Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

What can be done about historical atrocities? the Armenian case

2004; Routledge; Volume: 8; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/1364298042000240870

1744-053X

Bertil Dunér,

Balkans: History, Politics, Society

Abstract The global human rights regime is not equipped to deal with historical atrocities. When engaged politicians want to take matters in their own hands it is clear that this alternative is problematical. In the case of Armenia, the campaign for the recognition of the Armenian massacres in 1915 has addressed the questions involved in a simplistic way, both with respect to juridical points of departure such as definition of the crime and the status of the accused party, and with respect to the assessment of evidence. If proclamations which bear any similarity to juridical assessments are to be made at all the best alternative would be the creation of an international expert body representing both the history and the legal professions. Establishing the guidelines for this body to work, however, seems a daunting task. Can a generally accepted retrospective time limit be established? To what extent should court-like functions be performed for events which, at the time they happened, were not covered by international criminal law? Acknowledgements I am indebted to Edward Deverell of the Swedish National Defence College for research assistance in the preparation of this article. Notes For a valuable discussion of varying estimates, see Rudolph J. Rummel, Statistics of Democide: Genocide and Mass Murder since 1900 (Münster: Lit Verlag, 1998). Professor Yusuf Halacoglu, President of the Turkish History Association, has stated that the true number was 57,610; see Turkish Daily News, 5 Feb. 2001. Rummel gives 300,000 as the lowest figure. William A. Schabas, Genocide in International Law: The Crime of Crimes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), pp.20ff. Ibid., p.22. Le Monde, 19 Jan. 2001. See Bertil Dunér, The Global Human Rights Regime (Lund: Studentlitteratur, 2002), p.169. For example, the list includes a statement by the Prime Minister of Canada in 1996. However, the Prime Minister only 'recognizes and deplores the fact that a great number of Armenians were killed during the wars' and 'extends his sympathy to the Armenian Community'. Speech as reproduced at the Armenian National Institute home page, http://www.armenian-genocide.org. René Rouquet, 'Rapport fait au nom de la Commission des Affaires Étrangères sur la Proposition de loi de M. Didier Migaud et Plusieurs de ses Collègues (no.895), relative à la reconnaissance du génocide arménien de 1915', no.925, Assemblée Nationale, Onzième Législature, mis en distribution le 28 mai 1998, Introduction. 'Markups before the Committee on International Relations, House of Representatives, 106th Congress, 2nd session, September 28 and October 3, 2000', Serial no. 106–96 (accessed on the home page of the US Government Printing Office), quotations by Representatives Menendez and Rothman, respectively. Cf. Rouquet (note 7); Mozione Pagliarini ed altri n. 1-00303 concernente il riconoscimento del genocidio del popolo armeno, Allegato A, Seduta n. 707 del 3/4/2000; and Mozioni Fei ed altri n. 1-00481 e Giovanni Bianchini ed altri n. 1-00482 concernenti le vicende del popolo armeno durante la prima guerra mondiale, Allegato A, Seduta n.799 del 26/10/3000. References such as those made by the Swedish Parliament, cited here (see the section on Denunciation Arguments), are quite common and have also been made by the Italian and French parliaments, which, moreover, have referred to each other. Cf. the 'Mozione Pagliarini e altri' in the Italian Camera dei Deputati. Mr Pagliarini presents a long list of bodies that have recognised the Armenian genocide, including the Swedish and French parliaments. Resoconto Stenografico dell'Assemblea, Seduta n. 707 di lunedì 3 aprile 2000. The Declaration of Independence of 1990 was accessed on the home page of the Armenian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, http://www.armeniaforeignministry.com/htms/doi.html. Rooben Shoogharyan (Armenian Ministry of Foreign Affairs), 'The Armenian Lobby Abroad', Newsletter of the Lecture Series Program, American University of Armenia, 25 May 2000. There are several important Armenian advocacy groups in the US, including the Armenian National Institute (ANI) in Washington, DC. Its overarching goal (presented on its home page) is proclaimed to be the 'affirmation of the worldwide recognition of the Armenian Genocide', and its formal founding in early 1997 happened to coincide with the most decisive phase of the recent upsurge of recognition. Shoogharyan (note 12). BBC Monitoring Service, 'Armenian Foreign Minister Calls for Dialogue with Turkey without Preconditions', 4 Oct. 2000. BBC Monitoring Service, 'Armenian Foreign Ministry Welcomes French Senate's Resolution on Genocide', 9 Nov. 2000. 'Yerevan Urges Italy to Recognize Armenian Genocide', from the home page of the SNARK news agency, Yerevan (as of 4 May 2000). See 'The Armenian Allegation of Genocide: the Issue and the Facts', from the home page of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, http://www.mfa.gov.tr/grupa/ad/adf/massacre.wash.be.ing.htm. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, adopted by Resolution 260 (III) A of the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948. 'Markups before the Committee on International Relation, House of Representatives' (note 8), pp.137ff. R.J. Rummel, Lethal Politics: Soviet Genocide and Mass Murder since 1917 (New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers, 1990), pp.xivff. and 243. Jean-Paul Sartre, 'On Genocide', in Prevent the Crime of Silence, Reports from the Sessions of the International War Crimes Tribunal founded by Bertrand Russell, selected and edited by Peter Limqueco and Peter Weiss, with additional material selected and edited by Ken Coates and a foreword by Noam Chomsky (London: Allen Lane, Penguin Press, 1971), part II, chapter 17, pp.350–65. The war prosecuted by the US cannot have been genocide within the meaning of the convention: for one thing, the US government was apparently not fighting a particular ethnic group since its Vietnamese allies belonged to the group in question. The resolution was what is called a Written Declaration, which commits only the members who have signed it. Recognition of the Armenian genocide, Doc. 9056, 2nd edn, 14 May 2001, Written Declaration no. 320, 2nd edn, originally tabled on 24 April 2001. Cf. the discussion of omitted groups in Nehemiah Robinson, The Genocide Convention: A Commentary (New York: Institute of Jewish Affairs, World Jewish Congress, 1960), part V. Cf. Dunér (note 5). The United Nations reported 133 parties to the convention as of 9 Oct. 2001. Substituting an earlier UN resolution for the convention (as Rummel does) is of course also arbitrary. UN resolutions may be stepping-stones for the subsequent hammering out of international law instruments, but of course a piece of law which has been widely adopted and ratified by UN member states takes precedence over prior resolutions. Two researchers have complained that 'although it marked a milestone in international law, the UN definition is of little use to scholars'. Frank Chalk and Kurt Jonasshon, The History and Sociology of Genocide: Analyses and Case Studies (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1990), p.10. This sounds somewhat presumptuous given the widely diverging views taken by different scholars. An inverse formulation would not seem to be exaggerated: whereas the conventional definition marked a milestone, scholarly definitions are of little practical importance. Swedish Parliament, Utrikesutskottet (Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs), Utrikesutskottets Betänkande [Report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs] 1999/2000:UU1The European Parliament meeting was in fact in 1987, not 1985. Cf. James D. Carney and Richard K. Scheer, Fundamentals of Logic, 3rd edn (New York: Macmillan, 1980), pp.41ff. European Parliament, 'Resolution on a Political Solution to the Armenian Question', Doc. A2-33/87, 18 June 1987. United Nations, 'Review of Further Developments in Fields with which the Sub-Comission has been Concerned', UN document E/CN.4/Sub.2/1985/6, 2 July 1985. United Nations, 'Report of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities on its 38th Session', UN document E/CN.4/Sub.2/1985/57, 4 November 1985, Resolution 1985/9, pp.88ff. Ibid., article 24. Cf. the discussion in Tim Dunne and Daniela Kroslak, 'Genocide: Knowing What It Is that We Want to Remember, or Forget, or Forgive', International Journal of Human Rights, Special Issue, Vol.4, Nos3/4 (autumn/winter 2000), pp.31ff. United Nations, 'Review of Further Developments in Fields with which the Sub-Commission Has Been Concerned' (note 32 above), para. 24, note 13. Schabas (note 2), p.21. According to Justin McCarthy; see Turkish Daily News, 16 March 2001. For the evolution of the application of individual criminal responsibility, see, e.g., M. Cherif Bassiouni, Crimes Against Humanity in International Criminal Law, 2nd rev. edn (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1999), chapter 10. The Nuremberg Principles are reproduced on pp.538ff. One of the delegations stated that the UK proposal was superfluous since it gave 'the impression that a State could be held guilty of the commission of a crime'. See Schabas (note 2), pp.419ff. The Swedish resolution speaks of massacres on Armenians 'in the collapsing Ottoman Empire' but no guilty party is identified. Utrikesutskottets Betänkande 1999/2000:UU11 (note 33). United Nations, 'Review of Further Developments in Fields with which the Sub-Comission has been Concerned' (note 32), para. 2. Leo Kuper, Genocide: Its Political Use in the Twentieth Century (Harmondsworth, UK: Pelican Books, 1981). The line drawn between 'genocide' and 'genocidal massacre' is obscure; by the latter concept Kuper probably intends massacres with fewer victims. Ibid., p.32. New revelations about French atrocities in Algeria in 1954–62 made in 2001 by a retired French general might lead to a more exact assessment of French behaviour during the conflict. It has been suggested that US President was not informed about the decision to drop the second bomb, which he did not want because of the consequences for innocent civilians. Stanley Goldberg, 'What Did Truman Know, and When Did He Know It?', Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol.54 (May/June 1998), p.3. International Court of Justice, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion of 8 July 1996. Primarily in Cyprus in 1963. See, e.g., Harry Scott Gibbons, The Genocide Files (London: Charles Bravos, 1997). Cf. K. Anthony Appiah, 'Grounding Human Rights', in Michael Ignatieff et al., Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry (Princeton, N.J. and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2001), pp.101–16, pp.103ff. Richard Falk, Human Rights and State Sovereignty (New York and London: Holmes & Meier, 1981), pp.159ff. International Herald Tribune, 19 June 2001. In both countries, however, political parties and NGOs reacted vigorously: cf Le Monde, 8 May 2001. For an unusually clearcut example of this lack of estimation see a statement made in the Swedish Parliament by the chairperson of the Swedish Support Committee for Human Rights in Turkey (which includes members from all the political parties represented in the Parliament) on 1 Feb. 2001: 'We should be aware that Turkey almost always speaks with a double tongue'. Cf. Bertil Dunér, 'Why Let Turkey In?', in Bertil Dunér (ed.), Turkey: The Road Ahead? (Stockholm: Swedish Institute of International Affairs, 2002). European Parliament, 'Resolution on a Political Solution to the Armenian Question' (note 31), article 4. Philippe de Villiers, 'Le Blocage au Sénat Est De Fait Imputable au Gouvernement Jospin', Nouvelles d'Armenie En Ligne, http://www.armenews.com/nam/Sommaire.asp. The Republicans had hopes of keeping control of the House. 'Were it not for Jim Rogan that resolution would never be coming up', the head of the Republican campaign committee told reporters, adding that the resolution was 'part of the process'. Reuters, 'Political Fallout for US House Vote on Armenia', 27 Sept. 2000. Reuters, 20 Oct. 2000, reporting from the Washington Post that same day. Relations with South Korea improved considerably after 1988, when Kim Dae Jung accepted Japan's apology for its occupation of Korea (1910–45), but this did not stop the flaring up of passions in 2001 when a non-apologetic Japanese history textbook was published; South Korea recalled its ambassador to Tokyo and cancelled official visits. International Herald Tribune, 19 April 2001. Rouquet (note 7), Conclusion. Cf. above on the evaluation of the Sub-Commission report of 1985 made by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs of the Swedish Parliament. The full Parliament later confirmed the Committee's evaluation. Time Europe, 11 June 2001. Neshe Düzel, 'Ermenileri Özel Örgüt Öldürdü', Radikal, 9 Oct. 2000 (interview). Cf. Justine McCharty, 'Let Historians Decide on So-Called Genocide', Turkish Daily News, 10 April 2001. 'Holocaust Yes, Armenian Genocide No!' Cyprus Weekly (Nicosia), posted on the Internet 27 April 100Cf. also interview with Günter Verheugen, EU Commissioner for Enlargement: 'I must say that I prefer leaving that to the historians', Turkish Daily News, 7 Feb. 2001. Utrikesutskottets Betänkande 1999/2000:UU11 (note 29). BBC Monitoring Service, 'Armenia Hails Setting Up of Turkish Genocide Commission, But Doubtful of Aim', 31 Oct. 2000. Interview by Mehmet Ali Birand under the title 'Armenia Has No Land Demand from Turkey', Turkish Daily News, 1 Feb. 2001. See also Adriaan Bos, 'The International Criminal Court: A Perspective', in Roy S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statute: Issues, Negotiations, Results (The Hague, London and Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1999), chapter 17, pp.463–70. World Congress against Racism (WCAR) NGO Forum Declaration, 3 Sept. 200This document is described as the outcome of an international process before and during the NGO forum of the WCAR held in Durban, South Africa, 28 Aug.–1 Sept. 2001. Philippe Douste-Blazy, 'Pour Rejoindre l'Union, la Turquie Devra Reconnaître le Génocide Arménien', Nouvelles d'Arménie. En Ligne, http://www.armenews.com/nam/Sommaire.asp. Bertrand Delanoë, 'Au Nom de l'Avenir', Nouvelles d'Arménie En ligne, http://www.armenews.com/nam/Sommaire.asp. European Parliament Resolution, 18 July 1987: European Parliament resolution on a political solution to the Armenian question, Doc. A2-33/87. Mozione del Cons. Massimo de Carolis ed altri: Genocidio del popolo armeno, Consiglio Communale Di Milano (submitted and accepted in November 1997). 'Armenia Won't Ask for Compensation If Turkey Recognizes "Genocide"', CIS Online, 2 Feb. 2001. A considerable number of articles with references to the Armenian territorial claims have been published by the Turkish press (e.g., by Milliyet, Hürriyet and the Turkish Daily News). Cf. in particular 'Two Ambassadors Discuss Armenian Question', Turkish Daily News, 22 Oct. 2001. 'Recognition of Armenian Genocide Is A Matter of Time', interview with Ashot Melik-Shakhnazarian, from the home page of the SNARK news agency, Yerevan (as of 4 May 2000). The question of material compensation can also be brought up in civil society. An Armenian Deputy Foreign Minister has urged Armenians to take up the issue with American insurance companies and fight for compensation in courts worldwide. See Shoogharyan (note 12). There is no consensus on the legal status of the crime of genocide before the 1948 convention. The Charter of the Nurenberg trials (1945–46), included a provision on 'crimes against humanity' (article 6(c)), which is closely related, but not identical, to genocide. The legality of Article 6 has been very much discussed and it is frequently seen as innovative rather than a reflection of international law at the time. See, e.g., Bassiouni (note 39), Concluding Assessment; and Margaret McAuliffe de Guzman, 'The Road From Rome: The Developing Law of Crimes Against Humanity', Human Rights Quarterly, Vol.22 (2000), pp.335–403, at 344. Interestingly, in 1945, before the start of the trials, the US government recognised that the pre-war atrocities committed by the Nazis were not offences against international law. See Benjamin B. Ferencz, An International Criminal Court: A Step Toward World Peace: A Documentary History and Analysis (London, Rome and New York: Oceana Publications, 1980), Volume I, document 12.