that
the issue is not so much what the Turkish Government did as their
present attitude to the atrocities? Given that it is now a criminal
offence in Turkey to refer to the genocide, that an academic seminar
supported by three Turkish universities was banned by the Government
and that academics are in prison for discussing it, is my noble friend
a little troubled that admitting Turkey to the European Union--not
after but while the Government demonstrate this contempt for human
rights--may debase the ethical implications of EU membership?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, it is true that the issue has not been set
as a precondition for negotiations with Turkey over accession to
the European Union, which, as I said to your Lordships yesterday,
will start on 3 October. On the other hand, there is no doubt that
progress needs to be made and that it must be substantive. The United
Kingdom Government have attempted to move this process on. In March
2005, at an EU Ministerial Troika with Turkey, my right honourable
friend Denis MacShane suggested to Turkey that there should be an
independent international commission to review the events of 1915.

Subsequently, the Turkish Prime Minister wrote to the Armenian
President and offered to collaborate in such a review. I submit to the
House that the review might well reach the conclusion that there was
genocide because that is not ruled out. I am not prejudging what the
review might do. But unfortunately the proposal was not accepted by
the Armenians unless the border issue and recognition were resolved
first. It is quite hard to see how progress can be made easily.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, the Minister will recall the
official British government inquiry into these atrocities under Lord
Bryce in 1915, which established beyond doubt that huge and systematic
massacres had taken place. Speaking for myself and for many others,
although there is sympathy with modern Turkey's position and its desire
to move into effective membership of the European Union, might it not
be useful for the British Government to tell our Turkish friends--to
nudge them, as it were--that a more open approach on this matter than
the one rightly described by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer,
might help Turkey's general position and prospects of membership of
the European Union?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I sympathise wholly with what my noble and
learned friend Lord Archer and the noble Lord, Lord Howell, have just
said. That is precisely why my right honourable friend Denis MacShane
urged that on the Turkish Government. Given how static this position
has been for so long, we took some comfort that they were prepared to
accept a completely independent international commission to review
the events. That itself is the beginning of significant change. It
is not the change itself but the beginning of the change. We should
continue to encourage that process.

Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I speak as one who supports Turkey's
application to join the European Union. However, do Her Majesty's
Government recognise that the conduct of modern Turkey dismays many
who support the application to join and creates real obstacles to
its success? I refer: first, to its refusal to acknowledge the fact
of the massacre of more than a million Armenians under the Ottoman
Empire; secondly, to its enactment of the provision to which the
noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, referred--Article 305 of the
Turkish penal code making journalists and others liable to criminal
prosecution for using the word "genocide" in Turkey; and, thirdly,
to the continuation of the blockade that has been referred to.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, there is no reference in the penal code
itself to that. There is an explanatory note to Article 305, which
has the impact described. However, I am told that it is not legally
binding. I also make it clear that the European Commission expects the
language to be taken into account in interpreting Article 305 because
it would not be acceptable to the European Union to interpret it in
such a damaging way.

Good relations with neighbouring states require that there should be
open and flexible discussion of borders. That requires discussion not
just with Armenia, but also with Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh.
That is, again, slightly complex, but we are encouraging that border
discussion.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in 1999 when I sent
Joyce Quin, the then Minister for Europe, a list of 400 bibliographical
references on the genocide, she said that the Foreign Office did
not have time to study them? In view of the fact that, since then,
the Bryce Blue Book has been reprinted with all the references and
that archives from Germany and Turkey have been put into the public
domain, does the noble Lord not think that the Foreign Office should
at least thoroughly re-examine the evidence?

Lord Triesman: Yes, my Lords, for I am one of life's perpetual
students. I do not mean to be at all frivolous about the subject of
genocide, for there is no subject more telling in our recent modern
history. I will most certainly study that.

[Gavur]

Armenian Genocide: British Response To Turkish Denial Gathers Pace

PRESS RELEASE
The Armenian Community (UK)
An Occasional Journal on British Armenian Affairs
Garod House
42 Blythe Rd.
London W14 0HA
UK
Contact Person: Roland Mnatsakanyan
Email: [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected])


By Nora Vosbigian, London

A special meeting chaired by Lord Avebury and Lord Archer of Sandwell
QC was held at the British House of Lords on October 12th to discuss
the Armenian Genocide. The initiative was spurred by a formal letter
signed by all members of the Turkish Parliament denying the veracity
of the 1916 British Parliamentary Blue Book The Treatment of Armenians
in the Ottoman Empire 1915-16, as well as denying the Armenian
Genocide itself. The letter was addressed to every member of the
British Houses of Parliament.

The meeting was attended by Members of Parliament, academics,
journalists, lawyers, members of advocacy groups, and private
individuals. It was also reported by BBC World Service and various
Turkish daily newspapers.

Thanking the Gomidas Institute for its written response, Avebury and
Archer agreed that the Turkish petition deserved an answer because of
the official nature of the letter from Ankara; the gravity of the
charges levelled against the British by Turkish parliamentarians; and
conversely, the gravity of the charges levelled against Turkish
parliamentarians by the Gomidas Institute.

`This is a black and white issue,' said Lord Archer. `Either the
charges levelled by Turkish Parliamentarians are true or they are
not.' Heconcluded, based on the evidence presented, that the Turkish
position was clearly in error.

Lord Avebury stressed the need to address the Armenian Genocide before
Turkey joined the European Union. He pointed out that the resolution
of the Armenian issue was part of the liberalization process in
Turkey, where Turkish intellectuals themselves were challenging the
official Turkish line on the destruction of Armenians by holding
conferences, speaking out at public events, and expressing their views
in newspapers. Avebury also acknowledged that there was a great deal
of opposition to any discussion of Armenians. The question remained
whether the Turkish state will allow the expression of such differing
views, or whether it will clamp down on dissent.

The main speaker of the day, Ara Sarafian, argued that one may raise
legitimate questions about the Armenian Genocide, but the Turkish
parliament's position in its letter was contrived. Sarafian maintained
that Turkish parliamentarians deliberately avoided addressing
questions they themselvesraised as a strategic ploy. This was most
evident from the letter sent to British parliamentarians. The Turkish
stance was akin to Holocaust deniers. This was why Sarafian called
Turkish Parliamentarians `deniers'.

Sarafian continued to speak about his written report which refuted the
Turkish position. He repeated the main points in his report,
especially the fact that the Turkish letter on the Blue Book purported
to be well considered and based on archival research at the British
National Archives (formerly the Public Record Office at Kew). Yet, the
Turkish letter deliberately left out discussion of the core records
from British archives (such as the Toynbee Papers), and introduced
outright falsehoods, such as the claim that Arnold Toynbee (who had
compiled the 1916 volume) had confessed that his work had been a
fabrication. `Absolute rubbish' said Sarafian. `Toynbee maintained,
until the end of his life, that Armenians were subjected to the crime
of genocide. In fact, several times Toynbee used the `G' word to
describe the fate of Ottoman Armenians in 1915.'

Turkish authorities and other deniers, Sarafian argued, also avoided
any acknowledgement of the archival trail associated with the 1916
Blue Book for other reasons too. This was because that trail would
have pointed to United States archival records on the Armenian
Genocide, something which would also have complicated the denialist
agenda. After all, the United States government, like the British
government, chooses to deny the reality of the Armenian Genocide.


Sarafian also pointed out the irony that the current Blue Book issue
left the deniers at their most vulnerable. `All the relevant records
are in the UK.

The Turkish authorities can not manipulate these records, as they can
manipulate Turkish archives. For once the playing field is equal. And
the Turkish Parliament's integrity and competence are on the line. Let
others judge who is right and who is wrong.'

Indeed, Sarafian has already published most of his argument against
the Turkish position in his much acclaimed critical edition of the
1916 Blue Book, The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire
1915-16 [uncensored edition] (Gomidas Institute, 2005), as well as
associated documentary publications, most notably United States
Official Records on the Armenian Genocide, 1915-1917 (Gomidas
Institute, 2004), United States Diplomacy on the Bosphorus: The
Diaries of Ambassador Morgenthau, 1913-1916 (Gomidas Institute, 2004),
and British Parliamentary Debates on the Armenian Genocide 1915-1918
(Gomidas Institute, 2003). These demonstrable sources are the key
source against the Turkish parliamentarians and their advisers.


In the ensuing question and answer session, Sarafian identified the
key architects of the Turkish position as Justin McCarthy (University
of Louisville, Kentucky) and Sukru Elekdag (former Turkish ambassador
to Washington DC and currently a member of the Turkish
Parliament). Sarafian also stated that the British historian Andrew
Mango (SOAS) played a support role to the Turkish denialist position
in Great Britain.

Following this meeting, a group of British Parliamentarians began
collecting signatures from their colleagues requesting the withdrawal
of the Turkish letter to London and offering to meet with Turkish
parliamentarians shouldthe latter wish to further discuss the 1916
parliamentary Blue Book and other materials related to the Armenian
Genocide.

For a copy of the Turkish parliament's letter and the Gomidas
Institute's response, please contact [email protected]_
(mailto:[email protected]) To order copies of the 1916 Blue Book and
other published archival recordson the Armenian Genocide, please visit
_www.garodbooks.com_ (http://www.garodbooks.com/)

[Gavur]

The Assyrian And Armenian Genocides Of 1915

PRESS RELEASE
The Armenian Community (UK)
Garod House
42 Blythe Rd.
London W14 0HA
Contact Person: Roland Mnatsakanyan

Today's date: 6 November 2005


THE ASSYRIAN AND ARMENIAN GENOCIDES OF 1915

Chicago, 29 Oct. 2005: The genocide of Assyrians in Ottoman Turkey
remains one of the darker pages in contemporary accounts of the Armenian
Genocide of 1915. Despite the fact that Assyrian Christians were
exterminated alongside Armenians, the world hears much less of the
Assyrian factor. Some commentators even state that Ottoman Greeks and
Kurds were also massacred in large numbers in 1915-16, though their
massacres were more area-specific and were to be continued after the
extermination of Armenian and Assyrians.

Ara Sarafian was the guest speaker to the Assyrian Academic Community of
Chicago (29 October 2005) where he examined the 1916 British
Parliamentary Blue Book, The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman
Empire 1915-16. This book has come into prominence in recent years
because of the ongoing denial of the Armenian Genocide by Turkish
authorities, and the allegation that the 1916 report was a forgery. The
Gomidas Institute has published two editions of the Blue Book, and
publicly opposes the Turkish position.

"Despite the name of that work" Sarafian explained, "the 1916 blue book
also reflected the experience of Assyrian Christians who were massacred
in 1915." There is a whole chapter about the treatment of Assyrians by
Turkish and Kurdish forces in Persia, and Assyrians are mentioned in
passing elsewhere. Sarafian went on to discuss, based on his research,
why Assyrians were not mentioned in the title of the Blue Book, and why
Assyrians tended to be "understated" though not entirely ignored. The
main reasons were the following:

1. Most of the key informants the British had when compiling the
parliamentary blue book were United States Consuls (who were in
communication to the outside world) and United States missionaries in
the interior of Ottoman Turkey. Since there were no US consulates in
areas with high concentrations of Assyrians (Diyarbekir, Mosul and
Hakiari), and since American missionaries in these areas were expelled
in the early stages of the genocidal process (e.g. from Mardin and
Diyarbekir), there was a distinct lack of critical information about
Assyrians from these 'core' areas.

2. Outside the main Assyrian inhabited areas, Assyrian Christians were
vastly outnumbered by Armenian Christians and were as a consequence
lumped alongside Armenians in descriptions of the genocidal process.

The fact that many Armenian academic and political activists have
avoided to engage the Assyrian issue over the years, the fate of
Assyrians (and Greeks) have not been redressed in our understanding of
the genocides of 1915. However, not all Armenian academics deny the
genocide of Assyrians. One recent excellent publication reflecting the
Assyrian experience was published in a special edition of Revue
d'histoire Arménienne contemporaine, "Mardin 1915: Anatomie
pathologique d'une destruction" (Paris, 2002). According to Sarafian,
the way to engage the Assyrian issue in a constructive way today is
through scholarship. "That has to be the bedrock of our understanding"
he added.

The ensuing discussion focused on various academic strategies for modern
Assyrians to record and integrate their experience into mainstream
academic debates. Sarafian stated that the Gomidas Institute could start
an Assyrian publications series in the English language if there was
serious interest. Others discussed the possibilities of cultivating new
specialists and soliciting scholarly articles. "At the end of the day,"
Sarafian concluded, "the Assyrian experience is part of a broader common
history, in the same mosaic of peoples in the region."

___________________

The Gomidas Institute is an independent academic organisation dedicated
to modern Armenian history. For more information about the Institute
please contact [email protected]



SUPPLEMENTAL

"The bloodstained annals of the East contain no record of massacres more
unprovoked, more widespread or more terrible than those perpetrated by
the Turkish Government upon the Christians of Anatolia and Armenia in
1915. It was the sufferings of the Armenians that chiefly drew the
attention of Britain and America because they were the most numerous
among the ecclesiastical bodies, and the slaughter was, therefore, on a
larger scale. But the minor communities, such as the Nestorian and
Assyro-Chaldean churches, were equally the victims of the plan for
exterminating Christianity, root and branch, although the Turks had
never ventured to allege that these communities had given any ground of
offense. An account of these massacres, organized and carried out with
every circumstance of cruelty by Enver and Talaat, chiefs of the
ruffianly gang who were then in power in Constantinople, has been given
in the Blue Book, published by the British Foreign Office in 1916, and
entitled "Treatment of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire."
--James Bryce, 1920