The Whitaker Report is not specifically related to the Armenian Genocide.
The Whitaker Report is commonly associated with a different issue. It is often referred to as the “Whitaker Report on Genocide,” and it was prepared by Benjamin Whitaker, a British lawyer, for the United Nations in 1985. The report focused on the topic of genocide and the legal and practical measures that should be taken to prevent and punish it. It played a significant role in shaping the legal and political discourse surrounding genocide prevention and the eventual establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC).
The UN Sub commission did not accept the report, but decided to “receive” it.
Since 1985, the UN Spokesperson has three times declared that the UN does not accept the Armenian case as genocide.
Of the seven independent organizations who provided their expert opinions, three were later to be found to be fronts for Armenian groups that support the Dashnaks.
The Special Rapporteur (Whitaker) who snuck in the footnote later admitted that he had been retained by the Armenian lobby, but that he did not receive any money for his report. However, he later did work for the Armenian lobby for money.
Whitaker report stated in paragraph 24 that:
The Nazi aberration has unfortunately not been the only case of genocide in the twentieth century. Among other examples which can be cited as qualifying are the German massacre of Hereros in 1904, the Ottoman massacre of Armenians in 1915–1916, the Ukrainian pogrom of Jews in 1919, the Tutsi massacre of Hutu in Burundi in 1965 and 1972, the Paraguayan massacre of Ache Indians prior to 1974, the Khmer Rouge massacre in Kampuchea between 1975 and 1978, and the contemporary [1985] Iranian killings of Baha’is. — Whitaker Report, (paragraph 24)
The documents that show the UN does not accept the Armenian case as genocide are provided by Emre Serbest.
The Turkish government resorted to its customary bullying tactics last week to force a high-ranking United Nations (UN) official to delete his tweet on the Armenian Genocide.
On July 27, President of the United Nations General Assembly Abdulla Shahid issued a tweet with four photos showing him placing a wreath at the Armenian Genocide Memorial in Yerevan. He wrote in his tweet: “Laid a wreath at the Memorial to the Victims of Armenian Genocide. Special thanks to Museum-Institute Director Harutyun Marutyan & Hasmik Martirosyan for a tour of the Museum.” Marutyan presented to the visitor books on the Armenian Genocide and showed him the three cross-stones dedicated to the memory of Armenians who were killed by Azerbaijan.
The wreath placed by the UN General Assembly President had white and blue flowers and was decorated with a blue ribbon with “United Nations” written on it. In the other photos of his tweet, he was seen observing a moment of silence at the Eternal Flame of the Memorial, taking a tour of the Armenian Genocide Museum, and signing the Guest Book in which he wrote: “I am very moved by my visit to this museum. I thank you for warmly receiving me as a part of my visit to Armenia.”
During his three-day visit to Armenia, the President of the UN General Assembly met with various Armenian officials, including the President of Armenia Vahagn Khachatryan, Deputy Prime Minister Hambardzum Matevosyan, Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan, Vice Chairman of the Parliament Ruben Rubinyan, female diplomats of the Foreign Ministry, and spoke at the graduation ceremony of the Armenian Foreign Ministry’s Diplomatic School.
Shortly after Shahid’s visit and tweet, the Turkish Foreign Ministry issued an official statement condemning him for visiting the Armenian Genocide Memorial and alleging that his trip “to Armenia has been exploited with the purpose of exposing one-sided Armenian claims and it is in that context that he paid a visit to the so-called genocide memorial.” The Turkish Foreign Ministry added: “He would have been expected to act in a fair and impartial manner, to be more careful and responsible in this regard. Representatives acting on behalf of the UN authorized bodies must carry out their duties in accordance with the UN legal instruments and relevant norms and rules of international law, particularly the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide dated 1948. We condemn and reject attempts to distort historical facts and international law through political manipulation. Türkiye is of the opinion that the facts regarding the events of 1915 should be dealt with in a full, fair and honest framework.”
Shahid, who is also the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Maldives, immediately deleted the tweet about his visit to the Armenian Genocide Memorial, succumbing to Turkish pressures.
Whereas the Turkish government had succeeded in imposing its will on the UN official, not a single Armenian official who met with the President of the UN General Assembly bothered to question him why he deleted his tweet, let alone criticize him.
Of course, nothing can excuse the submissive behavior of the high-ranking UN official who caved in to the directive of a dictatorial regime, contrary to the UN principles that he was sworn to uphold. Two sources confirmed some of the actions of the Turkish government: The Passblue.com website disclosed that Turkey rescinded its invitation to Shahid to visit Ankara. The Turkish Superhaber.tv further revealed that Turkey withdrew Shahid’s invitation to attend the Ambassadors’ Conference to be held in Ankara on August 8-12. Turkey probably used other behind-the-scenes measures to pressure Shahid.
It is highly offensive that Shahid, by agreeing to delete his tweet, disrespected the Armenian Genocide which had been corroborated by the UN itself. On August 29, 1985, the UN “Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities” adopted a report on genocide by a vote of 15 in favor, 1 opposed, and 4 abstentions. The “Revised and Updated Report on the Question of the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide” was prepared by British Special Rapporteur Benjamin Whitaker. Paragraph 24 of that report stated: “The Nazi aberration has unfortunately not been the only case of genocide in the twentieth century. Among other examples which can be cited as qualifying are the German massacre of Hereros in 1904, [and] the Ottoman massacre of Armenians in 1915-1916 ….” The report also included an extensive bibliography on the Armenian Genocide. An earlier version of that report, prepared by UN Special Rapporteur Nicodeme Ruhashyankiko of Rwanda, had included in its paragraph 30 a reference to the Armenian Genocide which was subsequently deleted after excessive pressure by the Turkish government. I know these facts first-hand because I spent from 1978 to 1985 at the UN in Geneva as the representative of a non-governmental organization on human rights, countering the repeated Turkish attempts to delete the reference to the Armenian Genocide.
The Armenian government may not be aware of these facts. I suggest that the Armenian Foreign Ministry file a strongly-worded complaint with the Secretary-General of the United Nations to have the deleted tweet reinstated and apologize to the Armenian nation.
Combating Armenian “genocide” falsehoods: Education and pro-activity are key for Turkish side
Passivity and lethargy are the major reasons for the Turkish side’s failure to effectively convey its message. Success is only possible through a pro-active stance, which requires education.
By Ferruh Demirmen, Ph.D.
August 11, 2017
It is well established that Turkish efforts to combat Armenian “genocide” falsehoods have been very ineffective. This is borne out by the fact that, according to Wikipedia, as of 2017 governments and parliaments of 29 countries as well as 46 states of the United States have recognized Armenian “genocide.” The latest recognition was in the U.S. State of Texas: http://www.turkishny.com/english-news/5-english-news/247851-texas-house-resolution-hr-191-anatomy-of-a-shameful-armenian-genocide-resolution
The bitter irony in this dismal record is that historical facts, as well as judicial rulings and the underlying 1948 UN Convention, clearly favor the Turkish position and negate the genocide characterization. The recent rulings from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and France’s Constitutional Court, for example, consider the 1915 events in Ottoman Anatolia controversial, calling attention to the requirement of a court determination for genocide recognition. Yet, there exists no such determination. Hence “genocide” is far from proven.
The failure of the Turkish side to convey its message effectively is in part related to the Western bias rooted in ethnicity and religion. Almost all countries that one way or another have so far recognized Armenian “genocide” are not only Western, or of Western heritage; they are Christian. In these countries false historical assertions from the Armenian side are automatically accepted as the truth. The phenomenon is a reflection of the “Armenian Settled History Syndrome,” whereby the Armenian allegations are accepted uncritically as facts.
A prime example is Wikipedia, which is blatantly pro-Armenian, to the point of obvious misinformation, e.g., “UN recognition of Armenian genocide” (Whitaker Report).
While bias is a social malady that is difficult to overcome, there are steps that the Turkish side can take to alleviate the situation. Passivity and lethargy are the major reasons for the Turkish side’s failure to effectively convey its message. For success, Turks should shove off lethargy or passivity and be pro-active.
With a pro-active stance, the Turkish side should be able to: (a) Effectively disseminate its own narrative (and the truth) in the media (including the social media) and conferences, (b) seek accountability in a court of law, (c) lobby and educate politicians to oppose one-sided resolutions. Lobbying includes political campaign contributions as may be appropriate.
Education is the key
But this begs the question: What is needed for pro-activity for the Turkish side? It is argued here that the road to pro-activity is motivation, which itself requires information. Information, or knowledge, is the driving force for action and pro-activity.
Information does not happen in a vacuum. It is acquired through education – self-induced education, or education obtained externally, e.g., through exposure to media.
A major setback for the Turkish side on the Armenian issue is that Turks are generally ignorant or very poorly educated on the 1915 events in Ottoman Anatolia. When abroad, they are constantly subjected to high-decibel negative propaganda from the Armenian side. The Armenian propaganda naturally deceives the unsuspecting public as well, politicians included.
To educate Turkish people, including those living abroad, properly on the 1915 events, avenues that readily come to mind are:
Promote dissemination of Turkish view through printed and digital media, including TV programs, at home and abroad. A new TV forum series “Daylight on History” initiated by TADA (Turkish Anti-Defamation Alliance) is designed to reach viewers in America.
Promote academic studies and independent research at home and abroad, e.g. think tanks and doctoral studies at the University of Louisville and Utah University.
Promote conferences with a balanced agenda and balanced contributors.
Promote and finance Hollywood-type productions reflecting the Turkish narrative.
In disseminating information, eyewitness data from the survivors and their descendents should be given due consideration.
Start with school curriculum at home
This subheading could as well be named “Acknowledge your adversary.” A major shortcoming in the education of Turks on the Armenian issue is the virtual exclusion of the 1915 events in school curriculum. Under the “Peace at home, peace abroad” dictum that has been in effect since the founding of the Republic, Turkish children at school are not taught about the 1915 events.
The war and the 1915 events were over, and the Turkish governments did not want to create animosity and ethnic tension against the neighboring Armenia, and Armenians in general.
As a result, Turkish children grow hopelessly ignorant on the Armenian issue. What is more, Turks who visit or live abroad (generally Europe and North America) get almost a shock effect when they witness unending “genocide” diatribe from the Armenian lobby in ordinary life, from the media to parliaments to Hollywood productions. They may also encounter biased school curricula that tell the Armenian version of the Turco-Armenian conflict, which impacts their children.
Unprepared, Turks typically become apprehensive, and even intimidated. Apathy, indifference and passivity become modus operandi.
A good example is the feeble Turkish response to the HR-191 Armenian “genocide” resolution referenced above, that was introduced at the Texas House of Representative early this year.
Given the animus of the Armenian side, in particular the Diaspora, however, the well-intentioned “Love Thy Neighbor” message embedded in the Turkish educational system is outdated. It has outlived its usefulness. Since the 1960s, the Armenian Diaspora, in footstep with Armenia, has aggressively pursued anti-Turkish agenda, even to the point of inciting anti-Turkish hatred in young minds of ethnic Armenians.
If not for such venomous spirit, how to explain the ASALA/JCAG terror of the 1970s through 1990s that took the lives of 58 civilians, 27 of them Turkish diplomats, and 7 diplomats relatives and staff?
More than a century has passed since the 1915 events; but the drums of anti-Turkish invective from the Armenian quarters are loud and clear. Thanks to a lobbying blitz from the Armenian Diaspora, in the last two years Armenian “genocide” has been recognized in Germany (the Bundestag), Austria, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Paraguay, Brazil, Chile, Syria (!), the Holy See, the Czech Republic, and the U.S. states of Missouri, South Dakota, West Virginia, Wyoming and Texas.
The Jewish Council for Public Affairs and the Holocaust Museum in the U.S. have joined the “genocide” chorus, and a new Diaspora-funded Hollywood production, The Promise, has hit the movie theaters in America to deceive the public.
Surely, no sign of slowing down by the Diaspora! A vengeance-driven propaganda campaign to denigrate Turks is in place.
One effective response to such anti-Turkish offensive is to change the school curricula in Turkey and include the 1915 and preceding events in history teaching. The betrayal of the Armenian minority, the lack of ill-intent on the part of Ottoman authorities in the Relocation decision, the reality of casualties on both sides, and the atrocities perpetrated by Armenian militant bands against Moslem (and Jewish) civilians, should be included in teaching.
Turkey does not have an issue with its citizens of Armenian origin, and the intent is not to alienate the Armenian community. Roughly 100,000 illegal Armenian workers from Armenia make a living in Turkey without interference from the government, and there is regular air traffic as well as indirect trade between the two countries.
Instead, the intent is to make Turks aware of their history. Put more bluntly, Turks should know and acknowledge that the Armenian Diaspora, and its consort Armenia, are adversaries to be reckoned with.
Knowledge is power. And power is needed to fend off an adversary.
What further reason?
It is worth noting in this context that Armenia’s 1990 Declaration of Independence calls eastern Turkey (mainly the 6 provinces) “Western Armenia,” with haunts of the “Wilsonian Armenia” of the Sèvres Treaty, while its 1995 Constitution, in describing the national coat of arms, makes reference to Mount Ararat – located in Turkey.
Yes, nearly a century after the signing of the Sèvres Treaty, Armenia still has aspirations (delusions) about the “Wilsonian Armenia,” with implicit support, one must add, from the West.
These are not signs of a friendly neighbor.
Neither are the demands from the Armenian side for apology, compensation and territory – demands that are commonly attached to the allegations of Armenian “genocide.”
It is not surprising that the 2009 Zurich Protocols between Turkey and Armenia broke down in a few years without any progress. Normalization of relations requires goodwill on both sides. A recent attempt toward normalization by the Armenian side and championed by the Sabancı University (Istanbul Policy Center) assumes unrealistic premises and does not hold much promise.
It should also be added that:
The call made by the Prime Minister of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in 2005 to establish a joint historical commission with Armenia to debate the 1915 events has fallen on deaf ears on the Armenian side. Erdoğan said Turkey would abide by the conclusion reached. In the meantime Armenian archives held in Yerevan, Boston, Istanbul and Jerusalem (Armenian patriarchates) are closed except to a selected few.
The conciliatory gestures made in recent years by top Turkish officials toward the Armenian side, such as the call in 2014 for rapprochement between Turks and Armenians, and effectively one-sided (!) condolences extended in 2014 and 2015 to Armenians on their losses in 1915, have elicited no reciprocity. Turk-vilification goes on unabated. Tellingly, an “apology” campaign launched in 2008 by some over-zealous Turkish liberals – without mentioning the word “genocide” – has not satisfied the Diaspora.
Just as Armenia had welcomed as a hero the ASALA terrorist Varoujan Garabedian when he was released from French prison in 2011 after the 1983 deadly Orly airport attack in Paris, the Diaspora in America has provided legal defense fund and lobbied for the release from prison of Armenian terrorists like Gourgen Yanikian and Hampig Sassounian that assassinated Turkish diplomats. There is even a memorial honoring the ASALA terrorists in the military cemetery in Yerevan
Armenia has been providing logistical and training help to the PKK terrorists in Turkey -a relationship that goes back to 1984 when ASALA ceased to operate. The PKK/PYD/YPG terrorists appear to have been helping Armenians in skirmishes in Nagorno-Karabakh.
Conclusion
The somber reality for the Turkish side is that it is facing a formidable adversary determined to malign Turks with unfounded “genocide” accusations on events that go back more than a century. It is the well-heeled, well-organized Diaspora working in consort with Armenia.
Turks should wake up, acknowledge their adversary, and respond accordingly.
A wise old Turkish man once observed cynically: “Offer one arm as a sacrificial limb to Armenia or the Diaspora; it will take it and will ask for the other arm.”
A new roadmap or paradigm to combat Armenian accusations is needed. The first step in this paradigm is overhaul of the Turkish education system to include Turco-Armenian conflict in school curricula. Education should lead to motivation, hence pro-activity. Lethargy should be no more.
For those Turks who are willing to delve into the Armenian issue, a newly released book, The Big Lie,” (Ka Kitap, 2017) by researcher Şükrü Server Aya is highly recommended. Aya debunks the “genocide” myth based on multiple sources. The book is available in English, Turkish and German.
It goes without saying that the commitment of the Turkish government in the implementation of the new roadmap is essential. If there is a motto in this new roadmap, it is “Education, education, education.”
On Sept. 11, after years of persistent diplomatic efforts, the Republic of Armenia succeeded in having the United Nations General Assembly adopt by consensus a generic resolution on all genocides.
Introduced by Armenia and co-sponsored by 83 other nations, the resolution establishes December 9 as the “International Day of Commemoration and Dignity of the Victims of the Crime of Genocide and of the Prevention of this Crime.” Dec. 9 was chosen since the UN Genocide Convention was adopted on that day in 1948.
Henceforth, on every December 9, the UN will commemorate and honor the victims of all genocides. Even though the resolution does not mention any particular genocide, it is up to Armenians to ensure that their genocide is included in official UN commemorations on that date. No one will be surprised should the Turkish government attempt to block such Armenian efforts!
Ironically, Turkey was one of the co-sponsors of the genocide resolution, probably out of a concern that opposing it would have revealed its deep-seated anxiety on the subject of genocide. Consequently, Turkish officials acted as if this resolution was unrelated to their country’s past and present genocidal crimes against Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks and Kurds!
Among the 84 countries co-sponsoring the resolution were the United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, Germany, India, Japan, and Iran. Interestingly, Azerbaijan and Rwanda did not co-sponsor it. Azerbaijan was reluctant to support any resolution proposed by Armenia. Rwanda, on the other hand, felt the resolution was unnecessary, since the UN had designated April 7 as International Day of Reflection on the Genocide in Rwanda. In contrast, Israel co-sponsored the resolution, even though the UN had already set January 27 as International Day of Commemoration in Memory of the Victims of the Holocaust.
The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect issued a statement last Friday commending the adoption of the UN resolution, and listing the “significant anniversaries of the most atrocious crimes of the last century,” including “the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, 40th anniversary of the Khmer Rouge’s atrocities in Cambodia, and the 20th anniversaries of the genocide in Rwanda and at Srebrenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina.”
Amb. Zohrab Mnatsakanyan, Armenia’s Representative to the UN, spoke of his “sense of duty,” while presenting the proposed resolution to the General Assembly on Sept. 11. Paying tribute to Raphael Lemkin who had coined the term genocide, the Ambassador stated: “For the victims of our past inaction, the International Day will render dignity. The denial to millions of the sanctity of life is ultimate injustice. Justice denied haunts generations of survivors. We speak from experience.”
Another genocide milestone forgotten by the international community and Armenians is the 30th anniversary of the adoption of a report by the UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. The historic document titled, “Revised and updated report on the question of the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide,” was drafted by British Rapporteur Benjamin Whitaker. It is noteworthy that Amb. Mnatsakanyan referred to this report twice in his speech, while introducing the genocide resolution to the UN.
In paragraph 24 of his report, Whitaker cited several cases of genocide in the 20th century, specifically mentioning the Armenian Genocide. Moreover, in footnote 13, Whitaker added: “At least 1 million, and possibly well over half of the Armenian population, are reliably estimated to have been killed or death marched by independent authorities and eye-witnesses. This is corroborated by reports in United States, German and British archives and of contemporary diplomats in the Ottoman Empire, including those of its ally Germany. The German Ambassador, Wangenheim, for example, on 7 July 1915 wrote, ‘the [Turkish] government is indeed pursuing its goal of exterminating the Armenian race in the Ottoman Empire’ (Wilhelmstrasse archives).”
Regrettably, Whitaker passed away last year. But, there are three other former members of the UN Sub-Commission — Erica Daes (Greek), Leandro Despouys (Argentinian), and Louis Joinet (French) — who staunchly supported the reference to the Armenian Genocide in the Whitaker report which the Sub-Commission adopted on August 29, 1985, by a 14-1 vote. All three human rights experts should be invited to the United Nations on Dec. 9, 2015, to mark the 30th anniversary of the Whitaker Report, and recognize his unique contributions to the cause of prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide!
Amb. Mnatsakanyan, Armenia’s Foreign Ministry, and the Armenian government should be commended for their effective leadership at the UN on genocide prevention!
Geoffrey Robertson, prominent British expert on international law, wrote a 40-page report in 2009, exposing the false and inaccurate statements on the Armenian Genocide by the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO).
Robertson’s investigative report, “Was there an Armenian Genocide?” was based on internal British documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, which revealed that the Foreign Office had denied the Armenian Genocide and misled the British Parliament on this matter in order to curry favor with Turkey.
Mr. Robertson had sent me an advance copy of his new 286-page book, “An Inconvenient Genocide: Who Now Remembers the Armenians?” to be published this month in the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and the United States. Anyone who reads this influential jurist’s meticulously researched book will have no doubt about the true facts of the Genocide and Armenians’ just claims for restitution.
The confidential FCO documents recently obtained by Robertson reveal that the British government has made a gradual shift in its position on the Armenian Genocide, going from denial to declining to state its position. The Foreign Office acknowledges that the change in governmental policy is a direct result of the powerful legal arguments advanced by Mr. Robertson in his 2009 report.
Until recently, Great Britain had tenaciously clung to its outright denialist position on the Armenian Genocide. A secret 1999 FCO memo, quoted by Robertson, admitted that the British government “is open to criticism in terms of the ethical dimension. But given the importance of our relations (political, strategic, and commercial) with Turkey, and that recognizing the genocide would provide no practical benefit to the UK or the few survivors of the killings still alive today, nor would it help a rapprochement between Armenia and Turkey, the current line is the only feasible option.”
However, shortly after the publication of Robertson’s 2009 report, British officials quietly shifted their position from denial to avoidance of taking a stand on the genocide issue. In a 2010 internal memo, FCO stated: “Following Mr. Robertson’s report and the publicity it attracted, we have updated our public line to make clear that HMG [Her Majesty’s Government] does not believe it is our place to make a judgment (historical or legal) on whether or not the Armenian massacres constituted genocide.” In another memo, FCO explained that it will no longer maintain that “the historical evidence was not sufficiently unequivocal to persuade us that these events should be categorized as genocide.” The memo went on to assert that “there is increasing agreement about the extent of the deaths and suffering experienced by the Armenian community” and that “jurisprudence in relation to genocide, and particularly the nature and type of evidence required to prove the relevant intent, has developed significantly in the wake of events in Rwanda and the Balkans in the 1990’s.” Yet, FCO still advised against an explicit recognition of the genocide because “the Armenian diaspora in the UK is relatively small (less than 20,000) and there is limited wider public interest.”
Nevertheless, in view of the upcoming Centennial of the Armenian Genocide, the British government has decided to become a bit more accommodating on this issue. Last year, when the British Ambassador to Lebanon asked London for guidance on attending an April 24 commemoration in Beirut, the Foreign Office advised him to go ahead. FCO also recommended to its staff not to “give the impression that we deny what happened in 1915…we still consider them (the massacres and deportations) to be truly dreadful and in need of remembrance.”
To bring the genocide issue to a legal resolution, Mr. Robertson makes two suggestions: that the Armenian government submit it “to adjudication at the International Court of Justice [World Court] pursuant to Article IX of the Genocide Convention” or ask the UN Secretary General to establish an ad hoc court on the Armenian Genocide.
Geoffrey Robertson should be commended for authoring a most important book on the eve of the Armenian Genocide Centennial. The Armenian National Committee of UK has already purchased 1,000 copies for distribution to elected officials and members of the media in London. The book is available from Amazon.com. I feel honored that Mr. Robertson has made half a dozen references to my columns in his monumental work.
Mr. Robertson has appropriately dedicated his book to the cherished memory of Ben Whitaker, author of the 1985 UN Report which classified the Armenian mass killings as genocide.
Benjamin Whitaker, author of a United Nations report qualifying the Armenian mass killings as genocide, passed away earlier this month at the age of 79 in London. The world lost a great humanitarian and a staunch supporter of minority rights.
I worked closely with Mr. Whitaker at the UN in Geneva, Switzerland, for several years. He served as the British expert on the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, while I represented the Indigenous World Association, a Native American non-governmental organization (NGO).
Mr. Whitaker was an activist lawyer, elected to the British Parliament from North London in 1966. He became executive director of the Minority Rights Group in 1971, publishing dozens of studies on minority groups around the world, including a trailblazing report on Armenians.
In 1975, Mr. Whitaker was appointed as British representative on the UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, in the midst of a major controversy regarding a reference to the Armenian Genocide in a UN study. Rwandan Special Rapporteur Nicodeme Ruhashyankiko, author of the preliminary study, was pressured by Turkey to delete the reference to the Armenian Genocide.
To counter the Turkish pressures, a handful of Armenian activists, including this writer, successfully lobbied the UN Sub-Commission in 1978 to block the report after the reference to the Armenian Genocide was removed. I then asked Mr. Whitaker if he would be interested in becoming a Special Rapporteur to complete Ruhashyankiko’s aborted report. Mr. Whitaker agreed on condition that he would not do seek any votes for his appointment.
Given his impeccable reputation as a human rights activist, the Sub-Commission members overwhelmingly voted for Mr. Whitaker as the new Special Rapporteur with a mandate to prepare a “revised and updated report on the question of the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide.” The only unhappy delegate was Turkey’s UN representative who knew that his government’s intimidating tactics on Mr. Ruhashyankiko would not work on Mr. Whitaker.
In August 1985, Mr. Whitaker presented to the UN Sub-Commission the revised and updated report, qualifying the Armenian Genocide as an example of genocide in the 20th century. After lengthy debates, Turkey failed in pressuring the Sub-Commission to delete the reference to the Armenian Genocide. By a vote of 14 in favor, one against, and four abstentions, the Sub-Commission adopted the report, thus confirming that the Armenian Genocide met the UN criteria for genocide.
Since then, Turkish denialists have engaged in blatant lies, claiming that there was no such vote and no such UN report! They even alleged that Farhan Haq, spokesman for the UN Secretary General, had told Turkish groups back in 2000 that the UN had “never approved nor supported a report that describes the Armenian experience as ‘genocide.’” I contacted Mr. Haq who told me that he was indeed aware of the report adopted by the UN human rights body which referred to the Armenian Genocide. He had simply told the Turkish groups that the UN General Assembly had not adopted a report on the Armenian Genocide.
Unfortunately, there has been very little effort by Armenians to publicize this critical UN report which acknowledges the Armenian Genocide. More surprisingly, in his UN General Assembly address in 2000, Pres. Kocharian called upon the UN to recognize the Armenian Genocide. The President’s aides had not informed him about the UN Sub-Commission report of 1985!
Since our UN days, I had the distinct pleasure of being in the company of Mr. Whitaker on several occasions. In the late 1980’s, we were both invited to Argentina by the local Armenian National Committee to deliver a series of lectures on the UN and the Armenian Genocide. In 2009, Mr. Whitaker kindly attended my presentation at the British Parliament on the Armenian Genocide and made gracious remarks about our past collaboration at the UN.
The Armenian Republic and Armenian communities worldwide should organize a fitting tribute to Mr. Whitaker, as 2015 is not only the Centennial of the Armenian Genocide, but also the 30th anniversary of the adoption of the UN genocide report.
There are three other members of the UN Sub-Commission who were extremely supportive during the adoption of the genocide report and who are still alive: Leandro Despouy of Argentina, Louis Joinet of France, and Mrs. Erica Daes of Greece. Despouy has already been decorated by the President of Armenia. Joinet and Daes deserve similar recognition by Armenia and the Diaspora!
