Proposition 54K1207

Proposition de résolution relative à la commémoration du centenaire du génocide arménien.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Sarah Claerhout, Peter Luykx, Els Van Hoof
MR Denis Ducarme, Jean-Jacques Flahaux
N-VA Peter De Roover
Open Vld Tim Vandenput

Submission date

June 24, 2015

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

Armenian question Turkey resolution of parliament human rights

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit PS | SP ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR PP VB

Abstained from voting

PVDA | PTB

Party dissidents ¶

• Philippe Blanchart (PS | SP) abstained from voting.
• Stéphane Crusnière (PS | SP) abstained from voting.
• Olivier Maingain (MR) abstained from voting.

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 ¶

July 22, 2015 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, given the extensive and very exciting debates we have held on this subject, I would like to refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, no matter how hard the statement may sound, violence remains of all times and apparently belongs to the human nature. The events in Suruç a few days ago illustrated this painful truth once again. The fact that the victims were young people who gathered in this Kurdish city to carry out construction work in Kobane gives the attack an additional tragic dimension. Tomorrow, this painful truth may be confirmed elsewhere, again.

Even the pacifist idea that violence must be eradicated carries the traces of violence, because there are always violents who commit the facts. Violence evokes feelings of revenge and then threatens to sink into a self-nourishing process. Breaking through that perverse mechanism is very difficult and requires a lot of courage, courage from the victims or their descendants, but even more courage from the perpetrators and their descendants.

How difficult and demanding such a process is, it was revealed recently at the commemoration of the terrible events in Srebrenica, twenty years ago. For some relatives of the victims, the wounds were too fresh open to bear the presence of Serbian Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic. Nevertheless, they are indeed administrators who, by their function, must take the first steps toward reconciliation.

If the events of Srebrenica are still fresh in the memory, then the resolution that now predicts is about tragic events that took place a century ago. When Prime Minister Michel finally formally acknowledged the facts on 18 June last, on behalf of this country on this speech, as a genocide, that happened not a day too early. This government, therefore, deserves all praise for taking the step that previous cabinets have never taken.

Thanks to the formal recognition by the Prime Minister in this House, a resolution on this issue has become meaningless today. There should not remain any uncertainty about the importance of that recognition on 18 June – which was clear and above all fully valid. The Armenian genocide must no longer be recognised here today, which has already happened unwaveringly. The House of Representatives, of course, supports this by continuing to work on that recognition, as has happened in our proposal for a resolution. Today we cut out another dimension that builds on the statements of the Prime Minister.

This kind of drama grows into a collective trauma for an entire nation or a population group and continues – generation after generation – if no steps are taken toward reconciliation. This is what we are talking about today, a call to reconciliation.

That reconciliation can only come when the Turkish government without any hesitation acknowledges the message that since 1915 there has been a genocide against the Armenian people in the then Ottoman Empire. Many Turks have already done this, and some have even ended up behind bars, but the evolution in the social debate in Turkey can never be reversed. The taboo on the G-word can no longer resist the pressure of the facts. On the official Turkish side, however, the word remains out to this day. This resolution is therefore a clear call from our people’s representation to Turkey to finally take the necessary step towards reconciliation.

Today we do not want to point the accusing finger to people or institutions because they would be Turkish or Turkish. No one is responsible merely and only because his or her cradle stood somewhere. This is also clearly stated in this resolution. But let there be no misunderstandings: whoever today denies or even accounts for the genocide stands on the side of those who were responsible and thus, through what is said or silenced, assumes that responsibility, even morally.

If prominent Turkish politicians and institutions still deny or even blame the genocide today, they are responsible for what they say, not for their Turkish background. If petitions are still being organized today to challenge the recognition of the genocide, even among people with Turkish roots living here, then the signatories are liable, not because of their origin, but because of the signature they place today.

I received a letter from a concerned Armenian, of which I would like to share the next passage with you. I quote: “The offspring of the bull is not a bull. The offspring of the victim remains the victim. But the child of the bull who denies the murders defiles his dignity, that of the victims and of the children of the victims.”

In that same period, Arameans, ancient Syrians, Chaldeans, and even Syrians and Pontic Greeks were also victims of deliberate mass murders. This resolution, which is the result of consultation between several parties, addresses specifically the genocide of the Armenians, but we have also emphasized those other groups in our responsibility. Our hearts are with them, and they should not be left unnamed here today.

Dear colleagues, I would like to address myself explicitly to the colleagues of the opposition. A resolution is a text. The correct words can always be disputed. Other formulations had been possible, but the development of a concrete text is what it is. You have submitted other proposals, which, by the way, not only deserve the respect of all of us, but which are very valuable in terms of content and which, of course, because you have submitted them, take away your preference. But the core message we want to bring here today becomes the stronger as it is supported as widely as possible. Party-political considerations, which, let us be honest, appear to each of us at least once, should not obscure the message.

Can I ask you, in view of that core message, to support this resolution in the sense as I have outlined it here, so that this Parliament expresses itself strongly in this call to the Turkish government to take the necessary step towards reconciliation by formally recognizing the Armenian genocide?

A son of an Armenian inquisition gave me the pin that I have now spotted, with an image of the anmoruk. This is a flower that we also know and which in the Netherlands bears the appropriate name Forget-me-nietje. That forget-me-not is a symbol of the message we want to bring today. We do not forget them, so that forgiveness may follow as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, as we all know, we are commemorating this year the centenary of the Armenian Genocide. This is a momentum that our assembly, like other European assemblies, could not miss to formally and in its name recognize this genocide.

This was the intention of my group when submitting our text. In fact, the PS has always held a clear speech on the issue of the Armenian genocide. Our party chairman thus recalled that the PS unquestionably recognized the possibility of this genocide which is a historical reality.

As I have already been able to say in the committee, correctly naming things is the condition for starting a true work of memory, to build the future and to prevent such a tragedy from repeating itself. This is also the purpose of the commemoration of subsequent genocides.

It is up to us to take into account all the dark pages of the history of humanity of which it is fully part. Remembering history is not futile, pastoral or stigmatizing. On the contrary!

When, together with my group, we drafted the text of our proposed resolution, we had the heart to firmly reject the stigma of communities that cannot be associated with facts committed more than 100 years ago within the Ottoman Empire.

That said, memory is a wealth that must guide our civil and political actions so that the “never more this” finds yet another echo when time has passed and forgetting waits.

But memory work is not enough. It must also be accompanied by a real work of reconciliation. In my opinion, alongside the recognition of genocide, it is equally essential to encourage a real work of reconciliation and of bringing people and communities closer together.

This memory work is not new. In 1998, Senator Philippe Mahoux adopted a resolution on the recognition of the Armenian genocide. Without any ambiguity, the Senate already invited the Turkish government to recognize the reality of the genocide perpetrated in 1915 by the government of the Ottoman Empire.

It is thanks to this resolution that the Belgian Parliament has since been reintroduced in the list of European Parliaments who have performed this indispensable duty of memory. It is therefore in the continuity of this memorial work already carried out at the time by the Senate, of the 2003 resolution, co-signed by my colleague, the regretted Patrick Moriau, adopted in the Committee on Foreign Relations, but also of the resolution recently adopted by the European Parliament that I presented, on behalf of my group, our text relating to the recognition of the Armenian genocide on the occasion of the commemoration of its centenary.

This text was written with my colleagues in a proactive will for dialogue and reconciliation rather than confrontation. With this proposal, my group and all its elected members intended to give a clear signal of their position regarding the Armenian genocide while also joining in a positive approach to bringing communities closer together. Because, contrary to the text of the majority that was imposed on us in committee, the request 1 of the text of the PS was very clear. She had no ambiguity. “The House considers that the tragic events that occurred between 1915 and 1917, and of which the last government of the Ottoman Empire is responsible, must be qualified as genocide.”

Mr. Crusnière, I think we have already debated this issue quite long in commission. I have the impression that the tone of the debate we are going to have here will probably be a little less tense. However, when you indicate that the PS proposal does not suffer from any ambiguity in relation to point 1, I wonder about your resolution proposal that I find, by the way, well-written. I do not, of course, deny the work you could have completed with mr. Mahoux and Mr. Murray too.

I know you have dealt with this issue with sincerity. However, something is missing from me in your resolution proposal. This ambiguity, which you deny, seems to me to be recovered. Explain to me why, as part of this resolution proposal, which contains nine points, requests to the federal government begin only on the sixth.

Point 1, which considers that the tragic events that occurred between 1915 and 1917, and of which the last government of the Ottoman Empire is responsible, must be qualified as genocide, is not a request you make to the government given that the genocide has already been recognized by it.

Mr. Ducarme, I ask that this be a gesture of the Chamber.

Mr Crusnière, a proposal for a resolution is a request made to the Government.

Not always, Mr Duchamp. We have already had this debate. I confess that after our committee meeting, which was exciting, I was able to question the services of the House. They told me that under Articles of the Constitution, especially Articles 33 and 42, nothing prevents the House from making such decisions. You don’t always have to get stuck behind the Rules as you do. I am pleased that you put forward the regulation. I hope you will continue to read it during the holidays. Thus, in the future, the Conference of Presidents will be shorter!

Using this as a cache sex is a little bit small. We have taken our responsibilities. We will submit an amendment requiring this recognition again. We hope, as I will have the opportunity to say a little further in my presentation, that everyone who will have the opportunity to speak on this amendment will take their responsibilities.

So you confirm to me that of the nine requests you make, only the 6, the 7, the 8 and the 9 constitute formal requests to the government? Other requests, you limit them to the Room.

It is well understood that these are requests to the Government (...)

I don’t know who wears the cache sex, but I think it’s you, Mr. Crusniere.

Mr. Speaker, if we have obviously taken note of the important statements of the Prime Minister at this same tribune, it remains no less that - Mr. Ducarme, I confirm it - it is rightly to our institution that it is formally and solemnly to recognize the Armenian genocide.

This would effectively allow to lift any ambiguity in the head of Belgium since, paradoxically to the statements of the prime minister, Belgium was noticed by the absence of its head of government MR...

I’m a little tired of the way you transform the facts. You’re really showing up. On 18 June, the Prime Minister recognized the Armenian genocide, and by that our country recognized it. You are asking to remove any ambiguity. On 18 June, Belgium officially recognized the Armenian genocide. It happened here in the room. And you arrive like the White Knights with four trains delayed, to indicate that any ambiguity should be lifted. We made it clear with that majority. We have produced what we may not have been able to produce with you when we were in responsibility together. Since 18 June, there is no more ambiguity about the Armenian genocide. Belgium acknowledged this by the statement made by its prime minister on behalf of the Belgian government and therefore on behalf of Belgium.

The ambiguity, Mr. Ducarme, is not in comparison with the statements of the Prime Minister. This is compared to the absences of the Prime Minister, the absences of the Minister of Foreign Affairs at official commemorations. The ambiguity is there, Mr. Ducarme. It is not in the statements, it is in the acts and in the actions, Mr. Ducarme! Not in the statements, in the actions and in the actions!

The [...]

He is here, Mr. Ducarme! He will have the opportunity to speak out.

Mr. Ducarme, you submitted this resolution and you disclosed your game here. You submitted a resolution to put in trouble some MEPs who might potentially be in delicacy with their home community.

But when you get your nose in your caca – and I weigh my words – and you get noticed that the Minister of Foreign Affairs was not in Yerevan a few months ago, and that your resolution was mocked under the pressure of the Turkish embassy, you realize it and you reveal yourself.

I understand the different approaches. If the Prime Minister’s statement had not been there, we would naturally have taken a step here, by acknowledging the genocide on behalf of the House. However, something happened on June 18. We may differ in opinions on this. I again have respect for every fulfillment and every interpretation, but I have just said on the floor, and I want to repeat it for all clarity, that with this resolution we do not take the place of the declaration of the Prime Minister, but that, after the declaration of the Prime Minister, we will build on it. Building on that statement – it is in that spirit that we submit the resolution and also in that spirit that it should be read – we take additional steps, including towards the Turkish government.

For us, the recognition – for the rest it is a semantic discussion – of the Armenian genocide by this country is a fact. Furthermore, I would like to insist on respect for everyone’s interpretation, so that the debates on this subject would be conducted with the appropriate serenity. I don’t look in any direction when I say that, but I even want to look in my own direction, if necessary. I have said later that no one is free from party-political games, not even us, not even in the treatment of this resolution. “It’s good to look in your own heart...” I’m curious how the translators will translate that, but I refer to Alice Nahon. Let us do all this, with full respect. When the Prime Minister made his statement, it turned out that it received the support of the whole Parliament. It is in that spirit that I would like to see the discussion of these resolutions continue.

We have the power and the duty to take responsibility, but we also have the power and the duty to take responsibility. Again, the Constitution allows us to do so and we can finally be actors and make a formal act rather than followers of a government statement.

The majority made another choice by rejecting our text and imposing theirs. It must be recognised that the majority text is acceptable. That is why my group abstained in the committee. Again, and I regret it, without wanting to polemize, in the current state, your text does not allow a formal recognition of this genocide by Belgium and the House.

I would also like to remind you that, if I am deeply convinced that the House is not called to replace a judicial body to decide on the legal qualification and consequences thereof, crimes committed against Armenians between 1915 and 1917 or on legal retroactivity, our elected assembly has the duty to ensure the work of memory and use the words that are appropriate. In this sense, I have again submitted, with my colleagues, an amendment to the text of the majority, which takes into account our first and second requests. There will be a nominative vote on the following sentence: "The House considers that the tragic events that occurred between 1915 and 1917 and of which the last government of the Ottoman Empire is responsible, must be qualified as genocide." Our second request is that the Chamber encourage national courts to rule on the matter. Each of us will therefore have to assume responsibility when voting on this second amendment.

Finally, and most importantly, my Group fully and firmly supports any initiative that can contribute to dialogue and reconciliation between the Armenian, Aramean, Greek and Turkish peoples, in all fields. Our proposal thus promoted better mutual knowledge through historical, scientific and cultural information. Similarly, we welcome the statements of the Turkish authorities who have expressed their condolences to the Ottoman Armenians and acknowledged the great suffering they have endured.

Dear colleagues, I conclude. If the past and memory are essential to our democratic societies, it is in the present and in the future that we must record our actions and assume our sayings. This is why we place our text in a spirit of support and friendship towards the Turks and Armenians and strongly condemn any stigmatisation of communities that cannot be associated with facts committed more than a hundred years ago within the Ottoman Empire.

Beyond the question of the Armenian Genocide that occupies us today, this work should enable us to conduct a more comprehensive reflection. In this sense, the PS group formally asks that our government support the call of the European Parliament and the Luxembourg Chamber of Deputies for the establishment of an “International Day of Commemoration of Genocide” in order to recall the right of all peoples and nations of the world to peace and dignity.

The necessary memory work cannot have the effect of increasing tensions. On the contrary, it must lead to reconciliation. In this will and despite all the weaknesses of the majority text that is submitted to us today, my group will support it. But we also call on all our colleagues to support our two amendments that will allow this text to truly solemnly ensure this recognition and this work of memory once and for all.

Mr. President, Mr. President, Mr. President, Mr. President, Mr. President, Mr. President, Mr. President, Mr. President, Mr. President, Mr. President, Mr. President, Mr. President, Mr. President, Mr. President, Mr. President, Mr. President...

You go into small political games by telling us that the position of this majority is full of ambiguities and is not clear, but that, fortunately, the PS is there with its amendments to clarify. On June 18, Belgium recognized the Armenian Genocide.

The [...]

Raising the debate? You started by raising the debate. We have heard it! To indicate to this tribune, in the name of a very large political party of this country, that the statements of the prime minister to this tribune on 18 June, in the name of the government, in the name of this country, were not worthy of recognition...

But finally, where are you going to stop? by Mr. De Roover indicated this, and I will repeat the exact terms used by the prime minister: "The Belgian government and myself believe that the tragic events that occurred between 1915 and 1917, and of which the last government of the Ottoman Empire is responsible, must be qualified as genocide."

So, yes, Belgium, Mr. President, has recognized the Armenian Genocide. And so, with the majority, we wanted to accompany this approach for which the Reform Movement, it is true, produces demands related to recognition.

Mr. Duchamp, I can’t understand your motivation. You say that the government has recognized it. What prevents the Chamber from doing this too? Why do you not accept that we vote on this text and on effective recognition? What prevents you from doing it? Why Why ? (Brouhaha) by

Just answer it! Why can’t the House do it if the government did? Tell us why. Why can’t we vote on this? Why don’t you want to vote that the House recognizes genocide? Respond to us!

I am ⁇ upset by your denial of a fundamental act for which I have personally fought for years in the MR and with several MPs.

The Prime Minister recognises the Armenian genocide. And what do we hear about the PS banks: "Why doesn't the Belgian Parliament do that either?" You will admit that it’s a bit political on your part to come up with arguments of that order! (Reactions to The PSP Banks)

You can’t expect to have a somewhat loud debate, as your group leader pointed out – who is still extremely loud in his speeches – since you deny that the head of government recognized the Armenian genocide, on behalf of Belgium, on June 18. Your behavior does not encourage such a debate. You play, on such sensitive topics as these, a rather mesky political card.

Mr. Ducarme, first of all, I regret that, for a debate on the genocide of one and a half million people, you had from the beginning a political and polemical tone. I think we deserve a better debate. by Mr. De Roover told you half a word. You would have better listened to him when he spoke about this.

I will give you the first part of your speech. For my group and myself, Belgium has recognized the Armenian genocide very clearly. We want things to be clear about this and consider that the Prime Minister’s statement was explicit in this regard on 18 June last year. But nothing prevented and, on the contrary, everything authorized the parliament to associate with this declaration. Indeed, the Parliament, in other words the whole nation through its elected members, is associated with a commemoration and recognition of a genocide that has marked the history of Europe and the world.

Mr. Ducarme, we still do not understand why the majority and your group oppose that the whole nation associate with the Prime Minister’s statements. This remains, in our view, a noticeable insufficiency of your resolution.

The President, Mr Ducarme continues to say that we deny the remarks made by the prime minister at the tribune. I challenge him to find a single statement from a person in my group who was saying this kind of thing. In every speech, both in the committee and in the plenary, I welcomed the words of the prime minister. All we are asking is a strong move from the House. At no time did I deny the Prime Minister’s remarks, but on the contrary, I greeted them.

Remember, Mr. Ducarme, when on June 18, the Prime Minister declared the recognition by the Government and Belgium of the Armenian Genocide, everyone welcomed him. We unanimously applauded the Prime Minister on June 18. Belgium has recognized the Armenian genocide. It is up to the House to formally recognize it. A number of amendments have been proposed.

Why should the House recognize it after the government, after the Senate in 1998? For the simple and good reason that the European Court of Human Rights has repealed a 2003 Swiss law aimed at punishing denial of Armenian genocide. In its ruling, the European Court of Human Rights believes that Switzerland could not pass a law penalising denial of Armenian genocide, as long as not even its national assemblies had unanimously recognized the Armenian genocide.

This is why Belgium, like a lot of other member countries of the European Union or the Council of Europe, must recognize, through its government but also through its parliaments, the reality of the Armenian genocide in order to participate in this training effect so that in the end, an international legal body can solemnly recognize the Armenian genocide. That is why, Mr. Ducarme, it is important that we vote for a recognition by the House of Commons of the said genocide!

Mr. Speaker, I can’t get rid of the impression that we are in a semantic debate here. The PS colleagues have asked, and I fully support that question, to give a clear signal. In fact, the discussion is about which wording to give a clear signal. The formulation as proposed by the opposition is absolutely a clear signal.

I would like to reiterate that this resolution is equally clear to my group, as it cannot be misinterpreted. If the Prime Minister comes here to make a statement with which we disagree, then there is a problem. There is no problem, de facto, the House has not opposed and thus supported the Prime Minister.

Furthermore, I would like to point out that in the resolution as we have proposed it, we also call for the Turkish authorities to recognize the Armenian genocide. Can this be interpreted otherwise than that this Chamber does so, implicitly, by embracing the wording in the resolution?

I repeat: there are other formulations and I respect them, but I do not accept that this formulation, as it is now used, is accused of a lack of clarity. It’s a different one, but she’s clear, very clear. The statements of the presenters of the resolution are, in this regard, more than convincing for those who still have any doubts.

Mr. Speaker, I have before me the proposal for a majority resolution and the only place where recognition is spoken is in the considerations, in point M, recalling the words of the Prime Minister in his statement to the House on 18 June.

In the eleven requests made to the government, there is never a reference to this formal act that could be made or to this recognition.

I hope that tomorrow you will approve our amendment that clearly asks for it.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer briefly because what Mr. Crusnière says is not correct. On some points in the resolution, recognition becomes very clear. You refer to one point, to one consideration. Please also read consideration D and consideration H. In the dispositive, paragraph 7, it also asks Turkey to recognize the genocide. In all these points, this is taken into account.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Mr. Speaker, first of all, even though we do not agree on a number of topics. Georges Dallemagne for his speech. Why Why ? Because if he is part of the opposition, this has not prevented him from indicating that the Prime Minister’s statement of 18 June equals the recognition by Belgium of the Armenian genocide. Of course, he subsequently questioned whether the Chamber would be better accompanied in this matter. But he did not rush to get into the political game. In any case, I wish I had a more serene debate on this issue both in the committee and here in the plenary session.

It is still Mr. Crusnière said, on the occasion of his speech at this tribune, that the recognition is not effective, while making known that he did not deny the statements held by the prime minister. What he said is contradictory.

If I’m somewhat upset about how you approach the debate, Mr. Crusnière, it’s because you constantly question this recognition. The statements you made are relatively serious since you stated that the recognition of the Armenian genocide is not a fact, taking into account the Prime Minister’s statements on 18 June, adding that, in our proposed resolution, there is no question of effective recognition of the Armenian genocide. In doing so, you hear, we find ourselves facing a statement by the prime minister that is worthless and facing a proposal for a resolution that does not aim at an effective recognition of the said genocide. In short, if our draft resolution is voted, Belgium will not recognize the Armenian genocide.

If I react so firmly on this issue, it is because I believe that a statement as important as that of the head of government, at the tribune on 18 June last year, which spoke on behalf of his government, must be respected. Indeed, this is an extremely important subject since it is a matter of rendering justice to a people, of paying homage to the memory of men, women and children who were exterminated by order of a government only because they were Armenians.

That said, if I look forward to being part of a majority that went to the end of the political act, that is, the recognition of the Armenian genocide, I would have liked that it was done faster.

I would have preferred that we could have done so under governments in previous majorities. This was not the case before, but now it is. With regard to this political act and what the current majority has done on this plan, I ask for respect.

As part of the motion for a resolution, it is clear, Mr Dallemagne, that our will is to accompany the major act put forward by Belgium and its Government. In the following paragraph, we refer to the Prime Minister’s statement. This is again false, Mr. Crusnière, because, as my colleague stated, we affirm, in paragraph 7 of the considerations, our strong demand that accompanies the act put by the head of government that goes beyond what has been produced by the government.

Indeed, we ask that Turkey recognize this genocide because we believe, in the face of the facts, that this recognition is necessary for reconciliation, forgiveness, dialogue and the return to a certain serenity between two peoples of the European continent: Armenia and Turkey. Two countries that we value and respect and that we want to see a path forward. We, who have been following this matter for several months to prepare this debate, know how the sensitivity at Turkish and Armenian levels remains exacerbated. We all received phone calls from representatives of associations.

Our role was not, yet, to arbitrate, to choose, or to point the finger at one or the other. In relation to this political choice made and to what must be the moral responsibility of Belgium with regard to the history of these two countries, we had to act without stigmatizing or ostracising.

The message was also sent to the Turkish community in Belgium. In this text, it is stated that we do not designate the present Turkey: we designate as responsible for the Armenian genocide, not the Turkish people, nor the Turks of Belgium, but a finishing Ottoman Empire that produced acts that we have recognized today.

I have read the amendment very carefully. Maingain on the fact that ⁇ the law of 1995 should be revised and that revisionist acts and denial words should be sanctioned. I wish we could go in that direction. As you all know, we are a country, not a court. We saw what happened in 2012 in France as part of the Constitutional Court’s ruling. The French decision was broken because the Armenian genocide, unfortunately, has not yet been recognized by an international court.

We could have discussed other amendments to extend this recognition to the Assyrians and other communities. If in the future we will be able to address this question, at this stage, it would complicate things; I think it is mr. Germany has submitted an amendment in this regard. This debate, even though we commemorate the centenary of the Armenian Genocide, remains complicated.

Given a number of information we have been able to gather from the majority and contacts we have held, we do not, at this stage, have the full assurance of being able to extend this recognition. We talked a lot between us. We are very sensitive to this issue.

If we have not made this act, it is because this debate is obviously and unfortunately linked to a number of problems present within our political parties. We have not been able to address the question of the Armenian Genocide so frankly for years, because we know that it brings into the debate the question of communitarianism in our country. This is a regrettable reality. This is a fact that we cannot deny. If it took so long to make this political act, it is probably related to that.

Per ⁇ this is also the reason why this debate was not as serene as it deserved. But the act is set and that is the main thing.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the genocide of the Armenians in the aftermath of the Ottoman Empire is an event in which we must stop. Through this resolution, we want to do that. We want to remember, remember and continue to call for dialogue and reconciliation.

Why is it important to remember this event here in the Room?

It is at the heart of the European project of peace and solidarity not to silence such events and to give them a place. We must build on our European tradition of reconciliation between nations. Creating political will and achieving sustained diplomacy are the way forward.

In 1915 the Ottoman Empire carried out a genocide against minorities, of which an estimated between three hundred thousand and one and a half million Armenians were the victims. With this resolution we commemorate those tragic events, which included the arrest and liquidation of the Armenian elite, followed by the mass deportation of the Armenian population.

In 1998, the Senate adopted a resolution on the Armenian Genocide. In 2015, the European Parliament and the Flemish Parliament also adopted resolutions, calling, among other things, on Turkey to make additional efforts to recognize and commemorate the Armenian genocide.

On 18 June 2015, our Prime Minister re-expressed the position of our country and acknowledged that the events in the Ottoman Empire between 1915 and 1917 are a genocide.

With this resolution, we aim to put the dialogue and reconciliation between Armenia and Turkey at the centre. The resolution is not directed against anything or anyone. It is a resolution for something. It is a resolution for reconciliation, for remembrance and for remembrance.

We ask the Government to join the commemoration of the Armenian Genocide in the spirit of European solidarity and justice. We call for the condemnation of crimes against humanity and genocide and the remembrance of the victims. We ask that Turkey be encouraged to make efforts in this regard, to recognize the Armenian genocide and thus to pave the way for a genuine reconciliation between the Turkish and Armenian people. We also call on both nations to normalize relations, to ratify and implement the protocols on the establishment of diplomatic relations, and to cooperate.

Such an event from the past deserves its place in the memory. Even years later, she requires a lot of work to reach a true reconciliation.

During the last decade there has been a policy of approximation between Armenia and Turkey to be observed. We also want to emphasize this. With political will and constant diplomacy, we can reach solutions. The first steps to normalize diplomatic relations between the two nations have already been taken. Ratification of this Protocol has been suspended so far. A Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission, the Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission, was established and led to the adoption of a series of recommendations. Both Turkish President Erdogan and Turkish Prime Minister Davutoglu have expressed their condolences to the Armenians and acknowledged the atrocities at the ground floor.

This resolution must therefore truly be seen as a moment, as an incentive to take another step forward. We want to take the next step in the process of reconciliation and to advance the dialogue between Turkey and Armenia. That should be today’s core message.

Mr. Speaker, the two main issues of this resolution concern the formal recognition by the Chamber of the Armenian Genocide and the abuses committed against the Armenian, Aramean (Syrian, Chaldean and Assyrian) populations in the Ottoman Empire between 1915 and 1917. It was a genocide and it must be officially declared.

As I said to Mr. Ducarme, the recognition by the Chamber, after the government, participates in the domino effect of these multiple assemblies that, one after the other, recognize the reality of genocide.

Why should the House, after the government, recognize this genocide?

It is necessary to establish a historical consensus on the reality of this fact. However, this genocide was committed between 1915 and 1917, before the concept of genocide was formally recognized by the UN in 1948. Therefore, we are facing a legal difficulty in relation to this concept.

How can we recognize this genocide? We will have to multiply the world’s political recognition as we do here, just like the Prime Minister on June 18.

This approach may one day push an international legal body to recognize the Armenian genocide between 1915 and 1917 in the Ottoman Empire. The amendment we have submitted goes in this direction and the House must, too, recognize this genocide.

Before possible memorial laws concerning this genocide, we must recognize in our country and in our assembly, politically, the Armenian genocide as did last April the Flemish Parliament but also the European Parliament and about twenty democratic assemblies around the world.

I would like to remind you that there was a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, the Perinçek judgment. This ruling states that the 2003 Swiss law, which represses the denial of Armenian genocide, can be cancelled because the Swiss Parliament had not formally recognized the Armenian genocide, which is why we must today recognize it.

The second issue of this resolution is to help Turkey itself to recognize the Armenian genocide. This is of course the central objective. It is useless to recognize the Armenian genocide if one day Turkey, which is the political heir to the Ottoman Empire, does not recognize it. And it will not be easy because, from Atatürk to Erdogan, the denial of the Armenian Genocide and what happened between 1915 and 1917 is part of Turkish historiography. Today, not a single book of Turkish history in Turkish schools mentions the existence of this catastrophe. The road will be long.

The main difficulty of this negationism is that it is not the negationism of an isolated person, as is the case of the negationists of the Shoah, Srebrenica or the Tutsi genocide in Rwanda. The difficulty of this negationism is that it is a negationism of state. The denial of the Armenian genocide is part of Turkish official history. Fighting against this is extremely difficult. Therefore, we must be able to help these Turks.

Today, in Turkey, there are Democrats who opt for the language of truth, that is, they want to mean what happened between 1915 and 1917. These people are now at risk of imprisonment. Worse, the heirs of the populations victims of genocide and genocide, today, live hidden under a borrowed name, under a borrowed religion. There are now Armenians in Turkey who have changed their religion and who have changed their identity to survive. There are still a few in a few cities, and these are the people we need to think about today.

The recognition of the Belgian government of June 18 and the possible recognition by the House, if you vote the amendments of the various groups of the opposition, dear colleagues of the majority, it is also helping all those who here, in Turkey, in Armenia, and everywhere in Europe and in the world, try to fight for dignity and truth in relation to this genocide, sometimes at risk of their physical integrity.

Today’s Americans are not responsible for what happened 100 years ago. That is of course. No one will dispute it. However, Mr. De Roover, putting in the first place of the expectants of this resolution the fact that today’s Turkey, contemporary Turkey, is not responsible for the genocide is wrong. We discussed this in the committee and you grabbed the bullet with an amendment by a majority that was also voted by us. This entails a change in the order of priority, of importance.

For the Greens, and that is the issue, the Turkish population today obviously has no moral, legal or political responsibility for the Armenian genocide committed a hundred years ago. It is obvious. But the Turkish authorities, the official Turkey, obviously have a political responsibility. This is what we need to aim for today. One day Turkey must recognize that it is the heir to the Ottoman Empire and that it is the heir to the evils it must assume, as is the case today with Nazi Germany. We need to remember what happened a hundred years ago.

Colleague Hellings, I can only say that I totally agree with you. It is for this reason, in order to remove those possible misunderstandings of a certain negationist interpretation, that I have extended into this in my argument. I totally agree with your interpretation.

This plenary discussion marks the end of an unfortunate sequence that had begun with the blurred and ambiguous role of the government, which was not in Yerevan, Mr. Ducarme. Minister Reynders was not in Yerevan. The Prime Minister, on 18 June, took this wrong step.

Another media sequence is the ambiguous role played by the socialist group and the socialist president of the Brussels Parliament, who refused a minute of silence in the Brussels Parliament. I think the role played by colleague Crusnière and other socialist colleagues catches this wrong step.

I would also like to remind you that Belgium ⁇ ins close relations with Turkey. Three years ago, an agreement on judicial and police cooperation was signed by the then Minister of Justice, Ms. Turtelboom, and the then Minister of the Interior, Ms. Milquet. These powerful collaboration agreements aim to gather intelligence. Belgium ⁇ ins strong relations with these States, I would like to clarify, without obtaining any compensation either on the manner of functioning of the Justice and the Police or in relation to elements of recognition. We must be able to speak to Mr. Erdoğan that genocide must be recognized. In order to do this, we must not put ourselves in a situation of dependence. Today, however, Belgium, by signing these cooperation agreements, has entered into a relationship of dependence.

I will conclude with a general conclusion. Turkey, for the Greens, is European. Does this mean that Turkey should now be part of the European Union? Certainly not when you see how she treats journalists and human rights defenders – this has been the meaning of multiple resolutions filed here or at the time in the Senate. The recognition by Turkey and the Turkish government of the reality of the Armenian genocide is part of the path that Turkey will take towards the European Union. So, like all rules, like respect for human rights in general, respect for historical truth will bring Turkey to the European Union. Without this, Turkey will never be European.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. Maybe I’ll be a little longer than my colleagues.

I will first recall the facts, because since the beginning of our debates, we have never stayed on the facts. For the memory of the victims, for the footprints we will leave in the Belgian Parliament, it is important to return to what happened.

I will then explain why it is important to qualify these facts as genocide and why it is important that Belgium recognizes this genocide. We believe that through the voice of its prime minister, Belgium, on June 18, recognized the genocide.

I will conclude by saying what our group thinks of the resolution that is submitted to us and the various texts that have been discussed in the committee.

On April 24, 1915, a little over a hundred years ago, about 250 notable Armenians from Constantinople were arrested. The operation continues throughout the weekend and for several more days, in the major cities of Turkey. In total, 2,435 notable Armenians were arrested in a few days. They will be tortured, deported and mostly massacred in the months that follow. These targeted and programmed assassinations give the signal of a genocide that would, in just under two years, cost the lives of 1.5 million Armenians in Asia Minor, or two-thirds of the Armenians living at the time in the Ottoman Empire, as well as more than 500,000 Arameans (Syrians, Chaldeans and Assyrians) and ⁇ 500,000 Pontic Greeks.

It should be remembered that twenty years earlier, between 1894 and 1896, 200,000 Ottoman-subject Armenians – to visualize this number, this corresponds roughly to the number of deaths in four years in Syria – had already been killed, and hundreds of thousands of other spoiled, expelled from their lands, during the massacres known as “Hamidian massacres”.

Again, fifteen years later, in April 1909, more than 30,000 Armenians were killed in the Adana massacres. But these mass crimes were only the prelude to the much larger scale assassination of 1915, planned and executed by the Young Turks government with the aim of eliminating the Christian minorities from the Ottoman Empire to establish the ethnic and cultural homogeneity of Turkey. These are the first failures of the Turkish army against the Russians that provide the trigger element of this extermination.

As of January 1915, following the defeat at the Battle of Sarikamish against Russia, Turkish power and media accused the 2 million Ottoman Armenians of serving the Russians and suspected of being somehow a fifth column; they suspected them of betrayal and conspiracy against the security of the state. The Turkish army, which must retreat against Russian troops, is multiplying violence against Christians in the territories it travels, be they Armenian, Assyro-Chaldean, Aramaic or Pontic.

In February 1915, the Armenian soldiers in the Ottoman army were disarmed and relegated into working battalions. Most of them were then executed, and by the end of May, no Armenian soldiers remained in the Ottoman army. It was then, between 20 and 25 March 1915, that the extensive plan of extermination was finalised. After the disarmament of the Armenian soldiers in February, there were the raids of April 24 among the Armenian intellectual, political, religious and economic elites. Then, with method and brutality, a long succession of mass crimes is triggered.

The first phase of the operations, from April to October 1915, consisted in emptying the six eastern provinces of the Armenian population. At first, the paramilitary forces of the Special Organization, exclusively tasked with this task, but also the Ottoman regular forces separate men from their families and liquidate them on the ground, while the elderly, women and children are doomed to hell by long forced marches to the camps of Aleppo, Deir ez-Zor in eastern Syria and Mosul in northern Iraq.

These death marches take place in desert areas, under the summer sun, in dramatic conditions, without food and water and under the constant threat of thieves. Deported persons are decimated at each stage of the convoy by thirst, hunger, exhaustion, but also by the gendarmes charged with escorting them or by Kurdish tribes and other militias recruited for this purpose. Other deported travel by train, stuck in overheated cattle wagons. Hundreds of thousands of them do not survive.

As early as May 24, 1915, the Triple Entente, alerted to rumors of massacres in the Ottoman Empire, warned the Turkish authorities in a joint declaration: "France, Britain and Russia will hold personally responsible those who ordered these crimes against humanity and civilization." In the following months, the rate of deportations will increase sharply. Until the end of this first phase, in October 1915, and taking into account convoys from Cilicia, in the south, and from Cappadocia, in central Turkey, it was 1.2 million Armenians who would have been forcibly sent to the deserts of Syria and Mesopotamia.

It is then that the second phase of the plan developed by the Youth Turkish government begins, namely the systematic extermination of the 700,000 deported who survived the marches and who are massed in the twenty open concentration camps in Syria, plagued by epidemics and living in terrible conditions. Talaat Pacha, the then interior minister, ordered the liquidation of all the deported. The telegram – which everyone knows – which he sent on September 15, 1915 to the Aleppo Prefecture is clear: “The government has decided to destroy all Armenians residing in Turkey. Their existence must be put to an end, no matter how criminal the measures to be taken. No age or gender should be taken into account. Conscience scruples do not have their place here.”

The concentration camps were transformed into extermination camps. The members of the Special Organization (OS) are doubling in zeal and the bullies are essentially proceeding with the white weapon.

In five months, from July to December 1916, 192,750 deported, according to official statistics, were massacred in Deir ez-Zor. On October 24, 1916, ⁇ 2,000 orphans were tied two by two and thrown into the Euphrates. Upon their arrival in the region in 1917, victorious British forces will find there no more than 100,000 survivors, surviving in terrifying conditions. To these miracles are added some 300,000 Armenians saved by the Russian advance and some 200,000 inhabitants of Constantinople and Smyrna, which it was probably difficult to eliminate in the presence of so many foreign witnesses and diplomats.

As you can see, the crime committed by the Young Turks government, its planning, its operational mode, the fact that it targets the whole of a national, ethnic or religious group – all three characteristics can be invoked here – perfectly correspond to the crime of genocide, as it was theorized by Raphaël Lemkin in 1944. Lemkin is well known. He is an American law professor who has been respected by his peers since his time. He has studied the systematic massacre of the Armenians since 1933.

In 1944 he invented this "genocidal" neologism precisely to define the crimes committed by the Ottoman Empire's Young Turks government against the Armenians during World War I, as well as those, of course, committed by the Nazis against Jews and Gypsies during World War II. This is Lemkin’s definition, word for word, which is taken up by the United Nations General Assembly when it drafts its Charter and its Convention for the Prevention of the Crimes of Genocide adopted by the General Assembly on 9 December 1948. The Rome Statute was adopted in 1998 as the founding act of the International Criminal Court.

It is a crime, it must be recalled, which is regarded as so special, so distinct, so dangerous for the future of mankind that it is the only one that is both imprescriptible and, above all, forcing the international community to oppose it by all means. It therefore seems to us fundamental that every human society and, of course, every European country, a continent where at least three genocides have been committed in a single century, qualify precisely this crime in order to better prevent it, prevent it by all means and pay tribute and reparation to its victims.

For our group, every people of the earth makes humanity, and if a single people is missing – a fortiori if it is eliminated by the will of one or several other peoples – it is the whole of humanity that is in danger, it is the future of each people, of each of us that darkens.

We know all the actuality of this genocide of the Armenians and other Eastern Christians. In particular, their descendants, but not only, are once again fleeing the horror and mass crimes in Syria and Iraq.

As part of the commemoration of the hundredth anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, our group had decided, since last March, to organize a colloquium on the issue of recognition of the genocide of the Arameans, who are also targeted by the same policy of systematic elimination. Following the conclusions of this conference, we had submitted a proposal for a resolution that is still on the agenda of the Committee on Foreign Relations, aiming to extend the recognition of genocide to the Arameans, Syrians, Chaldeans, Assyrians and Pontic Greeks.

It seemed to us at the time, but the following will show us that this was not very clear, that the recognition of the Armenian genocide was already an acquired fact, in particular by the Senate resolution, and that it was necessary, therefore, only to extend this recognition to other Christian minorities victims of the same horrors.

I recall that, in our parliament – House and Senate – it is not less than twelve texts that have looked at this issue over the last twenty years. Among these texts is that of the Senate that is often cited, but we generally forget the resolution that was adopted by the House Foreign Relations Committee in 2003. However, this text was adopted unanimously and is very clear since it requires to declare, by means of a governmental decision, that Belgium publicly recognizes the genocide of which the Armenian people were victims in 1915. Unfortunately, this text could never be adopted in plenary session since the Chambers were dissolved a few days later. This is regrettable because its formulation was clear and without any ambiguity. But what seemed possible in 1998 in the Senate, in 2003 in the House, has become much more complicated today.

To be convinced of this, it will be enough to hear the very retreating response given, at the plenary session of April 23 last, by the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the topical question of our colleague Mr. Commemoration of the Armenian Genocide in Yerevan.

This is where ambiguities and approximations arise. It was necessary to come to the obvious and to find that the Belgian government still did not actually recognize the Armenian genocide. The minister mentioned in his response “the need to clarify the suffering that has been suffered on the occasion of these massacres.” He said "that he did not find it appropriate that other instances replace the judiciary" regarding the qualification of genocide, speaking again of major massacres.

This is where all the ambiguity begins - it is a pity that Mr. Ducarme is no longer present - as well as the need to clarify the situation today.

Faced with such a response, taking a real step back from the 1998 Senate and the 2003 Chamber text, it seemed indispensable for us to clarify things again.

The CDH has submitted a new proposal for a resolution concerning this time the recognition of the Armenian genocide by Belgium. For by formally recognizing the Armenian genocide, Belgium joined more than 28 states or national parliaments that have already made this move like, 28 years ago, the European Parliament. France, Austria, the Vatican, Germany, Poland, Italy and the Netherlands, almost all of our neighbors, followed.

The CDH group also took advantage of the fact that our initial proposal to extend the recognition of genocide to the Arameans was put on the agenda of the Committee on Foreign Relations on 16 June – two days before the Prime Minister’s statement – to submit a series of amendments aimed primarily to pre-insert in this text the recognition by Belgium of the Armenian genocide. This did not seem to be the case in the light of the Foreign Minister’s remarks. Among these amendments, we indicated in particular that the House was convinced that a genocide had been committed between 1915 and 1917.

I would like to emphasize that all the other opposition groups – PS, sp.a, Ecolo-Groen and FDF – have agreed to co-sign these essential amendments. I warmly thank them. But the majority groups, which were also invited to co-sign these amendments, did not wish to join them.

It was then that the sequence curiously accelerated. Two days after the submission of these amendments to the committee, two members of the majority, Mr. From Roover and Mr. Dewael suddenly question the Prime Minister in plenary session.

I recall that the majority had, however, announced to us, by interposed press, that the debate would not take place in parliament before the end of the year. And the Prime Minister then replies to my two colleagues, in a millimetre statement, that his position is known and unambiguous. “The tragic events that occurred between 1915 and 1917, and for which the last government of the Ottoman Empire is responsible, must be qualified as genocide. This is the position of the Belgian government.” We have indeed welcomed this historic statement.

The prime minister, unfortunately, believes it necessary to specify also that "it will be up to national or international courts to decide on these subjects." It is well known that there will never be any national and ⁇ no international jurisdiction competent to go to judge a genocide that occurred a century ago and where the bullies have died for a long time. We know it well. Going to introduce such a statement in the mouth of the prime minister or in resolutions, it is well known that today, it makes no sense and that no jurisdiction will ever again be competent to judge such a genocide. In reality, there is no need for courts to make decisions in order for these crimes to be qualified as genocide. The 28 states of which I spoke just before or the 28 national parliaments that recognized this genocide did not need this to officially and symbolically appropriate the conclusions of the entire community of historians, themselves based on a multitude of documentary evidence and testimony.

Furthermore, as explained by Professor Éric David, president of the ULB Centre for International Law, whom I had invited to this conference in March, the fact that the Convention against Genocide was adopted in 1948, does not prevent today from qualifying ancient facts with regard to a contemporary definition. "We can say today that the massacre of St. Bartholomew in 1572 was a genocide since Protestants were killed as Protestants. Let us also not forget that, as early as 1919, trials in martial courts were indeed held in the Allied-occupied Constantinople and elsewhere in the country. In fact, the Turkish liberal government that succeeded the Unionist government decided, on 16 December 1918, the creation of commission of inquiry for the instruction and judgment of the massacres of the Armenians, as well as the search for the responsibilities of entry into war.

Having fled in 1918, the main perpetrators of the genocide were then sentenced to death by contumace, among other things for the extermination of an entire people constituting a separate community. It is a Turkish court that has judged these perpetrators on those grounds that are therefore constituent grounds for genocide.

The treaty signed in 1920 between the Allies and the new government of the Ottoman Empire also provided for the judgment of those responsible for the genocide. However, after the victory of the chemistry forces, the trials were suspended in 1921 and a general amnesty was declared in 1923. Since then, we have witnessed a genuine state denial, as my fellow Hellings has recalled recently.

Let me go back to today’s parliamentary process. Speaking of the Prime Minister, Mr. De Roover echoed by stating that it is appropriate, in this context, to submit a proposal for a resolution calling on the government to continue to actively monitor these cases.

So finally comes on our banks, after multiple twists and many versions, the text we are discussing today and of which the press teaches us – and other colleagues have confirmed it just recently – that Ankara would have played an increasingly supported role in language elements: the proposal for a resolution on the commemoration of the centenary of the Armenian Genocide.

This text is disappointing. We all know this in reality. I do not like Mr. From Roover, the text of the Flemish Parliament is much clearer: the Flemish Parliament recognizes the genocide of 1915. There was no need to refer to the government, the Flemish Parliament was precise in this regard.

Mr. Dallemagne, I would like to point out that the text was approved in the Flemish Parliament for the events of 18 June. At that time, the Armenian genocide was not recognized. The Flemish Parliament did so. In our conviction, but now I fall into repetition, that is what happened with the statement of the prime minister. I would like to point out that you cannot compare the resolution of the Flemish Parliament with this resolution for purely chronological reasons.

Mr. De Roover, you are not convincing anyone. Many countries, both through their parliament and their government, have recognized this genocide. The fact that parliament is formally associated with the government was quite desirable so that there is no ambiguity. It should not be said that this is a political group, but that it is the whole nation, through its parliament, that recognizes this genocide. You know well that it would have had much more strength than the recognition of the prime minister, which is valid for us, but which is significantly less strong than if it had been associated with the recognition of the whole nation of such a mass crime.

Another surprising element in this resolution is the disposal that provides “to recognize that from a historical and moral point of view the present-day Turkey cannot be held responsible for the drama experienced by the Armenians of the Ottoman Empire.” This statement has shocked the descendants of the victims as it means absolving the Turkish state of any responsibility. It is a nonsense on the political level (the continuity of the state) and on the historical level, which will be used by the denialists to put aside any demand for reparation and restitution.

I want to be clear because I have heard amalgamas or intention trials here and there. The fact of asking Turkey to assume its responsibilities, as asked to post-war Germany, very clearly and unambiguously to successive governments, will never mean that the Turkish citizens of today, as well as the Belgians of Turkish origin, are responsible and even less guilty of what happened a hundred years ago. There could, of course, be no doubt in this regard. The children of victims are victims, the children of the murderers are not murderers.

In addition, and on another aspect, the majority resolution proposal provides for extending to the Arameans (Syrians, Chaldeans, Assyrians) and the Pontic Greeks the recognition by Belgium of the Armenian genocide. This would have enabled the majority text to incorporate this important provision, which has already been recognized by at least five States.

The amendment caused interest or tacit approval in the committee but eventually, for reasons I do not understand, the majority preferred to evade.

For us, the extension of the recognition of genocide to all groups that have been victims of it is necessary in order to respect the reality of historical facts, to facilitate the necessary pedagogy among the Belgian population and to truly pay tribute to the innocent victims.

Indeed, as stated about the genocide of the Arameans, Assyrians and Pontic Greeks, during our colloquium on March 25, the historian Joël Kotek of the Free University of Brussels, who is one of the best specialists in Belgium of genocides: "The history books ignore the funest fate that was also reserved for them. One’s ignorance disputes the negationism of others. We need to remedy this injustice as soon as possible. A forgotten genocide is a double punishment for the victims and a double suffering for their descendants. Forgetting kills the dead a second time.

On this point and on each of the four elements I mentioned, Ms. Vanessa Matz defended our text in committee and submitted amendments to the majority text. The latter preferred to reject them in blocks, not wishing to change a virgule, the difficult and weak agreement to which it had come.

At the same time, the CDH joined the approach initiated by Mr. by Maingain. Through its bill, amending the law of 23 March 1995 aimed at suppressing the denial, minimization, justification or approval of the genocide committed by the German national socialist regime during the Second World War, it intends to include the incrimination of the denial of the genocide of Armenians, Arameans and Tutsi. We also submitted a co-signed amendment in the committee which was rejected.

As regards the examination of these texts and these amendments, I would like to thank especially Mrs. Matz who agreed to replace me with conviction and talent on 7 July last.

My group has therefore decided to re-submit three of our amendments to the plenary session as they bring essential clarity to the resolution and strengthen its scope. This includes the insertion of a statement by which the House recognizes the genocide and the modification of the recognition of non-responsibility granted to Turkey and the extension of the genocide to the Arameans (Syrians, Chaldeans and Assyrians) and the Pontic Greeks.

The Armenian and Aramaic genocide was the first genocide of the 20th century. Particularly because he remained unpunished, he inspired and paved the way for subsequent genocides and massacres, among other things with regard to the operational modes that repeat themselves sinisterly. Raffles, wagons with livestock, death marches, deportations, concentration camps, ethnic purification, extermination camps, we saw this again in 1940.

In this context, I would like to say that if Germany is today a great power calmed and respected, even though it can be controversial in some aspects, it is also because it has been able to look in front of its darkest hours. She acknowledged her facts and responsibilities. The Germans were able to advance history and reconcile themselves with their victims. I am convinced that Germany owes its status as a great influential power in the world not only to its economic vitality but also to its ability to fully assume its past crimes.

I hope that all the debate of the last few weeks, despite its delusions and insufficiencies, will truly enable the present Turkey to finally look at its past as it is, however cruel it may be, and on this basis, to recognize the reality and the extent of the genocide perpetrated in 1915 and 1916. In fact, it is the confrontation with history, memory and responsibility that grows a nation and gives it the respect and strength to approach the future serenely. There can be no real reconciliation without justice. I hope that this will enable the Armenians and other Christian minorities victims of this genocide to finally obtain this moral recognition from our country and the reparation, legitimately so important in their eyes, so that they will no longer be victims of this double punishment which is forgetting or, worse, the denial of the genocide that they have had to suffer in the most terrible of ways. I hope that this will allow Turks and Armenians to finally succeed in resuming the dialogue, a constructive dialogue that they have initiated, of course, but in a very modest way today, and peaceful for both sides. I hope that this will enable Belgium and the whole of Europe to continue to unremittingly consolidate our preventive and repressive instruments of mass crimes, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide crimes.

Let us not forget that very recently, in a period of peace in Europe, we remained too long inactive in the face of the genocides that were taking place in Rwanda in 1994 and in the former Yugoslavia in 1995. In both cases, I was in the first logs. I was a doctor, I took care of the victims, I shouted to stop these massacres. We all knew what was happening then. We have not stopped these massacres in time.

Today, history repeats itself once again with the destructive madness of Daesh in Syria and Iraq, in the same places where so many Armenians and Arameans were massacred in 1915 and 1916. Again, Christians in the East are victims of violence and persecution by the alleged Islamic State, which seeks to eradicate them permanently, they hope, from the region. But Daesh is concerned not only with Eastern Christians. All minorities are targets. Among them are the Yezidis.

In this regard, a UN report, released last March, mentioned that these attacks by Daesh against this Yezidi minority could constitute a genocide, since the Islamic State does not hide and has carried out its intention to destroy the Yezidi as a religious group. And yet, the international community, we, attach so little importance to it and do so little in this area.

I hope that, at least this time, we will not wait a hundred years to recognize the nature of the crimes committed there now and that we will do everything in our power to defend these populations and to welcome their survivors if necessary. Without this, today’s debate would lose a significant part of its reason for being. For if the correct recognition and qualification of past suffering is a moral, historical and political obligation, it is also because it is on this basis that we can better combat the suffering and threats of the present.

Therefore, given these elements, Mrs. Matz and I will abstain, on behalf of the CDH group, at the vote. Nevertheless, the CDH group will vote in favour of the resolution proposal submitted by the majority. Our overall favor vote aims to show that, for us, there can be no doubt about the recognition by Belgium of the Armenian Genocide and the importance of its commemoration. The CDH has been very long and remains very mobilized on these issues, with clear and well-known positions of all. This does not change today.

From the moment of parliamentary entry, we will seek to supplement the provisions contained in this proposal for a resolution, on the one hand, by extending the recognition to the Arameans (Syrians, Chaldeans, Assyrians) and the Pontic Greeks and, on the other hand, by amending the Law on Negationism so that it also provides for sanctions in case of negation of the genocide committed by the government of the Ottoman Empire as well as against the two other genocides beyond the Shoah, the one against the Tutsi in Rwanda and – often forgotten – the one against the Bosnians of Srebenica.

For this purpose, we will have consultations with all democratic political groups, because this is a topic that must bring us together. In the face of barbarism, I know that we share, dear colleagues, beyond our differences, the strong conviction that mass crimes, a fortiori genocides, deserve that we come together to prevent them and to prevent them.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, after this long but interesting presentation by Mr. Dallemagne, I can be brief. I will also keep it short. If a politician promises that, hold on to your thumbs, but I will keep it short.

On 1 October 2014, we have already submitted a resolution on the issue detailed by Mr Dallemagne. That resolution was not considered until the majority took the initiative to submit similar resolutions. I now know enough of the parliamentary plots in these. I will not suspect political games in these, but I know there are sensitivities, Mr. De Roover. There are sensitivities among the various parties, on the one hand because many parties have a backbone that it might have been difficult if resolutions like these were adopted. There are also geopolitical interests. Mr. De Roover, you remain the Atlanticist you have always been. For some, Turkey is still an important partner in the geopolitical strategy and so we need to save Turkey and the Turks a little.

Nevertheless, we can assume that the facts that Mr. Dallemagne has brilliantly outlined can be regarded as genocide. I think every one of you does that. The question is whether we do this explicitly or implicitly. The majority wants to do this implicitly. It hides behind statements from the executive power, which has said that it considers the facts committed at the time as genocide. The opposition claims, rightly, that it is not because the executive power says this, that the nation is bound by this too. I believe that the nation is bound only by its representatives, by its people's representation, by its Parliament. It is the Parliament — or the parliaments — that must take responsibility in these matters.

Since then, there has been a bit of ridicule about the fact that the Flemish Parliament has taken its responsibility in these. The Flemish Parliament has played a leading role in this. It has said that it recognizes the facts that occurred at the end of the Ottoman Empire as genocide. What prevents us from doing that? You say that the Prime Minister has said that it is a genocide and that this is enough for you. My colleagues, this is not enough for us.

We must have the courage and political conviction to characterize these facts as a genocide. What prevents us from doing that?

Your resolution is not bad, Mr. De Roover. There are a few good elements in it, but you are not going far enough. To quote Marx: “Hegel is going well, but on his head.” I would say: Peter De Roover is going well, but he is not going far enough. You have some good intentions, good intentions, but you are not going far enough.

What prevents us from adopting a number of amendments submitted on the subject by a very constructive opposition? What prevents us, as a federal Parliament, from doing what the Flemish Parliament has done in this regard? What prevents us from acknowledging the facts so beautifully outlined by Mr. Dallemagne as genocide? What prevents us? I don’t understand it, unless party-political games are played here or a geopolitical caution is observed.

Again, in the resolution I submitted together with my colleagues, we may have gone a step too far. We immediately asked the Turkish government and the Turkish people to recognize the facts we discuss here as a genocide. However, we can only do so if we as a nation have acknowledged these facts as such. Who acknowledges these facts as such? Not the executive power, but, I think, this Parliament.

Une fois n’est pas coutume, I stand here in very bad company, on the left side, with Mr. Maingain, with the CDH, not my political friends. For one time, however, they are right. I urge you to support these constructive amendments. In this way, the Federal Parliament remains credible in this story as well.

Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues, "humanity cannot live with, in its cellar, the body, the corpse of a murdered people" (Jean Jaurès, at the French National Assembly, in 1897). As our colleague, Mr. From Germany, which has just made a remarkable speech recalling historical facts, at the time already, the Armenian question occupied the consciences in Europe, following the first collective assassination, under the Sultanate of Abdulhamid II, of two hundred thousand Armenians.

Why is this sentence of Jean Jaurès still keeping its full actuality? Because it invites us to acknowledge that the Armenian genocide, of which there is today no specialist in history to deny its reality, remains a political and polemical subject, where interests, often geopolitical, come to interfere in order not to admit this historical fact. It is true that we can already regret the attitude of U.S. President Obama who, in the election campaign, had declared himself in favour of the recognition of the Armenian genocide, but who, for geopolitical reasons that can easily be guessed, turned away from it once elected. Is this a reason why in our country, as in other member states of the European Union and other democracies, we do not have the courage and the will to fully recognize the Armenian genocide?

by Mr. From Germany it was right to say that the disturbance arose when, as a result of my topical question to the government and, more specifically, to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Didier Reynders, the latter, gave us the official speech – of which he was not the first carrier, I recognize it, in the parliamentary and governmental history of our country –: “without condemnation by an international or national jurisdiction, no recognition or no qualification of the facts of 1915 and 1916 as constitutive of a genocide.”

There will never again be condemnation by an international court of the perpetrators of these facts, nor will it be possible to establish, by an international court, the historical responsibility of the Ottoman Youth-Turkish regime of the time.

The legal argument that may be relevant in the light of recent facts following the genocide, as we have known in Rwanda, cannot be held in the case that occupies us today. There can only be a political recognition, but with a willingness to draw legal consequences, in particular to incriminate the denial of genocide. I will return to this point.

The real desire to recognize genocide, today, does not consist in seeking to give us a good conscience, or to condemn the Turkish government, but to be alongside those and those who, in Turkey, had the courage to claim that they recognized the Armenian genocide. Those and those who, in Turkey, have had this courage are the same who have the courage to claim major advances for democracy in this country.

It is true that when, today, we ask the House of Representatives to have this will, it is because we hope that the unanimity of the House of Representatives can be heard beyond our borders, especially by those in Turkey who have the courage to assume this message.

Should we recall that the great Turkish writer, Nobel Prize laureate Orhan Pamuk, was prosecuted because he had the courage to acknowledge, in 2005, on the occasion of a statement to a Swiss daily, the reality of the Armenian genocide, even though the prosecution was later abandoned following international protests? Should we recall that in January 2007, Hrant Dink, editor-in-chief of the Armenian magazine in Istanbul, Agos, and the main promoter of recognition of genocide in Turkey was assassinated, and that as a result of his assassination, more than 100,000 people gathered in Istanbul to say that they were all Armenian? How could we remain indifferent to this collective awareness that is all in honor of the Turkish Democrats? It should be remembered that in 2008, Turkish intellectuals launched a petition under the title "We ask forgiveness from them", a petition that will get a great echo in the Turkish intellectual circles.

The text reads: "My conscience cannot accept that one remains indifferent to the Great Catastrophe that the Ottoman Armenians suffered in 1915 and is denied. I reject this injustice and, for my part, I share the feelings and pain of my Armenian sisters and brothers and sisters and I ask for their forgiveness.” The text, an unprecedented event in Turkey, gathered thousands and thousands of signatures from Turkish intellectuals, scholars and artists the same day it was launched.

So, yes, it is because there is this collective awareness in Turkey that we are called to be with those and those who want to. And that’s where I think we need to speak clearly and that I say that this political will must be accompanied by legal effects. This is why I have proposed that the scope of the 1995 Law on the Criminalization of Negationism may be extended. I know well that there is a tendency among some historians, we have already debated with Marcel Cheron – Pierre Vidal-Naquet is of this tendency – to say that it is not up to the legislative and even judicial authorities to sanction History by criminal provisions. Take Rémond, another French historian who made a similar statement with one exception, he said, for the Shoah.

Indeed, since one has committed to sanctioning Holocaust denial, one cannot distinguish and differentiate treatment from other denial that relates to other genocides. That would be morally and legally unjustifiable. Why should negationism be punished? There is a jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice. I explained in a committee how it could evolve depending on the will of the parliamentary assemblies, and in particular the unanimity of all the parliamentary assemblies representing the Member States of the Council of Europe.

Why should negationism be criminalized? Because today, in a number of states, those who have the courage to defend our democratic values are persecuted. Because today, in Turkey, those who recognize the Armenian genocide are the first to be prosecuted. This is, therefore, a denial of what the law must protect, that is, our essential values. It is precisely for this reason that there was a political and legal will at a given time to criminalize denegationism, so that there would be no reversal of values in disregard for historical truth.

It is true, I regret that the majority did not want to open the debate on the bill I submitted with the support of my colleague, Mr. of DDR.

I dare hope that we will be able to resume this debate quickly, without waiting for the constraints and gestures that should be made on the occasion of Europalia Turkey. I dare to hope that we have enough pride in this parliamentary assembly not to wait for the outcome of an event, otherwise highly anticipated and quite appreciable, to be able to vote for an essential legal debate on the criminal incrimination of negationism.

But I cannot say too much, dear colleagues, and I agree with the voice of others, that if we do not have the ability to exceed the momentary appreciations related to political circumstances to have the firm will to say that negationism is only the most extreme accomplishment of the genocidal act itself, if we do not have this will, then we will be the assassins of memory!

Dear colleagues, the genocide that took place against the Armenians, now 100 years ago, in the Ottoman Empire, is a fact that must be acknowledged. We must be able to say loud and loud that this is a genocide. Belgium has this duty. I think the case is sufficiently clear and it is described quite irrefutably in many writings (Robert Fisk, Jacques Pauwels and many others).

The Armenian Genocide of 1915 is a reality and I would like to emphasize in this regard that in Turkey itself, there are leftist parties who recognize this fact and who believe that recognition of the genocide would create the conditions for a rapprochement between the Turkish and Armenian peoples. This is a point to emphasize.

Several colleagues have said, there is an ambiguity in this resolution: why does the House not clearly recognize this genocide? Why is one content with a statement by the Prime Minister in terms of recognition of the Armenian genocide? Despite a number of requests, Mr. Ducarme did not give a convincing answer. Is this a way of saying that for the majority a government statement is superior to what Parliament could say? I do not see how the majority could draw such a claim from a legal point of view.

It seemed to me that all power came from the nation. I really think that this House should be clear about the Armenian genocide.

One point I must emphasize is that this debate should not fuel divisions in Belgium or internationally. I will not focus on international issues. If we take the case of Belgium, I fear that some political tendencies may have this desire to use the issue to spread division by mounting the issue, without leading the debate serenely but pointing to discriminated communities in our country. This would lead to a downturn on the Turkish community. I do not think that the goal should be that.

I think Belgium should also blow at its doorstep. Compared to this debate about the risk of a community being stigmatized and while reaffirming clearly that Belgium must recognize genocide, it would be hypocritical and Belgium would lose a bit of credibility if it did not analyze its own history more convincingly and self-critically. I will recall the case of the Congo under the leadership of the King of the Belgians in the late 19th and 20th centuries. It is obviously difficult to count the victims of the abuses that took place at the time and I will not give an opinion on the qualification to be given to the crimes that were committed under Leopold II, but I think that effectively, Belgium would gain credibility if it knocked so in its door.

According to professor Léon De Saint Moulin, a Belgian demographer at the University of Kinshasa, there has been a huge decline in the number of Congolese between 1880 and 1920, a decline of five to ten million Congolese, or between 33 and 50 per cent of the population, respectively. This is the kind of thing that we would also like to hear, for example, on the 50th anniversary of the independence of the Congo, but we have not heard. I do not qualify for what happened at the time, but I think Belgium would gain credibility. This would also allow for more serenity and a spirit of reconciliation within Belgium.

I think the role of the United Nations in the matter of genocide is recognized. Paragraph 5 of the resolution states “to advocate for the timely prevention and effective repression of genocides and crimes against humanity to be among the top priorities of the international community and the European Union.”

I would like to understand that the European Union has a role to play, but I would not want that in this way the essential and primary role of the United Nations in this field under the 1948 UN Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide be eluded. I think the UN is an indispensable player in this matter.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, we have been debating well in the committee for three and a half hours. We have been working for more than two hours now. It is difficult – I will not try – to say something new and not to fall into repetition. I would only like to point out that our group in the committee approved the text proposed by colleague De Roover and consortia, but that there was still something. We found that the text, which we will adopt tomorrow, in our case preferably as broad as possible, could be even better.

Even after today’s debate, I still haven’t understood why there was no willingness among the colleagues of the majority, who supported the text proposed by colleague De Roover and consorts, to – you said yourself that your text contains this implicitly – include the recognition of the Armenian genocide in the text. For the sake of clarity, it would have been good if that recognition had been clearly and clearly stated in the text. I confirm that all the colleagues in the committee who have pledged, with amendments, for a sharper and clearer text have acknowledged the importance of the Prime Minister’s statement, but I think they were right with their argument that the text would be much better and stronger if it included a clear and clear recognition due to Parliament of the Armenian genocide. The terminology could be talked about, but it had to be clearer than in this text. I still don’t understand why the majority didn’t want to take that hand.

We thought the text could also be better on a second point. There was an amendment by the colleagues of the CDH, which extended the resolution – I think it is simple – from the Armenians to the Arameans and the Pontic Greeks. I find it painful. We probably all agree in the Chamber that at least a kind of treatment was given to the Arameans and the Pontic Greeks. It would have testified of some fairness and knowledge of the dossier, if we had taken the Armenians, the Arameans, and the Pontic Greeks into one and the same movement.

We will vote on the amendment tomorrow. There are also amendments from colleagues from the opposition that propose a clear recognition of the genocide by Parliament. We have already voted on this in the committee and we will continue to vote on those amendments tomorrow. The outcome of these votes will not affect our final vote, as we will approve the resolution.

Let this be an appeal to the colleagues of the majority, for I think I can conclude that this majority, unfortunately, has a bad habit. In the past, it was a tradition in the Foreign Relations Committee to meet on important issues across the boundaries of the opposition and the majority. We could have found each other here with a little goodwill on both sides. I regret that this has not happened.

Finally, I would like to agree with what Mr Maingain said, also in the committee. In the committee, Mr Maingain submitted an amendment calling for the opening of a debate in the Belgian Parliament also on the criminalization of deniationism with regard to the Armenian genocide. I repeat that, as far as we are concerned, the Arameans and the Pontic Greeks also liked it.

I regret that the majority voted against this amendment. They have a point if they argue that this has not yet been fully clarified legally, but I do not think that should prevent us from including a passage in a resolution calling on the House to address that issue as well.

I reiterate that we believe that the resolution on these three points could have been even better than it is now. We hope that the Green’s colleagues’ amendment, which gives a much better title to this resolution, will also be adopted tomorrow. I hope that there will be some goodwill and some understanding for the positive and constructive proposals of the colleagues from the opposition in the voting on the amendments tomorrow.

The SP will approve the resolution anyway, but we continue to hope that we can make it a little better and stronger.

Mr. Speaker, I realize that in my speech I did not specify that the Ecolo-Groen group will vote in favour and hope that one of the amendments submitted, including by our group, calling for the recognition of the genocide by the House will be approved. If that is not the case, I will abstain.