Tweet
HENRY THERIAULT: ARMENIA IS SUFFERING FROM LEGACY OF GENOCIDE; ARMENIA'S LONG-TERM SECURITY AND VIABILITY DEPEND ON REPARATIONS
14:20 08/04/2015 >> SOCIETY
Nvard Chalikyan from Panorama.am has spoken with Professor Henry C.
Theriault - Chair of the Philosophy Department at Worcester State
University and Chair of the Armenian Genocide Reparations Study Group
(AGRSG) about the recently published report of the Group titled
Resolution with Justice: Reparations for the Armenian Genocide
(Armenian and English versions of the executive summary and full
report are available at www.armeniangenocidereparations.info).
Part 1
Dr. Theriault says that the issue of Genocide reparations is gaining
greater popularity and that recognition should only be a part of
broader reparations process and not an end in itself; he believes
that the present-day Republic of Armenia is suffering from the legacy
of Genocide and that Armenia's long-term viability as the secure and
permanent home of all Armenians depends on territorial reparations;
he also explains the group's formula for calculating the reparations
package presented in the report.
Nvard Chalikyan: Dr. Theriault, there seems to be a lack of discussion
on the reparations aspect of the Genocide, which the AGRSG Report
addresses in detail. How much support does the issue of reparations
have in general? How popular is it nowadays?
Henry Theriault: The reparations issue has recently acquired greater
importance and acceptance in general. This is true not only for the
Armenian case but for many other human rights cases around the world.
It is important to put the question of the Armenian Genocide in the
context of a wider area called Genocide Studies where many cases are
examined together. This is not just an individual group concerned about
its own history but it is a much bigger issue in history that concerns
everyone else in the world. I link the question of the Armenian
Genocide to human rights, social justice, civil rights, and gender
issues in the US and across the world. Our report is actually very
applicable to other groups, as we tried to present a universal case.
While some ten years ago many Armenians did not consider reparations
as a practical issue to be talked about, there has been a major shift
in this direction, especially within the last five years. Now there
is a tremendous interest in the Armenian community and readiness
to advocate for reparations, much more than we had expected when
beginning the study group's work. The Armenian National Committee
of America (ANCA), for instance, has changed its strategy a good
deal from a focus on recognition towards emphasising reparations;
many Armenian scholars have gotten involved, many studies
have been conducted and books published on the subject, and in
Turkey major work is now being done (by Ugur Ungor and Mehmet Polatel
http://www.amazon.com/Confiscation-Destruction-Seizure-Armenian-Property/dp/1441135782,
for instance).
And, the recently adopted pan-Armenian declaration by the State
Commission on the Centennial of the Armenian Genocide talks about
reparations, specifically "preparing . . . a file of legal claims
as a point of departure in the process of restoring individual,
communal and pan-Armenian rights and legitimate interests." So there
is a positive trend in this direction.
N.C: Chapter 3 and Chapter 8 of the Report identify steps for a
comprehensive reparations package, among which are recognition,
apology and return of property. What is the sequence of these steps?
Can reparations be considered only after recognition or should we be
pushing for reparations without further delay?
H. Theriault: These points of the Report identify different key
aspects, but their order is not in time. Recognition is there as part
of reparations approach because we think that without recognition
by the perpetrator group and others that the harm happened, there
is a danger that the point of material reparations will be lost. As
one of the report's co-authors, Jermaine McCalpin, has emphasized in
recent speeches, reparations is not "hush money." On the contrary,
it is only meaningful if all concerned acknowledge the injury that
was done and understand how and why the reparative measures taken
now promote justice. This is especially true for territorial returns.
At the same time, even though recognition and apology should be a
part of the overall process, what we want to emphasize is that on
their own or as an end result they are absolutely inadequate. It
doesn't help produce justice to push for recognition without pushing
for reparation. Thus, we tried to reverse the usual logic - we see
reparations as the most central issue which includes both material
and symbolic acts, with recognition as part of reparations, but only
a part. The idea of giving up a broader reparations process in favor
of recognition alone is an old and a very problematic idea.
In terms of the timing, if recognition is understood as a step towards
justice and reparations then it can come first, but if it is treated
as the central goal then it is very dangerous to put it first.
Still, we should keep in mind that from the Republic of Turkey's
standpoint, one major reason for not recognizing the Armenian Genocide
is because they fear that reparation claims will immediately follow
recognition, and their primary concern I believe is reparations. We
could see this clearly in the case of the Armenian-Turkish protocols.
It is very telling that of the very few specific Armenian-Turkish
relations issues addressed, the territorial issue, i.e., the point
about confirming the border, was on the top of the Turkish agenda. It
does tell us a lot about what their concerns are and shows that it
is all about territorial issues ultimately. Going forward, we must
be very careful to include reparations as an issue in any political
discussion of the Genocide with Turkey.
N.C: By recognition do you mean recognition by Turkey, by the
international community or both?
H. Theriault: Ultimately both. Many people in Turkish civil society
today recognize the Genocide but it is a real question of what
would get the Turkish state to do so. Historically for the most part
(Australia being an exception) countries have recognized genocides or
mass human rights violations only when external actors pushed them
to do it. So, there is a role for the international community in
pushing for recognition. What is more, the Armenian Genocide is not
a Turkish-Armenian issue. Going back to the work of Raphael Lemkin
in creating the concept and word "genocide," genocide affects all of
humanity and is thus the concern of all of humanity.
N.C: The Report presents specific calculations of financial, material
and territorial compensations that are due to Armenians. Based on
what data are these calculations made? How reasonable and realistic
are they?
H. Theriault: First of all, in the Report we tried to present numbers
based on historical data and on the work that was done previously,
in the aftermath of the Genocide, by those with direct data on what
happened in the genocidal process. We took data from the Paris Peace
Conference for instance, where there was a real historical effort to
catalogue the Armenian losses and to calculate a reparation package
based on evidence. We also used the New York Life settlement method to
get an idea of what appropriate compensation for deaths would be. By
"appropriate" here I do not mean that compensation can in any way make
up for the deaths, but that compensation funds can help Armenians as
a group - in the Republic, Diaspora, and Turkey - with resources that
can promote Armenian security, identity, and well-being, against the
very significant impacts of the Genocide on Armenians today.
In terms of territorial compensations we tried to come up with a
formula based on a realistic approach to Wilsonian boundaries. Woodrow
Wilson's Arbitration Award (Ara Papian addresses this) likewise
presents a detailed process which formulated the appropriate
territories necessary for Armenians surviving the Genocide to
reconstitute in a sustainable way the group. It must be stressed that
the need issue is really important because the Republic of Armenia
today is suffering from the consequences of the Genocide. We must not
forget that the hardships and the limitation of resources in Armenia
today are in large part a direct result of Genocide.
Of course, the issue of territorial return is very complex, and in
the report we offer four possible approaches to it that include three
different territorial determinations and an alternative political
approach that could work with any of the territorial determinations.
As for how realistic the size of the proposed financial compensation
is, it is a limited, conservative estimate of what would be
appropriate. The numbers we are presenting are very reasonable and
actually represent a middle point. There are certainly higher estimates
that would be legitimate.
N.C: How is the present-day Republic of Armenia suffering from the
consequences of the Genocide? How can reparations actually mitigate
this?
H. Theriault: This is a huge topic, but I can single out two major
issues. First, when Ataturk militarily conquered the bulk of the 1918
Armenian Republic's lands and forced the remainder into the Soviet
Union, that not only stunted the potential population (think about
how many Armenians later left just to go to Russia, for instance) but
it also created a situation where Armenia just cannot sustain a bigger
population, cannot sustain the kind of agriculture that's necessary for
full independence. Thus the impact of that legacy is quite demonstrable
today; but it also goes way beyond that. We must not forget that, in
fact, the Wilsonian Arbitral Award gave Armenians at least partial
reparations for the Genocide, but the Turkish nationalist movement
that established the current Turkish Republic took the portion of
the awarded lands that the 1918 Republic actually possessed away -
that is, Turkey took away the reparations given to Armenians.
The second thing to stress is the way Turkey is currently a threat
to Armenia. Just going back to the blockade in 1990s when Turkey
was interfering with shipments of food aid from the US - it was
scandalous. Turkey is also able to interfere in a significant way with
Armenia today and to harm the country economically and politically,
while supporting Azerbaijan is a whole other dimension. All of this is
the legacy of the Genocide as well, and specifically that the Genocide
is unacknowledged and unrepaired. Could Germany, for instance, treat
Israel in this way?
So if we are talking about calculating the land that's necessary,
it really has to be focused on what the Armenian Republic needs in
order to be permanently viable for its population and any Turkish
and Diasporan Armenians that would like to resettle. Territory is
not only a historical justice issue but it is also a very legitimate
human rights issue for the present. My analysis of the situation has
led me to conclude that the future viability of the Armenian Republic
as the secure and permanent home of Armenians as an identity group
depends on territorial reparations.
N.C: From your words can we conclude that the present territory of
the Republic of Armenia is not viable for the long-term survival and
prosperity of the Armenian people, and that the Genocide reparation
is actually a question of security of Armenia and Armenians in the
long run?
H. Theriault: Yes, absolutely...
To be continued...
http://www.panorama.am/en/interviews/2015/04/08/theriault/
14:20 08/04/2015 >> SOCIETY
Nvard Chalikyan from Panorama.am has spoken with Professor Henry C.
Theriault - Chair of the Philosophy Department at Worcester State
University and Chair of the Armenian Genocide Reparations Study Group
(AGRSG) about the recently published report of the Group titled
Resolution with Justice: Reparations for the Armenian Genocide
(Armenian and English versions of the executive summary and full
report are available at www.armeniangenocidereparations.info).
Part 1
Dr. Theriault says that the issue of Genocide reparations is gaining
greater popularity and that recognition should only be a part of
broader reparations process and not an end in itself; he believes
that the present-day Republic of Armenia is suffering from the legacy
of Genocide and that Armenia's long-term viability as the secure and
permanent home of all Armenians depends on territorial reparations;
he also explains the group's formula for calculating the reparations
package presented in the report.
Nvard Chalikyan: Dr. Theriault, there seems to be a lack of discussion
on the reparations aspect of the Genocide, which the AGRSG Report
addresses in detail. How much support does the issue of reparations
have in general? How popular is it nowadays?
Henry Theriault: The reparations issue has recently acquired greater
importance and acceptance in general. This is true not only for the
Armenian case but for many other human rights cases around the world.
It is important to put the question of the Armenian Genocide in the
context of a wider area called Genocide Studies where many cases are
examined together. This is not just an individual group concerned about
its own history but it is a much bigger issue in history that concerns
everyone else in the world. I link the question of the Armenian
Genocide to human rights, social justice, civil rights, and gender
issues in the US and across the world. Our report is actually very
applicable to other groups, as we tried to present a universal case.
While some ten years ago many Armenians did not consider reparations
as a practical issue to be talked about, there has been a major shift
in this direction, especially within the last five years. Now there
is a tremendous interest in the Armenian community and readiness
to advocate for reparations, much more than we had expected when
beginning the study group's work. The Armenian National Committee
of America (ANCA), for instance, has changed its strategy a good
deal from a focus on recognition towards emphasising reparations;
many Armenian scholars have gotten involved, many studies
have been conducted and books published on the subject, and in
Turkey major work is now being done (by Ugur Ungor and Mehmet Polatel
http://www.amazon.com/Confiscation-Destruction-Seizure-Armenian-Property/dp/1441135782,
for instance).
And, the recently adopted pan-Armenian declaration by the State
Commission on the Centennial of the Armenian Genocide talks about
reparations, specifically "preparing . . . a file of legal claims
as a point of departure in the process of restoring individual,
communal and pan-Armenian rights and legitimate interests." So there
is a positive trend in this direction.
N.C: Chapter 3 and Chapter 8 of the Report identify steps for a
comprehensive reparations package, among which are recognition,
apology and return of property. What is the sequence of these steps?
Can reparations be considered only after recognition or should we be
pushing for reparations without further delay?
H. Theriault: These points of the Report identify different key
aspects, but their order is not in time. Recognition is there as part
of reparations approach because we think that without recognition
by the perpetrator group and others that the harm happened, there
is a danger that the point of material reparations will be lost. As
one of the report's co-authors, Jermaine McCalpin, has emphasized in
recent speeches, reparations is not "hush money." On the contrary,
it is only meaningful if all concerned acknowledge the injury that
was done and understand how and why the reparative measures taken
now promote justice. This is especially true for territorial returns.
At the same time, even though recognition and apology should be a
part of the overall process, what we want to emphasize is that on
their own or as an end result they are absolutely inadequate. It
doesn't help produce justice to push for recognition without pushing
for reparation. Thus, we tried to reverse the usual logic - we see
reparations as the most central issue which includes both material
and symbolic acts, with recognition as part of reparations, but only
a part. The idea of giving up a broader reparations process in favor
of recognition alone is an old and a very problematic idea.
In terms of the timing, if recognition is understood as a step towards
justice and reparations then it can come first, but if it is treated
as the central goal then it is very dangerous to put it first.
Still, we should keep in mind that from the Republic of Turkey's
standpoint, one major reason for not recognizing the Armenian Genocide
is because they fear that reparation claims will immediately follow
recognition, and their primary concern I believe is reparations. We
could see this clearly in the case of the Armenian-Turkish protocols.
It is very telling that of the very few specific Armenian-Turkish
relations issues addressed, the territorial issue, i.e., the point
about confirming the border, was on the top of the Turkish agenda. It
does tell us a lot about what their concerns are and shows that it
is all about territorial issues ultimately. Going forward, we must
be very careful to include reparations as an issue in any political
discussion of the Genocide with Turkey.
N.C: By recognition do you mean recognition by Turkey, by the
international community or both?
H. Theriault: Ultimately both. Many people in Turkish civil society
today recognize the Genocide but it is a real question of what
would get the Turkish state to do so. Historically for the most part
(Australia being an exception) countries have recognized genocides or
mass human rights violations only when external actors pushed them
to do it. So, there is a role for the international community in
pushing for recognition. What is more, the Armenian Genocide is not
a Turkish-Armenian issue. Going back to the work of Raphael Lemkin
in creating the concept and word "genocide," genocide affects all of
humanity and is thus the concern of all of humanity.
N.C: The Report presents specific calculations of financial, material
and territorial compensations that are due to Armenians. Based on
what data are these calculations made? How reasonable and realistic
are they?
H. Theriault: First of all, in the Report we tried to present numbers
based on historical data and on the work that was done previously,
in the aftermath of the Genocide, by those with direct data on what
happened in the genocidal process. We took data from the Paris Peace
Conference for instance, where there was a real historical effort to
catalogue the Armenian losses and to calculate a reparation package
based on evidence. We also used the New York Life settlement method to
get an idea of what appropriate compensation for deaths would be. By
"appropriate" here I do not mean that compensation can in any way make
up for the deaths, but that compensation funds can help Armenians as
a group - in the Republic, Diaspora, and Turkey - with resources that
can promote Armenian security, identity, and well-being, against the
very significant impacts of the Genocide on Armenians today.
In terms of territorial compensations we tried to come up with a
formula based on a realistic approach to Wilsonian boundaries. Woodrow
Wilson's Arbitration Award (Ara Papian addresses this) likewise
presents a detailed process which formulated the appropriate
territories necessary for Armenians surviving the Genocide to
reconstitute in a sustainable way the group. It must be stressed that
the need issue is really important because the Republic of Armenia
today is suffering from the consequences of the Genocide. We must not
forget that the hardships and the limitation of resources in Armenia
today are in large part a direct result of Genocide.
Of course, the issue of territorial return is very complex, and in
the report we offer four possible approaches to it that include three
different territorial determinations and an alternative political
approach that could work with any of the territorial determinations.
As for how realistic the size of the proposed financial compensation
is, it is a limited, conservative estimate of what would be
appropriate. The numbers we are presenting are very reasonable and
actually represent a middle point. There are certainly higher estimates
that would be legitimate.
N.C: How is the present-day Republic of Armenia suffering from the
consequences of the Genocide? How can reparations actually mitigate
this?
H. Theriault: This is a huge topic, but I can single out two major
issues. First, when Ataturk militarily conquered the bulk of the 1918
Armenian Republic's lands and forced the remainder into the Soviet
Union, that not only stunted the potential population (think about
how many Armenians later left just to go to Russia, for instance) but
it also created a situation where Armenia just cannot sustain a bigger
population, cannot sustain the kind of agriculture that's necessary for
full independence. Thus the impact of that legacy is quite demonstrable
today; but it also goes way beyond that. We must not forget that, in
fact, the Wilsonian Arbitral Award gave Armenians at least partial
reparations for the Genocide, but the Turkish nationalist movement
that established the current Turkish Republic took the portion of
the awarded lands that the 1918 Republic actually possessed away -
that is, Turkey took away the reparations given to Armenians.
The second thing to stress is the way Turkey is currently a threat
to Armenia. Just going back to the blockade in 1990s when Turkey
was interfering with shipments of food aid from the US - it was
scandalous. Turkey is also able to interfere in a significant way with
Armenia today and to harm the country economically and politically,
while supporting Azerbaijan is a whole other dimension. All of this is
the legacy of the Genocide as well, and specifically that the Genocide
is unacknowledged and unrepaired. Could Germany, for instance, treat
Israel in this way?
So if we are talking about calculating the land that's necessary,
it really has to be focused on what the Armenian Republic needs in
order to be permanently viable for its population and any Turkish
and Diasporan Armenians that would like to resettle. Territory is
not only a historical justice issue but it is also a very legitimate
human rights issue for the present. My analysis of the situation has
led me to conclude that the future viability of the Armenian Republic
as the secure and permanent home of Armenians as an identity group
depends on territorial reparations.
N.C: From your words can we conclude that the present territory of
the Republic of Armenia is not viable for the long-term survival and
prosperity of the Armenian people, and that the Genocide reparation
is actually a question of security of Armenia and Armenians in the
long run?
H. Theriault: Yes, absolutely...
To be continued...
http://www.panorama.am/en/interviews/2015/04/08/theriault/