Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
YESTERDAY, THE US House of Representatives passed a resolution which officially recognised the massacre of Armenians during World War I as ‘genocide’.
In doing so, the US has joined a small group of countries around the world which consider that the massacres and forced deportation of hundreds of thousands of Armenians from 1915 to 1917 were genocidal.
The country’s Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan hailed the resolution as a “bold step” towards serving historical justice for the descendants of survivors of the massacres.
International recognition of the killings as ‘genocide’ has long been a top priority of Armenian foreign policy, and has been supported by vigorous campaigning by Armenian diasporas across the world.
However, the label is disputed by Turkey, which grew out of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I. It says that both Armenians and Turks died as a result of the war.
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan hit out at the US resolution as the “biggest insult” to the Turkish people, while Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu suggested it was passed as “revenge” for recent Turkish actions against the Kurds in Syria.
But what actually happened during the massacres? Why are they considered ‘genocide’, and is this label accurate?
World War I and the ‘enemy within’
For centuries, ethnic Armenians alternated between the rule of the Ottoman and Persian empires, roughly in the area between the Black and Caspian Seas.
According to estimates of Western scholars, between 1.7 and 2.3 million Armenians were living in the eastern provinces of the Ottoman Empire – around where present day Armenia is located – by 1915.
However, Ottoman authorities had become suspicious about the loyalty of Armenian subjects since the late 19th century, when a nationalist movement for the foundation of an Armenian state, autonomous from the empire’s rule, gained momentum.
Then in 1914, the empire entered World War I on the side of Germany and Austria-Hungary against Russia, France and Britain.
Major battles erupted in Armenian-inhabited provinces, and the Ottoman authorities unleashed a propaganda campaign portraying Armenians as an “enemy within”, with some believing they were loyal to Russia.
On 24 April, 1915, hundreds of Armenian community leaders and intellectuals were rounded up in Constantinople, present-day Istanbul. Most were later executed or deported.
Around the same time, new laws were introduced to authorise the deportation of Armenians and confiscation of their property.
Hundreds of thousands of them were marched into a desert in present-day Syria. Those who survived were put into 25 concentration camps.
Armenians were subjected to mass shooting, burning and poisoning, according to accounts by foreign diplomats and intelligence agents at the time, before the Ottomans surrendered in 1918.
The event has become known as the most tragic event in the history of the Armenian people, which they call ‘Meds Yeghern’, or the ‘Great Crime’.
Armenians estimate that up to 1.5 million of their mostly Christian kin were killed between 1915 and 1917 by Turkish forces.
However, Turkey argues that 300,000 to 500,000 Armenians and as many Turks died in civil strife when Armenians rose up against the Ottomans and sided with invading Russian troops.
Armenians now commemorate the massacres on 24 April – the day in 1915 when thousands of Armenians intellectuals suspected of being hostile to Ottoman rule were rounded up.
Was it ‘genocide’?
According to the 1948 UN Genocide Convention, the crime is defined as acts “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”.
Many both at the time and since have described the massacres inflicted upon the Armenian people as such.
Describing the bloodshed in a July 1915 cable to the Department of State, US ambassador to the Ottoman Empire Henry Morgenthau said: “A campaign of race extermination is in progress under a pretext of reprisal against rebellion”.
Later on, Polish lawyer Raphael Lemkin, who coined the word ‘genocide’ in the 1940s, cited the Armenian massacres as a defining example of the term’s meaning.
And in 2000, 126 scholars – including Nobel Prize-winner Elie Wiesel, historian Yehuda Bauer, and sociologist Irving Horowitz – published a statement in The New York Times, affirming that the “Armenian genocide is an incontestable historical fact”.
However, Turkey has consistently refuted the claim, saying that what happened to the Armenian people was civil conflict and a collective tragedy in which equal numbers of Turks and Armenians perished.
Just 32 countries around the world, as well as the European Parliament, have accepted the definition so far, although recognition is gathering pace, with around half of those nations first viewing the massacres as a genocide this decade.
For its part, Ireland still does not recognise the massacre as genocide.
A statement from the Department of Foreign Affairs to the Irish Times in 2015 acknowledged the “terrible events which resulted in the tragic deaths of very large numbers of the Armenian population in the Ottoman Empire”, but did not use the word.
Modern international relations
Although the massacres occurred more than a century ago, the dispute over them still plays a role in international relations, both in the Middle East and further afield.
The issue has stymied efforts to forge relations between Turkey and Armenia: Ankara and Yerevan have no diplomatic ties, and the border between the two countries is shut.
In 2009, the two signed agreements known as the Zurich protocols in a bid to normalise relations, but the process was never ratified and was ditched by Yerevan in March 2018.
Even if Turkey and Armenia found a way to establish ties, Ankara would have to placate its ally Azerbaijan, which remains wary of any warming between Turks and Armenians.
Baku has repeatedly threatened to use force to retake the Azerbaijani region of Nagorny Karabakh, which is controlled by Armenian separatists after a war between the two countries in the early 1990s.
In recent years, Turkey has also been involved in disputes with countries such as France, the Netherlands and Germany over their recognition of the massacres as genocide.
Following the passage of the resolution in the US House of Representatives yesterday, Turkey summoned the US ambassador to Ankara and President Erdogan said there was “a question mark” over whether he would proceed with a planned visit to the United States.
Erdogan claimed that the vote was politically motivated because of recent events in Syria, and suggested he could pass a counter resolution, having previously touched on the mistreatment of Native Americans in the US.
“A country whose history is full of the stain of genocide and slavery neither has the right to say anything nor to lecture Turkey,” he said on Wednesday.
As it stands, it remains to be seen whether anything significant will occur as a result of the US resolution.
However, one thing is for sure: it’s yet another episode in the gradually deteriorating relationship between the two allies.
With reporting from - © AFP 2019
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Great news. They are not wanted! Lets hope this Govt does one good thing and hold onto those slots!!!!
IAG can still buy 75% of the EI and the government would have no control in what they do with slots, staff, strategy or aircraft. At least by selling they get some guaranteed.
I suspect we will regret this decision in a few years when Aer Lingus starts losing to bigger competition and will then be not as attractive to a buyer. We would then get a much lower sale price.
Under M&A rules in most markets once a share holder gains a certain percentage of the shares all other parties must sell to them, wonder is that the case here
Also assuming IAG did get majority control could the government exercise any blocking vote? I.e would he gov just be a minority shareholder with limited / no influence
Let’s hope it’s not sold off – look at the National Lottery disaster unfolding!
Aww, did somebody’s shareholding lose value?
Jason.., and what about your beloved Ryanair? They might not want to sell because of the increased competition that any takeover may bring- the airline business in Ireland needs to get as competitive as it is in the Uk
Not true, the law passed paving the way for Aer Lingus to be floated on the stock market, stated that the government would have to pass another law if Aer Lingus wanted to sell Heathrow landing slots.
Eoin there’s plenty ways to skin a cat. Slots could have been leased to a different carrier or something similar
Eoin nope, any law of that nature would collapse under EU rules it’s why the Bermuda 2 agreement collapsed and it is how secondary trading of Heathrow slots was established.
Protect, if you were keeping up you would know that FR are being forced to sell their shares down to a 5% holding by the UK regulator and that they’ve been hawking the EI shares around for years now looking for a buyer. They’d take the hand of IAG at this price offering.
Jason , you should be aware that they are contesting the ruling based on other airlines bring taking over
I am Brian, I suspect they’ll lose it though!
Jason do the pilots not own something like 7% of the shares and have said they won’t sell? The rest of the staff have another slice. Etihad won’t sell their 3% if the government keep their stake.
So you’ve upto near 40% there
nah just sell it, money could be well spent on upgrading our water system
Got to do end of your news feed an no mention of the Fianna Fail councillor plotting to kill the detective. What gives?
He is a former FF councillor.
As with FG I’ve seen many leave publicly and not privately. Regardless it’s headline news
Some good news for Ireland, hopefully. Aerlingus doesn’t need to be sold. Its making profits and growing year on year. Keep it that way.
Mike – EI was sold, remember?
Your knowledge of NI was even worse.
You OK m8?
Actually a 5.7% fall in passenger numbers in Jan 2015, a massive pensions issue to deal with, dwindling. Cash reserves and an ageing fleet that requires updating!
Oh and in since 2001, it has made a net after tax profit off, 4.5 million euro!
The Troll is awake. When did you crawl out? Bill, Will, Gravel, how many more names do you use on here. Weird……
Just one Mike.
Did you NOT know that EI was sold!!??
Yeah right!!! It doesn’t need to be sold onto a company like IAG. Iberia made a pre tax profit loss of over €350 million. The government should hold onto its stake and have some control over the airline. Aerlingus did make profits of over €61 million in 2014. IAG are not interested in Dublin, Shannon, Belfast or Cork. Irelands main hub will just become another regional airport like Glasgow or Birmingham. Ireland will lose out if this sale goes ahead, higher prices for everyone.
Pre-tax loss.
They actually downgraded their profits forecast for 2014. Again on the last 10 years they have a net after tax profit of 4.2 million euro! And a 5.7% drop in passenger numbers for Jan this year
Again, huge pension hole to fill, relying on interest from it’s billion euro flotation, which they have a mere 300 million in cash left. Oh and a quickly ageing fleet that will need updating!
Looking forward to Richard Bruton “turning the sod” when 1000s of layoffs are announced in North Dublin!
The main reason for this reduction in passenger numbers is because Aer Lingus cut it short haul/Regional capacity. Aer Lingus long-haul passenger numbers were up 22% compared to the same month last year. IAG has a combined BA/Iberia pension deficit of £3 billion.
Who says IAG is the best people to buy it? It can not survive solely on long haul routes and all need more than North American routes to survive long term
They don’t just survive on long haul routes, they fly to a large number of European destinations. And with the expansion into the US and Canada this will help the airline grow even more. The company made profits of over €61 million last year. With much lower fuel costs the airline could double those profits this year.
Mike it’s passenger numbers fell by 5.7% in January, it requires all it’s routes to be growing to be profitable.
And again since 2008 it has made a 60 million loss after tax last year available it made a NET PROFIT of 31 million half of what you are claiming. Aer Lingus is not tax exempt!
Wayne passengers dropped but capacity was cut by double that to protect profits.
Passengers are useless if they will be carried with a loss.
They downgraded 2014 profits but upgraded them a few months ago so they will be in line with projections.
Of course they pay taxes on that but they still made a profit. Better than a loss eh, you’re quoting figures from 2008. The year of the crash, bailout year, 7 years ago……. The airline is back in profits and growing this year. Like i said the airline cut its winter capacity on short haul/regional routes. This is why they carried slightly fewer passengers. It makes sense to reduce services at this time of year. What company wants to fly planes half empty to lose money.
It made half the profit you stated, it is a small airline highly exposed to fuel price changes ( notice they still apply a fuel surcharge to all US flights). And highly exposed to a single small market
The have issues that will come home to roost soon, pensions and fleet upgrades.
And they have managed to burn through 700 million from their flotation without addressing either of the above issues they have had 400 million on losses since 2001! And approx 404 million on profit years!
Long term figures show a sucker picture than cherry picking good years
If AIG bid fails it will have nothing to do with the govt protecting slots,,, it will be down to labour party fearing the loss of seats in North Dublin,,,,Expect FG/Lab to do a deal after the next election if they have enough seats to form govt………As will be the case with Irish Water when FG pal auld Dinny O B gets handed it on a plate
The Labour Party are finished.
FG are riding high though
Who cares, Ryanair is de bestest for d trips to Costa del crime ya know warrrrr I mean buddddd
Yeah for the chavs only
Major mistake by govt not to sell. Aer Lingus is a small regional airline just as Michael O’Leary has said and if not taken into the IAG fold will disappear in a few years. When it begins to lose money again, the government cannot subsidise it. It leases most of its aircraft and they are begining to need replacement. Major investment is needed in Aer Lingus.
Ken
Do some research on the airline business
He’s right on all those points Ronan, Aer Lingus are extremely vulnerable from above and below them. Their short haul fleet will require big investment in a few years time. They have new long haul jets on order which will have to be paid for. Remember, the state can own but is not allowed to pour capital into an airline, and rightly so, under EU rules.
Aer Lingus could decide to lease out the lot of their Heathrow slots in the morning and the government would be able to do nothing. Under this deal they had certainty for five years. In any case, the Heathrow slots issue is way overblown. They were a way bigger deal ten or fifteen years ago. Nowadays, you can use out of Ireland any of the other major European hubs, North American hubs or Dubai & Abu Dhabi
Thats it, im off to the apocolypse bunker, the world must be coming to end an end if the government are turning away money by making a sensible decision to keep aerlingus.
Clever money would have bought shares 6 months ago. During the summer shares were trading at 1.30 p s. Even at €2 those shares are still worth good money.That said , the govt would be prepared to screw Dublin airports growing transatlantic business ( 2.1 million last year ) just to save a few flights from their precious west coast to Heathrow. All in the ” national” interest of course… What a bunch of parochial goombeens…
With WOW low cost airline offering low fares to the US and Ryan ain’t planning to also offer the route maybe it is time to re asses the value of Aer Lingus
It will be sold sooner rather than later thankfully
have your say