|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Armenian Genocide Documentation Project |
Our
Books and Publications |
|
Notes, Studies and Projects |
|
Lectures, Events and Reports |
|
Armenian
Forum |
|
Receive updates |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The British Parliamentary Blue Book and the Turkish Grand National Assembly's Foray Denying the Armenian Genocide, 28 April 2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: 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: 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. (see Gomidas Institute Armenian Genocide Documentation) 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.
* * *
The letter was
forcefully worded, and the TGNA's position included
some citations from 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 Arınç, explaining that the FCO could not comment on the 1916 work because it was a ‘Parliament-owned document’. He also informed Mr. Arınç 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.
* * * 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.
* * * 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Books | Armenian Forum | Events | About | Updates © 2003 The Gomidas Institute.
All rights reserved. |
|
|