An Inconvenient Genocide: Who Now Remembers the Armenians?

by Geoffrey Robertson

The most controversial question that is still being asked about the First World War - was there an Armenian genocide? - will come to a head on 24 April 2015, when Armenians worldwide will commemorate its centenary and Turkey will deny that it took place, claiming that the deaths of over half of the Armenian race were justified. This has become a vital international issue. Twenty national parliaments in democratic countries have voted to recognise the genocide, but Britain and the USA continue to equivocate for fear of alienating their NATO ally. Geoffrey Robertson QC condemns this hypocrisy, and in An Inconvenient Genocide he proves beyond reasonable doubt that the horrific events in the Ottoman Empire in 1915 constitute the crime against humanity that is today known as genocide. He explains how democracies can deal with genocide denial without infringing free speech, and makes a major contribution to understanding and preventing this worst of all crimes. His renowned powers of advocacy are on full display as he condemns all those - from Sri Lanka to the Sudan, from Old Anatolia to modern Syria and Iraq - who try to justify the mass murder of children and civilians in the name of military necessity or religious fervour.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Politics, Law, War

304 pages, Paperback

First published October 7, 2014

About the author

Geoffrey Ronald Robertson QC (born 30 September 1946) is a human rights barrister, academic, author and broadcaster. He holds dual Australian and British citizenship.

Robertson is a founder and joint head of Doughty Street Chambers. He serves as a Master of the Bench at the Middle Temple, a recorder, and visiting professor at Queen Mary, University of London.

Reviews

[Kaya · Rating 5 out of 5]

Writing this on the anniversary of the Armenian Genocide I can’t help but think what would happen if this book became mandatory reading in Turkey (and Armenia, for that matter). Many histories of the genocide focus on depicting the horror and suffering the Armenians faced at the hands of the CUP and chetti militias, and they are no doubt worth reading. But this is not a history.

In this book Robertson, who admits to having no special connection or vested interest in neither Armenia nor Turkey, lays out the legal theory and practice that helps to prove and justify the claim that the events of 1915 amounted to a genocide. The strength of his argument is that it mostly uses Turkish and German (Ottoman allies at the time) sources to prove his claims, making it much harder for a Turk or other denialist to come along and accuse bias or slander. Using letters, telegrams and eyewitness accounts of Turks and Germans, he proves beyond reasonable doubt that the CUP’s policy of deportation and repossession of Armenian properties involved the intent needed to make a claim of genocide. It is much harder to deny this unequivocal fact when the proofs and sources in question are Turkish.

After taking the first half of the book to prove the claim of genocide beyond reasonable doubt, Robertson dedicates the second half to answering the question, ‘what now?’ This is the other strength of the book in comparison to the usual histories and accounts of the past; he addresses, again using Turkish sources and his expertise in legal framework, what genocide recognition ought to look like, and whether denial should be a crime. These were the most fruitful and creative chapters of the book, wherein he considers what it actually means to recognise/deny a genocide and how the criminalisation of genocide denial can interact or grate against freedom of expression laws. Not just that, he offers convincing and useful arguments to Armenians and Armenian organisations/state bodies as to how they ought to undertake legal action or respond to denialist claims when addressing international or European legal bodies. Finally, he dedicates a chapter to reparations law and suggests various creative but realistic solutions to the question of how modern Turkey ought to take responsibility for Ottoman crimes and provide reparations to the victims and descendants of 1915.

It is a shame knowing that this book is likely to be read only by those who have already ‘taken a side’ on the matter, so I only hope that those readers can use Robertson’s arguments and knowledge to change the hearts of those who still blind themselves to history.

[Joël Linger · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent read. I have read a couple of books on the Armenian Genocide now and this one is one of the best. It's expertly written and it never gets boring. Some of the books on this very important subject are a quite tedious read as the it is such a big and compex subject. But Robertson manages to tell it in a very compelling way.

I've had the honour of interviewing Geoffrey not long ago and unfortunately his book didn't arrive in time for me to read it before the interview which is a shame. But i might get to talk to him again and there is a lot more to talk about.

This book is a must-read especially if you're interested in human rights and/or the Armenian Genocide.

[Araxie Altounian · Rating 5 out of 5]

I highly recommend this book. Here is an internationally recognized human rights lawyer who examines the case of the Armenian genocide from a legal point of view, and makes that view accessible to the layperson.

[Dants · Rating 5 out of 5]

As an Armenian by ethnicity and have been hearing about and thought about from school from a young age, I cannot possibly be an impartial or neutral about the content of this book.

I do sense that the author tried his best to be impartial and be objective. As a lawyer he sticks to the books and tries to analyze every claim or point of discussion in its legal terms. But there is a morality in it too, as the continuous statement of the author that genocide is the absolute worst crime ever.

I came to learn a couple of new stuff in this book. That the most deaths of the Armenians were of dysentery and typhoid. That the term genocide is not dependent on the number of people killed and any amount can be considered as genocide. The complicity of Germany in the time of war. The stance of Britain and the US and the change of just to have Turkey on their side against the Soviet. And most interestingly, Ataturk's statement of feeling shame of what happened in those years. I really did not know this.

But seeing what's happening in the world today, even though I think the atrocities are less severe than before, the practice is very similar. If you are not antagonizing the powerful countries, they're very unlikely to criticize and prosecute you. Lives of peoples in different places on earth are worth differently. The claim that every person is equal and as important does not hold true in practice. And most importantly it reminds me of an anectode from the Roman times, where a lawyer or statesman shouting to a soldier plundering or killing that what he is doing is against the law. The soldier replies to the lawyer with "When will you people of the pen stop quoting law to us, the people with swords." And reading this book, and seeing the atrocities of today's world, cynically I think not much has changed in the last 2000 years.

[✨arrianne✨ · Rating 5 out of 5]

Up until the last couple of years I was totally ignorant about Armenia and its history, then I started seeing wee references to it in other things I was reading. So when this showed up on the home page of my local library app, I had to get it.

It’s written by a human rights lawyer who has worked on genocide cases before, so he knows his stuff. He brings together evidence for the events of 1915 where somewhere up to 75% of the Armenian people just mysteriously died if you ask Turkey about it. One day they were there and then the next, gone. He shows how that evidence all adds up to the legal definition of genocide and shows how this could all be taken forward.

Really well written, a fascinating and well evidenced work. I wouldn’t think the author should be going to Turkey for his holidays any time soon though.

CW genocide, rape, murder, execution, forced death marches

[Shishira · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good book to give you a holistic understanding of genocide, the history of the term especially related to the Armenian genocide. A very logical book, I recommend it to those who are new to the horrors the Armenians faced during the Ottoman Era.

[Eliza · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent read. I was introduced to Robertson in my HSC year and was blown away by his exploration of human rights issues.

He provides a well-structured and clear examination of the Armenian genocide from a legal standpoint, and he calls for justice in important ways (ie returning cultural property, international recognition of the genocide, making honest history in textbooks). Highly recommend.

[Heather · Rating 3 out of 5]

Quite an interesting read that presents the facts of the Armenian Genocide case and also looks into international law and what can be done going forward to recognise it. Unfortunately I found some of it a bit repetitive but was glad to get a wider understanding of the issues around recognising the Armenian genocide.

[Christopher Iacovetti · Rating 4 out of 5]

‘I have sent my Death’s Head units to the East with the order to kill withotu mercy men, women and children of the Polish race or language. Only in such a way will we win the lebensraum that we need. Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians’ - Hitler, 1939

‘The evidence of genocidal intent is plain from the laws passed in 1915-16 to seize and sell homes and lands and churches, because the government had decided the Armenians were not coming back’

‘Shortly after the Ottomans opportunistically threw in their lot with the Axis powers in 1914, they began to eliminate their minorities. First they came for the Greeks, who at least had a homeland to which they could be deported. Then for the Armenians, most of whom were slaughtered, and lastly for the Assyrians, a third of whom were killed. These people were not, as the present Turkish government would have the world believe, just some of the many victims of the First World War’

Obama 2008 campaign statement: ‘The facts are undeniable … as President, I will recognise the Armenian genocide.' At the centenary in 1915: ‘President Obama, who knows that the slaughter was genocide (see p. 10), did not show up or even dare to voice his opinion.’


‘Turkey maintains its obsessive denialism and uses Article 301 of the Penal Code to threaten those of its citizens who “insult Turkishness” by referring to the treatment of Armenians in 1915 as genocide. … Its “neuralgic” reaction goes to absurd lengths: when the parliament of an Australian state (New South Wales) recognised the genocide, Turkey threatened to ban its MPs from attending the 2015 centenary commemoration for the loss of Australian life - including that of “Piper Bill” - at Gallipoli. When the Swedish Parliament used the “G” word, Prime Minister Erdogan responded by threatening to deport 100,000 Armenian guest workers - given that mass deportations were the vehicle for the genocide, this menace was particularly ugly’

‘In May 1915, the Ottoman government passed a law that ordered the deportation of about a million and a half Armenians from Anatolia: able-bodied men were massacred, if already conscripted, or sent to army labour camps, whilst their families were marched towards Syria and hundreds of thousands - over half - died en route from disease, starvation and armed attack, or else in un-provisioned camps in Syria’

‘The UK government’s recent description of these events as no more than a ‘tragedy’ would have astonished the leaders of that government in 1915 and during the post-war peace conferences. Contemporaneously, they were viewed not as a tragedy but as a monumental crime. A joint declaration by Britain, France and Russia in May 1915 vowed that all members of the Ottoman government would be held personally liable for what was, for the first time, described as a “crime against humanity”’

‘By the end of the 1920s the trials in Constantinople fizzled out, as the government crumbled and then fell to the nationalist party led by Mustafa Kemal (later called Ataturk), which comprised many CUP members and opposed retribution for what Kemal himself conceded had been “a shameful act”’

‘That was the problem: the massacres and deportations were not “war crimes” (the Ottoman Turks were not at war with their own people) so were not able to be tried by the other side at a court martial, and the position at international law was unclear. … The US was opposed to the idea of international justice; France and Italy lost interest in establishing a court, because they wanted to get their snouts into the resource-rich trough of the new Turkey and did not want to alienate Kemal and his nationalists … But the eventual reason why this first attempt at international justice failed was the strong opposition to it by Mustafa Kemal’

‘Kemal’s nationalist government in Ankara solemnly promised the UK that, when shipped back from Malta, “the [Turkish] detainees will be marched from the port straight to their respective states, where they will be tried for the crimes of which they are accused”. On the strength of this promise the detainees were shipped back to Turkey, where many of them marched from the port straight into positions in the nationalist government. None was put on any form of trial’

Armenia was the most impoverished Soviet state until the USSR’s collapse in 1991: “It had been comprehensively betrayed by the Western allies’

‘The Hamidian massacres of 1894-96 began with a tax revolt by Armenian peasants in Sassoun in the mountains of eastern Turkey. They resented paying exactions to the local government as well as having money extorted from them (with government permission) by Kurdish chiefs. The provincial governor urged local Muslims to teach the insubordinate Armenians a lesson, and they did so by killing thousands of men, women, and children, whilst government troops and Hamidiye regiments stood by - or joined in. The refusal to pay tax was dubbed an “uprising” by the Ottomans’

‘An extreme nationalism entered the political soul of the CUP, which led to the development of the kind of race supremacy theories that are particularly associated with the prelude to genocide. … Its extreme nationalist fervour demanded a “warrior nation” to prevent “the decay of the Turkish race; a “Turkification” program for language and culture; and the banning of Armenian organisations. … A law of 1909 had banned associations bearing the name “Armenian” (or any other minority race) and the Turksih language was made mandatory in private as well as state schools’

‘The deportations became official government policy in May [1915], but they had begun, perhaps as test runs, as early as March. ... Muslim refugees (Muhascirs) from the Balkan defeat and other Muslim families were moved immediately into the forcibly vacated [Armenian] homes [in Zeytun]. Armenian carvings and inscriptions of historic value were destroyed, and the names of streets and places were “Turkified”. This mini-genocide is significant because it happened in late March and early April, shortly before the uprising in Van which denialists use as evidence of a “civil war”. The fate of the Armenians at Zeytun became a precedent for every other community in Anatolia as this fateful year progressed’

‘Denalists generally admit 600,000 deaths, whilst Armenian scholars (and contemporary poltiIn cians) place the losses at 1.5 million’

On 24 June Talaat and his Ministry ‘ordered the deportation of “all Armenians without exception” to distant places where they were forbidden to open schools and could not settle if by doing so they would count as more than 10 per cent of the local Muslim population’

‘Talaat’s orders, in cables to local officials, were to bring the Armenian problem to “a final end, in a comprehensive and absolute way”. Morgenthau cites telegrams from Talaat ordering orphanages to reject Armenian children whose parents died on the marches because “the government … considers the survival of these children as detrimental’

‘Rossler’s vice-counsel, Hoffman, reported that allowing rape of the deportees had become an official policy that the government did not bother to hide. By October 1915 he estimated the death toll at 600,000 and rising, and quoted one CUP official, with whom he had interceded, replying: “You still don’t understand what we want: we want to eradicate the Armenian name,” whilst another had said, “We want an Armenia without Armenians”’

‘German diplomats had no motive to lie when reporting on the behaviour of an ally. The German ambassador in the latter part of 1915, Count Wolff-Metternich, reported to Berlin that “the CUP demands the extirpation of the last remnants of Armenians … and the government must yield. Turkification means a license to expel, to kill or destroy everything that is not Turkish, and to violently take possession of the goods of others.” The German vice-consul in Erzurum reported that … the CUP “are bluntly admitting that the purpose of their actions is the total obliteration of the Armenians. As an authoritative person word-for-word declared, ‘We will have in Turkey no more Armenians after the war’” … Even General Ludendorff, the German arch-nationalist, described Armenian suffering as “not to be justified by anything” and German government documents published at the end of the war were full of the horrors perpetrated under the eyes and noses of its diplomats and their sources. As the Erzurum consul put it, when asked whether there was not some general uprising by the Armenians which might justify their slaughter, “Any proof whatsoever, in my view, is lacking”’

‘The Armenians at Van did not revolt - they defended their quarter against aggression by troops under orders from the Turkish governor, Djevdet Bey. The local Armenian leaders were opposed to any uprising. In any event, the deportations from Zeytun and other parts of Cicilia had begun before the so-called “revolt” at Van, and the deportations continued from places that were nowhere near the front line and which no “military necessity” could justify’

‘Toynbee noted Talaat’s reference to “the sad events that have occurred in Armenia … we have been reproached for making no distinction between the innocent Armenians and the guilty; but that was utterly impossible, in view of the fact that those who were innocent today might be guilty tomorrow”’ - cf. Israeli comments on Palestinian children as ‘future terrorists’

‘Size, in fact, does not matter - the World Court … held that there was genocide in Srebrenicca, which involved the killing of 7,000 Muslim men and the deportation of 18,000 women and children’

‘The Nazis moved to eliminate the Jew because they *believed* they were a threat - morally, culturally, financially - to German hegemony, and the Ottoman government moved to eliminate the Armenian population because it thought they were a threat because many of them would welcome an Allied invasion. Deniers of the Armenian genocide obsess about the threat from revolutionary Dashnaks compared with the “passivity” of the Jews in Germany, but a race is protected from desturction, even if among its members there may be found some terrorists (or freedom fighters) who want liberation from the rule of the would-be destroyers’

‘The [Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide] is particularly important beccause it has US backing - it was ratified by President Reagan in 1986 to appease Jewish fury over his visit to Bitburg cemetary. (The outrage was fanned by a hitherto unknown young man, fat and bearded, who flew from Michigan to stage a demonstration at the cemetary to embarrass the US president by pointing out that he was honouring SS graves. It was film-maker Michael Moore’s first, and most effective, protest.)’

‘The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) has ruled that the definition also covers the creation of circumstancces that lead to a slow death, such as lack of proper housing, clothing, hygiene or excessive work or physical exhaustion’ - cf. Gaza

‘“Genocidal intent” is a construct by inference from circumstances and public statements, but it must not be confused with motive, which may not be racial but strategic or political. This would not exclude the intention necessary for genocide. The international court dealing with Rwanda (the ICTR) [confirm this:] … “The requirement that an ethnic group be targeted ‘as such’ does not prohibit a conviction for genocide in a case in which the perpetrator was also driven by other motivations … The prescribed acts must be committed against the victims *because* of their membership in the proscribed groups, but not solely because of such membership.” Thus a Hutu defendant who claimed that he could not be convicted of genocide for killing Tutsis because he was motivated not by race hate but by the fact that they were his business competitors, had his defence rejected - his intention was to destroy the group, and his motive was irrelevant’

‘Turkey … also denies that a state, as such, can commit the crime of genocide. This was Serbia’s argument before the ICJ in Bosnia v Serbia and the court rejected it’

‘If there is any doubt about German consciousness of guilt, it was emphasised when the Reich sent a gunboat to rescue the main perpetrators - Talaat, Envir, Cemal and Dr Niman (the top “Turkification” ideologue) - so that they could avoid the trail that awaited them in Constantinople. Germany sheltered them and refused to give them up for trial anywhere else, despite requests from the Turkish and the British governments. … On the prinnciples set out above, Germany as well as Turkey would be liable to an action brought by Armenia under Article IX of the Genocide Convention. Its complicity derives from its detailed knowledge of the massacres and deportations, from its refusal to use its power and influence to stop them, and subsequently, its protection of the criminals. Unlike Turkey it has recognised the genocide, but has failed to recognise its own responsibility for failing to stop it’

[Frumenty · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very closely argued and persuasive book, if at times a little repetitive. An earlier reader of my public library copy annotated it with the words "Needs a good proofreader"; there are a small number of blips, the most egregious of which was to call the Sandakan death march (of Australian prisoners of war by their Japanese captors) the "Samarkand" death march, but it wasn't so bad that it bothered me.

The book is not concerned with the history per se of the Armenian genocide of 1915 (though a historical outline is provided for the sake of context), but with the legal and political dimensions of those events in contemporary times. I think it is fair to call it polemical, but polemic is no bad thing if the cause is just and the arguments are sound.

Robertson is a British lawyer, a Queen's Counsel in fact, with extensive experience in international and human rights law at the highest levels.

In this book he makes a number of simple points:
There is ample documentary, photographic, and eyewitness evidence of the deportation, the massacres (by starvation and disease, as well as physical violence), the destruction of social and cultural assets, and the pillage of property, which were directed against the Armenians of the Ottoman Empire in 1915;
It is the role of historians to consider the evidence and establish the facts; it is the role of lawyers, and only lawyers, to determine whether the facts justify the appellation "genocide";
The intent of the state to commit genocide can be proven in law in the absence of documentary evidence of intent, which rarely exists; the necessary evidence of intent may be entirely circumstantial, a demonstrable pattern of deliberate actions causing grievous harm to a specific people;
Genocide is a crime against distinct racial or religious groups; persecution of homosexuals, or leftists, or Kulaks, or other non-racial non-religious groupings, do not constitute genocide;
Genocide existed before it was given a name, but it was not a prosecutable offense in international law until the Genocide Convention of 1948; whether prosecutable as genocide or not, the events of 1915 are still genocide;
The concept of a "crime against humanity" has existed in international law since before 1915, and a strong case could be made that the Ottoman Empire is guilty of such a crime, to wit the crime of "persecution";
Germany knew at the time about events in the Ottoman Empire and, though in a position of strong influence, did nothing; thus Germany was complicit, and bears some responsibility;
For reasons of commercial, defense, and diplomatic advantage, British governments (and many others) avoid offending the sensitivities of Turkish governments by practicing "genocide equivocation"; the word "tragedy" is equivocation, the correct word is "crime";
Genocide deniers should not be penalized, except in such cases where denial stirs up hatred or civil unrest; laws that penalize genocide denial (as in Germany) and laws that penalize genocide affirmation (as in Turkey) both undermine free speech and do not serve the interest of the peoples affected by genocide, or contribute to reconciliation.

This is a book worth reading, even if you don't think you need to be convinced, for the sake of clarifying your thoughts and arming you against the denialists and equivocators.

[Good Soup · Rating 5 out of 5]

An Inconvenient Genocide is an important book that I'm glad I've read, and I think many more people should read. Not that long ago, I didn't know much about the Armenian genocide, to my shame. Not until I met my partner, who's Armenian by ethnicity. After I met him, I've read about the horrors and the disgusting treatment of the Armenian peoples, and the awful denialist politics around the genocide. But never had I read about it from a judicial perspective. Geoffrey Robertson, a human rights lawyer, writes about the genocide through legal theory. As an Australian-British, he has no vested interest whatsoever in Turkey or Armenia. And his years of practice as a human rights lawyer give him the well-earned credibility in my opnion regarding his expertise.

I really hope that one day, the Armenian people do get the acknowledgment for what has happened. Because as Robertson cleverly has put in his sub-title, 'Who now remembers the Armenians', a reference to something that Hitler has said, is a sad truth (that has also resulted in another tragic genocide..). Because this topic has been avoided or talked about with the utmost 'political correctness' (for instance the UK before 2010 as he describes in his book), not much people know of it. Bypassing one's own morals, so that Turkey won't be 'offended', is really absurd (it's also absurd that there is actually a Turkish Penal Code, 301, that make it illegal to insult Turkey/'Turkishness').

The Armenian genocide should be recognized and talked about more by a larger group of people. There should be more awareness, for trauma needs healing through affirmation.

[Ietrio · Rating 1 out of 5]

The question ”was there an Armenian genocide?” still exists in the upper political discussion in Turkey. But there is an entire horde of people just like Robertson who make an excellent living retelling the same stories without any contribution. Who remembers? Well, with events and exhibitions in all Western capitals, as well as major cities, yea, this looks like a good business.

[Ryan · Rating 5 out of 5]

While potentially tough for the layperson, Robertson works through the evidential and legal issues with his usual candour and clarity. Great read for me, as someone who knew very little on the topic.

[Dianna · Rating 5 out of 5]

Amazing book. I advice everyone who interested in International Criminal law and Politics to read this book.

[Daniyela · Rating 5 out of 5]

read it ◡̈

[Ben Mudd · Rating 2 out of 5]

Partly my fault, I thought it was going to be mrkw of a history book, but it’s more in law, so not to interesting. Some cool points though

[Emma · Rating 4 out of 5]

Robertson provides an in-depth exploration of the events of the Armenian genocide and how it quantifies as 'genocide' according to international law. He refutes a number of myths and assumptions surrounding the legal definition of genocide, providing various countries as case studies examining why they have not acknowledged the Armenian genocide as genocide.

The first few chapters come across as somewhat repetitive. This may be because Robertson is trying to drill in a point, clearly outlining that the events in 1915 were a genocide beyond reasonable doubt. However, it did become a little tedious at times as the chapters could have been reduced down to a few key sentences which would have also provided a stronger structure to the first half of the book.

On the other hand, from chapter 5 onwards, the argumentative force of the book truly kicks in. With a step-by-step process, Robertson dismantles Turkish arguments against the claims to genocide. He also provides a thorough overview of British, Australian and American positions throughout the past century on the Armenian genocide while additionally providing possible future measures to be taken in order to reconcile this international dispute.

Overall, I'd recommend this read for anyone with an interest in the Armenian genocide. It is rare to find such accessible literature addressing the legal concerns surround the genocide. Anyone with a basic understanding of the events would benefit from reading this book; no law degree required.

[Dan · Rating 3 out of 5]

'who now remembers?' was adolf hitler's question; he believed none did and was encouraged by that. geoffrey robertson does remeber, and seeks some form of justice, if only acceptance of the facts of this horror. he calmly demolishes the case of the genocide deniers, and offers a considered treatment of the relevant legal issues.

beyond some repetition, i was disappointed by questions that were not addressed: what led those involved to act as they did? what was the effect on armenian culture? how did this compare to other attempted genocides - including the obvious ones orchestrated by hitler. i'll look elsewhere for that, but i'm heartened by the existence of men like robertson and others he describes who challenged what took place.

[Michael · Rating 5 out of 5]

An incredibly important book that everyone should read. Makes me feel angry that the government of my country (the U.K) will not acknowledge it and that the government of Australia actively denies it.

[Steve · Rating 3 out of 5]

He tells the story of the Armenian genocide, then much of the book is taken up with countering the denials and the legal status of genocide.

[Rebecca · Rating 4 out of 5]

An incredibly important discussion of the Armenian genocide and a condemnation of Western nations that have failed to recognize it. A bit dry at times, but nonetheless compelling.