A journey of a thousand miles starts with one step, though in this case, it’s probably a journey of a thousand parsecs. This journey is the one that will get reparations due us from Turkey and our occupied lands returned. It’s going to be a long tough effort, and seemingly impossible, but the re-independence of Armenia following the collapse of the Soviet Union is the perfect example of what can happen.
That example was just one of many arguments presented on the diplomatic, ethical, legal, philosophical, political, and practical aspects of this struggle presented at a conference titled “The Law, Ethics, and Politics of Making Amends: The Armenian Genocide and the Reparations Movement” held on Oct. 23 at UCLA. No doubt you’ll have read the news reports on this which drew somewhere between 150 and 200 individuals to its four panels of experts.
One of the most interesting ideas presented at the conference was that our struggle for reparations from Turkey could be seen in the context of the “truth commissions” established in over 30 countries to address troubling, difficult, and divisive aspects of their history as they move forward in developing their democracy. Course in our case, it wouldn’t be one country, but two— Armenia and Turkey. The most obvious benefit of this is that we would have the experience of others to draw from.
Of course it won’t be easy since even the most “advanced” segment of Turkish society doesn’t “get it,” as pointed out by one of the panelists. While intellectuals and others have made great progress, the bulk of Turkish society and government has not. Even those who are leading the charge to do the right thing in Turkey are still doing so—I’d argue quite understandably—from a Turkish perspective and sensibility. But these are the people we’ve engaged, so far, to any degree. I suspect it’ll be another generation before they understand it’s not all about them.
Meanwhile, the legal case and undergirding of our demands must be formulated and developed. Precious few are working on or speaking to this aspect, though we were fortunate enough to hear about some of the basics. What’s more important is that this conference was addressing the legal (and other) issues in the context of seeking reparations. Some of these issues were addressed at a conference (“International Law and the Armenian Genocide: Recognition, Responsibility and Restitution”) three years ago that was also a milestone, but this time, there was much more explicitly a sense of purpose rather than a more detached, academic endeavor. I like this progress, especially since the first panel was composed of the very same people who are preparing a report titled “Resolutions with Justice: Reparations for the Armenian Genocide.”
Part of the legal case, or support for it, will have to be a tabulation of what we’ve lost, be that people or property. The demographic angle was also addressed during the conference through examples of existing population data and the social/religious infrastructure of the Armenian Church, though not so much the property. Interestingly, Taner Akcam has done important work in identifying, from Ottoman archives, Armenian property losses.
How and where, i.e. in what forum, to pursue these legal remedies is another issue. And the example of the Holocaust reparations movement, largely through American courts, was described and could be used as a model for our needs. But first, the laws necessary to this must be passed in the Congress and perhaps even by the states. Then, the fairly unique nature of the American legal system would enable the pursuit of restorative justice.
This concept, restorative justice, is the crux of it all, and a good way to explain to our non-Armenian neighbors what all the fuss is about. The parallel between our case and that of Toyota’s malfunctioning braking systems should be drawn. People have been injured and died because those braking systems malfunctioned, something that is Toyota’s responsibility to prevent, fix, or make amends for. How much more responsibility does a government have towards its citizens/subjects? And, how much more atonement must a government make when it is itself responsible for calamities that befall its people?
This responsibility doesn’t go away, as some would like it to, after the passage of time and changing of governments. The intergenerational transfer of responsibility was addressed during the conference.
All these and more discussions mark the beginning of a more serious phase of our struggle. No longer can we content ourselves with scraps thrown our way such as are the commemorative resolutions we fight so hard to pass in the halls of legislatures the world over. The appetizer is just about eaten, and aromas from the kitchen evoke the coming of the main meal. Get busy, read the report when it comes out, comment about it (as requested by its authors), and let’s get serious about the many parsecs we must travel to reach home. I’m excited!
Garen Yegparian
Latest posts by Garen Yegparian (see all)
- Drones for Armenia - November 15, 2022
- So Sad, Too Far Gone - November 7, 2022
- Pomposity to Mask Ineptitude - October 31, 2022
This is a very interesting and important set of conferences on reparations that must be widely publicized and be inclusive as well. Were any officials from Yerevan and (why not) Artsakh invited? Their participation and input is key. Even as spectators in the audience it would keep them in the loop. They shouldn’t be left in the dark. Or else we may see another set of protocols emerge behind our backs…
We definitely need more conferences like this publicized within our community and especially towards our youth so that they are engaged in the process and take ownership over the movement of our cause. When was the last time De Zayas spoke to our youth about our strong and legitimate case for reparations? Just a thought.
Kudos to the conference organizers. And well done Garen in reporting on this and other relevant justice oriented issues relevant to our cause and community. This article itself and De Zayas’ are one method of reaching out to our youth and our community at large. Well done. Your efforts are appreciated by all. I very much look forward to reading the report.
PS – Was there by any chance discussion about reparations for the denial time-line (95 years) in addition to reparations for the crime of genocide itself (1915-1923)?
Sincerely,
An East Coast Armenian
I understand restoring lands or individual properties although this would possibly be a 20 year poject if it was undertaken in good faith.
What I don’t understand is taking money for my dead relatives. I did not suffer. I am not dispossessed. When I take this hypothetical blood money, am I saying that the debt is repaid, and the Genocide is now concluded or erased?
I would say that taking money is a conspiracy between the enemy and the recipient to disregard the crime and the victim. We must never be bought off, although I doubt the Turks will not write any checks.
Moreover, the loss of a land and a society cannot be compensated with money. How much would French refugees take if we banished them from France, and turned their lands into something else? Can their grandchildren extinguish the loss of France for all eternity by some cash transfers?
I thing the Germans paid reparations directly to those who were refugees and survivors, which makes sense, as many Jewish regfugees were deprived of property and the ability to make money to support themselves. But that is not this hypothetical situation.
Say each of us got 15k. Each of us would spend or save that money as individuals, not as a nation. Such a paymrent is actually the new final stage of genocide after denial: bribing the survivors’ children. Abandon Uncle Vahan’s memory for a new bathroom. Thus, if there were to be reparations, they should be for a collective, Armenian and permanent purpose, so that we as individuals don’t use it to pay down our debts.
JDA:
Think about it in terms of reclaiming your families inheritance that was going to be passed down to you anyhow had your family not been robbed, burned at the stake and killed. You were going to get those assets in some form or another had your great grandparents been alive. You didn’t do anything to deserve your families inheritance but you inherited it by consequence. So essentially you are not “taking money for your dead relatives” like a bribe or payoff, you are merely reclaiming their money that was stolen from your family on their behalf. I’m sure our murdered ancestors would prefer their assets be returned to their families not as a payoff but because that’s where it was stolen from. Turkey’s debt can never be repaid in full because our ancestors will not be returning anytime soon. And the genocide is not concluded or erased with reparations. Reparations is a means of reinstating our stolen assets and attaining genuine peace with Turkey.
There’s a difference between reclaiming what was once yours and offering a “bribe”. The bribe was never yours to start with and is used to coerce/influence you in some way. To reclaim funds that initially belonged to your family is to reinstate what was originally in your (families) possession. The reinstatement of your families funds doesn’t (hopefully) come with a clause to abandon Vahan Amo’s memory in a reparations agreement in good faith with Turkey. Vahan Amo’s memory and the whole JDA kertustun that we lost in the genocide will never be forgotten irrespective of the funds reinstated. And what you do with those reinstated funds is your business alone. The important element of justice regarding your particular question with money is the reinstatement of the funds and its affiliated meaning.
D’si,
I agree with you conceptually, but if there ever were dollars, the first should be devoted to reviving and endowing permanent Armenian institutions devoted to the language and 1000 more projects.
But let’s not fool ourselves. These things are as unlikely as the Giants wining the first two at home after beating the Phillies, or the collapse of the Soviet Union.