Tweet
http://www.accc.org.uk/News/Lords_-_14July05/lords _-_14july05.html
House of Lords
Thursday, 14 July 2005.
The House met at eleven of the clock (Prayers having been read
earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Newcastle): The
CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
14 Jul 2005 : Column 1212
Armenian Massacres of 1915
11.7 am
Baroness Cox asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will reconsider their position with regard to the
recognition of the Armenian massacres of 1915 as genocide.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth
Office (Lord Triesman): My Lords, the long-standing position of Her
Majesty's Government is well known. The British Government acknowledge
the strength of feeling about this terrible episode of history and
recognise the massacres of 1915-16 as a tragedy. However, neither
this Government nor previous British governments have judged that
the evidence is sufficiently unequivocal to persuade us that these
events should be categorised as genocide as defined by the 1948 UN
convention on genocide.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he
agree that every unrecognised genocide encourages other potential
genocides, as shown by Hitler's infamous statement before invading
Poland: "Who today speaks of the Armenians?"?
The testimony of respected contemporary witnesses shows that the
massacres of 1.5 million Armenians by Turkey would certainly fit the
contemporary definition of genocide. What steps are the Government
taking to ensure that their refusal to acknowledge this does not give
implicit encouragement to other perpetrators of would-be genocides or,
indeed, inhibit Turkey from recognising this, which is a precondition
for healing and reconciliation?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I say unequivocally that what took place
was by any standards an atrocity of the first order. The judgment
required under the United Nations convention is that it can be
demonstrated that a state had intent. That is the element that the
lawyers have concluded is not shown in this case. That is why the
difference is made. However, that does not alter the fact that every
nation responsible for atrocities on such a scale needs to face them,
think about them and consider what can be done or said to help to
heal some of the wound that was caused, even if some time ago.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that
the issue is not so much what the Turkish Government did as their
present attitude to the atrocities? Given that it is now a criminal
offence in Turkey to refer to the genocide, that an academic seminar
supported by three Turkish universities was banned by the Government
and that academics are in prison for discussing it, is my noble friend
a little troubled that admitting Turkey to the European Union--not
after but while the Government demonstrate this contempt for human
rights--may debase the ethical implications of EU membership?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, it is true that the issue has not been set
as a precondition for negotiations with Turkey over accession to
the European Union, which, as I said to your Lordships yesterday,
will start on 3 October. On the other hand, there is no doubt that
progress needs to be made and that it must be substantive. The United
Kingdom Government have attempted to move this process on. In March
2005, at an EU Ministerial Troika with Turkey, my right honourable
friend Denis MacShane suggested to Turkey that there should be an
independent international commission to review the events of 1915.
Subsequently, the Turkish Prime Minister wrote to the Armenian
President and offered to collaborate in such a review. I submit to the
House that the review might well reach the conclusion that there was
genocide because that is not ruled out. I am not prejudging what the
review might do. But unfortunately the proposal was not accepted by
the Armenians unless the border issue and recognition were resolved
first. It is quite hard to see how progress can be made easily.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, the Minister will recall the
official British government inquiry into these atrocities under Lord
Bryce in 1915, which established beyond doubt that huge and systematic
massacres had taken place. Speaking for myself and for many others,
although there is sympathy with modern Turkey's position and its desire
to move into effective membership of the European Union, might it not
be useful for the British Government to tell our Turkish friends--to
nudge them, as it were--that a more open approach on this matter than
the one rightly described by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer,
might help Turkey's general position and prospects of membership of
the European Union?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I sympathise wholly with what my noble and
learned friend Lord Archer and the noble Lord, Lord Howell, have just
said. That is precisely why my right honourable friend Denis MacShane
urged that on the Turkish Government. Given how static this position
has been for so long, we took some comfort that they were prepared to
accept a completely independent international commission to review
the events. That itself is the beginning of significant change. It
is not the change itself but the beginning of the change. We should
continue to encourage that process.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I speak as one who supports Turkey's
application to join the European Union. However, do Her Majesty's
Government recognise that the conduct of modern Turkey dismays many
who support the application to join and creates real obstacles to
its success? I refer: first, to its refusal to acknowledge the fact
of the massacre of more than a million Armenians under the Ottoman
Empire; secondly, to its enactment of the provision to which the
noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, referred--Article 305 of the
Turkish penal code making journalists and others liable to criminal
prosecution for using the word "genocide" in Turkey; and, thirdly,
to the continuation of the blockade that has been referred to.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, there is no reference in the penal code
itself to that. There is an explanatory note to Article 305, which
has the impact described. However, I am told that it is not legally
binding. I also make it clear that the European Commission expects the
language to be taken into account in interpreting Article 305 because
it would not be acceptable to the European Union to interpret it in
such a damaging way.
Good relations with neighbouring states require that there should be
open and flexible discussion of borders. That requires discussion not
just with Armenia, but also with Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh.
That is, again, slightly complex, but we are encouraging that border
discussion.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in 1999 when I sent
Joyce Quin, the then Minister for Europe, a list of 400 bibliographical
references on the genocide, she said that the Foreign Office did
not have time to study them? In view of the fact that, since then,
the Bryce Blue Book has been reprinted with all the references and
that archives from Germany and Turkey have been put into the public
domain, does the noble Lord not think that the Foreign Office should
at least thoroughly re-examine the evidence?
Lord Triesman: Yes, my Lords, for I am one of life's perpetual
students. I do not mean to be at all frivolous about the subject of
genocide, for there is no subject more telling in our recent modern
history. I will most certainly study that.
House of Lords
Thursday, 14 July 2005.
The House met at eleven of the clock (Prayers having been read
earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Newcastle): The
CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
14 Jul 2005 : Column 1212
Armenian Massacres of 1915
11.7 am
Baroness Cox asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will reconsider their position with regard to the
recognition of the Armenian massacres of 1915 as genocide.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth
Office (Lord Triesman): My Lords, the long-standing position of Her
Majesty's Government is well known. The British Government acknowledge
the strength of feeling about this terrible episode of history and
recognise the massacres of 1915-16 as a tragedy. However, neither
this Government nor previous British governments have judged that
the evidence is sufficiently unequivocal to persuade us that these
events should be categorised as genocide as defined by the 1948 UN
convention on genocide.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he
agree that every unrecognised genocide encourages other potential
genocides, as shown by Hitler's infamous statement before invading
Poland: "Who today speaks of the Armenians?"?
The testimony of respected contemporary witnesses shows that the
massacres of 1.5 million Armenians by Turkey would certainly fit the
contemporary definition of genocide. What steps are the Government
taking to ensure that their refusal to acknowledge this does not give
implicit encouragement to other perpetrators of would-be genocides or,
indeed, inhibit Turkey from recognising this, which is a precondition
for healing and reconciliation?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I say unequivocally that what took place
was by any standards an atrocity of the first order. The judgment
required under the United Nations convention is that it can be
demonstrated that a state had intent. That is the element that the
lawyers have concluded is not shown in this case. That is why the
difference is made. However, that does not alter the fact that every
nation responsible for atrocities on such a scale needs to face them,
think about them and consider what can be done or said to help to
heal some of the wound that was caused, even if some time ago.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that
the issue is not so much what the Turkish Government did as their
present attitude to the atrocities? Given that it is now a criminal
offence in Turkey to refer to the genocide, that an academic seminar
supported by three Turkish universities was banned by the Government
and that academics are in prison for discussing it, is my noble friend
a little troubled that admitting Turkey to the European Union--not
after but while the Government demonstrate this contempt for human
rights--may debase the ethical implications of EU membership?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, it is true that the issue has not been set
as a precondition for negotiations with Turkey over accession to
the European Union, which, as I said to your Lordships yesterday,
will start on 3 October. On the other hand, there is no doubt that
progress needs to be made and that it must be substantive. The United
Kingdom Government have attempted to move this process on. In March
2005, at an EU Ministerial Troika with Turkey, my right honourable
friend Denis MacShane suggested to Turkey that there should be an
independent international commission to review the events of 1915.
Subsequently, the Turkish Prime Minister wrote to the Armenian
President and offered to collaborate in such a review. I submit to the
House that the review might well reach the conclusion that there was
genocide because that is not ruled out. I am not prejudging what the
review might do. But unfortunately the proposal was not accepted by
the Armenians unless the border issue and recognition were resolved
first. It is quite hard to see how progress can be made easily.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, the Minister will recall the
official British government inquiry into these atrocities under Lord
Bryce in 1915, which established beyond doubt that huge and systematic
massacres had taken place. Speaking for myself and for many others,
although there is sympathy with modern Turkey's position and its desire
to move into effective membership of the European Union, might it not
be useful for the British Government to tell our Turkish friends--to
nudge them, as it were--that a more open approach on this matter than
the one rightly described by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer,
might help Turkey's general position and prospects of membership of
the European Union?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I sympathise wholly with what my noble and
learned friend Lord Archer and the noble Lord, Lord Howell, have just
said. That is precisely why my right honourable friend Denis MacShane
urged that on the Turkish Government. Given how static this position
has been for so long, we took some comfort that they were prepared to
accept a completely independent international commission to review
the events. That itself is the beginning of significant change. It
is not the change itself but the beginning of the change. We should
continue to encourage that process.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I speak as one who supports Turkey's
application to join the European Union. However, do Her Majesty's
Government recognise that the conduct of modern Turkey dismays many
who support the application to join and creates real obstacles to
its success? I refer: first, to its refusal to acknowledge the fact
of the massacre of more than a million Armenians under the Ottoman
Empire; secondly, to its enactment of the provision to which the
noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, referred--Article 305 of the
Turkish penal code making journalists and others liable to criminal
prosecution for using the word "genocide" in Turkey; and, thirdly,
to the continuation of the blockade that has been referred to.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, there is no reference in the penal code
itself to that. There is an explanatory note to Article 305, which
has the impact described. However, I am told that it is not legally
binding. I also make it clear that the European Commission expects the
language to be taken into account in interpreting Article 305 because
it would not be acceptable to the European Union to interpret it in
such a damaging way.
Good relations with neighbouring states require that there should be
open and flexible discussion of borders. That requires discussion not
just with Armenia, but also with Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh.
That is, again, slightly complex, but we are encouraging that border
discussion.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in 1999 when I sent
Joyce Quin, the then Minister for Europe, a list of 400 bibliographical
references on the genocide, she said that the Foreign Office did
not have time to study them? In view of the fact that, since then,
the Bryce Blue Book has been reprinted with all the references and
that archives from Germany and Turkey have been put into the public
domain, does the noble Lord not think that the Foreign Office should
at least thoroughly re-examine the evidence?
Lord Triesman: Yes, my Lords, for I am one of life's perpetual
students. I do not mean to be at all frivolous about the subject of
genocide, for there is no subject more telling in our recent modern
history. I will most certainly study that.