Menu
Latest
Menu
Latest
Armenians prepare to mark centenary of genocide.

Armenians prepare to mark centenary of genocide.

31 January 2015

Opinion: 'Controversy over the use of the term "genocide" should not hinder the solemn and dignified marking by all of one of the darkest pages in 20th century human history.'

(This is an op-ed prepared by the political editor of commonspace.eu.)

Armenians all over the world are preparing to mark the 100th anniversary of the events in Anatolia during World War 1 which resulted in the massacre of large numbers of Armenians, and the forced displacement of many others. The Armenian Genocide, as it is often referred to, was one of the darkest pages in the history of mankind in the 20th century.

Last week, the State Commission set up to commemorate the anniversary met in Yerevan for its fifth meeting under the chairmanship of the President of Armenia, Serzh Sargsyan. According to the Press Service of the Armenian President, "besides the commission members, representatives of regional centenary committees, experts, diplomatic representatives of the Republic of Armenia and leaders of the Armenian Apostolic Holy Church dioceses took part in the enlarged session. The commission members discussed the political context around the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, the issue concerning the adoption of the Pan-Armenian Declaration on the 100th Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, as well as issues pertaining to the commemorative events and the works of compiling a package of legal claims on overcoming the consequences of the Armenian Genocide." 

The marking of the anniversary is not short of controversy. Speaking to the Commission, Armenian President Sarsyan said:

".... I sent invitations to a number state leaders and heads of key international organizations to take part in the centenary events. I would like to inform you that a series of states and organizations have accepted them. Some states have confirmed their presence through high-level delegations. Some of them have noted that they want to spend that day together with the Armenian communities of their countries. I am asking both the state commission members and the regional committees to join the diplomatic representatives of the Republic of Armenia in ensuring as broad participation as possible in the coming events and in the international media forum to be held at the end of March. It is particularly important, taking into account Turkey's short-sighted and cynical decision to edit its own history through marking the anniversary of the Gallipoli Battle on the day commemorating the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. It is said that in politics all means are good, but I think that by doing it, official Ankara did itself a disservice."

Turkey continues to reject the claim that what happened in Anatolia in 1915 was a genocide. The present Turkish government has taken some modest steps to reconciling its position with that of Armenia, but for Armenians this is not enough, and the anniversary is bound to be a divisive one. It is not only Turkey however that has a problem with the characterisation of the massacres as genocide. Most countries argue that since the term genocide was accepted as a legal term after the second world war it cannot be used in the context of events that happened thirty years earlier. The issue is not simply one of semantics, but has huge legal and financial implications, not least since a perpetrator of genocide would have to pay compensation, which in this case will amount to billions of dollars to levels which no one has as yet quantified.

These differences however should not be allowed to hinder the commemoration of the anniversary. Controversy over the use of the term "genocide" should not hinder the solemn and dignified marking, by all, of one of the darkest pages in 20th century human history. Many had hoped that the 100th anniversary will bring a closure to the controversy and some way could be found to reconcile the different positions. Clearly this has not happened. The anniversary unfortunately will be divisive, possibly creating even new divisions. This is very unfortunate. This notwithstanding however the anniversary will offer an opportunity for one and all to reflect on what happened one hundred years ago. Those who do so also need to reflect on how to go forward. How to ensure that such human tragedies do not happen again, and on how establishing peace in the Caucasus must be one of the priorities in this direction.

This op-ed was prepared by the political editor of commonspace.eu.

photo: President Serzh Sargsyan with leaders of the Armenian Aposrtolic Church at the fifth session of the State Commission on Coordination of events for commemoration of 100th anniversary of Armenian Genocide held in Yerevan on 29 January 2015. (Picture courtesy of the Press Service of the President of Armenia).

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?
Trending

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

19 October 2026
Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Dennis Sammut

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest
Trending

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

7 September 2026
Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Dennis Sammut
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”
Trending

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

21 September 2026
There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)
Dennis Sammut