Tweet
FULL TEXT OF UK PARLIAMENT DISCUSSION ON THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
Parliament.UK
http://www.publications.pa rliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/100329-gc000 4.htm
March 29 2010
5.22 pm
Sitting suspended.
Armenia
Question for Short Debate
5.30 pm
Tabled By Baroness Cox
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will reconsider their
position with regard to the recognition as genocide of the events in
Armenia from 1915 to 1917.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest as chairman of
the British-Armenian All-Party Parliamentary Group and as a recipient
of various
29 Mar 2010 : Column GC498
non-financial awards during 69 visits to Armenia and Karabakh. I am
grateful to all noble Lords contributing to this debate, which is
timely for several reasons. First, the Swedish Parliament and the
US Congress Foreign Affairs Committee have recently recognised the
Armenian genocide, which was already acknowledged by France, Italy,
Poland, Greece, Cyprus, Belgium, Slovakia, the Netherlands, the Holy
See, Russia, Canada, Uruguay, Argentina, Lebanon and, I am happy to
say, the National Assembly for Wales. Moreover, the Swedish Parliament
also recognised the genocide by Turkey of the Assyrian Christian and
Greek peoples.
Secondly, last October a significant report was published: Was there
an Armenian Genocide? Geoffrey Robertson QC'sopinion with reference
to Foreign & Commonwealth Office documents which show how British
Ministers, Parliament and people have been misled. Thirdly, this year
marks the 95th anniversary, and recognition is long overdue. Each
unrecognised genocide can encourage subsequent genocides, which is
infamously illustrated by Hitler's reference to the Armenian genocide
before he began the Holocaust in Poland:
"I have sent my Death's Head units to the East with the order to kill
without mercy men, women and children of the Polish race or language.
Only in such a way will we win the lebensraum that we need. Who,
after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?".
Whenever initiatives are taken to encourage recognition of the Armenian
genocide, the Turkish Government respond in a way described in a FCO
briefing to Geoff Hoon in June 2006:
"Turkey is neuralgic and defensive about the charge of genocide despite
the fact that the events occurred at the time of the Ottoman Empire
as opposed to modern day Turkey. This defensiveness has meant that
Turkey has historically stifled debate at home and devoted considerable
diplomatic effort to dissuading any further recognition".
The price of telling the truth ranges from political and economic
sanctions abroad, such as withdrawal of ambassadors, to punishment at
home varying from imprisonment to the ultimate sacrifice of murder,
paid by the courageous journalist Hrant Dink.
However, refusal to acknowledge the truth prevents any healing for the
Armenian people or genuine reconciliation between Armenia and Turkey.
It would be healing for the Turkish people themselves for their
Government to stop the systematic distortion of Turkish history.
Recently, a very courageous Turkish journalist, Ahmet Altan, and a
distinguished Turkish historian, Taner Akcam, have restated passionate
opposition to genocide denial in Turkey. We hope they will not suffer
as a result.
The British Government's position perpetuates a dishonest refusal to
acknowledge a historical truth. Geoffrey Robertson QC's concluding
paragraph claims:
"HMG's real and only policy has been to evade truthful answers
to questions about the Armenian genocide, because the truth would
discomfort the Turkish government. It can be predicted that any future
question on the subject will be met with the same meaningless formula
about 'insufficiently unequivocal evidence', disguising the simple
fact that HMG will not now come to terms with an issue on which it
was once so volubly certain, namely that the Armenian massacres were a
'crime against humanity' which should never be forgiven or forgotten.
Times change, but as other civilised nations recognise, the universal
crimes of genocide and torture have no statute of limitations".
29 Mar 2010 : Column GC499
I will briefly address the historical reality. Winston Churchill's
account is compelling:
"In 1915 the Turkish government began and ruthlessly carried out the
infamous general massacre and deportation of Armenians in Asia Minor
... whole districts were blotted out in one administrative holocaust
... there is no reasonable doubt that this crime was planned and
executed for political reasons".
The then US Ambassador Henry Morgenthau's personal account is
devastating:
"The Central Government now announced its intention of gathering the
two million or more Armenians living in the several sections of the
empire and transporting them to this desolate and inhospitable region"-
the Syrian desert-
"it really represented a new method of massacre. When the Turkish
authorities gave the orders for these deportations, they were merely
giving the death warrant to a whole race; they understood this well,
and, in their conversations with me, they made no particular attempt
to conceal the fact.
All through the spring and summer of 1915 the deportations took place.
Scarcely a single Armenian .... was exempted from the order ... Before
the caravans were started, it became the regular practice to separate
the young men from the families, tie them together in groups of four,
lead them to the outskirts, and shoot them. Public hangings without
trial-the only offense being that the victims were Armenians-were
taking place constantly".
The soldiers,
"showed a particular desire to annihilate the educated and the
influential ... I was constantly receiving reports", of Armenian men
marched to a secluded valley where,
"a mob of Turkish peasants fell upon them with clubs, hammers, axes,
scythes, spades and saws".
A guard of soldiers,
"accompanied each convoy ... From thousands of Armenian cities and
villages these despairing caravans now set forth; they filled all
the roads leading southward ... When the caravans first started, the
individuals bore some resemblance to human beings; in a few hours,
however, the dust of the road plastered their faces and clothes,
the mud caked their lower members, and the slowly advancing mobs,
frequently bent with fatigue and crazed by the brutality of their
'protectors', resembled some new and strange animal species. Yet for
the better part of six months, from April to October 1915, practically
all the highways in Asia Minor were crowded with these unearthly bands
of exiles. They could be seen winding in and out of every valley and
climbing up the sides of nearly every mountain-moving on and on ...
every road led to death. Village after village and town after town
was evacuated of its Armenian population ... about 1,200,000 people
started on this journey to the Syrian desert.
Death in its several forms-massacre, starvation, exhaustion-destroyed
the larger part of the refugees. The Turkish policy was that of
extermination under the guise of deportation. In one particular death
march ... On the seventieth day a few creatures reached Aleppo. Out
of the consigned convoy of 18,000 souls just 150 women and children
reached the destination ... I have by no means told the most terrible
details ... I am confident that the whole history of the human race
contains no such horrible episode as this".
The evidence of state-sponsored massacres and deportations is
overwhelming and incontrovertible. I am grateful that the noble
Lord, Lord Avebury, will refer to the compilation of systematic
and compelling evidence in the Blue Book. But in the face of all
the evidence, Her Majesty's Government's position was summarised as
recently as 4 March 2008 by the noble Lord, Lord Malloch-Brown:
"The 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
29 Mar 2010 : Column GC500
previous 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".-[Official
Report, 4/3/08; cols. WA165-66.]
In June 2006, Geoff Hoon made the spurious claim that it is not
possible to apply the term genocide retrospectively:
"I recognise that it is perfectly possible intellectually to
try to apply the definitions of genocide from the convention to
appalling tragedies that occurred, in this case, some 30 years
before. The common practice in law is not to apply such judgments
retrospectively".-[Official Report, Commons, 7/6/06; col. 136 WH.]
To which Geoffrey Robertson robustly replied:
"This is nonsense. There is no 'common practice in law' not to apply
the definitions of genocide 'intellectually' to tragedies that occur
before the convention was ratified".
He went on to say:
"There can be no logical or legal objection to an authoritative
judgment which decides whether the events of 1915 satisfy the 1948
definition".
I will place a copy of Geoffrey Robertson's publication in the Library.
One of the gravest consequences of denial is a sense of impunity
which extends to the present day in the forcible expulsion of all
the Armenians living in Nakhichevan-I was there when some of that was
happening-and the systematic destruction by Azeri Turks of priceless
Armenian archaeological sacred treasures beyond count, such as ancient
crosses, churches and graves, continuing the terrible trajectory of
destruction of remnants of Armenian civilisation and culture.
Similarly, the assaults on Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh by Azeri
Turks in the 1991 Operation Ring policy was a brutal rerun of the
deportations of 1915, until the Armenians in Karabakh resorted to their
constitutional right to self-determination. That prompted Azerbaijan
to begin full-scale military offensives and attempted ethnic cleansing,
an issue for another day.
I return briefly to the desirability of recognition for the Turkish
people. Many feel that, in a culture where the concepts of shame
and honour carry great weight, it could be interpreted as a mark
of honour for a contemporary Turkish Government to acknowledge the
historic reality of the genocide carried out by a past government
and for which they are not responsible. Turkey would gain respect
from the international community if it became an open, civil society,
allowing freedom of speech to its own people and respecting the rights
of the international community to speak the truth now widely available
in scholarly publications and expert legal opinions.
Non-recognition can be interpreted as a denial of a cruel reality
which will exacerbate the pain for those for whom the memory of
genocide is still raw: survivors, their families and communities. As
I am sure the Minister does not wish to exacerbate that pain, would
Her Majesty's Government at least send a representative to attend the
95th anniversary commemoration at the Armenian genocide memorial at
the Temple of Peace in Cardiff? Even if the word genocide is not used,
that act would convey genuine feelings of sympathy, which would at
least be some comfort for those who will be remembering the anguish
of their history.
Until or unless the truth is acknowledged, it is not only that justice
is denied to the Armenians but that the freedom of the so-called free
world is jeopardized.
29 Mar 2010 : Column GC501
While we have our freedom, we must use it to fight for truth to be
acknowledged and for justice to be achieved for victims of untruth
and genocide.
5.41 pm Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am sure that we are all very
grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for raising not only the
subject of the Armenian genocide but its treatment in modern Turkey
and the lack of freedom to discuss the issue among Turkish writers,
journalists and thinkers. However, in the last few years it has to
be acknowledged there has been some relaxation of the total ban on
discussion of the Armenian genocide in Turkey, enforced as it used
to be by the constitution itself. That was buttressed by criminal
sanctions, social ostracism and, in tragic cases such as that of
Hrant Dink, who the noble Baroness mentioned, murder.
It was perhaps a consequence of the international furore created by the
prosecution, under the notorious Article 301 of the Turkish criminal
code, of Nobel Prize winning novelist Orhan Pamuk that the crime
of "insulting the Turkish state" is no longer used systematically
against the few brave writers who affirm that what happened in
1915-16 was indeed a genocide. Although no statistics are available
of the use of that law, it seems that other laws are being used to
prosecute for thought crime, such as Article 216 of the penal code,
which criminalises,
"instigating a part of the people having different social class, race,
religion, sect or region to hatred or hostility against another part
of the people in a way dangerous for the public security".
There is indeed still a strong taboo on discussion of the issue,
and the few dissidents like Temel Demirer or Ragip Zarakolu who
speak out are harassed relentlessly. According to the report by the
EU Commissioner for Enlargement to the Council last November:
"Turkish law does not sufficiently guarantee freedom of expression
in line with the European Convention on Human Rights.... Political
pressures on the media and legal uncertainties affect the exercise
of freedom of the press in practice".
As we saw only this month from the extreme reaction to the resolution
by the US Congress Committee on Foreign Affairs, formally recognising
the Armenian genocide, Ankara's efforts to suppress discussion of
the facts extends overseas. When the BBC asked Turkish Prime Minister
Erdogan, who was on an official visit here earlier this month, about
the US initiative and a similar, recent vote in the Swedish Parliament
using the "G" word, his response was to threaten to summarily deport
100,000 Armenian guest workers from Turkey-reminding the world that
it was in the mass deportations of 1915, which the noble Baroness
raised, that a million Armenians met their deaths. At the moment,
the Turkish media are getting wound up about a supposed Bill in the
UK Parliament providing for a day of remembrance for the events of
1915-16. They do not seem to have realised that Parliament is rising
for the election in a few days' time.
I want to deal specifically with an attempt to bully our own Parliament
into silence. There had been regular debates in both Houses about
the genocide, many of them starting from the contemporary analysis
of the evidence then available, which was published in the Blue Book,
The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, 1915-16.
That compilation, sourced from
29 Mar 2010 : Column GC502
missionaries and the consulates of states that were neutral in the war,
is by no means the only original source material available today.
It has been supplemented by voluminous records such as those published
by the US State Department, many now in the public domain in a 700-page
book published by the Gomidas Press, and by the memoirs of Americans
who were in Turkey at the time, from Ambassador Morgenthau to Dr
Ussher, an American physician who was running a hospital in Van at the
time of the siege by the Ottomans. There is also a surprising amount
of evidence from Turkish sources despite the systematic destruction
of incriminating documents; for example, in Vahakn Dadrian's
bibliographical analysis published by the State University of New York.
Perhaps because the Blue Book was the first summary of evidence to
reach a wider audience and because of the prestige of its editor, the
great historian Arnold Toynbee, the Turkish Grand National Assembly
singled it out by addressing an appeal to the UK Parliament in April
2005, labelling it as a piece of fabricated wartime propaganda and
asking us to repudiate it. The Speaker sent the petition to the
Foreign Office, which wrote a soothing letter in reply saying that
the petition had been deposited in the Commons Library. The Turkish
media continued to write about the issue through the summer, and in
October 2005 some of us held a meeting to discuss a proper response
to the TGNA. This was drafted and, after being signed by 33 Members
of both Houses-including, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton-it
was sent to every Member of the TGNA in January 2006. Not one of them
reacted to our proposal that a meeting should be held between Turkish
and UK parliamentarians, with academic advisers, to discuss the limited
question of the authenticity of the documents quoted in the Blue Book.
At a conference on Turkish-Armenian relations in Istanbul in March
2006, the arch-denialist Sukru Elekdag MP acknowledged that he and
his colleagues had received our letter, and said that the reason it
had been ignored was that it did not come from all the Members of
the UK Parliament. We have written to Mr Elekdag to renew our attempt
to hold this dialogue, and the FCO has kindly agreed to deliver the
letter to him in person.
In August, we emailed the 400 Members of the TGNA who are online,
repeating our proposal for a meeting; but again not one of them
responded. We had come up against a brick wall. Then, last summer, what
seemed to be a new opportunity for starting a dialogue presented itself
to us. The eminent scholar and publisher Ara Sarafian had translated
the Blue Book into Turkish, and I had the honour of writing the
foreword. The authorities refused to deliver the copies that we sent
to every Member of the TGNA, and not one of the intended recipients
came to the meeting we held in Ankara. The event was reported briefly
and factually by the two main dailies, but they ignored what was said
at the launch about getting together to talk about the petition.
I appeal to the Minister to help us to open up this dialogue between
British and Turkish parliamentarians on the limited question of the
sources for an appraisal of the events of 1915-16, starting with the
Blue Book
29 Mar 2010 : Column GC503
since they first raised the subject with us. Will the Minister
facilitate our proposal to hold a meeting between interested MPs
from both countries, with their academic advisers, so that in the
new Parliament we can help them to open up a part of their history
that has been swept under the carpet for nearly 100 years? Will the
Minister ask Mr Erdogan to join us in promoting a discussion that
the TGNA itself began?
5.48 pm Lord Hylton: My Lords, I shall make three brief points. From
1915 onwards, it is pretty clear that the Ottoman Government planned
and organised deportations and massacres. This was to have been the
final solution for the Armenians of Turkey, and alas, it included
in its scope-whether intentionally or not-a good number of Assyrian
Christians from those parts. The evidence is compelling. Perhaps the
most telling point is that it was the Austrian and German consuls in
the region who spoke out, even though their countries were allies of
the Government of Turkey. If Turkey would now acknowledge its history
and apologise, if possible, for the dying acts of the pre-republican
Government, honour might be satisfied. That should be preceded-as
the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, mentioned-or followed by an end to
the prosecution and persecution of historians and writers trying to
present the truth from within Turkey.
I conclude by suggesting that the current clamour for attaching the
particular label "genocide" to the terrible events that took place
is misplaced. It certainly annoys Turks and their Government, and
encourages, if anything, the continuance of denial of what happened.
It has already harmed the détente that was beginning between Turkey
and Armenia, and as has again been mentioned, it has caused threats
by Turkey to deport a large number of Armenian workers. It has also
diverted attention from the urgent constitutional reforms that many
Europeans and others consider necessary within Turkey and has thus
hindered Turkey's application for EU membership.
Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, a number of noble Lords have indicated
that they wish to speak in the gap. I remind them that this is a
time-limited debate and that the time that they use in the gap,
of which there is little, will come out of the closing speeches.
5.51 pm Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I am grateful for the opportunity
to speak briefly in the gap. I apologise for having failed to realise
that the debate was taking place until now.
I want to contribute because I feel that it is inappropriate to dwell
on events of a century ago while the ongoing Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
remains unresolved. Currently nearly 1 million Azerbaijanis have
refugee status after being denied the right to return to their homes.
It is a humanitarian disaster carried out by the Armenians. I
would have thought that that would be more relevant instead of
self-indulgence about something that happened 100 years ago in the
dying days of the Ottoman Empire. I would never suggest that there
is a reason or an excuse for multiple
29 Mar 2010 : Column GC504
deaths and killings on one side or the other, but from my reading,
I believe that there was an organised Armenian-Russian attempt in
the dying days of the Ottoman Empire, which provoked conflict, and
in that conflict equal or comparable numbers of people were killed
in pretty harsh circumstances.
In the short time available to me, I suggest that the United Kingdom
should remember that in 1922 Kemal Ataturk turned Turkey around. It
became our ally. It has been our ally for almost 90 years. During the
days of the Warsaw pact and the NATO stand-off, we required, and were
grateful for, Turkish participation in guarding the freedom of Europe.
For that reason, I believe that like the American congressional
committee we should be very careful not to alienate further our
Turkish friends. I draw attention to the fact that the American
congressional committee voted by a majority of only one in favour of
such a resolution. My time is up, but I am grateful, thank you.
5.54 pm Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, I, too, will be brief. The history
of Europe, and, indeed the world at the moment, is a conflict between
Muslims and Christians in many different countries, the most recent
example being the slaughter of several hundred Christians in Nigeria.
Armenia is a Christian country, and Turkey is a Muslim country. My
sympathy would therefore go towards Armenia, because I am a practising
Christian. My daughter, through Tear Fund, has done voluntary work
there for many months, assisting the people since their freedom from
the Soviet Union.
However, as has been said, this is something from 100 years ago. To
bring it all up now and clamour-to use the well chosen word of the
noble Lord, Lord Hylton-to have it qualified as genocide is unhelpful
to the situation between Turkey and Armenia. Of course, there is also
the problem of Nagorno-Karabakh, where there have been more recent
murders of hundreds of people by the Armenians, supported by other
countries. Hundreds were killed and nearly a million Azeris had to
flee, so Armenia does not have clean hands.
It is a bit like Cyprus, or Palestine and Israel or, dare I say it,
even Ireland: there are arguments in favour of both sides. The best
way forward is for the two countries involved to negotiate. I do not
see why we in the United Kingdom should think that we, plus the Turks,
can solve the problem by holding talks in Ankara, and so on. It is
really a matter for Turkey and Armenia to get together to resolve,
knowing that hundreds of thousands died on both sides-the Turkish
side and the Armenian side.
At the moment, we have some movement. The President of Turkey took
the initiative and went to a soccer match in Armenia. That brought
about a meeting between the Governments of Armenia and Turkey to
try to create movement on the subject. A sub-commission has been
set up involving not only Turkey and Armenia but Switzerland and
several other countries to try to search out the facts, quietly and
diplomatically, not trying to raise the temperature-which this kind
of resolution does. We see what happened in America and Sweden. I
therefore suggest that it would be better not to support the Motion.
29 Mar 2010 : Column GC505
5.57 pm Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, much has been said on
both sides.
As often, as a foreign policy spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, I
find myself standing in the middle. In the past few weeks, I have found
myself disappointing Turkish Cypriots who wanted me to give absolute
and unconditional support to the Turkish Cypriot view of the Cyprus
conflict, as I had previously disappointed Greek Cypriots who wanted me
to give absolute and unconditional support to their view of the Cyprus
conflict. Similarly, I have found myself between Tamil lobbies and the
Sri Lankan High Commission, and between traditional supporters of the
current Israeli Government and people who feel that we should be deeply
committed to the Hamas view of the Palestinian community. Indeed,
I have just returned from a conference in Brussels where, this time
last year, I criticised the Israeli Government's intervention in Gaza
and was accused bluntly by one of Mr Netanyahu's closest advisers of
being an anti-Semite for daring to raise the subject.
We know that passions go very high in this area, and we need to tread
carefully. I echo what the noble Lord said: we also need to tread
carefully to ensure that we do not always support Christians against
Muslims or against Hindus. We must recognise that there have been many
historical wrongs. It is not just the Turks and the Armenians who do
not have clean hands: if one looks back 90 or 100 years, the British
Government's hands were not particularly clean. The responsibility for
the Bengal famine during World War II, in which an extraordinarily
large number of Bengalis died, was clearly that of our fathers and
grandfathers. I was reading about the British Army retaking Delhi
after the Indian mutiny, during which we massacred the entire Muslim
population. We have not been wonderfully civilised in the past.
We all recognise that the fate of the Armenians during World War I
was a tragedy. A huge number were killed or forced to leave their
villages. Much of the legacy of Armenian civilisation was lost. I
also recognise-because I have been reading about the history of the
Caucasus in recent months, as the north Caucasus becomes less and less
stable-that this was one further event in the decline of the Ottoman
and Tsarist Empires. As I got to know Turkey better in recent years,
I discovered that many of the current population of Turkey are the
great-grandchildren of people who were expelled from south-east Europe
or from the Tsarist Empire. For example, in 1870, the Circassians,
who are actively supporting from the outside the revolt in the
north Caucasus and the very sad events that are happening there,
were offered the choice of expulsion, conversion or death by the Tsar
during the final conquest of the northern Caucasus. Sadly, many of
them remember it. When one goes to Turkey, one finds oneself arguing
with people whose great-grandparents were themselves the victims of
expulsion and worse in other parts of the world.
Undoubtedly, there were massacres of Armenians in World War I. There
were also massacres of Greeks as the Turkish army, under Kemal Ataturk,
managed to expel the Greeks from Smyrna. Had the Greeks
29 Mar 2010 : Column GC506
won the battle of Smyrna, there would have been massacres of Turks
instead. Sadly, that was the nature of the debate.
Now we have the least bad Turkish Government that we have had in my
lifetime. I have found myself debating with members of the AK Party
on several occasions in recent weeks. This is a Government that is
attempting to modernise Turkey, and which is also attempting to open
up to Armenia and to its Kurdish minority. It finds itself coming
up against-
Viscount Waverley: Perhaps I might ask the noble Lord whether he
remembers that Turkey has made an accord with Armenia, with a view to
friendship. Perhaps the noble Lord would like to say a word on that,
if he has the time.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: I am well aware of what is under way. I am
also aware of the pressure that the Turkish Government are coming
under from what one has to call the deep state within Turkey-the
secularists, the judiciary and the army-and the problems that leaves
for them in managing to make progress in reconciling with the Kurds
and the Armenians as they try to move forward. One has to remember
that many of those who conducted the massacre of Armenians were Kurds:
there are very delicate memories here.
I support what the Turkish Government are doing. I recognise that they
find themselves caught between Azerbaijan and Armenia as they attempt
to move forward, and I recognise that that means that Nagorno-Karabakh
must be dealt with as part of the package. Both sides committed
a number of very unfortunate acts during the chaos of 1990-92 in
the south Caucasus-as they did in Georgia. If we are to sort out
Nagorno-Karabakh as a compromise between Azerbaijan and Armenia,
concessions must be made by both sides.
We should now encourage the opening that is under way and the hesitant
steps that the Turkish Government are making towards a more open
and civilised society. I wish that they were moving faster, but I
recognise the obstacles that they face within Turkey-particularly
within the Turkish state. We should encourage the Armenian Government,
the Azeri Government and the Turkish Government to come to more open
and friendly relations.
6.05 pm Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow
the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, especially on historical
debates. The Hamidian policies which were enacted and the massacres
which were repeated in 1895-96, 1909, 1915-18 and 1920-22 formed
a truly horrendous period in Armenian history. I thank the noble
Baroness, Lady Cox, for initiating this Question today.
As we know, the Ottoman Empire massacred up to 1.5 million people in
1915 alone. The Armenian population was annihilated in the most cruel
and barbaric way. The events were an appalling crime against humanity
and a terrible tragedy for the Armenian people, and they can never
be forgotten. We must learn from the past, move forward and do all
that is in our power to help and support Turkey and Armenia to move
forward so that they have a better chance of a better future.
29 Mar 2010 : Column GC507
Turkey and Armenia have initiated a diplomatic protocol between them,
for the first time in their history, which promises to establish and
develop better relations between the two and to formalise an official
investigation into the past. This is a constructive step. However, the
process has stalled, despite pressure from the US and EU, amid mutual
accusations by Turkey and Armenia of attempts to modify the deal.
Neither Parliament has yet approved the protocols. Armenian President
Serzh Sargsyan has said that the Armenian Parliament will ratify the
deal as soon as Turkey does, but he has also threatened to walk away
from the protocols if the Turks fail to honour them,
"within the shortest period of time".
Does the Minister agree that it would be a catastrophe if the progress
made so far by both countries were to stall? What are the Government
doing to support these countries and persuade them to work together,
and to persuade both Parliaments to co-operate and ratify the deal
as soon as possible? In light of the pressure that has already
been applied, to date with limited success, what new plans have the
Government drawn up to help with this issue?
Relations have also been soured this month by Tayyip Erdogan's threat
to deport thousands of Armenian migrants working illegally in Turkey.
What is the Government's assessment of this situation and how are
they helping to calm tensions over this matter? Can the Minister
tell the Committee what discussions have taken place with Turkey and
Armenia's neighbours to make them aware of the importance of their
role and support in easing friction between the two countries?
It is widely accepted that the prospect of European Union membership
is helping to drive reform within Turkey, and that this process of
change is a constructive way for it to examine its past in this area.
The criteria for EU membership demand that a country should be, in
effect, a liberal democracy subject to the rule of law. We on these
Benches believe that the process of change in society and politics
which the criteria for EU membership involve is the best context
for Turkey to examine the Ottoman Empire's past in this area. What
discussions are Her Majesty's Government having with representatives
of the EU and Turkey to help the country meet these criteria and
progress to its accession to the EU?
For us and the outside world to label such events, and pass judgments,
changes very little. The best way to arrive at the historical truth
and to reconcile the descendants of perpetrators and victims is for
there to be a free and open historical debate. I urge the Government
to do all they can to assist and support both parties in this process.
6.10 pm The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office
(Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead): I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cox,
for initiating this debate and for her assiduous pursuit of challenging
issues such as this one. I also thank noble Lords who have participated
so ably in this debate.
At the outset, I reaffirm that the Government deeply regret the
deaths of hundreds of thousands of Armenians who were either killed
by Ottoman troops or died
29 Mar 2010 : Column GC508
from starvation or disease at the beginning of the previous century.
We share the view expressed today that the victims of such suffering
should not be forgotten. The fate of ethnic Armenians and smaller
Christian minorities, including the Assyrians, living in the Ottoman
Empire at the time was roundly and robustly condemned by the British
Government.
I confirm that the position of the Government is to continue to work
for rapprochement and reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia. In
October 2009, two protocols were signed by the Foreign Ministers
of both countries, agreeing a framework for the normalisation of
relations and the opening of borders. This represents a landmark step
in progressing better relations between the two countries. Signing
the protocols-a number of noble Lords alluded to this-was not an easy
step for either country, and ratification will remain sensitive. The
UK Government will not make any statements that have the potential
to jeopardise this process.
It is apparent that there is a strong political will, and indeed
popular support, for improving relations. The Armenian president and
the Turkish president have been focused and engaged in the process,
which also allows for the creation of a sub-committee to examine
historical issues, including the events of 1915-17.
I shall now answer some of the questions that noble Lords asked. I say
to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, that Geoffrey Robertson concluded
that while the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide could not be applied
retrospectively, the term "genocide" should be applied to the Armenian
massacres. "Genocide" is a precise term and its use is best assessed
by a competent court. However, then as now, there is no court with the
authority to make such an assessment. Therefore, it is inappropriate
for the British Government to apply the term to events on which no
legal judgment can be made.
I was aware last year that noble Lords had raised the issue of
a memorial. Sending a government representative might suggest
recognition, so, despite our sympathies for the tragedy, we do not
intend to send a representative. The Government reject any suggestion
that Parliament has been misled, but I will also make it perfectly
clear that Ministers, not officials, are responsible for the statements
that they make to Parliament.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, referred to recent resolutions and
decisions in the US Congress and the Swedish Riksdag. Those have
not changed the UK Government's view that it is for the Turkish and
Armenian people to address the issue together. Neither the US nor the
Swedish Government has changed its position as a result of these votes.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to the Blue Book, with which he
has a long association. As he pointed out, it contains many compelling
reports of eye-witness accounts of the events in question. It should
be considered alongside other documents relating to the events of
1915-16 in archives around the world. Our embassy in Ankara can
certainly assist in passing on a letter from UK parliamentarians
to their Turkish counterparts inviting dialogue over the validity
of the Blue Book. I understand that officials have already been in
touch with the noble Lord to take this forward.
29 Mar 2010 : Column GC509
It remains our view, with regard to those events, that the greatest
need is for dialogue between Turks and Armenians. However, on the
issue of parliamentarians, in which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has
been extremely engaged, we can do only so much to encourage Turkish
parliamentarians to engage on the issue. I fear that, to date, their
response to the idea of a conference has been somewhat negative,
but of course any progress on such a front would be very welcome and
would represent more of the reconciliation which we all want.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and other noble Lords raised the issue of
deportations. Prime Minister Erdogan and the Foreign Minister have now
clarified that there is no immediate plan to deport illegal Armenian
immigrants from Turkey. President Gul has also clarified that Turkey
does not discriminate against Armenians working in Turkey. Subsequent
comments by Turkish politicians have underlined the tolerance shown by
Turkey towards migrants. I repeat that it is for the Turkish Government
to manage migration issues and illegal immigration in line with their
international obligations and Turkish law.
On EU membership, which several noble Lords raised, the issue that
we are discussing today is not a precondition for Turkish membership
of the European Union. However, under the political criteria for
membership, Turkey is expected to maintain what is called in the
criteria "good neighbourly relations" with countries in the region,
which of course include Armenia.
The issue of Nagorno-Karabakh was raised by noble Lord, Lord Maginnis,
and others. The Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan have had useful
and constructive meetings in the framework of the Minsk group process,
including, most recently, at the end of January. We hope for continuing
progress. On the issue of our contacts, my honourable friend Chris
Bryant, Minister for Europe, discussed Turkey-Armenia relations with
his Turkish counterpart during the Turkish Prime Minister's recent
visit, and he lobbied his counterpart in January and February this year
to encourage progress on the normalisation of relations with Armenia.
The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, raised a number of points. I may
not get round to them all, but if there is anything that I have not
covered in my response, she may expect me to give her a written answer
as soon as possible. Politically, the UK Government continue to urge
both the Armenian and Turkish Governments to move forward with the
normalisation process and to find ways to reconcile their differences.
The Foreign Secretary recently raised the issue with the Armenian
President, we have had many discussions with foreign ministers and
others and, in-country, our ambassadors are engaging on the issues.
We have supported a number of projects designed to promote conflict
resolution and break down the stereotypes that clearly exist. These
have included sponsoring a Turkish film festival in Yerevan and a
touring theatre production about the conflict. and bringing together
young people from both countries-women, journalists and others,
but especially women activists from both countries-to talk about the
prospects for EU integration and working together to ensure that both
countries have open contacts and discussions.
29 Mar 2010 : Column GC510
The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, also mentioned the EU. The European
Union remains fully involved in helping Turkey and Armenia to improve
relations. Commissioner Fule, who is responsible for enlargement
and neighbourhood, will visit the south Caucasus in April, and High
Representative Ashton is planning a visit in the next few months. The
EU Special Representative for the South Caucasus, Peter Semneby,
is following the Turkey-Armenia normalisation process closely and
using his contacts with both parties to encourage more progress. The
EU continues to make it clear that it is ready to provide practical
support, should that be needed, to further the implementation of the
protocols once they are ratified.
The 2009 EU accession report for Turkey shows that it is not meeting
the conditions for joining the EU, in particular in relation to
neighbourly relations with countries such as Armenia. That question
was raised by noble Lords. The accession progress report recognises
the significant progress that Turkey has made in normalising relations
with Armenia. It has made efforts to improve relations with neighbours,
although we recognise that there is still some way to go.
I thank noble Lords for this debate-in particular the noble Baroness,
Lady Cox, who has made a great contribution on these issues. We must
all work together to ensure that we see the progress that will be
essential to bring consensus and closure to the tragic history that
the two countries are grappling with. I hope that noble Lords, who
have great interest and commitment, can assist with that.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley): The Committee
will adjourn until 6.30 pm.
6.21 pm Sitting suspended.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/ pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/100329-gc0004.htm
View Table of contents at
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld2009 10/ldhansrd/index/100329.html#contents
Parliament.UK
http://www.publications.pa rliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/100329-gc000 4.htm
March 29 2010
5.22 pm
Sitting suspended.
Armenia
Question for Short Debate
5.30 pm
Tabled By Baroness Cox
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will reconsider their
position with regard to the recognition as genocide of the events in
Armenia from 1915 to 1917.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest as chairman of
the British-Armenian All-Party Parliamentary Group and as a recipient
of various
29 Mar 2010 : Column GC498
non-financial awards during 69 visits to Armenia and Karabakh. I am
grateful to all noble Lords contributing to this debate, which is
timely for several reasons. First, the Swedish Parliament and the
US Congress Foreign Affairs Committee have recently recognised the
Armenian genocide, which was already acknowledged by France, Italy,
Poland, Greece, Cyprus, Belgium, Slovakia, the Netherlands, the Holy
See, Russia, Canada, Uruguay, Argentina, Lebanon and, I am happy to
say, the National Assembly for Wales. Moreover, the Swedish Parliament
also recognised the genocide by Turkey of the Assyrian Christian and
Greek peoples.
Secondly, last October a significant report was published: Was there
an Armenian Genocide? Geoffrey Robertson QC'sopinion with reference
to Foreign & Commonwealth Office documents which show how British
Ministers, Parliament and people have been misled. Thirdly, this year
marks the 95th anniversary, and recognition is long overdue. Each
unrecognised genocide can encourage subsequent genocides, which is
infamously illustrated by Hitler's reference to the Armenian genocide
before he began the Holocaust in Poland:
"I have sent my Death's Head units to the East with the order to kill
without mercy men, women and children of the Polish race or language.
Only in such a way will we win the lebensraum that we need. Who,
after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?".
Whenever initiatives are taken to encourage recognition of the Armenian
genocide, the Turkish Government respond in a way described in a FCO
briefing to Geoff Hoon in June 2006:
"Turkey is neuralgic and defensive about the charge of genocide despite
the fact that the events occurred at the time of the Ottoman Empire
as opposed to modern day Turkey. This defensiveness has meant that
Turkey has historically stifled debate at home and devoted considerable
diplomatic effort to dissuading any further recognition".
The price of telling the truth ranges from political and economic
sanctions abroad, such as withdrawal of ambassadors, to punishment at
home varying from imprisonment to the ultimate sacrifice of murder,
paid by the courageous journalist Hrant Dink.
However, refusal to acknowledge the truth prevents any healing for the
Armenian people or genuine reconciliation between Armenia and Turkey.
It would be healing for the Turkish people themselves for their
Government to stop the systematic distortion of Turkish history.
Recently, a very courageous Turkish journalist, Ahmet Altan, and a
distinguished Turkish historian, Taner Akcam, have restated passionate
opposition to genocide denial in Turkey. We hope they will not suffer
as a result.
The British Government's position perpetuates a dishonest refusal to
acknowledge a historical truth. Geoffrey Robertson QC's concluding
paragraph claims:
"HMG's real and only policy has been to evade truthful answers
to questions about the Armenian genocide, because the truth would
discomfort the Turkish government. It can be predicted that any future
question on the subject will be met with the same meaningless formula
about 'insufficiently unequivocal evidence', disguising the simple
fact that HMG will not now come to terms with an issue on which it
was once so volubly certain, namely that the Armenian massacres were a
'crime against humanity' which should never be forgiven or forgotten.
Times change, but as other civilised nations recognise, the universal
crimes of genocide and torture have no statute of limitations".
29 Mar 2010 : Column GC499
I will briefly address the historical reality. Winston Churchill's
account is compelling:
"In 1915 the Turkish government began and ruthlessly carried out the
infamous general massacre and deportation of Armenians in Asia Minor
... whole districts were blotted out in one administrative holocaust
... there is no reasonable doubt that this crime was planned and
executed for political reasons".
The then US Ambassador Henry Morgenthau's personal account is
devastating:
"The Central Government now announced its intention of gathering the
two million or more Armenians living in the several sections of the
empire and transporting them to this desolate and inhospitable region"-
the Syrian desert-
"it really represented a new method of massacre. When the Turkish
authorities gave the orders for these deportations, they were merely
giving the death warrant to a whole race; they understood this well,
and, in their conversations with me, they made no particular attempt
to conceal the fact.
All through the spring and summer of 1915 the deportations took place.
Scarcely a single Armenian .... was exempted from the order ... Before
the caravans were started, it became the regular practice to separate
the young men from the families, tie them together in groups of four,
lead them to the outskirts, and shoot them. Public hangings without
trial-the only offense being that the victims were Armenians-were
taking place constantly".
The soldiers,
"showed a particular desire to annihilate the educated and the
influential ... I was constantly receiving reports", of Armenian men
marched to a secluded valley where,
"a mob of Turkish peasants fell upon them with clubs, hammers, axes,
scythes, spades and saws".
A guard of soldiers,
"accompanied each convoy ... From thousands of Armenian cities and
villages these despairing caravans now set forth; they filled all
the roads leading southward ... When the caravans first started, the
individuals bore some resemblance to human beings; in a few hours,
however, the dust of the road plastered their faces and clothes,
the mud caked their lower members, and the slowly advancing mobs,
frequently bent with fatigue and crazed by the brutality of their
'protectors', resembled some new and strange animal species. Yet for
the better part of six months, from April to October 1915, practically
all the highways in Asia Minor were crowded with these unearthly bands
of exiles. They could be seen winding in and out of every valley and
climbing up the sides of nearly every mountain-moving on and on ...
every road led to death. Village after village and town after town
was evacuated of its Armenian population ... about 1,200,000 people
started on this journey to the Syrian desert.
Death in its several forms-massacre, starvation, exhaustion-destroyed
the larger part of the refugees. The Turkish policy was that of
extermination under the guise of deportation. In one particular death
march ... On the seventieth day a few creatures reached Aleppo. Out
of the consigned convoy of 18,000 souls just 150 women and children
reached the destination ... I have by no means told the most terrible
details ... I am confident that the whole history of the human race
contains no such horrible episode as this".
The evidence of state-sponsored massacres and deportations is
overwhelming and incontrovertible. I am grateful that the noble
Lord, Lord Avebury, will refer to the compilation of systematic
and compelling evidence in the Blue Book. But in the face of all
the evidence, Her Majesty's Government's position was summarised as
recently as 4 March 2008 by the noble Lord, Lord Malloch-Brown:
"The 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
29 Mar 2010 : Column GC500
previous 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".-[Official
Report, 4/3/08; cols. WA165-66.]
In June 2006, Geoff Hoon made the spurious claim that it is not
possible to apply the term genocide retrospectively:
"I recognise that it is perfectly possible intellectually to
try to apply the definitions of genocide from the convention to
appalling tragedies that occurred, in this case, some 30 years
before. The common practice in law is not to apply such judgments
retrospectively".-[Official Report, Commons, 7/6/06; col. 136 WH.]
To which Geoffrey Robertson robustly replied:
"This is nonsense. There is no 'common practice in law' not to apply
the definitions of genocide 'intellectually' to tragedies that occur
before the convention was ratified".
He went on to say:
"There can be no logical or legal objection to an authoritative
judgment which decides whether the events of 1915 satisfy the 1948
definition".
I will place a copy of Geoffrey Robertson's publication in the Library.
One of the gravest consequences of denial is a sense of impunity
which extends to the present day in the forcible expulsion of all
the Armenians living in Nakhichevan-I was there when some of that was
happening-and the systematic destruction by Azeri Turks of priceless
Armenian archaeological sacred treasures beyond count, such as ancient
crosses, churches and graves, continuing the terrible trajectory of
destruction of remnants of Armenian civilisation and culture.
Similarly, the assaults on Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh by Azeri
Turks in the 1991 Operation Ring policy was a brutal rerun of the
deportations of 1915, until the Armenians in Karabakh resorted to their
constitutional right to self-determination. That prompted Azerbaijan
to begin full-scale military offensives and attempted ethnic cleansing,
an issue for another day.
I return briefly to the desirability of recognition for the Turkish
people. Many feel that, in a culture where the concepts of shame
and honour carry great weight, it could be interpreted as a mark
of honour for a contemporary Turkish Government to acknowledge the
historic reality of the genocide carried out by a past government
and for which they are not responsible. Turkey would gain respect
from the international community if it became an open, civil society,
allowing freedom of speech to its own people and respecting the rights
of the international community to speak the truth now widely available
in scholarly publications and expert legal opinions.
Non-recognition can be interpreted as a denial of a cruel reality
which will exacerbate the pain for those for whom the memory of
genocide is still raw: survivors, their families and communities. As
I am sure the Minister does not wish to exacerbate that pain, would
Her Majesty's Government at least send a representative to attend the
95th anniversary commemoration at the Armenian genocide memorial at
the Temple of Peace in Cardiff? Even if the word genocide is not used,
that act would convey genuine feelings of sympathy, which would at
least be some comfort for those who will be remembering the anguish
of their history.
Until or unless the truth is acknowledged, it is not only that justice
is denied to the Armenians but that the freedom of the so-called free
world is jeopardized.
29 Mar 2010 : Column GC501
While we have our freedom, we must use it to fight for truth to be
acknowledged and for justice to be achieved for victims of untruth
and genocide.
5.41 pm Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am sure that we are all very
grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for raising not only the
subject of the Armenian genocide but its treatment in modern Turkey
and the lack of freedom to discuss the issue among Turkish writers,
journalists and thinkers. However, in the last few years it has to
be acknowledged there has been some relaxation of the total ban on
discussion of the Armenian genocide in Turkey, enforced as it used
to be by the constitution itself. That was buttressed by criminal
sanctions, social ostracism and, in tragic cases such as that of
Hrant Dink, who the noble Baroness mentioned, murder.
It was perhaps a consequence of the international furore created by the
prosecution, under the notorious Article 301 of the Turkish criminal
code, of Nobel Prize winning novelist Orhan Pamuk that the crime
of "insulting the Turkish state" is no longer used systematically
against the few brave writers who affirm that what happened in
1915-16 was indeed a genocide. Although no statistics are available
of the use of that law, it seems that other laws are being used to
prosecute for thought crime, such as Article 216 of the penal code,
which criminalises,
"instigating a part of the people having different social class, race,
religion, sect or region to hatred or hostility against another part
of the people in a way dangerous for the public security".
There is indeed still a strong taboo on discussion of the issue,
and the few dissidents like Temel Demirer or Ragip Zarakolu who
speak out are harassed relentlessly. According to the report by the
EU Commissioner for Enlargement to the Council last November:
"Turkish law does not sufficiently guarantee freedom of expression
in line with the European Convention on Human Rights.... Political
pressures on the media and legal uncertainties affect the exercise
of freedom of the press in practice".
As we saw only this month from the extreme reaction to the resolution
by the US Congress Committee on Foreign Affairs, formally recognising
the Armenian genocide, Ankara's efforts to suppress discussion of
the facts extends overseas. When the BBC asked Turkish Prime Minister
Erdogan, who was on an official visit here earlier this month, about
the US initiative and a similar, recent vote in the Swedish Parliament
using the "G" word, his response was to threaten to summarily deport
100,000 Armenian guest workers from Turkey-reminding the world that
it was in the mass deportations of 1915, which the noble Baroness
raised, that a million Armenians met their deaths. At the moment,
the Turkish media are getting wound up about a supposed Bill in the
UK Parliament providing for a day of remembrance for the events of
1915-16. They do not seem to have realised that Parliament is rising
for the election in a few days' time.
I want to deal specifically with an attempt to bully our own Parliament
into silence. There had been regular debates in both Houses about
the genocide, many of them starting from the contemporary analysis
of the evidence then available, which was published in the Blue Book,
The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, 1915-16.
That compilation, sourced from
29 Mar 2010 : Column GC502
missionaries and the consulates of states that were neutral in the war,
is by no means the only original source material available today.
It has been supplemented by voluminous records such as those published
by the US State Department, many now in the public domain in a 700-page
book published by the Gomidas Press, and by the memoirs of Americans
who were in Turkey at the time, from Ambassador Morgenthau to Dr
Ussher, an American physician who was running a hospital in Van at the
time of the siege by the Ottomans. There is also a surprising amount
of evidence from Turkish sources despite the systematic destruction
of incriminating documents; for example, in Vahakn Dadrian's
bibliographical analysis published by the State University of New York.
Perhaps because the Blue Book was the first summary of evidence to
reach a wider audience and because of the prestige of its editor, the
great historian Arnold Toynbee, the Turkish Grand National Assembly
singled it out by addressing an appeal to the UK Parliament in April
2005, labelling it as a piece of fabricated wartime propaganda and
asking us to repudiate it. The Speaker sent the petition to the
Foreign Office, which wrote a soothing letter in reply saying that
the petition had been deposited in the Commons Library. The Turkish
media continued to write about the issue through the summer, and in
October 2005 some of us held a meeting to discuss a proper response
to the TGNA. This was drafted and, after being signed by 33 Members
of both Houses-including, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton-it
was sent to every Member of the TGNA in January 2006. Not one of them
reacted to our proposal that a meeting should be held between Turkish
and UK parliamentarians, with academic advisers, to discuss the limited
question of the authenticity of the documents quoted in the Blue Book.
At a conference on Turkish-Armenian relations in Istanbul in March
2006, the arch-denialist Sukru Elekdag MP acknowledged that he and
his colleagues had received our letter, and said that the reason it
had been ignored was that it did not come from all the Members of
the UK Parliament. We have written to Mr Elekdag to renew our attempt
to hold this dialogue, and the FCO has kindly agreed to deliver the
letter to him in person.
In August, we emailed the 400 Members of the TGNA who are online,
repeating our proposal for a meeting; but again not one of them
responded. We had come up against a brick wall. Then, last summer, what
seemed to be a new opportunity for starting a dialogue presented itself
to us. The eminent scholar and publisher Ara Sarafian had translated
the Blue Book into Turkish, and I had the honour of writing the
foreword. The authorities refused to deliver the copies that we sent
to every Member of the TGNA, and not one of the intended recipients
came to the meeting we held in Ankara. The event was reported briefly
and factually by the two main dailies, but they ignored what was said
at the launch about getting together to talk about the petition.
I appeal to the Minister to help us to open up this dialogue between
British and Turkish parliamentarians on the limited question of the
sources for an appraisal of the events of 1915-16, starting with the
Blue Book
29 Mar 2010 : Column GC503
since they first raised the subject with us. Will the Minister
facilitate our proposal to hold a meeting between interested MPs
from both countries, with their academic advisers, so that in the
new Parliament we can help them to open up a part of their history
that has been swept under the carpet for nearly 100 years? Will the
Minister ask Mr Erdogan to join us in promoting a discussion that
the TGNA itself began?
5.48 pm Lord Hylton: My Lords, I shall make three brief points. From
1915 onwards, it is pretty clear that the Ottoman Government planned
and organised deportations and massacres. This was to have been the
final solution for the Armenians of Turkey, and alas, it included
in its scope-whether intentionally or not-a good number of Assyrian
Christians from those parts. The evidence is compelling. Perhaps the
most telling point is that it was the Austrian and German consuls in
the region who spoke out, even though their countries were allies of
the Government of Turkey. If Turkey would now acknowledge its history
and apologise, if possible, for the dying acts of the pre-republican
Government, honour might be satisfied. That should be preceded-as
the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, mentioned-or followed by an end to
the prosecution and persecution of historians and writers trying to
present the truth from within Turkey.
I conclude by suggesting that the current clamour for attaching the
particular label "genocide" to the terrible events that took place
is misplaced. It certainly annoys Turks and their Government, and
encourages, if anything, the continuance of denial of what happened.
It has already harmed the détente that was beginning between Turkey
and Armenia, and as has again been mentioned, it has caused threats
by Turkey to deport a large number of Armenian workers. It has also
diverted attention from the urgent constitutional reforms that many
Europeans and others consider necessary within Turkey and has thus
hindered Turkey's application for EU membership.
Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, a number of noble Lords have indicated
that they wish to speak in the gap. I remind them that this is a
time-limited debate and that the time that they use in the gap,
of which there is little, will come out of the closing speeches.
5.51 pm Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I am grateful for the opportunity
to speak briefly in the gap. I apologise for having failed to realise
that the debate was taking place until now.
I want to contribute because I feel that it is inappropriate to dwell
on events of a century ago while the ongoing Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
remains unresolved. Currently nearly 1 million Azerbaijanis have
refugee status after being denied the right to return to their homes.
It is a humanitarian disaster carried out by the Armenians. I
would have thought that that would be more relevant instead of
self-indulgence about something that happened 100 years ago in the
dying days of the Ottoman Empire. I would never suggest that there
is a reason or an excuse for multiple
29 Mar 2010 : Column GC504
deaths and killings on one side or the other, but from my reading,
I believe that there was an organised Armenian-Russian attempt in
the dying days of the Ottoman Empire, which provoked conflict, and
in that conflict equal or comparable numbers of people were killed
in pretty harsh circumstances.
In the short time available to me, I suggest that the United Kingdom
should remember that in 1922 Kemal Ataturk turned Turkey around. It
became our ally. It has been our ally for almost 90 years. During the
days of the Warsaw pact and the NATO stand-off, we required, and were
grateful for, Turkish participation in guarding the freedom of Europe.
For that reason, I believe that like the American congressional
committee we should be very careful not to alienate further our
Turkish friends. I draw attention to the fact that the American
congressional committee voted by a majority of only one in favour of
such a resolution. My time is up, but I am grateful, thank you.
5.54 pm Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, I, too, will be brief. The history
of Europe, and, indeed the world at the moment, is a conflict between
Muslims and Christians in many different countries, the most recent
example being the slaughter of several hundred Christians in Nigeria.
Armenia is a Christian country, and Turkey is a Muslim country. My
sympathy would therefore go towards Armenia, because I am a practising
Christian. My daughter, through Tear Fund, has done voluntary work
there for many months, assisting the people since their freedom from
the Soviet Union.
However, as has been said, this is something from 100 years ago. To
bring it all up now and clamour-to use the well chosen word of the
noble Lord, Lord Hylton-to have it qualified as genocide is unhelpful
to the situation between Turkey and Armenia. Of course, there is also
the problem of Nagorno-Karabakh, where there have been more recent
murders of hundreds of people by the Armenians, supported by other
countries. Hundreds were killed and nearly a million Azeris had to
flee, so Armenia does not have clean hands.
It is a bit like Cyprus, or Palestine and Israel or, dare I say it,
even Ireland: there are arguments in favour of both sides. The best
way forward is for the two countries involved to negotiate. I do not
see why we in the United Kingdom should think that we, plus the Turks,
can solve the problem by holding talks in Ankara, and so on. It is
really a matter for Turkey and Armenia to get together to resolve,
knowing that hundreds of thousands died on both sides-the Turkish
side and the Armenian side.
At the moment, we have some movement. The President of Turkey took
the initiative and went to a soccer match in Armenia. That brought
about a meeting between the Governments of Armenia and Turkey to
try to create movement on the subject. A sub-commission has been
set up involving not only Turkey and Armenia but Switzerland and
several other countries to try to search out the facts, quietly and
diplomatically, not trying to raise the temperature-which this kind
of resolution does. We see what happened in America and Sweden. I
therefore suggest that it would be better not to support the Motion.
29 Mar 2010 : Column GC505
5.57 pm Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, much has been said on
both sides.
As often, as a foreign policy spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, I
find myself standing in the middle. In the past few weeks, I have found
myself disappointing Turkish Cypriots who wanted me to give absolute
and unconditional support to the Turkish Cypriot view of the Cyprus
conflict, as I had previously disappointed Greek Cypriots who wanted me
to give absolute and unconditional support to their view of the Cyprus
conflict. Similarly, I have found myself between Tamil lobbies and the
Sri Lankan High Commission, and between traditional supporters of the
current Israeli Government and people who feel that we should be deeply
committed to the Hamas view of the Palestinian community. Indeed,
I have just returned from a conference in Brussels where, this time
last year, I criticised the Israeli Government's intervention in Gaza
and was accused bluntly by one of Mr Netanyahu's closest advisers of
being an anti-Semite for daring to raise the subject.
We know that passions go very high in this area, and we need to tread
carefully. I echo what the noble Lord said: we also need to tread
carefully to ensure that we do not always support Christians against
Muslims or against Hindus. We must recognise that there have been many
historical wrongs. It is not just the Turks and the Armenians who do
not have clean hands: if one looks back 90 or 100 years, the British
Government's hands were not particularly clean. The responsibility for
the Bengal famine during World War II, in which an extraordinarily
large number of Bengalis died, was clearly that of our fathers and
grandfathers. I was reading about the British Army retaking Delhi
after the Indian mutiny, during which we massacred the entire Muslim
population. We have not been wonderfully civilised in the past.
We all recognise that the fate of the Armenians during World War I
was a tragedy. A huge number were killed or forced to leave their
villages. Much of the legacy of Armenian civilisation was lost. I
also recognise-because I have been reading about the history of the
Caucasus in recent months, as the north Caucasus becomes less and less
stable-that this was one further event in the decline of the Ottoman
and Tsarist Empires. As I got to know Turkey better in recent years,
I discovered that many of the current population of Turkey are the
great-grandchildren of people who were expelled from south-east Europe
or from the Tsarist Empire. For example, in 1870, the Circassians,
who are actively supporting from the outside the revolt in the
north Caucasus and the very sad events that are happening there,
were offered the choice of expulsion, conversion or death by the Tsar
during the final conquest of the northern Caucasus. Sadly, many of
them remember it. When one goes to Turkey, one finds oneself arguing
with people whose great-grandparents were themselves the victims of
expulsion and worse in other parts of the world.
Undoubtedly, there were massacres of Armenians in World War I. There
were also massacres of Greeks as the Turkish army, under Kemal Ataturk,
managed to expel the Greeks from Smyrna. Had the Greeks
29 Mar 2010 : Column GC506
won the battle of Smyrna, there would have been massacres of Turks
instead. Sadly, that was the nature of the debate.
Now we have the least bad Turkish Government that we have had in my
lifetime. I have found myself debating with members of the AK Party
on several occasions in recent weeks. This is a Government that is
attempting to modernise Turkey, and which is also attempting to open
up to Armenia and to its Kurdish minority. It finds itself coming
up against-
Viscount Waverley: Perhaps I might ask the noble Lord whether he
remembers that Turkey has made an accord with Armenia, with a view to
friendship. Perhaps the noble Lord would like to say a word on that,
if he has the time.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: I am well aware of what is under way. I am
also aware of the pressure that the Turkish Government are coming
under from what one has to call the deep state within Turkey-the
secularists, the judiciary and the army-and the problems that leaves
for them in managing to make progress in reconciling with the Kurds
and the Armenians as they try to move forward. One has to remember
that many of those who conducted the massacre of Armenians were Kurds:
there are very delicate memories here.
I support what the Turkish Government are doing. I recognise that they
find themselves caught between Azerbaijan and Armenia as they attempt
to move forward, and I recognise that that means that Nagorno-Karabakh
must be dealt with as part of the package. Both sides committed
a number of very unfortunate acts during the chaos of 1990-92 in
the south Caucasus-as they did in Georgia. If we are to sort out
Nagorno-Karabakh as a compromise between Azerbaijan and Armenia,
concessions must be made by both sides.
We should now encourage the opening that is under way and the hesitant
steps that the Turkish Government are making towards a more open
and civilised society. I wish that they were moving faster, but I
recognise the obstacles that they face within Turkey-particularly
within the Turkish state. We should encourage the Armenian Government,
the Azeri Government and the Turkish Government to come to more open
and friendly relations.
6.05 pm Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow
the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, especially on historical
debates. The Hamidian policies which were enacted and the massacres
which were repeated in 1895-96, 1909, 1915-18 and 1920-22 formed
a truly horrendous period in Armenian history. I thank the noble
Baroness, Lady Cox, for initiating this Question today.
As we know, the Ottoman Empire massacred up to 1.5 million people in
1915 alone. The Armenian population was annihilated in the most cruel
and barbaric way. The events were an appalling crime against humanity
and a terrible tragedy for the Armenian people, and they can never
be forgotten. We must learn from the past, move forward and do all
that is in our power to help and support Turkey and Armenia to move
forward so that they have a better chance of a better future.
29 Mar 2010 : Column GC507
Turkey and Armenia have initiated a diplomatic protocol between them,
for the first time in their history, which promises to establish and
develop better relations between the two and to formalise an official
investigation into the past. This is a constructive step. However, the
process has stalled, despite pressure from the US and EU, amid mutual
accusations by Turkey and Armenia of attempts to modify the deal.
Neither Parliament has yet approved the protocols. Armenian President
Serzh Sargsyan has said that the Armenian Parliament will ratify the
deal as soon as Turkey does, but he has also threatened to walk away
from the protocols if the Turks fail to honour them,
"within the shortest period of time".
Does the Minister agree that it would be a catastrophe if the progress
made so far by both countries were to stall? What are the Government
doing to support these countries and persuade them to work together,
and to persuade both Parliaments to co-operate and ratify the deal
as soon as possible? In light of the pressure that has already
been applied, to date with limited success, what new plans have the
Government drawn up to help with this issue?
Relations have also been soured this month by Tayyip Erdogan's threat
to deport thousands of Armenian migrants working illegally in Turkey.
What is the Government's assessment of this situation and how are
they helping to calm tensions over this matter? Can the Minister
tell the Committee what discussions have taken place with Turkey and
Armenia's neighbours to make them aware of the importance of their
role and support in easing friction between the two countries?
It is widely accepted that the prospect of European Union membership
is helping to drive reform within Turkey, and that this process of
change is a constructive way for it to examine its past in this area.
The criteria for EU membership demand that a country should be, in
effect, a liberal democracy subject to the rule of law. We on these
Benches believe that the process of change in society and politics
which the criteria for EU membership involve is the best context
for Turkey to examine the Ottoman Empire's past in this area. What
discussions are Her Majesty's Government having with representatives
of the EU and Turkey to help the country meet these criteria and
progress to its accession to the EU?
For us and the outside world to label such events, and pass judgments,
changes very little. The best way to arrive at the historical truth
and to reconcile the descendants of perpetrators and victims is for
there to be a free and open historical debate. I urge the Government
to do all they can to assist and support both parties in this process.
6.10 pm The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office
(Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead): I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cox,
for initiating this debate and for her assiduous pursuit of challenging
issues such as this one. I also thank noble Lords who have participated
so ably in this debate.
At the outset, I reaffirm that the Government deeply regret the
deaths of hundreds of thousands of Armenians who were either killed
by Ottoman troops or died
29 Mar 2010 : Column GC508
from starvation or disease at the beginning of the previous century.
We share the view expressed today that the victims of such suffering
should not be forgotten. The fate of ethnic Armenians and smaller
Christian minorities, including the Assyrians, living in the Ottoman
Empire at the time was roundly and robustly condemned by the British
Government.
I confirm that the position of the Government is to continue to work
for rapprochement and reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia. In
October 2009, two protocols were signed by the Foreign Ministers
of both countries, agreeing a framework for the normalisation of
relations and the opening of borders. This represents a landmark step
in progressing better relations between the two countries. Signing
the protocols-a number of noble Lords alluded to this-was not an easy
step for either country, and ratification will remain sensitive. The
UK Government will not make any statements that have the potential
to jeopardise this process.
It is apparent that there is a strong political will, and indeed
popular support, for improving relations. The Armenian president and
the Turkish president have been focused and engaged in the process,
which also allows for the creation of a sub-committee to examine
historical issues, including the events of 1915-17.
I shall now answer some of the questions that noble Lords asked. I say
to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, that Geoffrey Robertson concluded
that while the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide could not be applied
retrospectively, the term "genocide" should be applied to the Armenian
massacres. "Genocide" is a precise term and its use is best assessed
by a competent court. However, then as now, there is no court with the
authority to make such an assessment. Therefore, it is inappropriate
for the British Government to apply the term to events on which no
legal judgment can be made.
I was aware last year that noble Lords had raised the issue of
a memorial. Sending a government representative might suggest
recognition, so, despite our sympathies for the tragedy, we do not
intend to send a representative. The Government reject any suggestion
that Parliament has been misled, but I will also make it perfectly
clear that Ministers, not officials, are responsible for the statements
that they make to Parliament.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, referred to recent resolutions and
decisions in the US Congress and the Swedish Riksdag. Those have
not changed the UK Government's view that it is for the Turkish and
Armenian people to address the issue together. Neither the US nor the
Swedish Government has changed its position as a result of these votes.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to the Blue Book, with which he
has a long association. As he pointed out, it contains many compelling
reports of eye-witness accounts of the events in question. It should
be considered alongside other documents relating to the events of
1915-16 in archives around the world. Our embassy in Ankara can
certainly assist in passing on a letter from UK parliamentarians
to their Turkish counterparts inviting dialogue over the validity
of the Blue Book. I understand that officials have already been in
touch with the noble Lord to take this forward.
29 Mar 2010 : Column GC509
It remains our view, with regard to those events, that the greatest
need is for dialogue between Turks and Armenians. However, on the
issue of parliamentarians, in which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has
been extremely engaged, we can do only so much to encourage Turkish
parliamentarians to engage on the issue. I fear that, to date, their
response to the idea of a conference has been somewhat negative,
but of course any progress on such a front would be very welcome and
would represent more of the reconciliation which we all want.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and other noble Lords raised the issue of
deportations. Prime Minister Erdogan and the Foreign Minister have now
clarified that there is no immediate plan to deport illegal Armenian
immigrants from Turkey. President Gul has also clarified that Turkey
does not discriminate against Armenians working in Turkey. Subsequent
comments by Turkish politicians have underlined the tolerance shown by
Turkey towards migrants. I repeat that it is for the Turkish Government
to manage migration issues and illegal immigration in line with their
international obligations and Turkish law.
On EU membership, which several noble Lords raised, the issue that
we are discussing today is not a precondition for Turkish membership
of the European Union. However, under the political criteria for
membership, Turkey is expected to maintain what is called in the
criteria "good neighbourly relations" with countries in the region,
which of course include Armenia.
The issue of Nagorno-Karabakh was raised by noble Lord, Lord Maginnis,
and others. The Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan have had useful
and constructive meetings in the framework of the Minsk group process,
including, most recently, at the end of January. We hope for continuing
progress. On the issue of our contacts, my honourable friend Chris
Bryant, Minister for Europe, discussed Turkey-Armenia relations with
his Turkish counterpart during the Turkish Prime Minister's recent
visit, and he lobbied his counterpart in January and February this year
to encourage progress on the normalisation of relations with Armenia.
The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, raised a number of points. I may
not get round to them all, but if there is anything that I have not
covered in my response, she may expect me to give her a written answer
as soon as possible. Politically, the UK Government continue to urge
both the Armenian and Turkish Governments to move forward with the
normalisation process and to find ways to reconcile their differences.
The Foreign Secretary recently raised the issue with the Armenian
President, we have had many discussions with foreign ministers and
others and, in-country, our ambassadors are engaging on the issues.
We have supported a number of projects designed to promote conflict
resolution and break down the stereotypes that clearly exist. These
have included sponsoring a Turkish film festival in Yerevan and a
touring theatre production about the conflict. and bringing together
young people from both countries-women, journalists and others,
but especially women activists from both countries-to talk about the
prospects for EU integration and working together to ensure that both
countries have open contacts and discussions.
29 Mar 2010 : Column GC510
The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, also mentioned the EU. The European
Union remains fully involved in helping Turkey and Armenia to improve
relations. Commissioner Fule, who is responsible for enlargement
and neighbourhood, will visit the south Caucasus in April, and High
Representative Ashton is planning a visit in the next few months. The
EU Special Representative for the South Caucasus, Peter Semneby,
is following the Turkey-Armenia normalisation process closely and
using his contacts with both parties to encourage more progress. The
EU continues to make it clear that it is ready to provide practical
support, should that be needed, to further the implementation of the
protocols once they are ratified.
The 2009 EU accession report for Turkey shows that it is not meeting
the conditions for joining the EU, in particular in relation to
neighbourly relations with countries such as Armenia. That question
was raised by noble Lords. The accession progress report recognises
the significant progress that Turkey has made in normalising relations
with Armenia. It has made efforts to improve relations with neighbours,
although we recognise that there is still some way to go.
I thank noble Lords for this debate-in particular the noble Baroness,
Lady Cox, who has made a great contribution on these issues. We must
all work together to ensure that we see the progress that will be
essential to bring consensus and closure to the tragic history that
the two countries are grappling with. I hope that noble Lords, who
have great interest and commitment, can assist with that.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley): The Committee
will adjourn until 6.30 pm.
6.21 pm Sitting suspended.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/ pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/100329-gc0004.htm
View Table of contents at
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld2009 10/ldhansrd/index/100329.html#contents