Tweet
RECONCILIATION IS A PROCESS, NOT AN EVENT
By David L. Phillips
European Voice
http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/2009/10 /reconciliation-is-a-process,-not-an-event/66179.a spx
Oct 19 2009
The US and the EU need to help civil society push develop ties
between Turkey and Armenia, now that political leaders have achieved
a breakthrough.
Turkey and Armenia achieved an historic breakthrough by signing
protocols on the normalisation and recognition of their relations. The
agreement, reached on 10 October, is a big step, but there are still
hurdles to overcome. That the US secretary of state, Hilary Clinton,
had to intervene at the last minute to salvage the deal underscores
the need for continued engagement by the international community. The
Turkish and Armenian parliaments must ratify the protocols before they
go into effect. They will need support from their civil societies
not only to ratify the protocols, but to galvanise the goal of
reconciliation. While recognition is an event that occurs on a specific
day, reconciliation is a difficult and long-term process.
It is understandable that some Turks and Armenians would be
apprehensive about changing the status quo. When I chaired the
Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission (2001-04), supported by
the US State Department and the foreign ministries of five European
countrie, just getting Turks and Armenians to talk was a major
breakthrough.
The initial interaction between Turks and Armenians was tense and
defined by distrust. It took several meetings before participants
overcame their predisposition towards hostility, started listening
to each other and discussed collaborative activities. The Commission
succeeded in breaking the ice and shattering taboos. It also served as
a lightning rod for critics by catalysing contact, communication and
co-operation between many civil society organisations. Though their
efforts were impeded by the closed border between Turkey and Armenia,
struggling to overcome obstacles helped develop common ground and
foster friendships.
Turkish and Armenian officials have learned from this experience.
Recognising that ratification of the protocols will not mark the end of
their efforts, they wisely incorporated a series of intergovernmental
working groups into the 10 October agreement. The structure will
enable Turkey and Armenia to institutionalise their collaboration on
a range of issues such as energy, transportation, education, science,
environment and disaster preparedness.
The protocols also envision a working group to look at the historical
dimension of Turkish-Armenian relations. The language used to describe
this working group is broad and ambiguous. It has, therefore, given
rise to concern among some Armenians that the protocols will establish
a historical commission to determine if the events of 1915-23 meet the
definition of genocide. This is absolutely not the case. No Armenian,
including Armenia's President Serge Sarkissian, would countenance
questions about whether the Armenian genocide occurred.
>From my experience, delving into history is not the place to start. It
will be difficult to bridge the dramatically divergent historical
narratives of Turks and Armenians. I have seen historians come to
the table with stacks of documents validating their entrenched views.
Meetings are typically frustrating and fruitless. A legal approach
would be much more useful.
In 2004, the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission requested
legal experts to "facilitate the provision of an independent legal
analysis on the applicability of the 1948 United Nations Genocide
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
to events which occurred during the early twentieth century". The
finding is by no means definitive, but it did give something to both
peoples that can help advance the goal of reconciliation.
Since international law generally prohibits the retroactive application
of treaties, the finding concluded that no legal, financial or
territorial claim arising out of the events could successfully be
made against any individual or state under the Convention.
Armenians also found elements to their liking. The finding concluded
that the term genocide can be applied to events that occurred prior
to entry into force of the treaty in 1948. It defined the crime of
genocide as having four elements: the perpetrator killed one or more
persons; such person or persons belonged to a particular national,
ethnic, racial or religious group; the conduct took place in the
context of a manifest pattern; and the perpetrator intended to effect
the destruction of that group.
The core facts common to all accounts establish that the
first three elements were met. Intent is the primary area of
disagreement. The legal analysis concluded that, "At least some of
the perpetrators...knew that the consequence of (the deportations)
would be the destruction of, in whole or in part, the Armenians of
eastern Anatolia, as such, or acted purposefully towards this goal and,
therefore, possessed the requisite genocidal intent."
While the legal analysis was a win-win, reconciliation occurs at
a human level not in a court of law. Opening the Turkish-Armenian
border after 16 years is essential to reconciliation. Both sides
will garner tangible benefits. Turkey will be able transport goods
to central Asia more efficiently, via Armenia. Armenians will more
easily export goods to Western markets and visit religious sites in
Turkey that are important to them, such as the Akhtamar Church and the
ruins of Ani on the Arax River. When they meet, Turks and Armenians
will trade stories contributing to mutual understanding and empathy.
The leaders of Turkey and Armenian deserve accolades for their
vision and leadership. However, normalisation and recognition are
not risk-free. They can not succeed on their own. Civil societies
in both countries must overcome their apprehension and rally behind
the protocols. The United States and the EU must also do their part
to support civil society's participation, encourage the governments
and provide tangible rewards for progress.
David L. Phillips is the director of the programme on conflict
prevention and peace-building at American University in Washington,
D.C.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
By David L. Phillips
European Voice
http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/2009/10 /reconciliation-is-a-process,-not-an-event/66179.a spx
Oct 19 2009
The US and the EU need to help civil society push develop ties
between Turkey and Armenia, now that political leaders have achieved
a breakthrough.
Turkey and Armenia achieved an historic breakthrough by signing
protocols on the normalisation and recognition of their relations. The
agreement, reached on 10 October, is a big step, but there are still
hurdles to overcome. That the US secretary of state, Hilary Clinton,
had to intervene at the last minute to salvage the deal underscores
the need for continued engagement by the international community. The
Turkish and Armenian parliaments must ratify the protocols before they
go into effect. They will need support from their civil societies
not only to ratify the protocols, but to galvanise the goal of
reconciliation. While recognition is an event that occurs on a specific
day, reconciliation is a difficult and long-term process.
It is understandable that some Turks and Armenians would be
apprehensive about changing the status quo. When I chaired the
Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission (2001-04), supported by
the US State Department and the foreign ministries of five European
countrie, just getting Turks and Armenians to talk was a major
breakthrough.
The initial interaction between Turks and Armenians was tense and
defined by distrust. It took several meetings before participants
overcame their predisposition towards hostility, started listening
to each other and discussed collaborative activities. The Commission
succeeded in breaking the ice and shattering taboos. It also served as
a lightning rod for critics by catalysing contact, communication and
co-operation between many civil society organisations. Though their
efforts were impeded by the closed border between Turkey and Armenia,
struggling to overcome obstacles helped develop common ground and
foster friendships.
Turkish and Armenian officials have learned from this experience.
Recognising that ratification of the protocols will not mark the end of
their efforts, they wisely incorporated a series of intergovernmental
working groups into the 10 October agreement. The structure will
enable Turkey and Armenia to institutionalise their collaboration on
a range of issues such as energy, transportation, education, science,
environment and disaster preparedness.
The protocols also envision a working group to look at the historical
dimension of Turkish-Armenian relations. The language used to describe
this working group is broad and ambiguous. It has, therefore, given
rise to concern among some Armenians that the protocols will establish
a historical commission to determine if the events of 1915-23 meet the
definition of genocide. This is absolutely not the case. No Armenian,
including Armenia's President Serge Sarkissian, would countenance
questions about whether the Armenian genocide occurred.
>From my experience, delving into history is not the place to start. It
will be difficult to bridge the dramatically divergent historical
narratives of Turks and Armenians. I have seen historians come to
the table with stacks of documents validating their entrenched views.
Meetings are typically frustrating and fruitless. A legal approach
would be much more useful.
In 2004, the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission requested
legal experts to "facilitate the provision of an independent legal
analysis on the applicability of the 1948 United Nations Genocide
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
to events which occurred during the early twentieth century". The
finding is by no means definitive, but it did give something to both
peoples that can help advance the goal of reconciliation.
Since international law generally prohibits the retroactive application
of treaties, the finding concluded that no legal, financial or
territorial claim arising out of the events could successfully be
made against any individual or state under the Convention.
Armenians also found elements to their liking. The finding concluded
that the term genocide can be applied to events that occurred prior
to entry into force of the treaty in 1948. It defined the crime of
genocide as having four elements: the perpetrator killed one or more
persons; such person or persons belonged to a particular national,
ethnic, racial or religious group; the conduct took place in the
context of a manifest pattern; and the perpetrator intended to effect
the destruction of that group.
The core facts common to all accounts establish that the
first three elements were met. Intent is the primary area of
disagreement. The legal analysis concluded that, "At least some of
the perpetrators...knew that the consequence of (the deportations)
would be the destruction of, in whole or in part, the Armenians of
eastern Anatolia, as such, or acted purposefully towards this goal and,
therefore, possessed the requisite genocidal intent."
While the legal analysis was a win-win, reconciliation occurs at
a human level not in a court of law. Opening the Turkish-Armenian
border after 16 years is essential to reconciliation. Both sides
will garner tangible benefits. Turkey will be able transport goods
to central Asia more efficiently, via Armenia. Armenians will more
easily export goods to Western markets and visit religious sites in
Turkey that are important to them, such as the Akhtamar Church and the
ruins of Ani on the Arax River. When they meet, Turks and Armenians
will trade stories contributing to mutual understanding and empathy.
The leaders of Turkey and Armenian deserve accolades for their
vision and leadership. However, normalisation and recognition are
not risk-free. They can not succeed on their own. Civil societies
in both countries must overcome their apprehension and rally behind
the protocols. The United States and the EU must also do their part
to support civil society's participation, encourage the governments
and provide tangible rewards for progress.
David L. Phillips is the director of the programme on conflict
prevention and peace-building at American University in Washington,
D.C.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress