Tweet
Panorama.am
08.04.15
Henry Theriault: Armenia is suffering from legacy of Genocide;
Armenia's long-term security and viability depend on reparations
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, 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...
By Nvard Chalikyan
Panorama.am
From: A. Papazian
08.04.15
Henry Theriault: Armenia is suffering from legacy of Genocide;
Armenia's long-term security and viability depend on reparations
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, 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...
By Nvard Chalikyan
Panorama.am
From: A. Papazian