LOS ANGELES, Calif.—On Saturday, Oct. 23, the International Human Rights Law Association (IHRLA) at the University of California, Los Angeles hosted a conference titled “Genocide and Then What? The Law, Ethics, and Politics of Making Amends” at Dodd Hall.
[monoslideshow id=11]
The event featured speakers from across the world to discuss a soon to be released report about the foundations for pursuing justice for the Armenian Genocide. The report was authored by Dr. Alfred de Zayas (Geneva School of Diplomacy and International Relations), Dr. Jermaine McCalpin (University of the West Indies), former Ambassador Ara Papian (treaty law specialist), and Dr. Henry Theriault (Worcester State University).
CONFERENCE PANELS:
1ST Panel – The Armenian Genocide Reparations Study Group
Dr. Alfred De Zayas, Esq., Geneva School of Diplomacy International Relations
Ambassador Ara Papian
Dr. Henry Theriault, Worcester State University
Dr. Jermaine McCalpin, University of the West Indies
The first panel introduced the report and discussed its details. Dr. Alfred de Zayas opened the first panel outlining the legal foundation for justice for the Armenian Genocide (read full text here). He noted that the rights to restitution for the Armenian Genocide are based on general international law in force at the time of the crime and recognized by treaty following the genocide.
His presentation quoted a litany of international laws and principles that forms the foundation for a strong claim to restitution. Furthermore, he drew on comparisons of United States, Australian, and German efforts to redress injustices against the people of Hawaii (over 100 years ago), the Aborigines, and targets of World War II aggression respectively.
Acknowledging that the lack of execution of the law remains an obstacle to justice and reconciliation, De Zayas noted: “Law, ladies and gentlemen, is not mathematics. And the norms—as good as they may look on paper—are certainly not equivalent to their enforcement. On the other hand, the non-enforcement of norms, even for a prolonged period of time, does not detract from their validity. And you should not be discouraged because of the reluctance of some journalists and politicians to endorse your claims. It is your right to continue pressing the claims until they are satisfied.”
Carrying the discussion into the realm of treaty law, former Ambassador Ara Papian discussed the different levels of reparations; individual, group/organizations, and the nation or state.
Focusing on the post-genocide arbitration by then U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, Papian pointed out that the arbitration was an act of state which was signed by the President in addition to the U.S. Secretary of State and sealed with the Great Seal of the United States. “Wilsonian Armenia,” as it was known, was legally a territory of Armenia for ten days.
“Even though Armenia never de-facto gained control of the territory, legally speaking, it was a part of it,” stated Papian, who went on to note that the continued pursuit of the arbitration ended because Armenia ceased to be an independent state when it was absorbed into the emerging Soviet Union.
With de Zayas and Papian having established the legal and political foundation for justice for the Armenian Genocide, Dr. Henry Theriault focused on addressing why justice should be pursued and why it matters today.
Theriault noted that instead of being a geographically larger country with a population over 20 million and regional engagement rivaling Syria, Iraq and other countries in the area, the end result of the genocide left Armenians today with a small, land-locked country in which the impact of genocide, both communally and individually, is felt to this day.
He noted that this is not only acknowledged within the Armenian community, but also the Turkish community as evidenced by a recent conference in Ankara, which examined the economic fallout of the genocide. The Turkish economy of today is a result of and many affluent Turkish families can trace back their financial wealth to the Armenian Genocide.
“The Armenian Genocide was an attempt for a very successful process by which the emerging Young Turk movement expropriated a tremendous amount of wealth from Armenians,” noted Theriault.
Theriault continued by noting that the intense poverty in Armenia relates to the extraction of resources nearly a century ago. Not only property and wealth were lost, but people were lost who could have made tremendous contribution to sciences and culture. Therefore, Turkey has enriched itself based on the loss of the Armenians.
Theriault acknowledged that there were many naysayers who believe restitutional justice is not possible. Some argue that too long has passed, but Theriault pointed out that a “pipedream can become a reality overnight. Nobody thought an independent Armenia was possible.” “To get things to change, we have to change them even though before the change they seem impossible,” he added.
Rounding out the first panel was Dr. Jermaine McCalpin, a transitional justice specialist who has studied post-Apartheid reconciliation in South Africa, U.S. Slavery reparations, and the Armenian Genocide.
McCalpin noted that most countries that democratize use truth commissions as part of the process. However, these he noted that given past examples of successful reconciliation processes, justice is a necessary component, saying that “in order for groups to reconcile, there has to be basis for justice, both material and moral.”
Touching on the subject of ethics and intergenerational responsibility, McCalpin stated that “just as wealth can be transferred across generations, responsibilities and obligations are also transferable.”
The first panel of the conference concluded with members of the audience asking questions of the presenters and setting the stage for the remaining panels of the day. These panels further explored the legal, ethical, political, and real numbers with regard to the Armenian Genocide and efforts to secure a meaningful resolution to the issue.
2nd Panel – International Law and Reparations
Ambassador Ara Papian
Michael Bazyler, Esq., Chapman University School of Law
The second panel of the conference took a comparative look at Holocaust-related justice measures as well as some possible mechanisms for pursuing justice for the Armenian Genocide.
Michael Bazyler, a Professor of Law at Chapman University School of Law, noted that much of the restitution claims made as a result of the Holocaust in the 1990s were successful for a number of reasons. He pointed to Germany’s admission of culpability for the Holocaust and that this actually empowered Germany and its relationship with the current State of Israel. “By recognizing the atrocities as atrocities, by recognizing the genocide as a genocide, to go ahead and bring the truth to the people becomes an important founder and something that Germany is a great example of,” said Bazyler.
“Litigation itself cannot succeed. You need to have the support of politicians, the support of the media, and also recognition on the part of the defendants that they are willing to talk, they are willing to have some kind of recognition,” he added.
Ara Papian followed up his presentation during the first panel of the conference by discussing the interpretation of treaties and treaty law as a basis for pursuing restitutional justice for the Armenian Genocide.
He reiterated that the Treaty of Sevres was accepted by the parties involved, including Turkey and that the subsequent Treaty of Lausanne does not mention Armenia or the Armenian-Turkish border. Papian returned to the topic of the U.S. President Woodrow Wilson’s post-genocide arbitration.
“Is the Woodrow Wilson arbitration valid or not? If it is valid, then we have to take the decision which is binding all members of the UN and Turkey,” he noted. Papian noted that treaty law left Turkey with many obligations in the post-genocide era that have yet to be fulfilled. However, it is up to the community to call for the enforcement of the law and the fulfillment of these obligations.
3rd Panel – The Conceptual and Political Challenges of Reparations
Dr. Armen Marsoobian, Southern Connecticut State University
Ayda Erbal, Doctoral Candidate, Department of Politics at New York University
Khatchig Mouradian, Doctoral student, Genocide and Holocaust Studies at Clark University
The afternoon panels featured ethicist Dr. Armen Marsoobian who discussed the issues of trans-generational response to the Armenian Genocide as well as the important implications between accepting responsibility versus taking responsibility for this crime against humanity. Khatchig Mouradian and Ayda Erbal discussed Turkish efforts, from the government to civil society, to address the Armenian Genocide and engage the Armenian community within its own borders, in the Republic of Armenia, and the diaspora.
Armen Marsoobian discussed the issues of trans-generational response to the Armenian Genocide as well as the important implications between accepting responsibility versus taking responsibility for this crime against humanity. “Citizens of the nation-state of Turkey have a moral obligation to take responsibility for historic injustice committed by their ancestors.”
Marsoobian continued by noting how some Turkish citizens accept responsibility, without taking responsibility. He argued that accepting responsibility by issuing a government statement acknowledging the genocide is not the moral equivalent to the more difficult act of taking responsibility for the wrongdoings. “The difference between accepting responsibility and taking responsibility may only sound like a verbal difference, but the passive and active connotations of these words highlight a significant moral difference.”
Speaking to the issue of collective accountability and denial of collective guilt, he stated that ethnic communities are collectives that transcend national identities. The moral obligation derives from a person’s membership and identity to a group in the present. “The political, social, cultural, religious, and educational institutions that mark all large communities or collectivities provide a degree of moral reliability that is necessary for individuals to carry on their legitimate interests.”
Khatchig Mouradian spoke about Turkish stereotypes of Armenians. He said that discourse in Turkish political and intellectual circles categorizes Armenians into three distinct groups: The good, the bad, and the destitute.
Turks consider the Good Armenians as their “brothers” who reside in Turkey. They are good, Mouradian argued, as long as they stay away from politics and do not demand equal rights and justice. The Bad Armenians are the “Hawks” in the Diaspora who talk about the Armenian Genocide, and the “Destitute Armenians” are those in Armenia who, according to the dominant Turkish discourse, would be happy to normalize relations with Turkey, but are being pressured by the Bad Armenians to hold an anti-Turkish position instead. (Read more on this argument here.)
Looking at the attitudes in Turkey and the possibility for meaningful change to arise from within the country, Mouradian posits that it is impossible for a handful of people in Turkey to create a movement that would force the Turkish government to deal with 1915 in any meaningful way. Even many progressive scholars and intellectuals are often not veering too far from Turkish denialists. “No Turkish government will remain in power the next day if [it] in any way makes any kinds of clear concessions on this matter.”
Mouradian provided an example of Armenians being allowed to pray in Akhtamar for one day, which was countered with an MHP—an extreme radical party—organized Muslim prayer in a former Armenian church in Ani.
Ayda Erbal discussed the literature dealing with apologies. She pointed out that apologies can change national identities and signal better citizenship. Speaking about the recent apology campaign initiated by a group of intellectuals, she noted that the signers were not apologizing for the event itself, but for the denial of the event. Discussing the text of the document, she noted that everything is in the passive tense, except the “I apologize.” The apology, she noted, does not even mention who suffered what.
Further, the organizers of the “Apology Campaign” did not consult the Armenians. It was written by four people. She noted that this pulls the discussions away from politics and pulls the discussion into the backyard of psychology, which does not necessarily solve the problem.
4th Panel – Populations and Property: A Practical Determination of Losses
George Aghjayan, Fellow, Society of Actuaries
Rev. Dr. George Leylegian
George Aghjayan discussed the two primary sources for the number of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire: the Ottoman registration system and the Armenian Patriarchate data. Each source contains weaknesses and, as a result, most scholars choose one or the other as the basis for their analysis.
Aghjayan’s premise is that a more nuanced approach is to identify under what assumptions would the two sources be complimentary and to discern whether these assumptions are not only possible, but likely. Using the province of Diyarbakir as an example, Aghjayan detailed the methods employed to compensate for known errors in the source data. The Diyarbakir province suffered significant undercounting of women and children, as well as other shortcomings.
Aghjayan highlighted three primary sources for the difference between the population statistics of the Armenian Patriarchate and the Ottoman government: the changing over time of the male to female ratio by ethnicity, the greater undercounting of the male population of minorities and the significant disparity that arose over time in the areas with the greatest concentration of Armenians (specifically the districts of Chermoug, Palou, and Severeg). Aghjayan stated that by making the appropriate adjustments the different sources can be used to better quantify the demographic impact of the Armenian Genocide.
George Leylegian provided an overview of the distribution of clergy to population centers, using the county of Palou in the Diyarbakir Province as a case example. Generally, one priest served 20 households in a village (about 150 people), and a cluster of eight villages (tem) was administered by a local monastery (vank). At the turn of 19th century there were 6 monasteries in the western district of Palou and 6 monasteries in the eastern district, each serving about 60 villages.
Out of 240 villages in the county in 1800, it is believed that nearly half were inhabited by Armenians, the others by various tribes of Kurds. “The villages were distinct and segregated based on religion. While there was some interaction, boundaries were respected,” he noted. Starting in the 19th century, though, there were accelerated attempts by the local Kurds to convert the Armenians to Islam. Priests were killed, Armenian women were sold into slavery, and monasteries were pillaged, and valuable records were stolen or destroyed. By the mid-19th century, only 6 of the 60 villages in the eastern district of Palou were listed as being Armenian. Roughly 90 percent of the Armenians in that area had been converted to Islam. In the western district, about 40 villages remained Armenian Christian, but in 1895, organized pillaging (talan) destroyed most of the schools and many of the remaining churches. Fewer than 100 Armenians remained in the area after 1915, and those were finally expelled in 1929.
“The aftershocks of forced conversion, genocide, and anti-Christian oppression are reverberating to this day throughout the Armenian community. The human suffering is unfathomable. The toll on the Church is immeasurable.” While there remains a suppressive impact on the generations of survivors, resilient Armenians continue to build new churches and maintain their Christian faith.
Unfortunately, Dr. Theriault is correct when he says that there are “many naysayers who believe restitutional justice is not possible.” Conferences like this are evidence of reason for optimism. Thanks to the editors for continuing to keep us informed.
Theriault is right when he justly and truthfully noted that the impact of the Genocide not only a great deal of wealth were lost, but people were lost who could have made tremendous impact in sciences and culture whereas Turkey enriched itself based on the loss of the Armenians. I like it that he says “a pipe dream can become a reality overnight… and to get things to change, WE HAVE TO CHANGE THEM EVEN THOUGH BEFORE THE CHANGE THEY SEEM IMPOSSIBLE. Therefore Armenians should take heart, continue their plight towards their rights and basically do not give up!
I for one will NEVER giving up…
God Bless to all those panelits and the editors for keeping us informed…
We shall prevail…
There is something for which we Armenians can never receive reparations. The 1915 Genocide was so successful that today, Western Armenian, a predominantly diaspora language, is an endangered language. Genocides have long term effects which are not always immediately obvious. We haven’t lost our Gregorian Church yet, but we will probably lose our language in another generation or two as diaspora Armenians forget the language of their forebears. Since language is the fundamental core of a culture, we diaspora Armenians will have to work very hard to maintain our language and culture. I hope that we are up to the task.
Krikor
This conference on reparations was long overdue. Let’s keep this train on the tracks (and keep the pressure up) so that the Turkish government will recognize and admit to the Genocide of Armenians, confiscation of our lands, homes, churches, schools, and other property. We must use international law to the fullest extent possible. The goal of all Diasporan Armenians and all Armenian organizations–ought to be “Reparations by Turkish government by 2015.” All Armenians: Let’s work together. No excuses for not making this happen!
Fantastic work that needs to be fueled by unequivocal official political steps taken by Armenia to demand accountability from Turkey for what happened in 1915 and on.
This conference is an extremely valuable tool that needs to be put into timely action in presenting our justified demands within the framework of international law. All this work will be to no avail if it is not naturally followed by actual official claims.
The conference establishes the reasons why our claims have legal merit.
The only thing missing from the conference is a strategic plan with chronological steps of how, where, when and at what level or through which organizations should our claims be officially presented.
Full speed ahead…
Rather strange that historians of a bit higher caliber,such as Professor Vahagn Dadrian,Richard G.Hovanissian ,Bardakdjian as well as attorneys such as Vartkes Yeghiayan, Mark Geragos and a host of other such were not invited. it is regretful,since these people have worked very hard writing our last 120 year or so recent history factually,know more details about what transpired then,viz the Genocide perpetrated on us and…moreover our above mentioned attorneys did actually win one or two class action lawsuits versus NY Life insurance and other,who accepted and paid for lives of people in Ottoman Turkey and Kemalist Turkey, who DID NOT DIE OF NATURAL CAUSES..but were slain.This indeed can be relied on built on by not only above few ,but the Armenian BAR Association with offices in L.A. Paris and Yerevan.
Moreover case in point is also the fact that BLOOD MONEY claimed and received by world Jewry as result of Nazi Holocaust ,further goes to support that these are precedents well registered. Land claim can then follow when above is settled for.
May I suggest that if R.of Turkey then reverts to a stance saying that their treasury coffers are in bad shape,viz empty,then our attorneys can justly ask those two main Oil companies that ,Heaven knows why by passed Armenia , viz shortest route for BTJ Baku Tbilisi Jeyhan, the oil pipeline, for which R.of Turkey receives I believe some 1.6 billion dollars per annum as Transit duty.Ask those companies Governments to presslatter for resserving and paying some % of it to Armenians heirs of survivors of Genocide .For those companies and in extension their governments ought to be asked why they turned their faces from us ..old allies remember we fought alongside them in 2 WWs while R.of Turkey and Ottoman Empires were on the other side.Armenians always sided with the good guys, so to speak.So why not ,at least now make amends this wise.
Same as Gregory, I also doubt the long term survival of Diaspora’s Armenians. I’m afraid for another 200 years the Diaspora will most likely assymilate in total or in most part as it has started already and will continue to be; unless we get hold of at least as much as Wilsonian Armenia and decide to go and live on Armenian soil. One way or the other, if we intend to stay culturally alive, we must go and live on Armenian soil.
I agree with Seervart…
Gaytzag says that she finds it “Rather strange that historians of a bit higher caliber,such as Professor Vahagn Dadrian,Richard G.Hovanissian ,Bardakdjian as well as attorneys such as Vartkes Yeghiayan, Mark Geragos and a host of other such were not invited.”
Since we don’t know whether or not they were invited, it is more important to note that all of these experts have already made their positions on reparations clear. The important and complex issues of reparations cannot be resolved by any one individual, or by any select group deemed to be “of a bit higher caliber.” We need research from many scholars with diverse backgrounds. The respected presenters on this panel have spent years doing research in their areas of expertise. It is vital that they also be given platform for their work.
Our most pressing problem is how to bring about legal reparations, not where Turkey will find the money to comply.
Perouz Oghlu,
Gaytzag is a name for males, in turkish Ildirim…Lightening in Ingles..etc.,so ai am HE..
Indeed all those present are very much appreciated .I meant and mean those ahead of them who carried on important researches and WON cases,Viz.NY Life insurance and other,as good attorneys.Latter were not present to express their views as well.Where did you get the idea that I meant to have the ones I mentioned as replacement.it seems you read between lines.Do please re read my post and then draw conclusions.We need all of them. I also make “suggestions’ there as to how receive restituion.For it is easy to trumpet that Turkey pay reparations,when such people who are of that opinion,CONVENIENTLY FORGET that great Turkey has been a RECEIVER for more than a half century.You expect them turks to cough up pay…
some of my country men forget facts.yes Turkey is a state that likes to receive and has done that very cunningly.Now siding with one side, now with the other.Even the famous Lenin was taken in and gave thme pleny GOLD, hoping he would attract Turkey into a Soviet socialist union…Hogwash .turkey only knows best how cash in not only diplomatically but also as we all know quite well by plunder murder,rape, threaats, chantage,you name.Expect that Turkey give back…eh
One of their generals some 35 yrs ago whenm the Armenian Angry young were performing “correctional acts of violence” boasted… Armenians want Land..
then come and get it….
we elders know better than the young, we must work up our way diplomatically legally and in accordance with International law an d PRECEDENTS…