Response to the letter of the Rt Hon Geoff Hoon MP, the Minister for Europe
Rt Hon Geoff Hoon MP
Minister for Europe
Foreign & Commonwealth Office
LONDON
SW1A 2AH
5 July 2007
Dear Mr Hoon,
Thank you for your letter of 26th of June.
I am glad that you and the British Armenian community share the concern that "lessons are learnt and relationships are re-built to ensure a peaceful and secure future for everyone living in the region".
I would like however to further address the four points where you seem to disagree with the overwhelming and informed opinions of independent scholars, the European Parliament, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the majority of the U. S. House of Representatives, and parliaments of Canada, France, Italy, Lebanon, Sweden, Belgium, Greece, Russia, Argentina, Cyprus, Uruguay and the representatives of the Holy See, the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church in England, to name a few:
"it is not common practice in international law to apply such judgments retrospectively"
This is not exactly the case - as Professor Dr Alfred de Zayas writes in his legal opinion:
"The Genocide Convention of 1948 can be applied retrospectively, because it is declarative of pre-existing international law. There are numerous precedents for the retroactive application of treaties, e.g. the London Agreement of 8 August 1945 establishing the Nuremberg Tribunal, the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutes of Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity of 1968, and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969."
We are not sure that the Government is able to name a single authority on international law not employed by the Government - with qualifications, reputation and standing comparable to those of Professor Dr de Zayas - who can unequivocally state that the Genocide Convention cannot be applied to the Armenian Genocide. The argument is also quite jesuitical in nature as the word genocide was defined by Raphael Lemkin with specific and direct reference to the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust.
"The main concern of the Government is not what we call such horrific events"
That may not be the main concern of the Government, but it is absolutely the main concern of the British Armenian community, Armenians and historians worldwide. Having been nearly annihilated in a systematic and organised crime against humanity it is understandably quite important to our nation that the genocide is called what it was - a genocide. This position is further supported by academic research on the subject which has found that years after the event it is the denial and negationism that are most abhorrent and serve to erase the memory of the victims by claiming that it is just another regrettable event.
"panel drawn from both sides"
There are two sides to this issue - but they are not Armenians and the Turkey. To present this issue as between two sides - almost a petty dispute between neighbours - is a contempt for justice and ethics. Would you suggest to leave the "dispute over Holocaust" to be settled between Jews and the Nazis to a panel of what is left of European Jews and Nazis? The recognition and condemnation of this atrocity is an international responsibility - not least to the victims of all the genocides that followed.
"Turkey must demonstrate unequivocal commitment"
Indeed it must - however the only commitment so far was to the murder of Hrant Dink, a prominent journalist, who was murdered in the broad daylight, and the closed border and absence of diplomatic relations between Turkey and Armenia. It remains to be seen whether the Turkish courts administer justice or make a scapegoat of uneducated and confused murderer.
Mr Hoon, it is time to seek better advice on this issue as this country which many Armenians are proud and happy to call home becomes one of the last European states to recognise the Armenian Genocide. There is no doubt that it will be recognised by the United Kingdom - the only questions are when and by whom.
I conclude with a quote from the statement of the International Association of Genocide Scholars:
"We note that there may be differing interpretations of genocide - how and why the Armenian Genocide happened, but to deny its factual and moral reality as genocide is not to engage in scholarship but in propaganda and efforts to absolve the perpetrator, blame the victims, and erase the ethical meaning of this history."
Minister for Europe
Foreign & Commonwealth Office
LONDON
SW1A 2AH
5 July 2007
Dear Mr Hoon,
Thank you for your letter of 26th of June.
I am glad that you and the British Armenian community share the concern that "lessons are learnt and relationships are re-built to ensure a peaceful and secure future for everyone living in the region".
I would like however to further address the four points where you seem to disagree with the overwhelming and informed opinions of independent scholars, the European Parliament, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the majority of the U. S. House of Representatives, and parliaments of Canada, France, Italy, Lebanon, Sweden, Belgium, Greece, Russia, Argentina, Cyprus, Uruguay and the representatives of the Holy See, the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church in England, to name a few:
"it is not common practice in international law to apply such judgments retrospectively"
This is not exactly the case - as Professor Dr Alfred de Zayas writes in his legal opinion:
"The Genocide Convention of 1948 can be applied retrospectively, because it is declarative of pre-existing international law. There are numerous precedents for the retroactive application of treaties, e.g. the London Agreement of 8 August 1945 establishing the Nuremberg Tribunal, the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutes of Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity of 1968, and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969."
We are not sure that the Government is able to name a single authority on international law not employed by the Government - with qualifications, reputation and standing comparable to those of Professor Dr de Zayas - who can unequivocally state that the Genocide Convention cannot be applied to the Armenian Genocide. The argument is also quite jesuitical in nature as the word genocide was defined by Raphael Lemkin with specific and direct reference to the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust.
"The main concern of the Government is not what we call such horrific events"
That may not be the main concern of the Government, but it is absolutely the main concern of the British Armenian community, Armenians and historians worldwide. Having been nearly annihilated in a systematic and organised crime against humanity it is understandably quite important to our nation that the genocide is called what it was - a genocide. This position is further supported by academic research on the subject which has found that years after the event it is the denial and negationism that are most abhorrent and serve to erase the memory of the victims by claiming that it is just another regrettable event.
"panel drawn from both sides"
There are two sides to this issue - but they are not Armenians and the Turkey. To present this issue as between two sides - almost a petty dispute between neighbours - is a contempt for justice and ethics. Would you suggest to leave the "dispute over Holocaust" to be settled between Jews and the Nazis to a panel of what is left of European Jews and Nazis? The recognition and condemnation of this atrocity is an international responsibility - not least to the victims of all the genocides that followed.
"Turkey must demonstrate unequivocal commitment"
Indeed it must - however the only commitment so far was to the murder of Hrant Dink, a prominent journalist, who was murdered in the broad daylight, and the closed border and absence of diplomatic relations between Turkey and Armenia. It remains to be seen whether the Turkish courts administer justice or make a scapegoat of uneducated and confused murderer.
Mr Hoon, it is time to seek better advice on this issue as this country which many Armenians are proud and happy to call home becomes one of the last European states to recognise the Armenian Genocide. There is no doubt that it will be recognised by the United Kingdom - the only questions are when and by whom.
I conclude with a quote from the statement of the International Association of Genocide Scholars:
"We note that there may be differing interpretations of genocide - how and why the Armenian Genocide happened, but to deny its factual and moral reality as genocide is not to engage in scholarship but in propaganda and efforts to absolve the perpetrator, blame the victims, and erase the ethical meaning of this history."
posted by Edgar Danielyan at 7/05/2007
<< Home