Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The UK Government's Position on the Armenian Genocide

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

  • The UK Government's Position on the Armenian Genocide

    The UK Government's Position on the Armenian Genocide

    Presented at the Commemoration of the Church of Wales'
    Recognition of the Armenian Genocide
    Temple of Peace, Cardiff
    22 April 2013

    This presentation will cover key elements of the British Government's
    policy on the Armenian Genocide, the destruction of up to 1.5 million
    people between 1915 and 1923, from the perspective of an Armenian born a
    British subject resident in the United Kingdom. This is representative of
    the experience of representative groups that approached the political
    establishment.
    It will show that the United Kingdom started with a strong political and
    moral position that addresses the core issue that then deteriorates to the
    present dissatisfying stance that avoids the key question with discredited
    arguments. The theme is that:
    Sadly with successive governments, `what it says on the tin is not what
    you get'.
    With the advent of the First World War, the allies, Britain, France and
    Russia, issued a joint statement in May 1915:
    `In view of those new crimes of Turkey against humanity and civilisation,
    the Allied Governments announce publicly to the Sublime Porte that they
    will hold personally responsible for these crimes all the members of the
    Ottoman Government and those of their agents who are implicated in such
    massacres'.
    Note the use of the term `crimes against humanity and civilisation'.
    The Foreign Office had ample evidence of what was happening through British
    representatives in various Middle East countries. Material from many
    sources, both UK and overseas, were collated in the `Blue Book' prepared
    by the historian Arnold Toynbee, submitted to the Foreign Secretary then
    deposited in the House of Commons as an official document (British
    Governmental Document Miscellaneous No 31).
    The definitive tripartite statement and the `Blue Book' are extensively
    referred to and quoted from. But research by Dr Nassibian at Oxford
    University (Britain and the Armenian Question 1915-1923) into the cabinet
    papers of that time exposes a different underlying picture. The three
    countries issued the statement to keep the Armenian conscripts and
    volunteers fighting at the front, and to persuade the United States to join
    the Allies. Pledges to the Armenians made in the House of Commons by
    Lloyd George and Balfour were described by the historian AJP Taylor as
    `weapons of war' rather than`to be fulfilled'. Aneurin Williams was moved to
    write that the `Christian population in Armenian Turkey faced the threat
    of annihilation'. Even the German ambassador to the Sublime Porte stated
    in a despatch to Berlin, a close ally of Turkey, that the deportations were
    not based on military considerations. Many Germans were military officers
    in Turkey who witnessed, first-hand, the effectiveness of the extermination
    of a race evicted from its ancestral lands, and they later became
    involved with the Third Reich's `Final Solution'.
    `Deportations' is the favoured term used by the Turkish state and
    nationalists in making their case.
    In-fighting between the Allies for the spoils of war, and the courting of
    Turkey led to the future of the decimated Armenian population in Turkey
    droppingfrom the number one priority in a British Cabinet paper down to
    24, then disappearing altogether. Reasons for these changing priorities
    ranged from the financial cost to the Exchequer to the risk that
    independence for Armenia may make the Muslims in India restless, an
    argument not used to prevent the extraction of Palestine and other Arab
    countries from Ottoman Turkey. Throughout this period, Armenians looked up
    to Britain - a British military officer serving in the Caucasus described
    Armenians as holding a `blind, strange faith in England and anyone
    English'.
    Armenians entered the UK in numbers in the second half of the 20th century
    and lobbied their MPs, senior government figures and the Foreign Office
    (now known as the FCO, the Foreign & Commonwealth Office). The common
    request was for the UK to publicly recognise the Armenian Genocide, and to
    intercede with the Turkish authorities to do the same. After Armenia became
    independent in 1991, this request reflected the new republic's
    objectives. Meanwhile Turkey closed its border with Armenia in 1993, and
    these remain closed to this day. A vestige of the Iron Curtain exists
    because of the outstanding genocide recognition issue. The blockade is
    contrary to international law and should be condemned by the UK.
    In 2008, the Armenian Legal Initiative Group commissioned Geoffrey
    Robertson, a Queen's Counsel and eminent specialist in international law
    and human rights, to examine the British Government's policy and conduct,
    and the validity of its arguments. Documents requested under the Freedom of
    Information Act surfaced in extensively redacted versions after several
    representations. Robertson concluded that the FCO's objective was
    predominantly to appease a `neuralgic' Turkish government even though the
    British Government was open to criticism. Officials saw no practical
    benefits to be gained from the UK recognising the genocide and apparently
    the current line of evasion was the only feasible option. The QC described
    the FCO department as an`ethics-free zone'.
    Let us go through key points repeated over the years in letters to UK
    Armenians.
    `The massacres of 1915-16 were an appalling tragedy which the British
    Government of the day condemned. We fully endorse that view`(Keith Vaz,
    Minister of Europe)
    This is consistent with Winston Churchill's assessment that' =85 there is no
    reasonable doubt that this crime was planned and executed for political
    purposes`. He also used descriptive terms such as`administrative holocaust
    ' and `clearance of a race'. (`The Aftermath')
    Note that the term `holocaust' was used before the extermination of the
    Jews during the Second World War.
    However, subsequent points made almost negate this welcome endorsement.
    `Neither this government nor previous British governments have judged
    that this evidence is sufficiently unequivocal to persuade us that the
    events should be categorised as genocide as defined by the 1948 UN
    Convention.'(Douglas Alexander, Lord Malloch-Brown, Keith Vaz, Baroness
    Scotland)
    The FCO documents prove that the government undertook virtually no research
    on this matter. It did not consult academic or legal authorities, or called
    for expert papers. Authoritative United Nation's and the government's own
    documents were ignored.
    `=85 when over a million ethnic Armenian citizens in the Ottoman Empire were
    killed - many massacred, some victims of civil strife, starvation and
    disease which affected the whole population of Eastern Anatolia' (Geoff
    Hoon, April 2007).
    Letters from the Turkish ambassador to the FCO reveal satisfaction on the
    line taken by the UK government in attributing ethnic cleansing to external
    causes as this diminishes the roles of civil and military authorities.
    This is precisely the line taken by denialist spokespersons. It is truly
    regrettable that the FCO adopted this explanation as the small number of
    photographs of the deportations available to us, plus numerous eye-witness
    accounts, depict the use of the military summoned by the civil authorities
    escorting columns of citizens marched to their fate.
    `We extend our deep sympathies to the descendants, and the assurance that
    the massacres will not be forgotten.' (Margaret Thatcher in May 1990 after
    it was pointed out that her state visit to Turkey was on 24 April that year)
    Since the original commemoration in 2001, the Armenian Primate or
    community organisations have rarely been invited to the Holocaust Memorial
    Dayevents. Indeed, representations for inclusion have normally been
    ignored in London, Manchester and regrettably Cardiff since 2010. The HMD
    Trust website does however contain an entry explaining the significance of
    the 24th April as well as two survivor stories.
    `It is not the business of government to review events of 80 years ago
    with a view to pronouncing on them' (Baroness Ramsay 1990). Joyce
    Quinn, as Minister of State, extended this in 1998 to `according to
    today's values and attitudes'.
    Genocide as a crime does not change with the passing of time. There have
    been many apologies about the treatment of citizens by governments around
    the world - including the British - confirming this argument as invalid.
    Indeed, 21 sovereign nations formally recognise the Armenian Genocide in
    addition to 19 international religious, academic and representative
    organisations.
    `There is genuine debate amongst historians' (Baroness Scotland, Denis
    MacShane, Joyce Quinn). `It is for historians to interpret the past and
    society learns and benefits from their assessments of events'.
    In March 2000, 126 Holocaust scholars - holders of academic chairs as
    well as directors of Holocaust research and study centres - issued a
    statement affirming the Armenian Genocide as incontestable and urged
    Western democracies to formally recognise it. This has since been
    re-affirmed regularly by the International Association of Genocide Scholars
    which includes the most respected experts in this field. They have also
    written directly to the Turkish Prime Minister disputing the official
    Turkish narrative, and urging him to face up to the truth. These
    representations have all been ignored.
    Keith Vaz, the then Minister for Europe, did name three dissenting
    academics - Bernard Lewis, Heath Lowry and Justin McCarthy. All held chairs
    funded by the Turkish government, and the latter was forced to resign when
    he was discovered to be preparing letters issued by the Turkish ambassador
    in the USA.

    Recent fresh analyses of available Ottoman Turkish archives
    by two Turkish scholars, Taner Akcam and Ugur Ungor, support the genocide
    thesis. Both work outside Turkey to avoid prosecution under Article 301
    for `insulting Turkishness', a legal means for the state to suppress
    discussion on any topic that does not follow the official Turkish
    narrative.
    To this day, the British Government chooses to ignore the overwhelming
    views of independent experts in this area. In fact it has gone further
    than this with the March 2010 debate in the House of Lords when Baroness
    Kinnock said that `The Blue Book should be considered alongside other
    documents relating to the events of 1915-16 in archives round the world.'
    This undermining of British Government contemporaneous research is
    something the Turkish parliament has pressured their Westminster
    counterparts to do for many years. The `Blue Book' has been translated into
    Turkish and sent to all Turkish MPs this year by Lord Avebury and the
    historian Ara Sarafian.
    `We must restrict the use of the term `Genocide' to events which occurred
    after the adoption of the UN Convention on the Prevention & Punishment of
    the Crime of Genocide' (FCO Directorate). `We must not attribute acts of
    the past to the present Turkish government before establishment of the
    modern state' (Francis Maude and Mike O'Brien; dates). `It is not common
    practice in law to apply judgements retrospectively' (FCO Turkey Team).
    Geoffrey Robertson (QC) dismissed these points as `fiction'. There are no
    such precedents, practices or restrictions. Moreover, the convention's
    introduction makes clear that genocides have occurred through the ages.
    Raphael Lempkin, the architect of the UN Convention, specifically
    mentioned that the Armenian's history triggered his work. The FCO appears
    not to understand the importance of nations acknowledging their past crimes
    against humanity without exceptions. It even wrote the Holocaust Memorial
    Day Trust Deed objectives with a start date of the Second World War.
    `Genocide is a precise term and is best assessed by a competent court.
    However, there is no such court with the authority to make such an
    assessment. Therefore, it is inappropriate for the British Government to
    apply terms to events on which no legal judgement can be made.'
    The government has now abandoned its previous discredited arguments and
    moved further away from developments in international law. Political
    leaders are now indicted by international prosecutors for trial in courts
    convened under a wide global remit.
    `Truth and reconciliation process conducted as a joint exercise by the
    parties involved. We would continue to encourage the parties to embark on
    such a process which must be owned by the people.' (Geoff Hoon, Minister
    for Europe) `.. look to the future in the interests of the region and the
    wider international community'(Baroness Ramsey)
    `The UK will not make any statement that has the potential to jeopardise
    this process.'(Baroness Kinnock, March 2010)
    Turkey scuppered the `truth and reconciliation process' originally proposed
    in the USA. It will not open diplomatic relations with Armenia nor open its
    border until Armenia drops its claims for recognition whereas Armenia
    wishes to negotiate with no pre-conditions whatsoever.
    It is also a flawed process. If the suggested sub-committee is set up by
    politicians concludes that genocide did not occur so as to facilitate
    international relations, what will this mean for decades of research by the
    most eminent of independent experts over many continents that point
    unequivocally in the opposite direction?
    Let the British Government listen to the opinions expressed by independent
    Turks. Ragip Zarakolu, a brave publisher of books on subjects such as the
    Armenian Genocide and Kurdish issues, and as a result hounded through
    Turkish courts, said:
    `Turkish denialism plays to gain time in an Oriental way. Everybody knows
    what really happened in 1915 to the Armenians, an ancient people rooted in
    Anatolian geography =85 =85 there was not only ethnic cleansing but also of
    cleansing of writing, maps and books in an unfortunate continuation of the
    genocide at a different level.'
    In summary, the British Government started with a contemporaneous
    forthright First World War statement that it then contradicted with a
    varying series of inconsistent, morally bankrupt points that are unlikely
    to lead to tangible positive outcomes.
    A letter earlier this month in time for this commemoration from David
    Liddington, the current Minister of Europe, reiterates the current
    argument so there is no change of mind. There was one piece of news - that
    he had gone to the Tsitsernakaberd Genocide Memorial in Yerevan on his
    visit to Armenia in September 2012. This is welcome but does not satisfy
    the expectations of the Armenian people and the interest of preventing
    crimes against humanity.
    In the run-up to the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide in 2015,
    the British Government's stance will be subject to detailed scrutiny
    worldwide. It is in the UK's interest to progress from its current
    unsatisfactory policy that will continue to be viewed as unacceptable in
    comparison to those of other nations. The huge risk is that the UK will be
    portrayed as denying genocide.



    Armenian Legal Initiative Group
    http://www.wales-armenia.org.uk/geninfs.html

Working...
X