Tweet
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
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