4 replies to this topic

[Yervant1]

UK Shifts Policy on Armenian Genocide
After Jurist Robertson's Report

By Harut Sassounian
www.TheCaliforniaCourier.com

Geoffrey Robertson, prominent British expert on international law,
wrote a 40-page report in 2009, exposing the false and inaccurate
statements on the Armenian Genocide by the UK Foreign and Commonwealth
Office (FCO).
Robertson's investigative report, `Was there an Armenian Genocide?'
was based on internal British documents obtained through the Freedom
of Information Act, which revealed that the Foreign Office had denied
the Armenian Genocide and misled the British Parliament on this matter
in order to curry favor with Turkey.
Mr. Robertson had sent me an advance copy of his new 286-page book,
=80=9CAn Inconvenient Genocide: Who Now Remembers the Armenians?' to
be published this month in the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and
the United States. Anyone who reads this influential jurist's
meticulously researched book will have no doubt about the true facts
of the Genocide and Armenians' just claims for restitution.
The confidential FCO documents recently obtained by Robertson reveal
that the British government has made a gradual shift in its position
on the Armenian Genocide, going from denial to declining to state its
position. The Foreign Office acknowledges that the change in
governmental policy is a direct result of the powerful legal arguments
advanced by Mr. Robertson in his 2009 report.
Until recently, Great Britain had tenaciously clung to its outright
denialist position on the Armenian Genocide. A secret 1999 FCO memo,
quoted by Robertson, admitted that the British government `is open to
criticism in terms of the ethical dimension. But given the importance
of our relations (political, strategic, and commercial) with Turkey,
and that recognizing the genocide would provide no practical benefit
to the UK or the few survivors of the killings still alive today, nor
would it help a rapprochement between Armenia and Turkey, the current
line is the only feasible option.'
However, shortly after the publication of Robertson's 2009 report,
British officials quietly shifted their position from denial to
avoidance of taking a stand on the genocide issue. In a 2010 internal
memo, FCO stated: `Following Mr. Robertson's report and the publicity
it attracted, we have updated our public line to make clear that HMG
[Her Majesty's Government] does not believe it is our place to make a
judgment (historical or legal) on whether or not the Armenian
massacres constituted genocide.' In another memo, FCO explained that
it will no longer maintain that `the historical evidence was not
sufficiently unequivocal to persuade us that these events should be
categorized as genocide.' The memo went on to assert that `there is
increasing agreement about the extent of the deaths and suffering
experienced by the Armenian community' and that `jurisprudence in
relation to genocide, and particularly the nature and type of evidence
required to prove the relevant intent, has developed significantly in
the wake of events in Rwanda and the Balkans in the 1990's.' Yet, FCO
still advised against an explicit recognition of the genocide because
`the Armenian diaspora in the UK is relatively small (less than
20,000) and there is limited wider public interest.'
Nevertheless, in view of the upcoming Centennial of the Armenian
Genocide, the British government has decided to become a bit more
accommodating on this issue. Last year, when the British Ambassador to
Lebanon asked London for guidance on attending an April 24
commemoration in Beirut, the Foreign Office advised him to go
ahead. FCO also recommended to its staff not to `give the impression
that we deny what happened in 1915...we still consider them (the
massacres and deportations) to be truly dreadful and in need of
remembrance.'
To bring the genocide issue to a legal resolution, Mr. Robertson makes
two suggestions: that the Armenian government submit it `to
adjudication at the International Court of Justice [World Court]
pursuant to Article IX of the Genocide Convention' or ask the UN
Secretary General to establish an ad hoc court on the Armenian
Genocide.
Geoffrey Robertson should be commended for authoring a most important
book on the eve of the Armenian Genocide Centennial. The Armenian
National Committee of UK has already purchased 1,000 copies for
distribution to elected officials and members of the media in
London. The book is available from Amazon.com. I feel honored that
Mr. Robertson has made half a dozen references to my columns in his
monumental work.
Mr. Robertson has appropriately dedicated his book to the cherished
memory of Ben Whitaker, author of the 1985 UN Report which classified
the Armenian mass killings as genocide.

[onjig]

Maybe something good is taking place, a change for the better.

[Yervant1]

It's more likely the interests of Armenia and the West is coinciding in this matter, I don't think it's a change of heart for the poor Armenians on their part. If they want Armenia shifting to their camp, they need to do certain things which are favourable for us.

[Yervant1]

The West Must Offer Armenia Incentives
Rather than Decry its Ties with Russia

By Harut Sassounian
www.TheCaliforniaCourier.com

On October 10, after lengthy heated debates, Armenia signed a treaty
to join the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU), composed of Belarus,
Kazakhstan and Russia. The agreement goes into effect on January 1,
2015, subject to ratification by parliaments of the four
countries. Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan have also expressed an interest
in joining the Union.
The intended objective of forming EEU is to facilitate the free
movement of goods, services, capital, and labor across member states,
and to implement a coordinated policy in the energy, industrial,
agricultural and transport sectors.
Views of analysts on the merits of Armenia's membership in EEU diverge
depending on whether they are proponents or opponents of the country's
leadership. The arguments advanced by opponents of EEU include the
possible loss of Armenia's independence and isolation of Artsakh
(Karabagh) through the establishment of customs checkpoints at the
border. EEU proponents, on the other hand, are stressing Armenia's
geostrategic and economic interests. It remains to be seen which of
these arguments will eventually prevail.
Meanwhile, there are some basic facts that are self-evident. Armenia
has had long-standing and multifaceted links to Moscow going back to
the Tsarist era, the Soviet Union, and today's Russian Federation.
It is imperative to recall that the livelihood of hundreds of
thousands Armenian migrants in Russia will be impacted by Armenia's
EEU membership, in terms of their ability to reside and work in that
country. Furthermore, Armenian businesses would be able to expand
their small domestic market, exporting their products with favorable
tax terms to over one hundred million potential consumers in Belarus,
Kazakhstan, and Russia. Armenia would also serve as an easy gateway
for foreign investors interested in entering the vast and complex EEU
markets.
In the final analysis, three essential questions need to be raised on
Armenia's membership in EEU:
1) Given the ongoing Artsakh conflict and Azerbaijan's multi-billion
dollar military spending spree, which country has sold and will
continue to sell Armenia advanced weapons to mitigate the growing
threat from Baku? Not the Unites States, Great Britain or France, but
Russia!
2) Which country can provide Armenia with desperately-needed natural
gas at any price, let alone at subsidized prices? Russia and Iran to a
lesser extent through a small pipeline.
3) Since Russia is Armenia's largest trading partner, it makes more
economic sense to have favorable tax terms with that country than with
Europe. Not joining EEU would place Armenia at a serious tax
disadvantage with devastating economic consequences.
While these are compelling reasons for Armenia's decision to join EEU,
no one should conclude that Yerevan has to remain exclusively in the
Russian economic zone. Clearly, it is in Armenia's interest to develop
multilateral ties with the rest of the world, including Western
Europe, North America, Middle East, and Asia. Armenian officials have
repeatedly stated their interest in developing closer economic,
political, and even military relations with Western countries, but not
at the expense of Armenia's historical ties with Russia.
Meanwhile, it would be far more productive if Western countries,
particularly the United States, rather than urging Armenian leaders to
cut off vital relations with Russia, would actually offer tax
privileges and other incentives to their investors in Armenia, thus
reducing Yerevan's exclusive dependence on Russia. Similarly,
U.S. criticism and warnings issued to Armenia for its commercial ties
with Iran are manifestly counter-productive. It would be far more
helpful if the Obama administration could muster the courage to press
Turkey and Azerbaijan into lifting their joint blockade of the
Armenian Republic which has been in effect for over 20 years.
In the light of the foregoing existential strategic and economic
realities, Western countries would be better served to use carrots
rather than sticks to help steer Armenia toward a more balanced
relationship between East and West.

[Yervant1]

Public Radio of Armenia

May 10 2020

 

 

UK Foreign Office privately admitted the 1915 massacre of Armenians was genocide – Geoffrey Robertson

 

 

The UK Foreign Office has privately admitted that the 1915 massacre of Armenians was genocide, but they cannot say so, Geoffrey Robertson, a distinguished human rights barrister, academic, author, and broadcaster said in an interview with the Harvard Political Review.

In his book “An Inconvenient Genocide” Robertson suggests that proving that this was an act of genocide is “inconvenient” for the world. Because, he says, “in this case, Turkey is “neuralgic” — the word that the British Foreign Office used to describe it in some secret memoranda I obtained under our Freedom of Information Act.”

“The Foreign Office privately admitted that it was genocide, but they could not say so because Turkey would take diplomatic and economic reprisals. Turkey is a NATO member of great strategic importance, and for that reason, the U.S. government cannot admit the truth either,” the barrister told the Harvard Political Review.

“President Obama always said that he would call it a genocide, but he quailed when he became president and called it “Medz Yeghern” — an Armenian phrase which means a great catastrophe. Donald Trump, for all his bravado, dare not speak the truth either by calling it “genocide.” Turkey is too strategically important, and its neuralgia must not be stoked by honest description of its history,” Robertson said.

In 2015 Geoffrey Robertson and Amal Clooney represented the Armenian Government at the European Court of Human Rights in Perincek vs. Switzerland case.

https://en.armradio....frey-robertson/