Turkish MPs Avoid Meeting British MPs to Discuss Armenian Genocide
PRESS RELEASE
15 November 2006
Gomidas Institute
42 Blythe Rd
London W14 0HA
board@gomidas.org
www.gomidas.org
Turkish MPs Avoid Meeting British MPs to Discuss Armenian Genocide
Over the past year, a group of British MPs and peers have been considering allegations made by the Turkish Parliament (TGNA) that Great Britain was responsible for articulating the Armenian Genocide thesis; that this thesis was a wartime propaganda fabrication published in the British Parliamentary Blue Book series in 1916 (The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire 1915-16); and that the British Parliament today should rescind that report.
A group of British MPs and peers who looked at these allegations disagreed with the Turkish position and invited the latter to a face-to-face discussion. To date, Turkish Parliamentarians have avoided any such discussion with their British counterparts.
Earlier today, the Gomidas Institute (London) issued a detailed update on this on-going saga. See www.gomidas.org
In a press statement, Lord Avebury, Vice-Chair of the Parliamentary Human Rights Group, stated:
"I very much regret the failure of every one of the 550 MPs of the Turkish Grand National Assembly (TGNA) to reply to an invitation to discuss the events of 1915-16, in which a million and a half Armenian subjects of the Ottoman Empire lost their lives.
"Following a Letter from the TGNA to the British Parliament challenging the veracity of the evidence published by the British Government in 1916 in the Blue Book 'The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire 1915-16', a group of MPs and peers wrote proposing a dialogue between British and Turkish MPs, with academic experts on both sides, to examine the authenticity of that evidence.
"When no reply was received, I wrote to every Turkish MP individually, asking if they would be willing to participate in such a dialogue. Not a single one replied.
"Since neither the TGNA collectively, nor any of its Members, was ready to defend their position in an open and critical forum, it became obviously that they would not stand up to an intellectually rigorous examination. I believe the original Letter fromthe TGNA was an attempt to stimulate wider Turkish denialism, rather than to establish communication between Turkish and UK Parliamentarians which might have clarified interpretation of the events of 1915-16. But the invitation remains open, and I hope that by publishing this statement, I may yet prompt some Turkish MPs with the courage to engage in dialogue."
The Gomidas Institute is an independent academic organisation dedicated to modern Armenian Studies
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FROM THE GOMIDAS INSTITUTE WEBSITE
(For full statement with citations and relevant materials see www.gomidas.org)
The British Parliamentary Blue Book and the Turkish Grand National Assembly's Foray Denying the Armenian Genocide, 28 April 2005
AN UPDATE from Lord Avebury, Vice-Chair of the Parliamentary Human Rights' Group and Ara Sarafian, Director of the Gomidas Institute, London dated 14 April 2006
The 1916 British Parliamentary Blue Book, The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire 1915-16, was the first systematic thesis on the Armenian Genocide.
This report was composed of:
(a) a significant collection of documents relating to the treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire between 1915-16,
(b) an account of how these records were collected and used in that report, and
(c) an analysis regarding the systematic destruction of Armenians.
In 2000, the Gomidas Institute published a critical edition of what has come to be known as simply ‘the Blue Book’, wherein the original work was subjected to a detailed examination.
This edition:
(a) traced original sources to their archival originals and gave citations
where original materials could be found,
(b) examined the manner in which the 1916 report was compiled i.e. how
documents were accepted for inclusion in the British report, and
(c) checked the final text of documents for fidelity to their originals.
In doing so, this edition became the essential edition, allowing students of the Armenian Genocide a far greater insight into the genesis of Bryce and Toynbee’s work. The critical edition of the Blue Book identified the United States Department of State as the main source of information for the British report, and so it was timely that the Gomidas Institute published United States Records on the Armenian Genocide 1915-17 three years later.
That publication further facilitates our understanding of 1916 British Parliamentary Blue Book in light of the United States records.
According to these published and archival sources, the 1916 Blue Book was the result of a meticulous academic exercise that lent itself to serious examination.
* * *
In April 2005, The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire 1915-16 was made the focus of a controversy by members of the Turkish Grand National Assembly (TGNA) who claimed in a letter to the British Houses of Parliament (‘the Letter’) that:
(a) the 1916 report was a forgery produced for British propaganda during
World War I,
(b) the British Parliament was responsible for the Armenian Genocide thesis
as we know it today; and
(c) British MPs today should publicly rescind the 1916 report.
The letter was forcefully worded, and the TGNA's position included some citations from
books and archives and bore the signature of all 550 Turkish Parliamentarians.
On 28 April 2006 the Letter was sent to the Hon. Michael Martin MP, the Speaker of the House of Commons in London, who was asked to bring it to the attention of British Members of Parliament. Mr. Martin forwarded the Letter with its enclosures to the Rt. Hon. Jack Straw, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, adding that he had to ‘remain politically impartial’ in such matters and that he wanted someone at the FCO to deal with it. Mr. Martin also stated that he had placed a copy of the letter in the Library of the House of Commons.
On 8 July 2005, the British Ambassador to Ankara, Sir Peter Westmacott, responded to the TGNA on behalf of the FCO. Sir Peter wrote to speaker Bülent Arýnç, explaining that the FCO could not comment on the 1916 work because it was a ‘Parliament-owned document’. He also informed Mr. Arýnç that copies of the TGNA’s letter and enclosures were placed in the Library of the House of Commons "to which historians have access." Sir Peter then questioned some of the main axiom of the Turkish letter by adding: "the Foreign and Commonwealth Office understands that whilst the publication of the Blue Book may have been regarded as desirable at the time in the context of the war effort [i.e. for propaganda purposes], none of the individual reports has been refuted; and few have suggested moral or intellectual dishonesty on the part of the authors, Lord Bryce and Arnold J. Toynbee."
The TGNA’s letter was not shown to British MPs as requested and the British ambassador’s letter was somewhat out of character given the FCO’s usual pro-Turkish stance on the Armenian Genocide issue.
According to one commentator at the Gomidas Institute, the placing of the TGNA letter in the Library of the House of Commons and the FCO’s the stern letter to Ankara were part of a common plan to bury the issue to avoid further embarrassment to the TGNA and Anglo-Turkish co-operation in the denial of the Armenian Genocide.
However, the continuing media frenzy in Turkey alerted some British MPs to the existence of the Turkish letter and these MPs decided to examine the TGNA's letter and formulate a response to it.
* * *
On 27 January 2006, Holocaust Memorial Day in Great Britain, a cross party group of 33 British MPs responded to the TGNA letter. Their response was sent to the speaker of the TGNA, Bülent Arýnç, and the Turkish embassy in London. In this letter, the British MPs expressed their disagreement with the TGNA’s position regarding the 1916 report and they invited their Turkish colleagues to a meeting to discuss their differences. The British response included a special report from the Gomidas Institute, as well as a recent insightful article published in the Journal of the United Services Institute.
There was no response to the British invitation and on 18 July 2006 a second invitation was sent by email to every member of the TGNA, again inviting them to discuss the 1916 report. There has been no response from any member of the TGNA to date. Given the Turkish Government’s supposed willingness to discuss the Genocide issue, it would appear incongruous that they should not take up such a proposition.
* * *
The TGNA’s original letter to London was written after much deliberation and formal discussion in the TGNA, and in Turkish media and academic circles throughout the months of March and April 2005. Some of these discussions were broadcast by Turkish satellite television, surreptitiously distributed on DVDs in TIME Magazine, and placed on several web pages. Such discussions, like the TGNA letter, drew on the voluminous output of Turkish academic institutions and commentators of recent years. Much was made of the publications of the Turkish Historical Society, the Historical Section of the General Staff of the Turkish Army, and the publications of the Prime Ministry Ottoman State Archives. Given the weight of such opinion, the TGNA’s letter reflected the position of a powerful segment of the Turkish state and its supporting institutions. In this sense, TGNA’s letter was the single most important tract ever written denying the Armenian Genocide.
However, neither the TGNA collectively, nor a single one of its Members, were prepared to defend their position in an open and critical forum, knowing that it was fundamentally contrived and would not stand up to intellectual rigour. The original letter may have been an attempt to invigorate wider Turkish denialism, rather than to establish communication between Turkish and UK Parliamentarians which might have clarified interpretation of the events of 1915-16. But the invitation remains open, and it is hoped that by publishing this statement, some Turkish MPs may yet have the courage to engage in dialogue.
15 November 2006
Gomidas Institute
42 Blythe Rd
London W14 0HA
board@gomidas.org
www.gomidas.org
Turkish MPs Avoid Meeting British MPs to Discuss Armenian Genocide
Over the past year, a group of British MPs and peers have been considering allegations made by the Turkish Parliament (TGNA) that Great Britain was responsible for articulating the Armenian Genocide thesis; that this thesis was a wartime propaganda fabrication published in the British Parliamentary Blue Book series in 1916 (The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire 1915-16); and that the British Parliament today should rescind that report.
A group of British MPs and peers who looked at these allegations disagreed with the Turkish position and invited the latter to a face-to-face discussion. To date, Turkish Parliamentarians have avoided any such discussion with their British counterparts.
Earlier today, the Gomidas Institute (London) issued a detailed update on this on-going saga. See www.gomidas.org
In a press statement, Lord Avebury, Vice-Chair of the Parliamentary Human Rights Group, stated:
"I very much regret the failure of every one of the 550 MPs of the Turkish Grand National Assembly (TGNA) to reply to an invitation to discuss the events of 1915-16, in which a million and a half Armenian subjects of the Ottoman Empire lost their lives.
"Following a Letter from the TGNA to the British Parliament challenging the veracity of the evidence published by the British Government in 1916 in the Blue Book 'The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire 1915-16', a group of MPs and peers wrote proposing a dialogue between British and Turkish MPs, with academic experts on both sides, to examine the authenticity of that evidence.
"When no reply was received, I wrote to every Turkish MP individually, asking if they would be willing to participate in such a dialogue. Not a single one replied.
"Since neither the TGNA collectively, nor any of its Members, was ready to defend their position in an open and critical forum, it became obviously that they would not stand up to an intellectually rigorous examination. I believe the original Letter fromthe TGNA was an attempt to stimulate wider Turkish denialism, rather than to establish communication between Turkish and UK Parliamentarians which might have clarified interpretation of the events of 1915-16. But the invitation remains open, and I hope that by publishing this statement, I may yet prompt some Turkish MPs with the courage to engage in dialogue."
The Gomidas Institute is an independent academic organisation dedicated to modern Armenian Studies
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FROM THE GOMIDAS INSTITUTE WEBSITE
(For full statement with citations and relevant materials see www.gomidas.org)
The British Parliamentary Blue Book and the Turkish Grand National Assembly's Foray Denying the Armenian Genocide, 28 April 2005
AN UPDATE from Lord Avebury, Vice-Chair of the Parliamentary Human Rights' Group and Ara Sarafian, Director of the Gomidas Institute, London dated 14 April 2006
The 1916 British Parliamentary Blue Book, The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire 1915-16, was the first systematic thesis on the Armenian Genocide.
This report was composed of:
(a) a significant collection of documents relating to the treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire between 1915-16,
(b) an account of how these records were collected and used in that report, and
(c) an analysis regarding the systematic destruction of Armenians.
In 2000, the Gomidas Institute published a critical edition of what has come to be known as simply ‘the Blue Book’, wherein the original work was subjected to a detailed examination.
This edition:
(a) traced original sources to their archival originals and gave citations
where original materials could be found,
(b) examined the manner in which the 1916 report was compiled i.e. how
documents were accepted for inclusion in the British report, and
(c) checked the final text of documents for fidelity to their originals.
In doing so, this edition became the essential edition, allowing students of the Armenian Genocide a far greater insight into the genesis of Bryce and Toynbee’s work. The critical edition of the Blue Book identified the United States Department of State as the main source of information for the British report, and so it was timely that the Gomidas Institute published United States Records on the Armenian Genocide 1915-17 three years later.
That publication further facilitates our understanding of 1916 British Parliamentary Blue Book in light of the United States records.
According to these published and archival sources, the 1916 Blue Book was the result of a meticulous academic exercise that lent itself to serious examination.
* * *
In April 2005, The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire 1915-16 was made the focus of a controversy by members of the Turkish Grand National Assembly (TGNA) who claimed in a letter to the British Houses of Parliament (‘the Letter’) that:
(a) the 1916 report was a forgery produced for British propaganda during
World War I,
(b) the British Parliament was responsible for the Armenian Genocide thesis
as we know it today; and
(c) British MPs today should publicly rescind the 1916 report.
The letter was forcefully worded, and the TGNA's position included some citations from
books and archives and bore the signature of all 550 Turkish Parliamentarians.
On 28 April 2006 the Letter was sent to the Hon. Michael Martin MP, the Speaker of the House of Commons in London, who was asked to bring it to the attention of British Members of Parliament. Mr. Martin forwarded the Letter with its enclosures to the Rt. Hon. Jack Straw, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, adding that he had to ‘remain politically impartial’ in such matters and that he wanted someone at the FCO to deal with it. Mr. Martin also stated that he had placed a copy of the letter in the Library of the House of Commons.
On 8 July 2005, the British Ambassador to Ankara, Sir Peter Westmacott, responded to the TGNA on behalf of the FCO. Sir Peter wrote to speaker Bülent Arýnç, explaining that the FCO could not comment on the 1916 work because it was a ‘Parliament-owned document’. He also informed Mr. Arýnç that copies of the TGNA’s letter and enclosures were placed in the Library of the House of Commons "to which historians have access." Sir Peter then questioned some of the main axiom of the Turkish letter by adding: "the Foreign and Commonwealth Office understands that whilst the publication of the Blue Book may have been regarded as desirable at the time in the context of the war effort [i.e. for propaganda purposes], none of the individual reports has been refuted; and few have suggested moral or intellectual dishonesty on the part of the authors, Lord Bryce and Arnold J. Toynbee."
The TGNA’s letter was not shown to British MPs as requested and the British ambassador’s letter was somewhat out of character given the FCO’s usual pro-Turkish stance on the Armenian Genocide issue.
According to one commentator at the Gomidas Institute, the placing of the TGNA letter in the Library of the House of Commons and the FCO’s the stern letter to Ankara were part of a common plan to bury the issue to avoid further embarrassment to the TGNA and Anglo-Turkish co-operation in the denial of the Armenian Genocide.
However, the continuing media frenzy in Turkey alerted some British MPs to the existence of the Turkish letter and these MPs decided to examine the TGNA's letter and formulate a response to it.
* * *
On 27 January 2006, Holocaust Memorial Day in Great Britain, a cross party group of 33 British MPs responded to the TGNA letter. Their response was sent to the speaker of the TGNA, Bülent Arýnç, and the Turkish embassy in London. In this letter, the British MPs expressed their disagreement with the TGNA’s position regarding the 1916 report and they invited their Turkish colleagues to a meeting to discuss their differences. The British response included a special report from the Gomidas Institute, as well as a recent insightful article published in the Journal of the United Services Institute.
There was no response to the British invitation and on 18 July 2006 a second invitation was sent by email to every member of the TGNA, again inviting them to discuss the 1916 report. There has been no response from any member of the TGNA to date. Given the Turkish Government’s supposed willingness to discuss the Genocide issue, it would appear incongruous that they should not take up such a proposition.
* * *
The TGNA’s original letter to London was written after much deliberation and formal discussion in the TGNA, and in Turkish media and academic circles throughout the months of March and April 2005. Some of these discussions were broadcast by Turkish satellite television, surreptitiously distributed on DVDs in TIME Magazine, and placed on several web pages. Such discussions, like the TGNA letter, drew on the voluminous output of Turkish academic institutions and commentators of recent years. Much was made of the publications of the Turkish Historical Society, the Historical Section of the General Staff of the Turkish Army, and the publications of the Prime Ministry Ottoman State Archives. Given the weight of such opinion, the TGNA’s letter reflected the position of a powerful segment of the Turkish state and its supporting institutions. In this sense, TGNA’s letter was the single most important tract ever written denying the Armenian Genocide.
However, neither the TGNA collectively, nor a single one of its Members, were prepared to defend their position in an open and critical forum, knowing that it was fundamentally contrived and would not stand up to intellectual rigour. The original letter may have been an attempt to invigorate wider Turkish denialism, rather than to establish communication between Turkish and UK Parliamentarians which might have clarified interpretation of the events of 1915-16. But the invitation remains open, and it is hoped that by publishing this statement, some Turkish MPs may yet have the courage to engage in dialogue.
posted by Vahe Balabanian at 10:29 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home