Tweet
HENRY THERIAULT: REPARATIONS ARE NOT ONLY JUSTIFIED BUT ESSENTIAL
Interviews | April 21, 2015 12:35
exclusive
Henry Theriault
Henry Theriault is a professor and Chair of the Philosophy Department
at Worcester State University in the United States. Over 1999-2007, he
coordinated the University's Center for the Study of Human Rights. His
research focuses on reparations, victim-perpetrator relations, genocide
denial, genocide prevention, and mass violence against women and girls.
Since 2007, he has chaired the Armenian Genocide Reparations Study
Group and is the lead author of its March 2015 final report, Resolution
with Justice. This week Henry Theriault is visiting Armenia to take
part in the Against the Crime of Genocide Global Forum due to be held
in Yerevan on April 22-23.
In his exclusive interview to Mediamax, he talked about the recent
report on the Armenian Genocide reparations.
- How were you proposed to lead the Armenian Genocide Reparations
Study Group?
- Because of work I had presented and begun to publish on reparations
for the Armenian Genocide from about 2003 forward, I had been
approached by different people in the Armenian community about
a more sustained project that would develop a comprehensive study
of the issue, to include legal, historical, ethical, and political
dimensions as well as practical proposals for a reparative process.
In 2007, I was able to arrange some modest funding from the Armenian
Revolutionary Federation, under the condition that the report
would be an academic undertaking with strict independence from any
political group. I reached out to three individuals, Alfred de Zayas
(famous expert of international law and human rights), Ara Papian
(head of Modus Vivendi Center), and Jermaine McCalpin (international
expert of long-term and transitional justice studies), each of
whom enthusiastically agreed to join the group. As group organizer,
the burden fell on me to do the organizational work as well as the
editing and coordinating to produce the final report. We were all
partners in the project group.
- What is the ultimate goal of the report?
- Beyond the obvious hope of contributing to the process of a just
reparative resolution of the Armenian Genocide issue, the more
specific goals are (1) to offer to Armenians and non-Armenians,
including sympathetic Turks, an analysis of the reasons why reparations
are not only justified but essential if the effects of the Genocide
that are still present today are to be mitigated to some extent, (2)
to respond to common objections against reparations, (3) to offer
a new approach to the practical question of how to involve Turkish
people in the reparative process in an open way that will promote
rehabilitation of the Turkish state and society without sacrificing
justice for Armenians, and (4) to offer concrete suggestions about
what a reparations package would look like, including symbolic as
well as material elements.
- What sources, materials, and data did you use in your work?
- The report draws especially extensively on the historical sources on
the genocide as well as recent work on property expropriations; general
theoretical work on reparations and transitional justice, especially
from the fields of philosophy, political science, and law; legal cases,
both international and domestic; the Wilson arbitral award and the
study that produced it and the Paris Peace Conference calculation of
damages to Armenians from the main phase of the genocide.
- Issue of reparations is very sensitive topic for all Armenians.
Both in Armenia and in Diaspora there are different approaches to
this. How did you manage to include these different patterns of the
problem in a single report?
- The report is meant to express the views of its authors, not to be an
official statement of the Republic of Armenia, the Armenian Church,
Diaspora organizations and institutions, or the various Armenian
communities in the Republic, Diaspora, or Turkey. While its authors
believe that the ideas presented are important and useful for the
reparations process, we hope at the very least that the report will
help open up a rich discussion among various Armenian constituencies as
well as non-Armenians concerned with the issue, about the best approach
to the reparations issue, and will serve as a valuable resource for
all discussion participants. That said, the composition of the group
was intentionally varied with the goal of integrated a diversity
of perspectives. It included one Diaspora Armenian, one Armenian
from the Republic, and two non-Armenians from very different places
(Europe and the Caribbean) with different connections to the topic.
These differences are reflected in the fact that the report
delineates multiple different options regarding land claims, rather
than attempting to promote only one. What is more, the report itself
calls for a participatory process of determining what should be asked
for as reparations and how reparations received should be handled, with
mechanisms ensuring proper representation of Armenians in the Republic
and outside it and, more generally, Armenians around the world.
But, it might not be the case that there is a deep split between
Republic and Diaspora. As our report's introduction includes, the
issue of reparations is viewed more and more in a similar way in both
the Republic and Diaspora. In both groups, there is now sustained
attention on the issue and increasing coordination and discussion. In
fact, I will be presenting on the topic of reparations at the upcoming
"Against the Crime of Genocide" Global Forum. While there continues to
be disagreement over different aspects of the reparations question,
it does not appear to be exacerbated along Diaspora-Republic lines,
but rather to be based more on intellectual or political disagreements
or fault lines that run through both the Diaspora and Republican
populations.
- The report includes a "plan for a productive reparative process and
proposes a concrete reparations package". How do you imagine this in
practice? Who must start reparative process - Armenian government or
Armenian Diaspora?
- To answer the second question first, clearly leadership from the
Armenian government is very important, as it represents all Armenians
in the United Nations and the broader international realm. But,
it makes good sense that, if a concrete process of engagement with
Turkey is to succeed, the resources and committed participation of
both the Republic and Diaspora groups and organizations will be of
great benefit in the process.
The first part of the question should be addressed by a very long
answer. In simple terms, based on Jermaine McCalpin's innovative
theoretical work, the report calls for an Armenian Genocide Truth
and Rectification Commission to operate for Armenians and Turks. This
would not be any kind of "historical commission" discussing whether
the genocide actually occurred. The starting point of the AGTRC
is that a genocide did occur; its purpose is to involve the many
well-intentioned Turkish people today in a process that does not
simply provide a forum for more debate on denial, but instead focuses
on what reparations should be made. This kind of open and inclusive
approach can support rehabilitation of the Turkish state and society,
whereas forcing a reparations package on Turkey would likely increase
animosity toward Armenians without having a positive impact on Turkish
individuals and group.
Yekaterina Poghosyan talked to Henry Theriault
http://www.mediamax.am/en/news/interviews/13927/#sthash.LuJbqvjW.dpuf
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Interviews | April 21, 2015 12:35
exclusive
Henry Theriault
Henry Theriault is a professor and Chair of the Philosophy Department
at Worcester State University in the United States. Over 1999-2007, he
coordinated the University's Center for the Study of Human Rights. His
research focuses on reparations, victim-perpetrator relations, genocide
denial, genocide prevention, and mass violence against women and girls.
Since 2007, he has chaired the Armenian Genocide Reparations Study
Group and is the lead author of its March 2015 final report, Resolution
with Justice. This week Henry Theriault is visiting Armenia to take
part in the Against the Crime of Genocide Global Forum due to be held
in Yerevan on April 22-23.
In his exclusive interview to Mediamax, he talked about the recent
report on the Armenian Genocide reparations.
- How were you proposed to lead the Armenian Genocide Reparations
Study Group?
- Because of work I had presented and begun to publish on reparations
for the Armenian Genocide from about 2003 forward, I had been
approached by different people in the Armenian community about
a more sustained project that would develop a comprehensive study
of the issue, to include legal, historical, ethical, and political
dimensions as well as practical proposals for a reparative process.
In 2007, I was able to arrange some modest funding from the Armenian
Revolutionary Federation, under the condition that the report
would be an academic undertaking with strict independence from any
political group. I reached out to three individuals, Alfred de Zayas
(famous expert of international law and human rights), Ara Papian
(head of Modus Vivendi Center), and Jermaine McCalpin (international
expert of long-term and transitional justice studies), each of
whom enthusiastically agreed to join the group. As group organizer,
the burden fell on me to do the organizational work as well as the
editing and coordinating to produce the final report. We were all
partners in the project group.
- What is the ultimate goal of the report?
- Beyond the obvious hope of contributing to the process of a just
reparative resolution of the Armenian Genocide issue, the more
specific goals are (1) to offer to Armenians and non-Armenians,
including sympathetic Turks, an analysis of the reasons why reparations
are not only justified but essential if the effects of the Genocide
that are still present today are to be mitigated to some extent, (2)
to respond to common objections against reparations, (3) to offer
a new approach to the practical question of how to involve Turkish
people in the reparative process in an open way that will promote
rehabilitation of the Turkish state and society without sacrificing
justice for Armenians, and (4) to offer concrete suggestions about
what a reparations package would look like, including symbolic as
well as material elements.
- What sources, materials, and data did you use in your work?
- The report draws especially extensively on the historical sources on
the genocide as well as recent work on property expropriations; general
theoretical work on reparations and transitional justice, especially
from the fields of philosophy, political science, and law; legal cases,
both international and domestic; the Wilson arbitral award and the
study that produced it and the Paris Peace Conference calculation of
damages to Armenians from the main phase of the genocide.
- Issue of reparations is very sensitive topic for all Armenians.
Both in Armenia and in Diaspora there are different approaches to
this. How did you manage to include these different patterns of the
problem in a single report?
- The report is meant to express the views of its authors, not to be an
official statement of the Republic of Armenia, the Armenian Church,
Diaspora organizations and institutions, or the various Armenian
communities in the Republic, Diaspora, or Turkey. While its authors
believe that the ideas presented are important and useful for the
reparations process, we hope at the very least that the report will
help open up a rich discussion among various Armenian constituencies as
well as non-Armenians concerned with the issue, about the best approach
to the reparations issue, and will serve as a valuable resource for
all discussion participants. That said, the composition of the group
was intentionally varied with the goal of integrated a diversity
of perspectives. It included one Diaspora Armenian, one Armenian
from the Republic, and two non-Armenians from very different places
(Europe and the Caribbean) with different connections to the topic.
These differences are reflected in the fact that the report
delineates multiple different options regarding land claims, rather
than attempting to promote only one. What is more, the report itself
calls for a participatory process of determining what should be asked
for as reparations and how reparations received should be handled, with
mechanisms ensuring proper representation of Armenians in the Republic
and outside it and, more generally, Armenians around the world.
But, it might not be the case that there is a deep split between
Republic and Diaspora. As our report's introduction includes, the
issue of reparations is viewed more and more in a similar way in both
the Republic and Diaspora. In both groups, there is now sustained
attention on the issue and increasing coordination and discussion. In
fact, I will be presenting on the topic of reparations at the upcoming
"Against the Crime of Genocide" Global Forum. While there continues to
be disagreement over different aspects of the reparations question,
it does not appear to be exacerbated along Diaspora-Republic lines,
but rather to be based more on intellectual or political disagreements
or fault lines that run through both the Diaspora and Republican
populations.
- The report includes a "plan for a productive reparative process and
proposes a concrete reparations package". How do you imagine this in
practice? Who must start reparative process - Armenian government or
Armenian Diaspora?
- To answer the second question first, clearly leadership from the
Armenian government is very important, as it represents all Armenians
in the United Nations and the broader international realm. But,
it makes good sense that, if a concrete process of engagement with
Turkey is to succeed, the resources and committed participation of
both the Republic and Diaspora groups and organizations will be of
great benefit in the process.
The first part of the question should be addressed by a very long
answer. In simple terms, based on Jermaine McCalpin's innovative
theoretical work, the report calls for an Armenian Genocide Truth
and Rectification Commission to operate for Armenians and Turks. This
would not be any kind of "historical commission" discussing whether
the genocide actually occurred. The starting point of the AGTRC
is that a genocide did occur; its purpose is to involve the many
well-intentioned Turkish people today in a process that does not
simply provide a forum for more debate on denial, but instead focuses
on what reparations should be made. This kind of open and inclusive
approach can support rehabilitation of the Turkish state and society,
whereas forcing a reparations package on Turkey would likely increase
animosity toward Armenians without having a positive impact on Turkish
individuals and group.
Yekaterina Poghosyan talked to Henry Theriault
http://www.mediamax.am/en/news/interviews/13927/#sthash.LuJbqvjW.dpuf
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress