Uncategorized

In December 1895, Queen Victoria expressed her distress about the “shameful, savage massacres” of Armenians, including men, women, and children, as well as the misrule in Constantinople, in her diary [1]Queen Victoria’s Journals, December 4, 1895, vol. 102, 139 . She noted that the Ambassadors were at their wit’s end. A few days later, Salisbury came to dinner and the Queen recorded that the issue had made him very anxious. The Queen further commented that the trouble with the Armenians continued in every direction, despite Sultan’s promises of redress. The massacres continued, and thousands of people were killed and rendered homeless and were threatened with famine, but the question remained: what could be done? Unfortunately all efforts deemed futile.

Those mass killings of the Armenians turned to be one of the most egregious human rights violations. It involves the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, ethnic, or religious group and often involves mass killings, torture, rape, and other forms of violence. The Armenian Genocide, which took place in 1915-16, resulted in the deaths of an estimated 1.5 million Armenians and is widely considered the first genocide of the 20th century.

Fast forward to the 21st century, the ongoing debate in the UK parliament over whether or not to recognise the Armenian Genocide highlight important issues with the government’s stance. The lack of consistency, disregard for historical archival records – including British sources – and moral irresponsibility of the government to acknowledge and condemn acts of genocide are concerning.

While some in Downing Street may argue that it is not the government’s role to determine what constitutes genocide, this argument overlooks the fundamental duty of governments to acknowledge the occurrence of genocide as a historical fact. However, by recognising it, the war crimes are put on the record, affirming that the UK condemns such acts and acknowledges the suffering of the victims and their descendants. It also sends a message that genocide denial or revisionism is unacceptable and that historical facts should not be ignored or manipulated for political reasons.

A heavily redacted document released under the Freedom of Information Act has shed some light on this debate. It reveals an internal government discussion about whether its policy should change. The document seems to conclude that it is not up to governments to decide what constitutes genocide. By doing so, the UK Government cast aside the horrors of the Armenians that were extensively reported back at the time. The British Empire, along with its French and Russian allies, condemned what they called a “crime against humanity” — looking back, it seems to be a noble phrase at the time. While the current position of the UK government is that it only recognises events as genocide when the international courts, such as the Holocaust, Srebrenica, and Rwanda, have confirmed.

The argument that the UK government only recognises as genocide those events that have been found as such by international courts has several issues.:

Lack of Consistency

The UK government’s position on genocide recognition is inconsistent, as it recognises some genocides even in cases where international courts have not confirmed them. This is exemplified by several instances.:

• The Herero and Nama genocide: Between 1904 and 1908, German colonial forces in what is now Namibia committed genocide against the Herero and Nama people, killing an estimated 65,000-80,000 people. The UK government has acknowledged the genocide, but it has not been recognised by an international court.
• The Pontic Greek genocide: During the First World War Ottoman forces committed genocide against the Pontic Greek population in Anatolia, killing an estimated 350,000-500,000 people. While the genocide has been recognised by several countries, including Greece and Cyprus, it has not been confirmed by an international court.
• The Rohingya genocide: Since 2017, the Burmese military has been accused of committing genocide against the Rohingya Muslim population in Myanmar, with widespread reports of killings, rape, and other atrocities. The UK government has recognised the atrocities as ethnic cleansing, but the international legal status of the situation is still being debated.

Historical Accuracy

The argument is flawed because it assumes that the only way to determine if a genocide occurred is through an international court’s verdict. However, historical records and evidence can demonstrate that a genocide has taken place. In the case of the Armenian Genocide, there is overwhelming evidence from multiple sources, including eyewitness accounts, official records, and scholarly research, that supports the recognition of the genocide. Several historical documents in the UK confirm the Armenian Genocide. Here are a few examples:

• The Bryce Report [2]Viscount Bryce. The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, 1915-1916.: In 1915, the British government appointed Viscount James Bryce to lead an investigation into the reports of atrocities against Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. The resulting report, known as the Bryce Report, documented evidence of widespread killings, forced deportations, and other abuses against the Armenian population. The report was widely publicized in the UK and other countries and is considered a key historical document in confirming the Armenian Genocide.
• The Foreign Office archives: The UK’s archives contain numerous documents that provide evidence of the Armenian Genocide, including diplomatic cables, reports from British officials, and other correspondences. These documents reveal that the British government was aware of the atrocities [3]Cypher Telegram from Captain Doughty-Wylie, Adana, April 17, 1909, FOcommitted against the Armenians, and officials were often frustrated by their inability to intervene or provide assistance. For example, a cable sent by British Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, Sir Louis Mallet, in August 1915 stated: “Deportations of and excesses against peaceful Armenians is increasing, and from harrowing reports of eye witnesses it appears that a campaign of race extermination is in progress.” These and other documents are valuable resources for historians and researchers seeking to understand the scope and nature of the Armenian Genocide.
• In 1919, Britain accused the Ottoman Empire of committing a “crime against humanity,”[4]Winston Churchill, The World Crisis: The Aftermath (Thornton Butter-worth, 1929) p 405 a label adopted by the international community. This action established a precedent for intervening in the affairs of other states on humanitarian grounds based on legal and moral considerations. With this, the British Empire provided the blueprint for how the international community responded to charges of “crimes against humanity” against the Ottoman Empire.
• Britain and its empire-the most powerful internationalist institutional force at the time-played a key role in determining the global response to these horrible events and spearheaded war crimes prosecutions after the war of some of the perpetrators. [5]Tusan, M. (2017). The British Empire and the Armenian Genocide. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson, QC, argued [6]Was there an Armenian Genocide? Geoffrey Robertson QC’s Opinion 9 October 2009, Point 22 and Point 45 that the UK government should recognise it as genocide based on the overwhelming historical evidence that supports this conclusion. He has also criticised the UK’s reliance on international court decisions for determining whether or not an event constitutes genocide, arguing that this approach puts too much weight on legal technicalities and fails to consider the moral dimensions of genocide recognition.

The flip side of this argument, is that recognition declarations of genocide, or laws prohibiting Holocaust denial by governments, suggest that historical records alone are not credible enough, and it would require political recognition to give these records credence and credibility. However, the Armenian Genocide is a historical fact, and no government’s recognition or non-recognition can change that reality.

While this specific argument raises valid concerns about the political nature of recognition, it may overlook the importance of official recognition by governments and its impact on acknowledging historical facts, promoting accountability, and preventing future genocides. It is true that the recognition of the Armenian Genocide should not be solely a political decision, but there can be a few objections to this approach. There is a false equivalence when one equates the recognition of genocide with the prohibition of Holocaust denial. These two topics are not equivalent, as Holocaust denial seeks to deny the suffering of millions of people, while recognising the Armenian Genocide acknowledges a historical fact that has been contested by some nations and groups.

In general, the failure of governments to recognise the Armenian Genocide may also have detrimental effects on the objective analysis of history. Historians and academics rely on accurate records and official acknowledgements to present an unbiased interpretation of historical events. The lack of recognition by governments may create obstacles for future historians in presenting an accurate picture of history, leading to biased interpretations and revisionism. This can distort our understanding of the past and impede efforts to learn from history and prevent future atrocities.

Moral Responsibility

In contrast to the UK government’s position, both the Scottish and Welsh governments have officially recognised the Armenian Genocide. In 2015, the Scottish Parliament passed a motion recognising the genocide and calling on the UK government to follow suit. The Welsh Assembly also passed a similar motion in 2016, becoming the second UK nation to officially recognise the Genocide.

These actions by the Scottish and Welsh governments demonstrate a willingness to acknowledge the Armenian people’s suffering and take a stance on the issue of genocide recognition. While the powers of the devolved governments are limited, their recognition sends a message of solidarity to the Armenian community and highlights the importance of acknowledging historical facts and speaking out against atrocities committed.

Even the Irish recognition of the Armenian Genocide was a significant step, making Ireland the 32nd country to recognise the Genocide officially. The move was welcomed by the Armenian community in Ireland and by advocates of genocide recognition around the world.

The Irish government officially recognised the Armenian Genocide in April 2021. The Irish Senate unanimously passed a motion recognising the Genocide, with the support of all political parties. The motion recognised the Armenian people’s suffering and condemned the Ottoman Empire’s actions, calling on the Irish government to formally recognise the Genocide.

The UK government’s refusal to recognise the Armenian Genocide has been a source of controversy and criticism. Geoffrey Robertson QC, as mentioned earlier, has argued that the UK government has a moral responsibility to recognise the Armenian Genocide based on the overwhelming historical evidence supporting this conclusion. Another factor is the UK government’s concern about the economic repercussions on its trade relationship with Turkey. Since the UK has significant trade dealings with Turkey, any recognition of the genocide might create disruptions in this relationship, leading to economic consequences and Turkish backlash. This is not surprising since President Erdogan’s leadership has seen several instances where the Turkish government took diplomatic actions to prevent other countries from recognising the Armenian Genocide. For example, in 2016, the German Bundestag recognised the Armenian Genocide, prompting a backlash from Turkey. Turkey recalled its ambassador to Germany, accused the German government of trying to rewrite history, warned that the resolution would harm bilateral relations between Turkey and Germany, and threatened to retaliate with economic measures.

In 1999, the UK government’s Foreign Office had decided that because Turkey was ‘neuralgic’ on the subject, the country was too commercially and politically important to upset by speaking out the truth. As one note to the Foreign Secretary put it, regarding the government’s equivocal position: ‘HMG is open to criticism in terms of the ethical dimension. But given the importance of our relations (political, strategic and commercial) with Turkey … the current line is the only feasible option‘ [7]Memorandum from the FCO Eastern Department to Minister Joyce Quin and others, 12 April 1999, Subject title: House of Lords un-starred question 14 April: Baroness Cox, Armenian Genocide.

In Short

While the UK government has maintained its existing policy, it has acknowledged the need for a “forward-leaning” approach to commemoration events and promoting reconciliation between Armenia and Turkey.

Recognising the Armenian Genocide and acknowledging the suffering of its victims is a fundamental aspect of addressing the UK’s moral responsibility when it comes to atrocities and the sufferings of people. It sends a message to the survivors and their descendants that their pain and trauma have not been forgotten, and that the world recognises the horror of what they have experienced. It also helps to prevent future genocides by raising awareness of the danger of such atrocities and promoting a culture of accountability and prevention.

Furthermore, recognising the Armenian Genocide also signals the Government’s commitment to upholding human rights and justice, even when it is uncomfortable or politically might be inconvenient [8]UK and Turkey sign £19B trade deal. It demonstrates that the UK government is not only concerned with its own interests but also with the integrity of its historical archival records and with promoting what is morally right. In short, moral responsibility compels the UK government to recognise and condemn the Armenian Genocide, not only because it is the right thing to do, but also because it is necessary to prevent future atrocities and promote a culture of accountability and prevention.

Although historical facts cannot be changed by the UK government’s recognition or non-recognition, the recognition of the Genocide is important as it helps address the inconsistency in its stance. It defines and acknowledges what happened and puts it on record that the UK condemns such acts. Moreover, recognising the Genocide is a moral responsibility that acknowledges the suffering of the victims and their descendants and educates future generations about the atrocities committed.