Tweet
Armenica
Box 1716, 751 47 Uppsala, Sweden
Contact: Vahagn Avedian
+46 707 73 33 83
[email protected]
www.armenica.org
June 12, 2008
Stockholm, Sweden
Swedish Parliament Refuses to Recognize the 1915 Genocide
On June 12, 2008, the Swedish Parliament, with the votes 245 to 37 (1
abstain, 66 absent), rejected a call for recognition of the 1915 genocide
in the Ottoman Empire. On June 11, a long debate took place in the Swedish
Parliament in regard to the Foreign Committee report on Human Rights,
including five motions calling upon the Swedish Government and Parliament
to officially recognize the 1915 genocide. In its answer (2007/2008:UU9),
a majority consisting of the ruling alliance parties together with the
Social Democrats (opposition party) proposed rejecting the motions,
whereby the Green (Miljöpartiet) and the Left (Vänsterpartiet) parties
announced their reservations, forcing the Parliament to have a debate in
the main chamber before the proposal was voted on. The argumentation for
why a recognition should be rejected was based on four main assumptions:
- -...no particular consideration regarding the Armenian situation has ever
been in form of an UN Resolution, either in 1985 or any other occasion.-
- -The Committee understands that what engulfed the Armenians,
Assyrian/Syrians and Chaldeans during the reign of the Ottoman Empire
would, according to the 1948 Convention, probably be regarded as genocide,
if it had been in power at the time.-
- -There is still a disagreement among the experts regarding the different
course of events of the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. The same
applies to the underlying causes and how the assaults shall be
classified.-
- [in regard to the development in Turkey] -...in the time being, it would
be venturesome to disturb an initiate and delicate national process.-
[which could fuel the extremists in the country]
In an open letter to MPs, I pointed out some major flaws in the stated
arguments, mentioning that the Foreign Committee members are either poorly
informed on the existing data, reports, conventions and resolutions or
they simply disregard the broad information which strongly contradicts
their assertions. The UNCHR Whitaker Report from 1985, the resolutions
issued by the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS), the
UN Genocide Convention, its background and meaning, along with the
petition signed by over 60 world leading Holocaust and Genocide scholars
(available in 13 languages at http://itwasgenocide.armenica.org) were some
of the attachments as evidence for the erroneous and misleading
information the report suggested. But, the debate on June 11 proofed that
the decision had nothing to do with the presented facts.
The more the debate went on, the more it was revealed that no MP could
explain, less defend, any of the above mentioned arguments, save for maybe
the last one. During the debate, Member of Parliament Hans Linde (Left),
talking about the arguments stated in the document repeatedly asked the
members of the alliance parties to explain the argumentation in the report
and answer three simple and straight forward questions, namely 1) Who are
these researchers disagreeing on the reality of the 1915 genocide? 2) If
the 1915 genocide can not be recognized due to the chronology of the 1948
UN Convention, how come then the Holocaust is recognized? 3) Why should
the fear of extremists inside Turkey dictate the freedom of speech in the
Swedish Parliament? None of the defendants could give an answer. This
actually might be the only light in the otherwise some what embarrassing
situation that the MPs were faced with when trying to evade the questions
in whole. Mats Sanders (Moderat/Conservatives) had, literally nothing to
add but to refer to the report text. Alf Svensson (Christian Democrats),
in regard to the -disagreement among researchers-, was asked to name only
one serious researcher who renounces the 1915 genocide. He defended the
proposition by stating that he -believes in the information they receive
from the Foreign Services... I believe that this is the truth, and if it is
proven otherwise, then I am truly sorry.- I am not quite sure if Mr.
Svensson really believes in what he stated in that sentence. But then
again, who, if not a Christian Democrat would safeguard issues such as
moral, human dignity, and stewardship.
Mats Pertoft (Green), one of the co-authors of the motions, pointed out
that the 1915 genocide was no different from the climate issue. For couple
of years ago, there was a disagreement among researchers about the global
warming, but now, even though there are some who still disagree, there is
a consensus on the issue among an overwhelming majority of the
researchers. The same applies to the 1915 genocide. Mentioning the
petition signed by genocide experts, Pertoft joined Linde in urging the
MPs to at least deny recognition on political basis and refrain from
abusing the name of science and renouncing facts. A day earlier, I,
together with Linde and Pertoft, partook in a debate broadcasted live by
the Assyrian Satellite TV Station Suroyo. The TV station had invited
several other MPs representing the -no- side, but in vain. No one was
willing to participate. Linde's radio debate on the subject, scheduled for
the morning of June 11, was also canceled since the MP defending the
Foreign Committee proposition had backed out in last second. Maybe, just
maybe, the text of the petition, sent to all members of parliament, made a
difference by stating that -Today, the data and information about the
Genocide of Armenians, Assyrians and Pontic Greeks are so extensive that
no serious politician can honestly cite insufficient or inconclusive
research as an excuse to avoid recognition.- This was at least true in the
case of those who chose not participate in any of the debates, rather than
compromising their honesty by being forced to follow their party line and
defend their denial of a genocide.
Two politicians defied their parties. Yilmaz Kerimo (Social Democrat), an
ethnic Assyrian was one. The other, Lennart Sacrédeus (Christian
Democrat), going against his party line, took the podium defending a
recognition of the 1915 genocide and ended his statement by adding: -I
know that we will stay here again in one year debating the very same
question...Turkey will be hit by bad will for every debate in every
parliament where this question is deeply associated with Turkey. I think
that we acknowledge and can understand the background for why the issue is
locked in Turkey; but the truth will set you free and it applies to Turkey
and the legacy after Atatürk.- The truth will set you free, but Swedish
politicians today displayed that they are neither ready to acknowledge the
truth nor willing to set Turkey free from its dark burdensome past.
The debate lasted over three hours, during which the present audience
agreed upon one certainty: no one of those recommending the rejection of a
recognition could, based on the alleged arguments in the report, explain,
less defend their case. It was soon obvious that there simply were no
sustainable arguments to be given to explain why Sweden can not recognize
the 1915 genocide. The -no- was purely a political decision for
maintaining good relations with Turkey, nothing else. But could such a
decision actually benefit Turkey? Or Sweden? Or EU? In my opinion, similar
decisions and signals are nothing but doing Turkey, and not least oneself,
a disservice. What kind of message do we send to a Turkey in urgent need
of reformation and democratization when we tell them that it is actually
acceptable to cover up crimes and deny facts and the truth? What kind of a
democracy does Sweden and EU nourish in Turkey? Notwithstanding, I can not
imagine a single Armenian who would not welcome, by European measures, a
reformed and democratized Turkey as their neighbor. The same would apply
to Assyrians, Greeks, Kurds etc. But, the kind of signals which the
Swedish Parliament today sent surely cause more damage to the Turkish
process of becoming a more open society than the opposite.
Another paradox in Sweden became evident, namely the existence of the
Living History Forum, a government agency created in the wake of the
International and Intergovernmental Genocide Conference in Stockholm,
2004. On their web site the mission of the agency is described as
following: -The Living History Forum is a government agency which has been
commissioned with the task of promoting issues relating to tolerance,
democracy and human rights - with the Holocaust as its point of reference.
By spreading knowledge about the darkest sides of human history, we want
to influence the future.- The Living History Forum lists the 1915 genocide
as one of the genocides in the 20th century and educates the Swedish
society about what really happened in the Ottoman Empire during WWI. It
seems highly ironic that the Swedish Government and politicians do not
practice what they preach. -By spreading knowledge about the darkest sides
of human history, we want to influence the future.- Suddenly, Darfur makes
total sense. The world which Swedish politicians, or any other politicians
for that matter, shape by influencing the future with their denial of
genocide is the kind where we do speak of, not a historic, but an ongoing
genocide, that in Darfur; and we will most certainly experience yet many
more.
The phrase: -history must be left to historians- is often used by the
Turkish state and those politicians around the world who do wish to avoid
treading Turkish toes by recognizing the 1915 genocide. I did not realize
until today how true that phrase is. Actually, I totally agree with the
Turkish state on this one: history must be written by historians, not
politicians. Today, however, Swedish MPs wrote their own new version of
the history, a revised alternative suiting their political agenda,
denouncing a broad data and consensus put forward by the expert scholars
in the field. I hope that Swedish leaders, as well as all political
leaders, would in future leave the research to researchers and base their
decision making on presented facts put forward by scholars. Sacrédeus'
prophecy will be fulfilled as the 1915 genocide will most certainly be
discussed in the Swedish Parliament again and again. As an answer to the
last question I got in the TV debate, about how we will continue when the
highly expected rejection in the Parliament comes, I replied -We will go
on remembering the genocide of 1915, even after its recognition. We have
already started the preparation for the manifestation on April 24, 2009,
which, as the last two years, will take place in front of the Swedish
Parliament. But, I hope that this time, instead of calling upon the
Parliament to recognize the genocide, we will thank the MPs for having
recognized it.-
Vahagn Avedian
Chairman of the Union of Armenian Associations in Sweden
Chief Editor of Armenica.org
Box 1716, 751 47 Uppsala, Sweden
Contact: Vahagn Avedian
+46 707 73 33 83
[email protected]
www.armenica.org
June 12, 2008
Stockholm, Sweden
Swedish Parliament Refuses to Recognize the 1915 Genocide
On June 12, 2008, the Swedish Parliament, with the votes 245 to 37 (1
abstain, 66 absent), rejected a call for recognition of the 1915 genocide
in the Ottoman Empire. On June 11, a long debate took place in the Swedish
Parliament in regard to the Foreign Committee report on Human Rights,
including five motions calling upon the Swedish Government and Parliament
to officially recognize the 1915 genocide. In its answer (2007/2008:UU9),
a majority consisting of the ruling alliance parties together with the
Social Democrats (opposition party) proposed rejecting the motions,
whereby the Green (Miljöpartiet) and the Left (Vänsterpartiet) parties
announced their reservations, forcing the Parliament to have a debate in
the main chamber before the proposal was voted on. The argumentation for
why a recognition should be rejected was based on four main assumptions:
- -...no particular consideration regarding the Armenian situation has ever
been in form of an UN Resolution, either in 1985 or any other occasion.-
- -The Committee understands that what engulfed the Armenians,
Assyrian/Syrians and Chaldeans during the reign of the Ottoman Empire
would, according to the 1948 Convention, probably be regarded as genocide,
if it had been in power at the time.-
- -There is still a disagreement among the experts regarding the different
course of events of the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. The same
applies to the underlying causes and how the assaults shall be
classified.-
- [in regard to the development in Turkey] -...in the time being, it would
be venturesome to disturb an initiate and delicate national process.-
[which could fuel the extremists in the country]
In an open letter to MPs, I pointed out some major flaws in the stated
arguments, mentioning that the Foreign Committee members are either poorly
informed on the existing data, reports, conventions and resolutions or
they simply disregard the broad information which strongly contradicts
their assertions. The UNCHR Whitaker Report from 1985, the resolutions
issued by the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS), the
UN Genocide Convention, its background and meaning, along with the
petition signed by over 60 world leading Holocaust and Genocide scholars
(available in 13 languages at http://itwasgenocide.armenica.org) were some
of the attachments as evidence for the erroneous and misleading
information the report suggested. But, the debate on June 11 proofed that
the decision had nothing to do with the presented facts.
The more the debate went on, the more it was revealed that no MP could
explain, less defend, any of the above mentioned arguments, save for maybe
the last one. During the debate, Member of Parliament Hans Linde (Left),
talking about the arguments stated in the document repeatedly asked the
members of the alliance parties to explain the argumentation in the report
and answer three simple and straight forward questions, namely 1) Who are
these researchers disagreeing on the reality of the 1915 genocide? 2) If
the 1915 genocide can not be recognized due to the chronology of the 1948
UN Convention, how come then the Holocaust is recognized? 3) Why should
the fear of extremists inside Turkey dictate the freedom of speech in the
Swedish Parliament? None of the defendants could give an answer. This
actually might be the only light in the otherwise some what embarrassing
situation that the MPs were faced with when trying to evade the questions
in whole. Mats Sanders (Moderat/Conservatives) had, literally nothing to
add but to refer to the report text. Alf Svensson (Christian Democrats),
in regard to the -disagreement among researchers-, was asked to name only
one serious researcher who renounces the 1915 genocide. He defended the
proposition by stating that he -believes in the information they receive
from the Foreign Services... I believe that this is the truth, and if it is
proven otherwise, then I am truly sorry.- I am not quite sure if Mr.
Svensson really believes in what he stated in that sentence. But then
again, who, if not a Christian Democrat would safeguard issues such as
moral, human dignity, and stewardship.
Mats Pertoft (Green), one of the co-authors of the motions, pointed out
that the 1915 genocide was no different from the climate issue. For couple
of years ago, there was a disagreement among researchers about the global
warming, but now, even though there are some who still disagree, there is
a consensus on the issue among an overwhelming majority of the
researchers. The same applies to the 1915 genocide. Mentioning the
petition signed by genocide experts, Pertoft joined Linde in urging the
MPs to at least deny recognition on political basis and refrain from
abusing the name of science and renouncing facts. A day earlier, I,
together with Linde and Pertoft, partook in a debate broadcasted live by
the Assyrian Satellite TV Station Suroyo. The TV station had invited
several other MPs representing the -no- side, but in vain. No one was
willing to participate. Linde's radio debate on the subject, scheduled for
the morning of June 11, was also canceled since the MP defending the
Foreign Committee proposition had backed out in last second. Maybe, just
maybe, the text of the petition, sent to all members of parliament, made a
difference by stating that -Today, the data and information about the
Genocide of Armenians, Assyrians and Pontic Greeks are so extensive that
no serious politician can honestly cite insufficient or inconclusive
research as an excuse to avoid recognition.- This was at least true in the
case of those who chose not participate in any of the debates, rather than
compromising their honesty by being forced to follow their party line and
defend their denial of a genocide.
Two politicians defied their parties. Yilmaz Kerimo (Social Democrat), an
ethnic Assyrian was one. The other, Lennart Sacrédeus (Christian
Democrat), going against his party line, took the podium defending a
recognition of the 1915 genocide and ended his statement by adding: -I
know that we will stay here again in one year debating the very same
question...Turkey will be hit by bad will for every debate in every
parliament where this question is deeply associated with Turkey. I think
that we acknowledge and can understand the background for why the issue is
locked in Turkey; but the truth will set you free and it applies to Turkey
and the legacy after Atatürk.- The truth will set you free, but Swedish
politicians today displayed that they are neither ready to acknowledge the
truth nor willing to set Turkey free from its dark burdensome past.
The debate lasted over three hours, during which the present audience
agreed upon one certainty: no one of those recommending the rejection of a
recognition could, based on the alleged arguments in the report, explain,
less defend their case. It was soon obvious that there simply were no
sustainable arguments to be given to explain why Sweden can not recognize
the 1915 genocide. The -no- was purely a political decision for
maintaining good relations with Turkey, nothing else. But could such a
decision actually benefit Turkey? Or Sweden? Or EU? In my opinion, similar
decisions and signals are nothing but doing Turkey, and not least oneself,
a disservice. What kind of message do we send to a Turkey in urgent need
of reformation and democratization when we tell them that it is actually
acceptable to cover up crimes and deny facts and the truth? What kind of a
democracy does Sweden and EU nourish in Turkey? Notwithstanding, I can not
imagine a single Armenian who would not welcome, by European measures, a
reformed and democratized Turkey as their neighbor. The same would apply
to Assyrians, Greeks, Kurds etc. But, the kind of signals which the
Swedish Parliament today sent surely cause more damage to the Turkish
process of becoming a more open society than the opposite.
Another paradox in Sweden became evident, namely the existence of the
Living History Forum, a government agency created in the wake of the
International and Intergovernmental Genocide Conference in Stockholm,
2004. On their web site the mission of the agency is described as
following: -The Living History Forum is a government agency which has been
commissioned with the task of promoting issues relating to tolerance,
democracy and human rights - with the Holocaust as its point of reference.
By spreading knowledge about the darkest sides of human history, we want
to influence the future.- The Living History Forum lists the 1915 genocide
as one of the genocides in the 20th century and educates the Swedish
society about what really happened in the Ottoman Empire during WWI. It
seems highly ironic that the Swedish Government and politicians do not
practice what they preach. -By spreading knowledge about the darkest sides
of human history, we want to influence the future.- Suddenly, Darfur makes
total sense. The world which Swedish politicians, or any other politicians
for that matter, shape by influencing the future with their denial of
genocide is the kind where we do speak of, not a historic, but an ongoing
genocide, that in Darfur; and we will most certainly experience yet many
more.
The phrase: -history must be left to historians- is often used by the
Turkish state and those politicians around the world who do wish to avoid
treading Turkish toes by recognizing the 1915 genocide. I did not realize
until today how true that phrase is. Actually, I totally agree with the
Turkish state on this one: history must be written by historians, not
politicians. Today, however, Swedish MPs wrote their own new version of
the history, a revised alternative suiting their political agenda,
denouncing a broad data and consensus put forward by the expert scholars
in the field. I hope that Swedish leaders, as well as all political
leaders, would in future leave the research to researchers and base their
decision making on presented facts put forward by scholars. Sacrédeus'
prophecy will be fulfilled as the 1915 genocide will most certainly be
discussed in the Swedish Parliament again and again. As an answer to the
last question I got in the TV debate, about how we will continue when the
highly expected rejection in the Parliament comes, I replied -We will go
on remembering the genocide of 1915, even after its recognition. We have
already started the preparation for the manifestation on April 24, 2009,
which, as the last two years, will take place in front of the Swedish
Parliament. But, I hope that this time, instead of calling upon the
Parliament to recognize the genocide, we will thank the MPs for having
recognized it.-
Vahagn Avedian
Chairman of the Union of Armenian Associations in Sweden
Chief Editor of Armenica.org