House of Lords Debate - 29 March 2010‏

An important short debate took place in the House of Lords on 29 March 2010

on a motion 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.

The official record of the debate, in the attached Hansard extract, is an invaluable

read for those who want to know about current policy and thinking in UK political

circles.

In summary, Baroness Cox spoke forcefully and achieved her objective of getting the

Armenian Genocide and the latest arguments “on the parliamentary record”.

Pleasingly she was able to use new material drawn from Geoffrey Robertson QC’s

legal opinion initiated by the Armenian Legal Initiative Group. Lord Avebury spoke

about dealing with a Turkish parliament that requested that the Blue Book be disowned

by Britain but subsequently would not get into a dialogue (because the letter to them

was not signed by every parliamentarian), Lords Hylton was in support, Lord Wallace

sat in the cross-bench middle in a way that did not add to advancing the matter, and

Baroness Rawlings made a very thoughtful speech with direct questions to the

government.

On the other side, we had Lord Maginnis of Drumgloss, Lord Kilclooney and Viscount

Waverley with depressing statements that’ these are events that took place 100 years

ago’ implying that they are of no consequence today, Britain should deal with the more

relevant Karabagh refugee problem created by Armenia, resolutions such as this will

not help Turkey-Armenia relations, ’Armenia does not have clean hands either’, ‘we

should not alienate our Turkish friends’ through to querying why should the UK get

involved at all.

Baroness Kinnock gave the government response showed some shift in their position

but also that Britain will not condemn the genocide. This is best illustrated by the letter

received by the Armenian Legal Initiative Group from the office of the Secretary of State

John Denham (with the title that included “Armenian massacres”):

I would like to reaffirm the message in my last letter that the UK Government

recognises the tragic suffering of the Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire in

the early 20th Century. The position of the Government is to continue to work for

rapprochement and reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia.

During a debate in the House of Lords on Monday 29 March, Baroness Kinnock

explained "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."

She went on to explain that "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 UK Government will continue to encourage both Turkey and Armenia to build

on recent progress to address these issues together.

The argument that only a court can address the issue of genocide is a change in tactic

that does not recognise that this has not deterred so many other countries and

organisations – but (they hope) lets the British government off the hook. Ministerial

responsibility has been thrown into question when the QC demonstrated that ministers

faithfully followed the brief prepared by their officials without any seeking any expert

input, analysis or evidence. Leaving the issue to bilateral political contacts between

Armenia and Turkey is a way for the disinclined to avoid addressing the issue of

genocide, a responsibility that goes beyond state boundaries and administrations.

The British government is apparently working towards rapprochement but in a way

that is not visible nor measurable.

Though old arguments have been discredited and are no longer made, the bottom line

is that British policy has not changed in a fundamental way and the government continues

to deploy weak and unconvincing arguments.

For those who are interested, the letters already sent follow the end of the email. Any

further representations to Her Majesty’s Government by organisations and individual

from anywhere in the world is welcome as there is still a mountain to climb.

Those with a UK address are reminded that the Downing Street e-petition on the

Armenian Genocide (http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/genocide2010/ ) has a cut-off

deadline of 24 April. So far the number of signatures (550) will require a government

response but does not signal to Whitehall that the UK community and its friends are

truly behind recognition.

Letters

Dear Baroness Kinnock

The Armenian Legal Initiative Group that initiated the project culminating in Geoffrey Robertson’s legal

opinion on the Armenian Genocide was represented in the House of Lord’s debate on 29 March when

you responded on behalf of the British Government.

We would first like you to know, and please pass this on to those who prepare policy on this issue,

that we were particularly saddened that the British Government felt unable to send a representative

to the Temple of Peace Memorial. At this time, we will be praying for all those souls who lost their

lives so brutally during the Armenian Genocide. You were concerned that it would send the wrong

signals. We have to tell you that the message this gives is the British Government does not have

the basic humanity to be associated even with an act of remembrance, and in so doing appears to

support the denial of genocide. A drop of real understanding and kindness in the cold corridors of

Whitehall may have warmed our hearts but this is replaced by hurt.

Secondly, we notice that in your speech you rejected Geoffrey Robertson QC’s assertion that the

British Parliament has been misled and there were no rebuttal of any of the arguments he makes.

We had already asked Secretary of State John Denham for his reasons for rejecting the opinion and

he quotes in a letter received today your 29 March “one-liners” for the need of an appropriate court,

a point that has not deterred so many other countries. It is not at all satisfactory to reject a

well argued detailed report without any counter points in kind that can be put to the QC or any other

authority. We therefore consider that the British Government has not made a case against this legal

opinion and it therefore stands as solid.

The commemorations of 24 April when we remember the dead come up in three week’s time, and

the speeches and articles will mention the British in these terms. This will disturb our community in

the UK, and when eventually this country recognises the genocide as it will have to, it will get little

credit for this.

Yours sincerely

Viscount Waverley
My Lord

The Armenian Legal Initiative Group initiated the project which gave rise to Geoffrey Robertson’s legal

opinion on the Armenian Genocide. We also heard and read your intervention in the debate initiated

by Baroness Cox on 29 March in the House of Lords Grand Committee Room.

We note that there was no response to the arguments in this document either from yourself or from

any of your colleagues. We therefore believe that the case made by this eminent jurist remains solid

and still stands.

We also note the argument that events of nearly 100 years ago are best not brought up, even though

they poison present politics to such a great extent. We believe that any relationship that is not based

upon trust and requires a pre-condition to forsake the memories of the victims of 1915 will not be a

lasting one. We ask you to approach this issue in the spirit of Baroness Kinnock’s request that

"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."

Additionally, there is a positive step you could take with your good offices and your connections in

Azerbaijan. Could you please advocate to their President to respond positively to the request of the

Armenian President that the two countries sign a treaty of non-aggression with each other, and call

on the Turkish President to persuade the Azeri President as to the benefits of such a step. Your

contacts with these two administrations should help to achieve this essential confidence-building

step towards peace in the South Caucasus and the eventual establishment of relations between the

two neighbours.

Yours sincerely