Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

House of Lords: Armenian Massacres of 1915

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • House of Lords: Armenian Massacres of 1915

    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.
Working...
X