PROF. THERIAULT: IT IS POINTLESS TO ENGAGE IN DIALOGUE UNLESS ARMENIANS CAN HAVE EQUAL FOOTING WITH TURKS
14:21 16/04/2015 >> INTERVIEWS
Nvard Chalikyan from Panorama.am has spoken with Professor Henry C.
Theriault – Chair of the Armenian Genocide Reparations Study Group
(AGRSG) about the recently published report of the Group titled
Resolution with Justice: Reparations for the Armenian Genocide
(Armenian and English versions of the executive summary and full
report are available here.
See Part 1: Henry Theriault: Armenia is suffering from legacy of
Genocide; Armenia’s long-term security and viability depend on
reparations
See Part 2: Prof. Theriault on Genocide Reparations Report:
Azerbaijan’s treatment of Armenians was the result of Genocide not
dealt with
Part 3
Nvard Chalikyan: Judging from your own experience, how would you say
the Turks who recognize the Genocide approach the reparations issue?
Prof. Henry Theriault: The process typical Turkish people would
have to go through to be able to talk about reparations may be very
long and complex, given that their government and educational system
obviously are doing everything to prevent that. But I can say I have
had the good fortune in the last five years to connect with a number
of Turks working on these issues and they completely understand that
reparations are central for dealing with the Genocide. For instance,
I just gave a talk as part of the Hrant Dink commemoration in Ankara
in January 2015 and reparations were on the agenda. Even in 2010
when I was in Ankara at a big conference on Armenian Genocide held
there, I was stunned by how openly many of the Turkish speakers were
discussing reparations, treating it as a fundamental issue.
Of course, there are other Turks who recognize the Genocide or at
least that there was harm done to Armenians in 1915, if they won’t
use the correct term, and who stop there. On the one hand, I can
understand. After all, just recognizing the Genocide, even without
the term, can provoke negative reactions, even legal prosecution, in
Turkey. At the same time, it seems that recognition of the Genocide
in a true sense means not just recognizing the historical facts but
their wrongness and, thus, the obligation that wrongness entails
for today’s Turkey. Accepting the need for reparations is, really,
part of genuine recognition of the Genocide.
While perhaps some of these Turks might say that reparations could
possibly be discussed later, but doing so now will just alienate Turks,
I disagree. I believe that holding back from discussing an issue in
its full sense prevents progress on the issue. Martin Luther King did
not spend his days as a leader asking for better segregated schools
for blacks or some half-way measure like that. Even though much of
white America absolutely did not want to hear that segregation should
be ended completely and blacks’ full equality recognized, Dr.
King made this clear again and again. This pushed whites to rethink
their positions, instead of allowing people to avoid the hard issues.
Similarly, average Turks need to be exposed to the issue of the
Genocide in its fullest light, not some easy, reduced version that
will make them feel comfortable. Serious engagement with genocide is
never comfortable.
I believe there is a significant number of Turks who have an
internal conflict between a genuine sense of morality – they want
to do right by Armenians – and the impact of nationalist forces on
their psychology and individual identity. This impact is strong, and
makes it psychologically difficult to question the official version of
Turkish nationalist history. As long as such individuals are presented
with unchallenging approaches to the Genocide and not pushed to a
level of discomfort, they can balance these conflicting psychological
demands. It is pushing the issue that can help them finally tip the
balance in favor of good ethical principles . . . trend that can also
free them up to rethink and reconfigure Turkish identity in positive
new ways.
N. C: What percent of Turkish scholars and activists who recognize
the Genocide do you think accepts that Turkey should pay reparations,
and what percent of them would consider land reparations acceptable?
H. Theriault: The issue of group territorial claims is quite
complicated – the percent of those who would accept group land
reparations is extremely low. There is small but higher percentage
for substantial material reparations, including return of individual
or community properties such as churches to their owners but retention
within the Turkish state. I believe that overall the number who accept
material reparations is steadily increasing.
As this and my answer to the previous question suggest, there is a
distinction between those scholars who are actually dealing with the
issue (and use the word “genocide” in public) and those so-called
“progressives” who are very soft on the issue. The latter avoid hard
questions and often try to resolve their sense of what is right with
not displeasing the powers that be. I’m not sure this balancing act
is possible. In Turkey Baskin Oran is a good example of this.
There seems to be a growing debate between the stronger scholars in
Turkey I have worked with and so-called “progressives” who aren’t
dealing responsibly with the question. As the former push the issue,
there does seem to be a trend toward a real discussion in Turkey not
just about acknowledging something in 1915 but how this should be
done with meaning.
N. C: Doesn’t the Turkish government use these “progressives” to
control the discussion on the issue? Is there an agenda?
H. Theriault: I am not an expert on the details of the internal
political dynamics of Turkey, but there is certainly an agenda on
the part of the government; they are trying to play a very careful
game by appearing to be open, but keeping things under control and
not allowing them to get beyond a certain limit. For instance, there
is another Turkish scholar, Halil Berktay, a sort of “progressive”
scholar whom I have written critically about. His treatment of the
Armenian issue appears to be imperialistic, even though he is supposed
to be progressive, possibly even a Marxist, and all of that. It is
interesting that he is becoming one of the leaders on this issue; the
government seems to be working with him at some level and he seems to
be an important voice in relation to the Turkish government’s efforts
to deal with the Genocide. It’s obvious that they are picking that
kind of scholar or activist over those whose engagement with the
legacy of Genocide is more open and positive.
N. C: In your view what risks does the Armenian-Turkish dialogue have
for Armenians?
H. Theriault: To put it in very simple terms, any dialogue initiatives
have been meant to prevent frank discussion about recognition of the
Genocide, let alone reparations. If that is the goal of the dialogue,
then it is both pointless and insulting for Armenians to engage in it.
Even some apparently well-intentioned Turks seem interested in having
a dialogue simply to feel good about themselves morally; they want
Armenians to like them, but they don’t want to admit what happened.
There is another important point to note. Conflict resolution models
treat dialogue between a victim group and a perpetrator group as
if they were equal in power. This is incredibly dangerous. The
problem is that Turkey has the power while the Armenians don’t have
the power, and when they engage in a dialogue they are in a very
uneven relationship. Unless there is a mechanism to give Armenians
equal footing with Turks, it is pointless to engage in that kind
of dialogue. I think the Republic of Armenia probably needs to do
a better job of using international law and international public
relations to get itself support for balancing the power issue in
dealing with Turkey.
That said, if the power imbalance and problematic agendas can be
addressed, dialogue can be very productive. The Report addresses
the question of dialogue by proposing the idea of Armenian Genocide
Truth and Rectification Commission (AGTRC) designed to give a real
alternative to a sort of false dialogue just discussed, of which
perhaps the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission (TARC) is the
best-known example. There are many people in Turkey who understand
that there is a human rights issue they need to deal with. With these
people Armenians should talk on a societal level.
That doesn’t mean that they all need to agree; they just need to have
a common framework of respect for human rights and acknowledgement of
the history of the Genocide to open the possibility of moving forward.
The AGTRC could be the mechanism for providing opportunities for this
kind of productive dialogue. We consider it, in fact, the best route
toward a productive inter-group relationship with dialogue that can
actually transform Turkish society away from its legacy of genocide
and the various ways in which genocidal elements remain present within
its institutions, social practices, etc.
N. C: What is the role of the Republic of Armenia as a state in
raising and pursuing the question of reparations internationally?
H. Theriault: It would be very helpful if Armenia could develop
legal and political cases internationally. It should of course also
consolidate the support and expertise of the Diaspora in pursuing
these cases – working together will create tremendous opportunities to
change global public opinion. The US, Argentina, and other countries
can also actually present legal cases to the ICJ or other appropriate
courts, but obviously Armenia is the right state to take the lead on
this. Otherwise, when Diasporans raise the issue in their countries
it becomes very difficult to be taken seriously as people want to
know why the Republic isn’t taking an advocacy role on this issue.
The question of whether and how to present the case in ICJ, European
Court of Human Rights, or another avenue is a complicated one, as
it can also backfire. For the Republic of Armenia it is now more
important to pursue political advocacy. Armenia also needs to be
working with other countries which are concerned about human rights
issues and maintain the position that their willingness to support
Armenia on this issue is an essential part of their relationship with
the Republic. It is difficult to do that but it is really important.
There are countries that the Republic can work with.
Interview by Nvard Chalikyan
Part 1: Henry Theriault: Armenia is suffering from legacy of Genocide;
Armenia’s long-term security and viability depend on reparations
Part 2: Prof. Theriault on Genocide Reparations Report: “Azerbaijan’s
treatment of Armenians was the result of Genocide not dealt with”
Henry Theriault is Professor in and Chair of the Philosophy Department
at Worcester State University in the United States. He has a Ph.D. in
Philosophy from the University of Massachusetts. His research focuses
on reparations, victim-perpetrator relations, genocide denial,
genocide prevention among other topics. He has published numerous
journal articles and chapters in the area of genocide studies and given
many lectures worldwide. Dr. Theriault is also a founding co-editor
of the peer-reviewed Genocide Studies International and co-editor of
Transaction Publishers Genocide: A Critical Bibliographic Review.
From: Baghdasarian