Senator Daly has submitted a second motion that relates to the suffering and loss of the Armenian people on the centenary of the Armenian genocide. The motion reads as follows: "That the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade recognise the suffering and loss of the Armenian people on this the year of the 100th anniversary of the Armenian genocide."
Foreign Conflicts: Motion
This is very relevant in light of the fact that it is the 100th anniversary of the Armenian genocide. A range of countries have acknowledged it as genocide. They include Canada, which did so in 1996; Vatican City and Italy, which did so in 2000; and Switzerland, Argentina, the Netherlands, Chile and Germany. The European Parliament passed a non-binding motion on the issue. I realise it is a sensitive issue for the people of Turkey but we must remember that one of the first people to acknowledge it as genocide was Turkey's great leader, Kemal Ataturk, who acknowledged in the 1920s that what happened was not just a tragedy, as has been said by others, but genocide. As the Pope said, it was the first genocide of the 20th century. Unfortunately, it was the not last.
I ask colleagues to support this motion. I note that other countries have not had the courage of their convictions, have been lobbied and have said that it is sensitive. It is 100 years later. A wrong was done. Women and children were massacred in a crime against humanity that was by any definition genocide. Ireland, which knows a lot about suffering, should acknowledge the suffering of others. We are not alone if we support this motion. Many countries have supported the motion and I ask colleagues to support it.
Does anybody else wish to speak on this motion?
I am no historian but I am very familiar with the arguments about the death of so many Armenians. I know it is a very emotive issue. There is a relatively small and compact Armenian community in Ireland. I have met members of it at celebrations. They have some religious leaders here in Ireland and they would argue very strongly that they do recognise it as a serious political issue. I have heard some of their academics speaking in Dublin who were incredibly open-minded about the massacres and deaths that occurred and how one arrives at a solution to the historical complexities of whether it was genocide or how one classifies it.
My only interest in this is in possibly getting a brief from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Unfortunately, I did not know the motion was coming up. I would like to do some research on it and contact some of these Armenian academics who do not support the simplistic flag waving that it was genocide and do not believe this view is a solution to the long-term historical problems that occurred in that period. I am asking whether it is possible to get a briefing and if I could be allowed to do some research regarding Armenians I have heard speaking on this issue in Dublin in order to broaden the debate rather than have a two-line simplistic notion that we have the historical facts right.
I agree with the last speaker. The era and the question deserve some consideration and a brief from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade would be helpful, particularly in co-ordinating the thinking on the issue with a view to identifying how best to put in the international arena the issues and the massacre that took place. We should be advised by the Department concerning a description of the tragic event because the Department is the body dealing with this issue internationally.
I support the timely motion put forward by my colleague, Senator Daly. We have just passed the centenary of that awful atrocity. The New York Times recently noted that Armenians say that up to 1.5 million Armenian Christians were systematically slaughtered in eastern Turkey through mass killings, forced relocations and starvation. Many historians and legal scholars have called the Armenian killings genocide, including Raphael Lemkin, the Polish Jewish jurist who came up with the term in 1944. The Armenians have lobbied extensively for this to be accepted. I know that the genocide will be observed by Armenians worldwide.
It is interesting that the European Parliament has passed a motion referring to it as genocide and calling on Turkey to acknowledge this very fact. Speaking in the European Parliament, Elmar Brok, a German MEP, underlined what he called the moral obligation to recognise and commemorate such massacres. He said "my own people committed genocides" and that "hundreds of thousands of Armenians died at the hands of the Ottoman empire's henchmen". It is particularly appropriate not just because it is the centenary but also because of what is happening. We just had a discussion here with the Kenyan ambassador about the genocide taking place across the Middle East. We should send a strong signal that genocide is unacceptable. In recognising this, we are putting it up to Turkey to also recognise it. If countries fail or are in denial about this, it is unacceptable and does not nothing to counter extremist, radical thinking which a lot of this emanates from. I am happy to support the motion.
My colleague, Deputy Ó Snodaigh, had a question down for the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade yesterday.
The reply from the Minister stated: "The Irish government has never taken a position on this issue, believing that it is not in a position to adjudicate on this contentious matter, involving the consideration of a number of legal issues and an assessment of the actions and intentions of many parties during that time." That is an appalling position to adopt. It is denying history and does not help in any way to get an understanding of what happened in Armenia. It is a pathetic answer given that the UN has agreed that what happened meets the criteria of a genocide. As my colleague has said, the European Parliament has passed five motions recognising it as a genocide. A total of 24 countries have officially recognised it as a genocide, including 12 EU countries.
If we do not accept what happened in the past then we cannot learn from the mistakes and move on. Again, Ireland has no problem in recognising the Holocaust as a genocide, the Rwandan genocide or the genocide in Darfur, and rightly so. The question is, why not in Armenia? It is not as if it happened 500 or 1,000 years ago. It happened 100 years ago. There are accurate oral and written accounts of what actually happened. Anyone who reads the evidence at length cannot deny that genocide happened.
Throughout the world victims of genocide ask first for recognition of the crime committed against them. That is usually the process. It is essential as part of the healing process that we discuss it. We need to support them in this recognition. There will be no further trials. The killers got away with the mass murder. It happened 100 years ago. However, I believe it is one of those open wounds that needs to be healed. There needs to be recognition between Armenia and Turkey in respect of what happened. In itself, that would bring those two countries and the whole region closer together. This is positive step that Ireland could take in adopting this resolution.
I support the motion too. It is simply recognising the fact that, unfortunately, there was a mass slaughter of 1.5 million people going back 100 years. Unfortunately, our motion will not change things, but it is important to recognise when wrongdoing is done. There was absolutely wrongdoing on a mass scale. An overwhelming majority of a parliament that is representative of 28 independent states is voting strongly in favour of the motion. This is simply recognising the fact that absolute wrong was done. Whether it was done 100 years ago or today, it has the same validity as wrongdoing. We should mark such wrongdoing and condemn it.
I believe it is a positive motion. I do not know what other word we could use for the murder and slaughter of 1.5 million people except "genocide". It is known in the history books and in political discussion as the Armenian genocide.
Ireland has had to face up to the wrongs done in this country in the past. It is part of that process. The word used in the reply - adjudication - was most unfortunate. What is there to adjudicate on? The facts are there. We are not making a comment about anyone. We are simply acknowledging an empathy and sympathy with the Armenian people. The Turkish reaction when the Pope made a similar comment last week was unfortunate. I support the motion. It is long overdue.
I wish to make a brief comment. I am asking Senator Daly to postpone this motion for one week. First, our President is in Turkey this week at other events. Second, Deputy Eric Byrne and Deputy Durkan have made a point. I am not happy with the reply from the Department that Deputy Crowe read out. We need a more comprehensive reply on why successive Governments have not recognised it. It is not only this Government but successive Governments down through the years which have not done so. I am asking to postpone the motion. If we got a more comprehensive reply in respect of why this was not supported by various Governments, then we could put it on the agenda for next week. We know it is sensitive and so on, but given the week that is in it, I am asking for a one-week postponement and then we can have it on the agenda for next week.
Sorry, Chairman, I have to press the motion because it is important. This is the 100th anniversary. Next week is not the 100th anniversary. Of course it is a sensitive issue. It will remain a sensitive issue whether it is this week or next week.
I had the pleasure and honour of serving on the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs with our President. I am sure he has an opinion. I would not dare to venture what that would be, but I think many of us could guess what it would be. The facts are there. We know how the system works in this House. I am asking my colleagues to abstain if they cannot support the motion so that it can be passed. The reply from the officials is not going to change. If the Minister, who signed off on that reply, believed it deserved attention, he would have given a different reply. The reply is not going to change.
There is nothing offensive about it. What we are acknowledging is the suffering and loss of the Armenian people in a genocide that has been acknowledged by the European Union and others throughout the world as a genocide. Others, for political reasons, have chosen not to acknowledge it. The statistics say 1.5 million people but the fact is it was a genocide. Therefore, I will press the motion.
I am only asking that you postpone it for a week. There is no problem with the motion. I am asking you to postpone it for a week until we get a comprehensive reply on the matter. I am not happy with that reply.
Chairman, we have-----
No. You are pre-empting what the Department is going to say. I want to get a more comprehensive reply from the Department on the matter.
Chairman, we are not here as a elected members of the committee to be led by the nose by the Department. This is a straightforward incident in history on which the members of the committee can take a view. Some may not want to condemn it and some may wish to condemn it. I am in the latter group. I do not think the Department's views are relevant.
Lest there be any doubt about the willingness or otherwise of members of the committee to condemn atrocities that took place, whether 100 years ago or otherwise, I am keen to reiterate that I and, I imagine, my colleagues will not be found wanting when it comes to the condemnation of any such atrocities. I believe it is fitting, though, in the circumstances and given that the reply was not adequate and did not fully address the issues - I was in the House at the time yesterday - to request a brief from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade before we decide to proceed on a particular motion of this nature, which may well be resented by some.
There is a need for recognition of what took place at that time and we need to adopt a particular position on it. We do not need to do so for political purposes or anything else. We need to have an up-to-date evaluation from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade on its intentions in this regard. Let us keep in mind that previous Administrations in this jurisdiction have avoided the issue. We should not avoid the issue, we should deal with it. However, we should deal with it on the basis of the most up-to-date report from the Department and the Minister.
Are we saying the reply given yesterday was not an up-to-date report?
No, I simply want a more comprehensive reply.
Anyone can Google it if they do not believe what was said in the reply, Chairman.
Through the Chair, please. I simply have questions to ask in respect of the reply and I would like a more comprehensive reply. It is not a question of putting off the motion. We are going to deal with this motion and there is no problem about dealing with it. However, I think we should get a more comprehensive reply. One week is not going to make a difference. We are discussing an event that happened 100 years ago. It is not a question of opting out or anything like that. I simply want to get a more comprehensive reply from the Department, a complete departmental account as to why successive Governments did not call it a genocide. That is all. It is in my replies. That is what I am asking for. If that is not the case, then I will call a vote.
For the benefit of members, we are not beholden to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. We are elected Members of these Houses. We represent the people. The people-----
That is not the issue at all.
It is the issue. Members do not-----
We are not beholden to anyone. What I am asking for is a comprehensive reply in respect of the parliamentary question from yesterday.
I will deal with this issue next week. I will table the motion again next week and members can vote one way or the other at that time. We need fair play. Members need all the information before they make a judgment on it.
The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is well aware that the motion was before the committee but it chose not to brief members. It gave a four line reply to the death of 1.5 million people in a genocide 100 years ago.
That is my point. I am not happy with it and I seek a more comprehensive reply. Senator Daly has already answered the question for me.
The best it could do in the Dáil - the House of the Irish people - to a question by an elected Member was that the Government has never taken a position on the issue, believing that it is not in a position to adjudicate on this contentious matter involving the consideration of a number of legal issues and an assessment of the actions and intentions of many parties during that time. It is the worst reply I have ever seen on any matter. It is a terrible-----
The Senator has answered the question for me. The committee wants to hold the Department to account and we therefore need more information on the reason successive Governments have not dealt with the issue. That is all I seek. I am not taking sides.
The Department had its opportunity.
I am asking the Senator to postpone the matter for one week until we get a comprehensive reply and then we will deal with it on Monday week.
The Department had its opportunity. The motion was tabled. If the Department chose not to brief members, that is up to it but members are quite willing and able to brief themselves. The motion has been available for a week.
As Chairman, I have not received a comprehensive reply from the Department. All I have is the information I received from Senator Daly.
The next time the Department might give a comprehensive reply.
I will put the question on the motion.
On a point of information on procedure, I was very familiar with Dublin City Council's approach to taking decisions on a motion, after which one could not debate it for a further six months. If we vote on the motion today, are there restrictions on when the matter might come up again for further debate?
We cannot discuss it for six months. That is the reason I asked that discussion on the motion would be postponed for a week.
It is the same system. In the light of that information, it is important for everyone to recognise that if a vote is taken and the motion is defeated, it cannot be debated for another six months.
Whether it is defeated or not is entirely up to Deputy Eric Byrne.
If Senator Daly is arguing so strongly in favour of the motion, surely he would like us to vote in favour of it? In that case, would he not defer the discussion for a week?
Deputy Eric Byrne can abstain if he wishes.
It is up to Senator Daly.
No, it is entirely up to Deputy Eric Byrne.
I will not have any more discussion on the matter. I have asked the proposer of the motion to postpone the debate for one week. That is not too much of a delay and it would allow time for a more comprehensive response to come from the Department. I am not happy with the Department's reply. Senator Daly should please listen to me. As Chairman, I have not received a comprehensive briefing either. All members are entitled to a comprehensive briefing. Senator Daly said he was not happy with the reply. Neither is Deputy Crowe happy with the reply. I request that we would postpone the debate for an extra week to get a more comprehensive reply from the Department. We will put the motion on the agenda of next week's meeting and we will vote on it.
We will vote on it.
Now?
Yes.
If the Senator does not want to discuss the matter for another six months.
We can write to the Department and ask the Minister for a reply and see whether the response will be any different in a week's time. I can guarantee this-----
(Interruptions).
Members can make their arguments now but they should please stop interrupting.
It took me six months to prepare research for a previous motion.
Is the motion agreed?
Yes.
The motion is not agreed.
Question put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 5; Níl, 8.
Tá
- Crowe, Seán.
- Daly, Mark.
- O'Sullivan, Maureen.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Walsh, Jim.
Níl
- Breen, Pat.
- Byrne, Catherine.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Dowds, Robert.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Higgins, Lorraine.
- Mullins, Michael.
- Neville, Dan.
Question declared lost.
Could we ask the Department for the briefing?
We need to get a briefing. If members feel a different type of motion is required, we can get somebody to submit it next week. We all have the same concern over what happened.
On a point of order, we do not all have the same concern. The motion was very clear that the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade recognises the suffering and loss of the Armenian people this year, the year of the 100th anniversary of the Armenian genocide.
We will move on to the next item.
That is what the Fine Gael and Labour Party members voted against.
We have dealt with the motion. We are still going to get a more comprehensive reply for the members. It is up to any individual member to submit a motion in a different context.
We can arrange it next week.
It was important to seek a more comprehensive reply on this because the members and I were not happy about it. That is why I asked Senator Daly to postpone the motion for just one week. There was no other reason for or against it. I had no choice but to go with the motion.
Let us call a spade a spade.
We are moving on to the next item.
The Government is involved in too much spin.
We are moving on.
The Chairman is spinning so much he does not even know when he is doing so.
The Senator does the same himself.
Members should speak through the Chair.
A few contortions as well.
This is a very serious issue. I ask that members not make a political football out of it. That is what will happen if we keep going down this road.