Proposition 54K1043

Proposition de résolution visant à étendre aux Araméens (Syriaques, Chaldéens et Assyriens) et aux Grecs pontiques la reconnaissance du génocide des Arméniens de Turquie de 1915.

General information ¶

Authors

LE Georges Dallemagne, Vanessa Matz, Michel de Lamotte
MR Olivier Maingain

Submission date

April 27, 2015

Official page

Visit

Status

Rejected

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

Armenian question Turkey resolution of parliament human rights

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR

Voted to reject

Groen Vooruit Ecolo LE DéFI PP VB

Abstained from voting

PS | SP PVDA | PTB

Party dissidents ¶

• Olivier Maingain (MR) voted to reject.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Nov. 12, 2015 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I would like to talk about my bank. I will be brief. We have already had the opportunity to speak in committee on this serious, important topic. I propose, in accordance with Article 88, to reject this proposal for rejection, since it is through this resolution to repair an extremely serious forgetfulness. In reality, through the rejection of this proposal, it is about refusing to recognize the genocide of the Aramaic and Pontic Greeks following the genocide of the Armenians. This event took place at approximately the same time, in the weeks and months following the Armenian Genocide.

This is a very serious forgetfulness. You know that it is always very important to properly qualify crimes against humanity, to recognize the nature of these crimes, because otherwise, people who have been victims of them will be wounded twice.

I suggest you reject this rejection and return to the committee to be able to vote on this text, which is important. In Belgium, there are Aramaic, Syrian, Chaldean communities that hold a lot to the recognition by Belgium of this genocide.

Some say that this discussion already took place when we adopted the resolution on commemorating the Armenian genocide in July last year. I would like to remind them that in reality, at that time, several members of the majority, especially the MR, had shown their interest in this subject but had requested that the discussion be dissociated and that the discussion on the Aramean genocide be not addressed at that time. We agreed to dissociate this discussion. Finally, when we wanted to come back with this discussion in the committee, we were told that it had already taken place, which seemed quite shocking to us since it had been rejected in July.

We therefore ask you to reject this rejection proposed by the commission and to return to the commission to be able to result in a positive vote on the recognition of the genocide of the Arameans and the Pontic Greeks by the Ottoman regime in 1915.

We know how difficult this debate is for some parties. I do not ignore the prudence that the legislative power must have when addressing historical issues. When we voted for the resolution on the recognition of the Armenian Genocide, reservations had already been expressed by both. I also do not ignore how prudent the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights is. But I think there are times when we need to have the courage to force these essential debates.

There will always be legal arguments. We may even find some historians who do not like to address the questions of principle, without wanting to minimise them, to justify that one cannot deal in a legislative assembly with this essential point of history.

Why should the recognition of the Armenian genocide of Turkey be extended to other minorities whose scientific evidence has been that they have also been victims of the genocide organized by the Young Turks regime? Because today, in the Middle East, it is the same minorities that are once again exposed to threats. A reminder of history is not just a duty of memory. It is also and above all an urgency of the moment in view of developments that recall the past and are unbearable.

I know that some are hesitant, that there are intellectual reserves. But, at some point, it is imperative not to accept the repetition of facts of the same scale, as it is, however, the case, today, in several states of the Middle East.

This is the reason why the approach we have taken together with Mr. Germany is more necessary than ever.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, I will not use argutia. I will simply repeat the position that is ours. Unlike many, the parties that make up the majority have recognized the Armenian genocide. This is an achievement that is not insignificant. Unlike all those who have said that one day a historical recognition, a memorial or other would be needed, we did!

The statements made by Prime Minister Charles Michel on the subject are clear. All you have to do is recite them! It refers to all the events that took place in 1915 and 1916 in this region of the world. This is also an important element.

I repeat what Mr. Maingain just said. There is an imperative not to accept repetition. We do not have the weakness to believe that it is by recognizing historically facts that we will be able to concretely help the populations that are today confronted with the same dangers, risks and threats. The priority for our government is to try to help these populations as best as possible. I would even say that by trying to want to put a pen on his hat, people who live there in terrible situations are put in even more difficulty. That is why we consider that the case is closed.

Listen to the words of Mr. Miller, who is nevertheless a man who, intellectually, has the sense of nuance, that the case is closed, ...

I said that this file was closed for us (...) I did not say that the file was closed in itself (...)

Wait, I have not finished yet. But it is even worse if the case is closed for that majority! The worst part is that you don’t even want to talk about it. The most mediocre argument is to say, “Dare to talk about it would ⁇ even hurt those who try to defend these populations.” This is the beginning of what I call the betrayal of the clergy (Julien Benda), for those who have the sense of reminder of history. This is the beginning of the betrayal of the clergy: not daring to talk about a subject because one fears the retaliation of those who would be able to repeat the worst atrocities of history, it is the beginning of abandonment and even a certain form of cowardice.

I could not say better than mr. by Maingain. It is obviously for us, Belgians, Europeans, to qualify precisely the crimes against humanity and the crimes of genocide that have been committed so that, precisely, we can better address them today, prevent them and prevent them.

This is at the heart of this resolution. This is why it is important today, because it is the same people who are harassed today and who are possibly denied the right to protect themselves and who are not allowed today to recognize the crimes they suffer today.

And so, of course, it is necessary to correctly qualify crimes, especially crimes of the past, in order to be able to address those of today in an adequate way and to be able to combat them in an adequate way. And no, you have not explicitly, Mr. Miller, through your resolution on the commemoration of the genocide nor formally and explicitly recognized the Armenian genocide, let alone the Aramaic genocide! No, Mr. Miller, because our amendments that clarified a precise recognition, you rejected them! Our amendments, which allowed at that time to recognize and extend this genocide to the Arameans, you rejected them.

And you said, Mr. Ducarme (July 22 plenary session): “We could have discussed other amendments in order to extend this recognition to the Assyrians and other communities.

If, in the future, we can address this issue, at this stage, it would complicate things.”

As you can see, the topic was not closed. Today, you close it without any discussion, without wanting to address the issue while you know well that it is important to recognize this grave crime against humanity, this crime of genocide.

and M. Flahaux, who is present today – he will not tell me the contrary – insisted in a committee on July 7, last, that the question of these other minorities be examined at another occasion. “He insisted,” Mr Miller. And you deny him today the right to have this debate by saying that this issue is closed. I find this quite shocking.

The fact is the recognition by Belgium of genocide. I would like to emphasize again what has just been indicated by Richard Miller. We have done it. We have done it. It makes you laugh, but you stayed in the verb. You were young and then came to teach. We, the recognition, have done it.

by Mr. Maingain anyway. Medievality and cowardice. But finally, we did it. We have done it. And you come back today with a proposal that was submitted during the summer in the form of an amendment, amendments that were rejected. You are re-opening a debate that has already taken place to mount you. And no, it will indeed be necessary to be content with what was produced by this majority, with what was produced by this government, here in the House, expressed as such by our prime minister, which you did not succeed in doing. In relation to this inability to act, this is ⁇ the true cowardice, the true mediocrity, Mr. Maingain.

I have been questioned by Mr. From Germany, I would like to clarify things with a lot of humility.

As MP and also as a historian, I think that the history of the world is unfortunately marked by a multitude of genocides. Without going back to Mathusalem, we will probably remember the massacre of the Saxons by Charlemagne, of the Boers by the English, and the massacres of which we speak now, which are still bad examples. Among them, the one that struck us most in the 70s and 80s is the fact that a quarter of Cambodia’s population was massacred by the Red Khmer.

I think that every massacre must be denounced and, most importantly, it must be the trigger to prevent further massacres.

Here, I do not hide that we, with our group leader, have spoken these words. They are not false. In my candlestick, however, I did not imagine that some would use Mr. M.’s enlargement proposal. From Germany as a war machine to again divide the majority. I refuse to enter this logic. This issue is worth more than a Belgian-Belgian political dispute. In this sense, I do not support this proposal even though, in essence, I agree with it.

First of all, I would like to thank Mr. Flahors for their honesty. I find it healthy that he acknowledges that an opening had been made at a certain time and that it was closed in the meantime.

I did not know that there was disagreement among the majority on this subject. It was not for me to raise them. The reason why it is important that a text on other genocides be voted this year is that we are living a symbolic year as this genocide was perpetrated in the Ottoman Empire in 1915. If we don’t do it this year, the discussion may be closed forever, Mr. Miller. This is where the risk lies. This year was one of the last opportunities to have this discussion and obtain this recognition, on the occasion of the hundredth anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. This phenomenon must be taken in its entirety. It is necessary to repair this forgetfulness. I sincerely regret that we were unable to succeed.

I will be brief, as I agree with my group leader.

Since I am called an intellectual, an intellectual, or even a clergyman – reminding me, in an uncomfortable way, and even if it was erroneous and misrepresented, The Treason of the clergy – I would like to be very precise. I want to be a clear cleric – anyway, it’s connected.

Mr. Dallemagne, I will recall what I said recently. When the prime minister, on behalf of the Belgian government, acknowledged the Armenian Genocide, he acknowledged all the events that took place in 1915-1916. You can ergot. We believe that this government has made a strong move.

I now add, since my commitment to this case is somewhat questioned, that I do not agree at all with the feeling developed by Mr. Or by Mr. of DDR. They say, “You know, when we dare add a line regarding the recognition of the events of that time, at least we will have been humanists, we will have done something, we will fight the frightening problems still experienced today by the same populations on the same territories.” I said that for that majority, the case was closed, because what matters today is to act for those populations, and that is what we intend to do!

Mr. Dallemagne, I know you’re going to say again that I’m going to go to the towers, but I don’t. I rather feel that by constantly trying to put a pen on his hat, we are ultimately acting against the people today.