Gagrule.net

Gagrule.net News, Views, Interviews worldwide

  • Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • GagruleLive
  • Armenia profile

Poland’s Jaroslaw Kaczynski renews call for German WWII reparations

June 29, 2018 By administrator

Jaroslaw Kaczynski, head of the ruling party in Poland, has again demanded Berlin pay Warsaw World War Two compensation. His comments come two days after his government watered down a controversial Holocaust law.

In an interview with the state-run Polskie Radio on Friday, Jaroslaw Kaczynski, the de facto senior politician in Poland, renewed demands for Germany to pay compensation for Poland’s war time losses incurred by Germany.

“This is a Polish-German issue. It was Germany who invaded Poland, murdering millions of people, destroying material goods and we must be compensated for this,” he said.

Kaczynski has been calling for financial reparations from Germany for more than a decade.

In March two PiS politicians said that Poland should demand reparations worth $850 billion (€780 billion) for destroyed property and people killed.

“For many, many years, there has been a defamation campaign offending Poles, completely altering the sense of World War II,” Kaczynski went on. “Today we have started on a route in the opposite direction and I think this road will be difficult and steep … If we did nothing, we would get nothing.”

The context

Kaczynski’s revival of war reparations demands follows Poland watering down a controversial law criminalizing any comments suggesting some Polish people might have helped Germans during the war.The threat of jail terms has now been removed but the law has faced considerable criticism from the US and Israel.

Kaczynski said on Wednesday that the move was because Israeli authorities had “fully confirmed Poland’s position” on Germany’s responsibility for the Holocaust.

Friday’s comments also come as Berlin-Warsaw relations remain fraught over the EU’s migration policy and EU disquiet over the Polish government’s judicial reforms.

They also coincide with rumors that Kaczynski’s recent illness has led to infighting within the party and the government over who could succeed the 69-year old.

No claims filed

However, the Polish government has said it doesn’t want its demands to affect cooperation within the EU and its relationship with Germany and hasn’t yet filed any official claims.

The German government has meanwhile dismissed previous demands, referring to a Polish renunciation of claims in 1953. German parliamentary legal experts said last year that Warsaw had no right to demand reparations.

Poland’s then Communist government waived its right to German post-war compensation in 1953, but in 2017 several government ministers refuted the validity of the waiver.

World War II started with the German invasion of Poland in 1939 and led to deaths of nearly 6 million Polish citizens by the war’s end in 1945, about half of them Jewish.

Mixed feelings

A survey published this week by Körber-Stiftung said that 76 percent of Germans think Berlin should not pay WWII reparations, while Polish opinion on the issue is split, with 40 percent saying Warsaw should not demand compensation from Germany and 46 in favor.

PiS was backed by 37.9 percent in a recent poll, up 4.5 percentage points from May. The party won the 2015 election with a similar share of the vote, becoming the first party in Poland’s post-communist era not to have to govern in a coalition.

jbh/msh (Reuters)

Filed Under: Articles Tagged With: german, reparations, WWII

Armenian Genocide Reparations: An Absolute Must

July 26, 2017 By administrator

Armenian genocide ReparationsBy Vart Ajemian,

I found the article “Before We Talk about Genocide Reparations, There Is Another Accounting Due” by Henry Theriault an intellectually challenging read that raised several questions in my mind.

His philosophy background, vast experience, and involvement in issues related to genocide, and unique thought process and reasoning have resulted in a distinct approach and conclusions. I had to read the article several times to comprehend his argument. And even though I felt I agreed with some of the points he made, I cannot agree with his conclusion (or what I understood it to be).

Dr. Theriault says he believes and clearly states that reparations are just. But he strongly expresses his opinion that it is not the right time for action to be pursued because any compensation would be misused: “Political elites will enrich themselves instead of using it for what is desperately needed by the general population.”

His main argument is that the system and government in Armenia are full of rampant corruption and so they cannot be trusted. He makes a strong indictment by his statement that “the large-scale theft of assets through corruption, privatization and commu-capitalist exploitation of labor is a significant factor in the economic vulnerability and desperation of the Republic today.”

His analysis suggests that the situation is desperate. Admittedly, the points he makes are valid. My intent is not to argue against or question his analysis. However, I still hope and pray that the untenable current situation will change for the better. It has to. What is the alternative? The new government has announced major reforms and changes to governance. Hopefully, they will be implemented. Change is never easy, and it takes time.

Those thoughts led me to think about the Armenian Legal Center for Justice and Human Rights (ALC), announced in Sept. 2016. I feel, as many Armenians do, that reparations are an absolute must. And even though we have a very late start compared with the Jews and Israel (regarding Holocaust reparations from Germany), our cause is equally and clearly as just. Whatever the Turks do or say, the historical facts cannot be erased, altered, or denied.

Therefore, I contacted Kate Nahapetian, Executive Director of the ALC, to get some feedback on questions I had about developments since the ALC’s formation.

I sent Kate the following questions, which she kindly and most graciously answered. Her answers are reproduced verbatim.

***

V.A.: What was the response to requests for contributions/funding? Is the funding adequate to start the work needed?

K.N.: The initial funding for the creation of the Armenian Center for Justice and Human Rights came from the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) Endowment Fund, which continues to support the ALC. Following the initial grant, we have received additional donations from individuals. Like so many nonprofits, funding is tight, so we welcome any donations big or small. Seeking reparations in the face of a powerful and intransigent foe such as the Turkish Government is a monumental task. It is not inconceivable, however. There are many examples of previous historical atrocities which were addressed decades later and after previous failed attempts. We currently have one staff member, but rely on many volunteers.

 

V.A.: Have we started to put together a legal team?

K.N.: The ALC has an international board with attorneys and experts on the Armenian Genocide in the US, Armenia, Canada, Austria, Australia, and Lebanon. We have collaborated with and have partnerships with law schools. We have partnered with some of the best law schools in the United States, including the University of Southern California Human Rights Clinic, which is drafting a report on the legal basis for Armenian Genocide reparations, and the George Washington University Law School, with which we cosponsored a talk by Harvard Post-Doctoral Fellow Umit Kurt, highlighting the injustice of Turkish laws used to plunder Armenian wealth during the genocide. We are in continuing communications with international lawyers from Argentina to Germany, in addition to lawyers with successful track records pursuing property claims against Turkey in both Turkish and European courts.

In addition, we have a team of lawyers and law students who have been examining issues surrounding the Treaty of Sevres, the Kars Treaty, and Turkish property laws.

 

V.A.: Is progress being made on legal actions to be taken?

K.N.: We have developed some potential cases and continue to work with international lawyers and clinics to develop innovative strategies for redress.

In addition to the mass murder and destruction of Armenian lives and cultural heritage on lands the Armenians inhabited for thousands of years, the Armenian Genocide was an evil enterprise of industrial, government-sponsored property theft.

The ALC seeks to catalogue the [property] deeds that still exist today. The records exist in Turkey’s land registry, which are virtually impossible to access. When Turkey considered allowing public access to these records as part of its bid to join the European Union, the military quickly intervened and stated that maintaining the secrecy of these records was a matter of national interest. Reports continue that even parties with deeds in hand are prevented from accessing Turkish land records, which would confirm family ownership.

Many individuals across the globe have deeds of family properties in their possession. By collecting all these individual records in one place, the ALC hopes to both learn of potential claims, which can be pursued for reparations, in addition to being a clearinghouse for this information for potential future negotiations.

The ALC’s website (https://armenianlegal.org/) has a link where people can provide documentation of their properties (https://armenianlegal.org/document-preservation-form/), whether it is a deed, sales contract, photograph, or family testimony. The key information we need are the names of the property owners, the town where the property is located, a description of the property, and, if possible, its exact location.

The more documentation we have collected in one place, the stronger our chances of recovery will become. As a community, we are empowered when we collect this information in one place.

***

I am most thankful to Kate for her responses and updates on the work accomplished by the ALC.

This needs to be pursued vigorously, with no hesitation. For it to be successful, and it must be successful, it needs the full active support of all Armenians worldwide, morally and financially. It is a formidable task, but it can be accomplished. We have to make it happen.

Source: http://armenianweekly.com/2017/07/24/armenian-genocide-reparations-an-absolute-must/

Filed Under: Genocide, News Tagged With: Armenian, Genocide, reparations

Turkish Scholar Discusses Armenian Genocide Reparations

May 20, 2016 By administrator

gag-turkish intlectYEREVAN (Armenpress)—It is hard to expect confrontation from Turkey, from a society which created its whole world through taking the neighbor’s wife, girl, work and fields. It is very difficult to overcome the moral and psychological situation which was created in 1915, Turkish scholar Sait Çetinoğlu said.

He stated that the Armenian Genocide was committed by the party-army-people cooperation, that’s why we deal with the issue of collective responsibility. “Besides the fact that Turkish people gained material interest from the Genocide, they declared the perpetrators of that crime as their heads which is another issue of responsibility. From this perspective, the recognition of the Genocide will mean destruction of paradigm of the country’s foundation,” he said.

He referred to the fact that nowadays Turkey commits Genocide beyond its borders. “The Turkish assistance to the “Islamic State” can be considered as an action to spread genocide beyond its borders since it results in the killings of the Genocide survivors. We can say the same also in case of the Karabakh attack.

“Kesab, Malula, Khabur, Ninova, Sinjar…what happened in these places and the separation of Syria are the other parts of the continuing genocide. Turkey gives opportunity to transform genocide from its borders. Closing eyes and supporting the IS actions put in danger the future of Christians, Yazidis, non-Muslim people of the Middle East. The actions against them are in accordance with the provisions of the UN Convention on Genocide”, Çetinoğlu stated.

Speaking about the recognition of the Armenian Genocide by Turkey, Çetinoğlu said he does not see that happening in the near future. “However, if we take into account the point where the people reached, it is also impossible to continue denial. Sooner or later the Genocide will be recognized and the issue of reparations will be discussed,” Çetinoğlu stated this highlighting the role the international community has on this issue.

Reparations, according to Çetinoğlu, can be achieved through several steps:

“First of all, forgiveness, acceptance of the crime of genocide, shame release, and acceptance of the collective responsibility of the genocide are all important steps. It is vital that each family understands what happened in 1915. To be a part of the collective responsibility, everyone should ask themselves “What was my grandfather doing in 1915?”

  • Being a part of the collective responsibility, everyone is obliged to apologize.
  • Apology from the State and build a monument entitled “Never again” for the memory of the victims. The names of the people associated with Genocide should be removed from schools, avenues, streets and other public places. Buildings should be returned to their real heirs…
  • Political parties should express clarification on the conditions the officials who took others’ property as a result of genocide and should return to them to their heirs. Parties with freedom and socialist ideologies should especially express this.
  • Coming to the individuals, it is important that intellectuals take the lead in this matter.
  • Islamized women and children should become known to the public.
  • Counties that agreed on the forced trade of Armenians must apologize.
  • Archives and documents should be opened for researchers.
  • Citizenship and the right to live must be given to Genocide victims and the third generations of the exiled people.

Only after these steps, the reparation issue is possible to begin,” Çetinoğlu concluded.

Filed Under: Genocide, News Tagged With: Armenian, discusses, Genocide, reparations, Turkish Scholar

“Recognition of the Armenian Genocide by Turkey is insufficient without territorial reparations” says the historian Armen Maroukian

October 17, 2015 By administrator

arton117527-400x300Recognition of the Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empire will not be complete if it is not completed by territorial concessions” just declared in Yerevan Armen Maroukian, head of the department of studies on genocide in the Armenian Academy of Sciences. “The financial compensation and rights to cultural and historical values ​​are not enough” Armen Maroukian continues and adds “the essential aim was to recover the genocide of the Armenians and the homeland without territorial concessions justice will not be made. “Maroukian Armen says that until 1991 the fight for the recognition of the Armenian Genocide was the work of the diaspora. But in 1991, became independent Armenia and member of the UN took over this fight. Since then, numerous actions were carried out by Armenia.

Krikor Amirzayan

Filed Under: Genocide, News Tagged With: Armenian, Genocide, reparations, Turkey

Greece puts a price tag on WW2 reparations: 279 billion euros

April 7, 2015 By administrator

0,,18362708_303,00Athens has said Germany should pay nearly 279 billion euros in compensation for the Nazi occupation of the country. The claim comes as Greece faces demands from the IMF to introduce more pension cuts and raise taxes.

Greece demanded 278.7 billion euros ($304.74) from Germany as compensation for damages it incurred during World War Two, Athens deputy finance minister Dimitris Mardas said while speaking to a parliamentary committee on Monday.

According to calculations by Greece’s General Accounting Office, reparations amounted to 278.7 billion euros, a sum which a parliamentary panel set up by Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras was trying to claim from Germany.

This is the first time the Greek government quantified its claims, which included seeking war reparations and a so-called occupation loan that Nazi Germany forced the Bank of Greece to make. Athens also demanded that Berlin return its stolen archaeological treasures.

Germany has rejected Athens’ demands, saying it settled the matter with a general compensation payment of 115 million deutschmarks in 1960. However, the issue continues to mar Greek-German relations and has gained more momentum amid Greece’s economic crisis and its government’s refusal to implement austerity measures.

Debtors had been concerned after speculation that Athens may default on its repayment of 450 million euros, due on April 9. However IMF chief Christine Lagarde announced that Greece’s Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis had confirmed his country would pay back the money. Varoufakis also said his country would try to seal an initial deal with the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund by April 24.

Greece’s finance ministry has said the IMF is demanding that the government introduce more pension cuts and hike VAT as part of its reforms. Prime Minister Tsipras and his Syriza party, however, say they worry that such a cut may impact their voter base – voters who put Syriza in charge because of the party’s opposition to austerity measures.

European Union countries have also expressed concern about rumors that Tsipras may look for help from Russia, which he is scheduled to visit on April 8.

Finance Minister Varoufakis has assured critics that his country’s woes could only be solved within the “European family” and that discussions with Moscow will focus only on bilateral trade and investment.

mg/gsw (Reuters, dpa, AFP)

Filed Under: Articles Tagged With: Germany, Greece, Nazi, occupation, reparations

“Reparations for the Armenian Genocide” final report issued

March 31, 2015 By administrator

190042The Armenian Genocide Reparations Study Group on Monday, March 30, issued its final report, entitled “Resolution with Justice—Reparations for the Armenian Genocide,” offering an unprecedented comprehensive analysis of the legal, historical, political, and ethical dimensions of the question of reparations for the Armenian Genocide.

The AGRSG was formed in 2007 by four experts in different areas of reparations theory and practice. The group’s mission was to produce the first systematic, comprehensive, in-depth analysis of the reparations issues raised by the Armenian Genocide. Funded initially by a grant from the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, the AGRSG members are Alfred de Zayas, Jermaine O. McCalpin, Ara Papian, and Henry C. Theriault (Chair). George Aghjayan has served as a special consultant.

The AGRSG prepared a preliminary report, which was released for limited distribution back in 2009. Completion of the draft was followed by three symposia. The first was a panel discussion featuring three of the report authors, held on May 15, 2010 at George Mason University in the United States, in conjunction with the university’s Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution. The second was a major day-long symposium featuring the four co-authors and a number of other experts on reparations for the Armenian Genocide, conducted at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) School of Law through its International Human Rights Law Association, on October 23, 2010. The third was a panel by two of the report authors held in Yerevan, Armenia, on December 11, 2010.

The AGRSG is now issuing for broad distribution its final report, an extensive revision and updating of the 2009 preliminary report.

The report examines the case for reparations from legal, historical, and ethical perspectives (Parts 4, 5, and 6, respectively), offers a plan for a productive reparative process drawing on transitional justice theory and practice (Part 7), and proposes a concrete reparations package (Parts 3 and 8). The report also includes background on the Armenian Genocide (Part 1) and the damages inflicted by it and their impacts today (Part 2). Through its broad dissemination, this report fills a crucial gap in the scholarly work and policy discourse on the Armenian Genocide. It will give Turkish and Armenian individuals as well as civil society and political institutions the information, analysis, and tools to engage the Armenian Genocide issue in a systematic manner that supports meaningful resolution.

With the Genocide Centennial fast approaching, heightened international political, academic, media, artistic, and public interest in the Genocide has already been witnessed in 2015.

In addition, in the past few years, reparations for the Genocide have gone from a marginal concern to a central focus in popular and academic circles. Much of that focus has been on piecemeal individual reparation legal cases. This report represents a decisive step toward a much broader and all-embracing process of repair that is adequate to resolve the extensive outstanding damages of the Genocide. Furthermore, genuine, non-denialist engagement with the legacy of the Genocide is growing in Turkey. Finally, in the past decade, there has emerged a global reparations movement involving numerous victim groups across an array of mass human rights violations. The Armenian case has a place within that movement.

Related links:

Complete Report of the Armenian Genocide Reparations Study Group
Tert.am: Հրապարակվել է Հայոց ցեղասպանության փոխհատուցման վերաբերյալ համապարփակ զեկույցը
The Armenian Genocide

The Armenian Genocide (1915-23) was the deliberate and systematic destruction of the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire during and just after World War I. It was characterized by massacres, and deportations involving forced marches under conditions designed to lead to the death of the deportees, with the total number of deaths reaching 1.5 million.

The majority of Armenian Diaspora communities were formed by the Genocide survivors.

Present-day Turkey denies the fact of the Armenian Genocide, justifying the atrocities as “deportation to secure Armenians”. Only a few Turkish intellectuals, including Nobel Prize winner Orhan Pamuk and scholar Taner Akcam, speak openly about the necessity to recognize this crime against humanity.

The Armenian Genocide was recognized by Uruguay, Russia, France, Lithuania, the Italian Chamber of Deputies, majority of U.S. states, parliaments of Greece, Cyprus, Argentina, Belgium and Wales, National Council of Switzerland, Chamber of Commons of Canada, Polish Sejm, Vatican, European Parliament and the World Council of Churches.

Filed Under: Genocide, News Tagged With: armenian genocide, reparations, report

Greece threatens to seize German property, Berlin refuses to pay WWII reparations

March 11, 2015 By administrator

germany-greece-war-reparationsGermany says it won’t pay Greece World War 2 reparations after Greek PM Alexis Tsipras said Berlin is using legal tricks to avoid paying compensation. Germany says it’s honored its obligations, while Greece says it may start seizing German property.

Germany once again dismissed Greek demands to pay reparations for the 1941-44 Nazi occupation of Greece.

“It is our firm belief that questions of reparations and compensation have been legally and politically resolved,” said Steffen Seibert, the spokesman for German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

“We should concentrate on current issues and, hopefully, what will be a good future,” Reuters reported him as saying.

A spokesman for the finance ministry said there was no point in holding talks with the Greek government concerning the issue of reparations. The spokesman also added that the demands from Athens were just trying to distract attention away from the serious financial problems the country is facing.

With Germany refusing to budge from its position concerning the payment of war reparations, Greece’s Justice Minister said Wednesday that Athens could start seizing German assets.

Nikos Paraskevopoulos said he was “ready to approve” a Greek Supreme Court ruling in 2000 that would allow the appropriation of assets belonging to Germany’s archaeological school and the Goethe Institute. Proceeds from the property would be used to compensate the relatives of 218 civilians who were massacred by Nazi troops in a village in central Greece in June 1944.

“The law states that the minister must give the order for the Supreme Court ruling to be carried out…. I am ready to give that order,” Paraskevopoulos told Antenna TV, AFP reported.

“It is our firm belief that questions of reparations and compensation have been legally and politically resolved,” said Steffen Seibert, the spokesman for German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

A spokesman for the finance ministry also said there was no reason to hold talks with Athens about reparations and called the demands a distraction from actual financial issues facing Greece.

The issue of war reparations dating from the 1941-44 Nazi occupation of Greece is likely to increase already heightened tensions between Athens and Berlin. The two countries are already squabbling over Greek demands to renegotiate the terms of a €240 billion ($260 billion) bailout. However, with Germany showing few signs of leniency, the new left-wing Syriza government has decided to raise the issue of war reparations again with Berlin.

The issue of war reparations dating from the 1941-44 Nazi occupation of Greece is likely to increase already heightened tensions between Athens and Berlin. The two countries are already squabbling over Greek demands to renegotiate the terms of a €240 billion ($260 billion) bailout. However, with Germany showing few signs of leniency, the new left-wing Syriza government has decided to raise the issue of war reparations again with Berlin.

Reichsmarks, now worth roughly $12 billion. The loan was never repaid, while Greece is also seeking further reparations from Germany due to the destruction wrought upon the nation during the Nazi occupation.

“Germany has never properly paid reparations for the damage done to Greece by the Nazi occupation,” Prime Minister Tsipras told the Greek parliament Tuesday. “The crimes carried out by the Nazis are still vivid, and we have a moral obligation to remember what the forces did to the country.”

Greece has been trying to get Germany to pay war damages for decades, but Athens has never quantified its reparation claims. The movement to get Berlin to pay up has become stronger over the last few years as Athens experiences financial hardships following austerity measures, which were a prerequisite of being given the bailout money, to stop the country from falling into financial ruin.

Tsipras says he will get a parliamentary commission to look into the matter, saying: “After the reunification of Germany in 1990, the legal and political conditions were created for this issue to be solved. But since then, German governments chose silence, legal tricks and delay.”

“And I wonder, because there is a lot of talk at the European level these days about moral issues: is this stance moral?” he said.

Berlin has flatly denied it owes Athens any more money, saying it has already settled its debts following German reunification in 1990. The “Two Plus Four” treaty, which involved East and West Germany, as well as the four occupying nations following the Second World War, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States, saw them renounce all rights they formerly held in Germany. The document was also approved by Greece, which would effectively draw a line under any future possible claims for war reparations.

Germany says it paid Greece war damages of $25 million in the 1950s, equivalent to $220 million today, and also paid out 115 million Deutschmarks (a sum worth around $230 million today), to victims of Nazi crimes in the early 1960s.

Athens has said it always considered that money as only an initial payment and expected the rest of the money to be paid back following German reunification.

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE MAILING LIST

Enter your email address Subrcribe Free, and Get up-to-date news views Videos,:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Filed Under: Articles Tagged With: Germany, Greece, reparations

Resolution with Justice: Theriault Discusses Armenian Genocide Reparations Report

December 2, 2014 By administrator

BY RUPEN JANBAZIAN
From the Armenian Weekly

reparationsWhile recognition of the Armenian Genocide by the government of Turkey has been a priority for Armenian communities around the world, the notion of legal consequences that can emerge after recognition has generally been unaddressed or ignored.

Certainly, the question of reparations for losses suffered both by individual victims and the Armenian nation as a whole during the genocide has been studied by many scholars and academics over the years. However, the discourse was generally limited and included only abstract notions of territorial and monetary return. Although there have been several examples of valuable works treating the issue, none have approached the topic of reparations with a comprehensiveness and detailed analysis like that put forth by the Armenian Genocide Reparations Study Group (AGRSG).

The AGRSG was assembled in 2007 by four experts in different areas of reparations theory and practice. In September 2014, the group completed its final report, “Resolution with Justice—Reparations for the Armenian Genocide,” a wide-ranging analysis of the legal, historical, political, and ethical dimensions of the question of reparations for the genocide. It also includes specific recommendations for the components of a complete reparations package.

According to the study group, its final report “will give Turkish and Armenian individuals as well as civil society and political institutions the information, analysis, and tools to engage the Armenian Genocide issue in a systematic manner that supports meaningful resolution.”

Funded initially by a grant from the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF), the members of the AGRSG are Alfred de Zayas, Jermaine O. McCalpin, Ara Papian, and Henry C. Theriault (chair). George Aghjayan serves as a special consultant.

I recently had a chance to talk with Theriault about the group’s final report. Below is the full text of our interview.

* * *

RUPEN JANBAZIAN: The AGRSG was formed in 2007 with the mission to produce an in-depth analysis of the reparations issue raised by the Armenian Genocide. Why and how was this project conceived?

HENRY C. THERIAULT: My primary scholarly focus in the early 2000’s was genocide denial. In this connection, I had been researching and writing about Armenian-Turkish dialogue since about 2001. I was especially concerned about the encouragement of a negotiation to determine what the accepted history would be, by such initiatives as the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission (TARC). As I studied and analyzed dialogue issues more, my concerns expanded to include (1) the exclusion of long-term justice issues from most discussions about dialogue as well as concrete attempts to create dialogue between Armenians and Turks; and (2) the ignoring in the design of dialogue projects such as TARC, as well as proposals for other dialogue models, of the power differential (actually, asymmetrical domination relation) between Turks and Armenians within any dialogue context.

It became clear to me that, beyond simply ending denial, resolution of the Armenian Genocide issue requires real long-term justice in the form of reparations, including land. Only in this way can the outstanding harms, which remain devastating for many Armenians around the world, from the current vulnerability of dispersed Armenians in Syria to the poverty in rural areas of the Armenian Republic, be addressed. And, only in this way can the great power, wealth, and identity differential that resulted from the genocide be ameliorated.

I began specifically working on reparations for the genocide (and other cases of mass violence and oppression, such as the land expropriations that were central to the genocides of indigenous Americans) in 2005. In December of that year, I co-organized with famed South African human rights activist Dennis Brutus an international symposium on the global reparations movement. “Whose Debt? Whose Responsibility?” featured speakers from South Africa, Japan, and around the United States and covered reparations cases for African Americans, South African blacks, Native Americans, the Armenian Genocide, and Asian Comfort Women, as well as the question of debt relief as a form of reparation for colonialism in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, and Latin America. Over the next year, reparations become the central concern of my scholarship, and I began to consider innovative ways to approach the Armenian case.

Jermaine McCalpin, at the time a Ph.D. student at Brown University, had given a tremendous paper on reparations at the 2005 conference, and I had thought at the time how great it would be to work together on a project. I had also become aware of Alfred de Zayas’ pioneering work on the Armenian case and soon learned of Ara Papian’s innovative engagement with the Treaty of Sèvres. I realized the potential of a team composed of this kind of range of experts to develop a proposal for long-term justice for the Armenian Genocide. Once I was able to get a small grant to support this work, I invited each of these exceptional thinkers to join with me in researching the issue, with an eye toward making a set of useful policy recommendations. They agreed and we began our work.

R.J.: The members of the AGRSG come from different academic backgrounds. What is the importance of having a variety of perspectives when assessing the topic of post-genocide reparations?

H.C.T.: This is a huge benefit of our group. From the beginning, we realized the value of being able to join concrete international law analyses with consideration of the ethical issues raised by the Armenian case. Too often, an international lawyer might produce a strong case on a human rights issue, but not be able to explain why his/her society or international organizations should act on the case, when ethical arguments can often motivate a broad range of individuals and even political leaders to take up an issue and turn legal possibility into reality. Just as often, in my field of philosophy, I have read compelling ethical arguments that remain academic exercises because they are disconnected from the legal and political realms in which the issues must be addressed if actual resolutions are to be enacted. Similarly, while general legal principles can be usefully applied to the genocide as a whole, the case for land return becomes that much more compelling when it is based on prior international arbitration and agreement.

Thus, Ambassador Papian’s contributions gave the legal arguments a powerful additional basis in the Wilsonian arbitral award of land to Armenians in the post-World War I period. Having a political theorist with a focus on transitional justice was just as indispensable. It is one thing to make a legal, historical, and ethical case for the rightness of reparations, but how can this rightness be made to matter in the political realities of Armenian-Turkish relations? My abstract concern with ethics and work on dialogue initiatives based on bad models had caused me to ignore this dimension of the issue; my view was that the case should be made on legal and political levels regardless of attitudes in Turkey. But this ignored a crucial potential lever in the reparations process, Turkish people themselves who wished to engage the genocide in a forthright manner with a goal of justice. As we have seen more and more Turks embrace this possibility in recent years, it would make no sense to ignore this development. Through Jermaine’s influence, the potential for Turkish transformation became an important element of the report.

I would also add that the geographic and cultural diversity of our group has been important as well. For instance, Dr. de Zayas has for decades been focused on human rights issues across the globe, and worked in the central institution trying to support them, the UN Human Rights Commission. Ambassador Papian has a deep understanding of regional political and security issues. And Jermaine brings to the table work on a number of truth commissions, particularly those in South Africa, Grenada, and Haiti, as well as the expertise gained through his writing of a 100-plus page proposal for a Jamaican Truth Commission. My own concerns about reparations for indigenous Americans, the Comfort Women, and other cases added further to the insights, historical information, and models available for our report. While the result is a report specifically focused on the Armenian case, it is informed by a host of cases across the globe.

R.J.: According to the report, the legal case for reparations is complicated and faces many obstacles. What are some of the biggest challenges that arise when analyzing such a complex matter?

H.C.T.: This question could generate its own report, there are so many. Here, let me focus on two. First, any reparations scheme involving substantial material reparations, especially land, raises complex implementation questions. For instance, if land in the eastern areas of today’s Turkey is returned to Armenians, what will the status of its current inhabitants be? What about other groups who might also have claims to parts of the territory, such as Assyrians and Kurds? Is there a sufficient Armenian population to populate territory returned? And so forth. While these concerns are addressed by and, in fact, helped shape the specific proposal made in our report, this required complex analyses and adjustments.

Second, clearly the resistance by even well-intentioned Turks to any kind of material reparations, especially land, will be, at least initially, strong, while many people typically dismiss reparations for historical injustices as out of hand. The truth commission aspect of our proposal is meant to address the first problem here, while the broader question of whether the goal of reparations is just a pipe dream is addressed in the report as well. One important point to keep in mind is that ethics-based movements for political change have in fact dramatically impacted our world, as evidenced by the U.S. civil rights movement, India’s independence movement, and other such movements. The press for Armenian Genocide reparations, as part of the emerging global reparations movement, does have true potential for success, but getting people to see this takes some work.

R.J.: How does the AGRSG respond to those who believe that reparations, especially a return of land, are impractical and unlikely?

H.C.T.: Beyond what was discussed in response to your previous question, there are other ways the report addresses these challenges. For instance, we point out that the current system of international borders is based on the principle of “territorial integrity” in a way that discounts human rights and historical justice concerns. Those committed to the latter concerns should be willing to see territorial border changes. We also point out that the very notion of land in eastern Turkey being fundamentally “Turkish” land is itself an artefact of the genocide, when the land was depopulated of Armenians through mass expulsion and killing and thus Turkified. The land became “Turkish” through genocide, and maintaining an absolute view of the issue today—maintaining that the land is somehow in its very essence Turkish—is, in effect, supporting the genocidal ideology that led to this view of the land in the first place.

The report also allows for inventive alternatives. For instance, Ambassador Papian came up with an alternative model for land reparations, which would allow Turkey to retain formal title but turn historically Armenian lands into a demilitarized zone open to Armenians who wish to move to and develop economic opportunities there.

Ultimately, the strongest point in this regard is that history is filled with examples of popular movements that drove great political changes against strong powers and in an atmosphere of dismissal. Ethical rightness does matter and can be the basis of such change in the case of the Armenian Genocide, especially when it is supported by a strong legal and historical case and can be enacted by an innovative political process, as our report provides.

R.J.: Is the recognition of the Armenian Genocide by the Republic of Turkey necessary for the return of Armenian property confiscated or lost during the genocide?

H.C.T.: If we are talking about descendants filing lawsuits for individual property losses during the genocide, then recognition of the genocide is not required. As long as an expropriation of property can be shown to have violated law at the time or to have been done without proper legal support, then a lawsuit might proceed. It would succeed because the context of genocide is not essential to the case: The same laws would apply whether or not there was a genocide occurring, though of course it was the Armenian Genocide that caused the particular property losses we are discussing. Of course, there was legal cover given to expropriation of Armenians’ property, though the legality appears to have been challenged at the time and is called into question in some recent scholarship. More to the point, even if there is proper legal support for such cases, as we explain in the report, without political support, the cases are not likely to succeed. This is especially true of domestic cases in Turkey.

But, our report is specifically not concerned with individual reparations for specific lost property. It is concerned with group reparations for the genocide itself. The kinds of property confiscations interest us only insofar as they would be part of a general group reparations settlement. We use estimates from the genocide period to make a determination of the amount of compensation for such property losses—except for land, which is considered separately.

It would seem that a group reparations process for the genocide could occur only if either (1) outside powers compelled Turkey to make reparations; or (2) Turkey recognized the genocide. But there is a third possibility, that pressure for reparations could produce a truth process in Turkey that will spur recognition.

R.J.: The AGRSG supports a truth commission when dealing with the memory of the Armenian Genocide. How does this differ from the historical commission proposed by the failed Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission or the “joint historical commission” proposed as part of the 2009 diplomatic protocols signed between Turkey and Armenia?

H.C.T.: The “joint historical commission” issue is a bit complex in the protocols, as there seems to have been some backtracking on that by the Armenian president. For those who are interested in the detailed answer to this question, Part 7 of the report, which develops the Armenian Genocide Truth and Rectification Commission idea, explains specifically why it is fundamentally different from and superior to these other approaches. In short, our idea for a truth and rectification commission is not based on any notion that the facts of the Armenian Genocide are in question—they are not—but, following the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission model, aims to provide a highly public process through which the history of the Armenian Genocide can be engaged in depth, to at once educate the Turkish public about what occurred and provide Armenians an opportunity to bear public witness to this history. What is more, the issue of reparations is contained right in the title, in the word “rectification.” The ultimate function of this commission is to help develop a reparations plan for the Armenian Genocide. This was, by the way, supposed to be what happened in the case of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission—its final stage was supposed to be about reparations. But this final stage never occurred. Our approach builds reparations into the entire truth commission process.

R.J.: The final report of the AGRSG was published in September 2014. As the chair of the AGRSG, what purpose do you hope the report will serve?

H.C.T.: The goal is four-fold. First, I hope that the arguments and evidence presented in the report will be compelling to Armenians in the Republic and in the diaspora, and motivate them to pursue reparations as a crucial component of any resolution of the genocide. Similarly, I hope that the arguments, both the legal and ethical ones, will convince third-party supporters of genocide recognition as well as third-parties who are lukewarm at best to the issue that reparations are both right and reasonable. I am particularly concerned about the tendency to dismiss reparations not just in the Armenian case but in many others as well.

Third, the report provides legal, ethical, and political arguments and approaches that can be translated directly into legal and political initiatives by the Armenian Republic and Armenian institutions around the world. My goal is that these entities use this valuable report in this way. Finally, the report provides a mechanism—the truth and rectification commission—through which the Turkish public can engage the genocide in a meaningful way. The contents of the report offer compelling arguments for contemporary Turkish responsibility for reparations (which is not at all the same thing as blame for the genocide itself). I hope that Turkish readers will take these seriously, at once overcoming resistance to a proper sense of responsibility and at the same time embracing the truth commission model as a healthy and productive avenue for dealing with the genocide.

Rupen Janbazian was born and raised in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. He is a graduate of the University of Toronto, where he completed a double major in history and Near and Middle Eastern civilizations. He has served on the local and national executives of the Armenian Youth Federation (AYF) Canada and Hamazkayin Toronto, and served as the administrator of the Armenian National Committee (ANC) of Toronto. Janbazian also taught Armenian history and creative writing at the Armenian Relief Society (ARS) Armenian School of Toronto. He recently relocated to Yerevan, where he works on a number of organizational and personal projects.

Filed Under: Articles, Genocide Tagged With: armenian genocide, reparations

Armenian Genocide Reparations Study Group Publishes Final Report

September 20, 2014 By administrator

res-jusThe final report by the Armenian Genocide Reparations Study Group offers an unprecedented analysis on the issue of reparations for the Armenian Genocide

YEREVAN—The Armenian Genocide Reparations Study Group (AGRSG) has just completed its final report, “Resolution with Justice – Reparations for the Armenian Genocide.” The report offers an unprecedented comprehensive analysis of the legal, historical, political, and ethical dimensions of the question of reparations for the Armenian Genocide of 1915-1923, including specific recommendations for the components of a complete reparations package.

Prior to formation of the AGRSG in 2007, the limited discourse on reparations for the 1915-1923 Armenian Genocide included abstract notions of territorial return, consideration of particular aspects such as insurance lawsuits, academic and other works focused on a specific part of the overall topic, and sometimes valuable short works treating the issue but without comprehensive or detailed analysis.

The AGRSG was formed in 2007 by four experts in different areas of reparations theory and practice. Their mission was to produce the first systematic, comprehensive, in-depth analysis of the reparations issues raised by the Armenian Genocide. Funded initially by a grant from the Armenian Revolutionary Federation-Dashnaktsutyun, the AGRSG members are Alfred de Zayas, Jermaine O. McCalpin, Ara Papian, and Henry C. Theriault (Chair). George Aghjayan has served as a special consultant.

After early agreement that some form of repair is an appropriate remedy for the legacy of the Armenian Genocide as it stands today, the AGRSG prepared a preliminary report, which was released for limited distribution in 2009. Completion of the draft was followed by three symposia. The first was a panel discussion featuring three of the report authors, held on May 15, 2010 at George Mason University in the United States, in conjunction with the university’s Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution. The second was a major day-long symposium featuring the four co-authors and a number of other experts on reparations for the Armenian Genocide, conducted at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) School of Law through its International Human Rights Law Association, on October 23, 2010. The third was a panel by two of the report authors held in Yerevan, Armenia, on December 11, 2010. The AGRSG is now issuing for broad distribution its final report, an extensive revision and updating of the 2009 preliminary report.

The AGRSG final report remains the only systematic, all-encompassing, in-depth approach to Armenian Genocide Reparations. The report examines the case for reparations from legal, historical, and ethical perspectives (Parts 4, 5, and 6, respectively), offers a plan for a productive reparative process drawing on transitional justice theory and practice (Part 7), and proposes a concrete reparations package (Parts 3 and 8). The report also includes background on the Armenian Genocide (Part 1) and the damages inflicted by it and their impacts today (Part 2). Through its broad dissemination, this report fills a crucial gap in the scholarly work and policy discourse on the Armenian Genocide. It will give Turkish and Armenian individuals as well as civil society and political institutions the information, analysis, and tools to engage the Armenian Genocide issue in a systematic manner that supports meaningful resolution.

The present time is optimal for release of the report. The 100th anniversary year of the beginning of the Genocide, 2015, will see greatly heightened international political, academic, media, artistic, and public interest in the Genocide. In addition, in the past few years, reparations for the Genocide have gone from a marginal concern to a central focus in popular and academic circles. Much of that focus has been on piecemeal individual reparation legal cases. This report represents a decisive step toward a much broader and all-embracing process of repair that is adequate to resolve the extensive outstanding damages of the Genocide. Furthermore, genuine, non-denialist engagement with the legacy of the Genocide is growing in Turkey. Finally, in the past decade, there has emerged a global reparations movement involving numerous victim groups across an array of mass human rights violations. The Armenian case has a place within that movement.

The complete final report will be available in PDF format online. The Executive Summary and Introduction of the final report are already available on the site.

Inquiries about the AGRSG and its report can be directed to Henry Theriault at htheriault@worcester.edu, +1 (508) 929-8612, or Department of Philosophy, Worcester State University, 486 Chandler Street, Worcester, MA 01602, U.S.A.

1. The positions taken and perspectives expressed in the report are those of the AGRSG members alone, and do not necessarily represent the views of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation.

Filed Under: Genocide, News Tagged With: armenian genocide, published, reparations

Support Gagrule.net

Subscribe Free News & Update

Search

GagruleLive with Harut Sassounian

Can activist run a Government?

Wally Sarkeesian Interview Onnik Dinkjian and son

https://youtu.be/BiI8_TJzHEM

Khachic Moradian

https://youtu.be/-NkIYpCAIII
https://youtu.be/9_Xi7FA3tGQ
https://youtu.be/Arg8gAhcIb0
https://youtu.be/zzh-WpjGltY





gagrulenet Twitter-Timeline

Tweets by @gagrulenet

Archives

Books

Recent Posts

  • U.S. Judge Dismisses $500 Million Lawsuit By Azeri Lawyer Against ANCA & 29 Others
  • These Are the Social Security Offices Expected to Close This Year, Musk call SS Ponzi Scheme
  • Breaking News, Pashinyan regime has filed charges against public figure Edgar Ghazaryan,
  • ANCA’s Controversial Endorsement: Implications for Armenian Voters
  • (MHP), Devlet Bahçeli, has invited Kurdish Leader Öcalan to the Parliament “Ask to end terrorism and dissolve the PKK.”

Recent Comments

  • administrator on Turkish Agent Pashinyan will not attend the meeting of the CIS Council of Heads of State
  • David on Turkish Agent Pashinyan will not attend the meeting of the CIS Council of Heads of State
  • Ara Arakelian on A democratic nation has been allowed to die – the UN has failed once more “Nagorno-Karabakh”
  • DV on A democratic nation has been allowed to die – the UN has failed once more “Nagorno-Karabakh”
  • Tavo on I’d call on the people of Syunik to arm themselves, and defend your country – Vazgen Manukyan

Copyright © 2025 · News Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in