April 24, 1915, was one of the most significantand tragic days of the 20th century. On that date, the Ottoman Empirearrested and murdered hundreds of Armenian community leaders andintellectuals. It was the beginning of the Armenian genocide — thefirst genocide of the 20th century.

A week ago, the House of Commons voted 153-68 in favour of a motionto “acknowledge the Armenian genocide and to condemn it as a crimeagainst humanity.” The motion passed in spite of the opposition ofPrime Minister Paul Martin and his cabinet and exposes not only thedifficulty in defending human rights against crass self-interest, butthe emptiness of the federal Liberal rhetoric about the “democracydeficit.”

The scope of the horror perpetrated against Armenians by thegovernment of the Ottoman Empire between 1915 and 1918, atrocitiesthat were renewed by the post-First World War Turkish state between1920 and 1923, is virtually impossible to comprehend. An estimated1.5 million Armenians died between 1915 and 1923 as the result ofsystematic state policies of starvation, deportation, torture andmassacre.

Genocide is defined as “the organized killing of a people for theexpress purpose of putting an end to their collective existence.”Before the First World War, there were two million Armenians in theOttoman Empire. By 1923, the entire Armenian population of the regionhad been expunged either through death or deportation.

Armenak Deragopian, an Armenian-Canadian living in Vancouver,testifies to his family’s experience: “My father’s family wasmassacred — about 16 people. My father survived because he wasworking in Egypt at the time of World War One and was unable toreturn to his home region. My mother managed to escape but much ofher family was massacred as well.”

In the wake of the First World War, recognition of the Armeniangenocide was pushed aside by political considerations as thevictorious powers carved up Europe and the Middle East and dealt withthe emerging Turkish state and the Soviet Union.

An avalanche of evidence demonstrates the scope of the Armeniangenocide — from eyewitness reports to comprehensive inquiries. Andmany governments including Sweden, France, Switzerland, Holland andBelgium have formally recognized the Armenian genocide and havejoined in the April 24 commemoration. Several leading NATO powershave not — including the United States, Great Britain and Canada.These countries have refused to recognize genocide for fear ofoffending Turkey — a strategic NATO ally.

Turkey has fought hard to deny international recognition of theArmenian genocide, using both its strategic position in the WesternAlliance and its growing economic power to block recognition efforts.In 2000, the U.S. House of Representatives withdrew a motion on thegenocide under pressure from the Clinton administration after Turkeythreatened to deny access to its airspace for missions to Iraq.

When the French National Assembly passed a motion in 2000 torecognize the genocide, the Turkish government cancelled a number ofimportant contracts for French companies.

The effort by the federal Liberal cabinet to block the Canadianmotion this week was motivated by similar concerns. Bombardier andSNC-Lavalin are bidding on a major contract to extend the subwaysystem in Ankara. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce lobbied on theirbehalf to oppose the passing of the Armenian motion, fearingretaliation against Canadian economic interests.

Once the motion was passed, in the absence of the prime minister,Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham issued a statement stating thatCanada’s position “had not changed.”

He added: “Canada has had friendly and co-operative relations withTurkey and Armenia for many years. The Canadian government iscommitted to make these relationships even stronger in the future.”

If nothing else, the vote recognizing the Armenian genocideillustrates the hollowness of the prime minister’s commitment to endthe “democracy deficit.” Reacting to the vote, Martin suggested that“Parliament and the government could have different views. And that,in fact, is one of the great benefits of dealing with parliamentaryreform and parliamentary democracy.”

What is the point of having more “free votes” if they arepre-determined as meaningless in terms of government policy by theprime minister himself? This is not parliamentary reform. Martin isfurthering the democracy deficit by debasing our democraticinstitutions.

After all, the government of Canada is a reflection of a majority inParliament, not a benign dictatorship that can accept or reject theview of elected members of Parliament. Martin is prime ministerbecause a majority of members of Parliament elected by the voters areLiberals. It is not because “he knows better.”

Canada’s MPs are to be praised for standing up against the primeminister in recognizing the Armenian genocide. This is a victory forthe value of historical memory over self-interest. This April, thememory of those who lost their lives in the genocide will not havebeen forgotten.

Perhaps too, this vote can represent a turning point in the revaluingof Canadian democratic institutions. Given the reaction of the primeminister, however, the goal of erasing the democracy deficit seemsfar away.