Henry Theriault is a professor and Chair of the Philosophy Department at Worcester State University in the United States. Over 1999-2007, he coordinated the University's Center for the Study of Human Rights. His research focuses on reparations, victim-perpetrator relations, genocide denial, genocide prevention, and mass violence against women and girls.

Since 2007, he has chaired the Armenian Genocide Reparations Study Group and is the lead author of its March 2015 final report, Resolution with Justice. This week Henry Theriault is visiting Armenia to take part in the Against the Crime of Genocide Global Forum due to be held in Yerevan on April 22-23.

In his exclusive interview to Mediamax, he talked about the recent report on the Armenian Genocide reparations.

- How were you proposed to lead the Armenian Genocide Reparations Study Group?     

- Because of work I had presented and begun to publish on reparations for the Armenian Genocide from about 2003 forward, I had been approached by different people in the Armenian community about a more sustained project that would develop a comprehensive study of the issue, to include legal, historical, ethical, and political dimensions as well as practical proposals for a reparative process. 

In 2007, I was able to arrange some modest funding from the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, under the condition that the report would be an academic undertaking with strict independence from any political group.  I reached out to three individuals, Alfred de Zayas (famous expert of international law and human rights), Ara Papian (head of Modus Vivendi Center), and Jermaine McCalpin (international expert of long-term and transitional justice studies), each of whom enthusiastically agreed to join the group.  As group organizer, the burden fell on me to do the organizational work as well as the editing and coordinating to produce the final report.  We were all partners in the project group.

- What is the ultimate goal of the report?

- Beyond the obvious hope of contributing to the process of a just reparative resolution of the Armenian Genocide issue, the more specific goals are (1) to offer to Armenians and non-Armenians, including sympathetic Turks, an analysis of the reasons why reparations are not only justified but essential if the effects of the Genocide that are still present today are to be mitigated to some extent, (2) to respond to common objections against reparations, (3) to offer a new approach to the practical question of how to involve Turkish people in the reparative process in an open way that will promote rehabilitation of the Turkish state and society without sacrificing justice for Armenians, and (4) to offer concrete suggestions about what a reparations package would look like, including symbolic as well as material elements.

- What sources, materials, and data did you use in your work?

- The report draws especially extensively on the historical sources on the genocide as well as recent work on property expropriations; general theoretical work on reparations and transitional justice, especially from the fields of philosophy, political science, and law; legal cases, both international and domestic; the Wilson arbitral award and the study that produced it and the Paris Peace Conference calculation of damages to Armenians from the main phase of the genocide.

- Issue of reparations is very sensitive topic for all Armenians.  Both in Armenia and in Diaspora there are different approaches to this. How did you manage to include these different patterns of the problem in a single report? 

- The report is meant to express the views of its authors, not to be an official statement of the Republic of Armenia, the Armenian Church, Diaspora organizations and institutions, or the various Armenian communities in the Republic, Diaspora, or Turkey.  While its authors believe that the ideas presented are important and useful for the reparations process, we hope at the very least that the report will help open up a rich discussion among various Armenian constituencies as well as non-Armenians concerned with the issue, about the best approach to the reparations issue, and will serve as a valuable resource for all discussion participants.  That said, the composition of the group was intentionally varied with the goal of integrated a diversity of perspectives.  It included one Diaspora Armenian, one Armenian from the Republic, and two non-Armenians from very different places (Europe and the Caribbean) with different connections to the topic. 

These differences are reflected in the fact that the report delineates multiple different options regarding land claims, rather than attempting to promote only one.  What is more, the report itself calls for a participatory process of determining what should be asked for as reparations and how reparations received should be handled, with mechanisms ensuring proper representation of Armenians in the Republic and outside it and, more generally, Armenians around the world.

But, it might not be the case that there is a deep split between Republic and Diaspora.  As our report’s introduction includes, the issue of reparations is viewed more and more in a similar way in both the Republic and Diaspora. In both groups, there is now sustained attention on the issue and increasing coordination and discussion.  In fact, I will be presenting on the topic of reparations at the upcoming “Against the Crime of Genocide” Global Forum. While there continues to be disagreement over different aspects of the reparations question, it does not appear to be exacerbated along Diaspora-Republic lines, but rather to be based more on intellectual or political disagreements or fault lines that run through both the Diaspora and Republican populations.

- The report includes a “plan for a productive reparative process and proposes a concrete reparations package”. How do you imagine this in practice? Who must start reparative process – Armenian government or Armenian Diaspora? 

- To answer the second question first, clearly leadership from the Armenian government is very important, as it represents all Armenians in the United Nations and the broader international realm.  But, it makes good sense that, if a concrete process of engagement with Turkey is to succeed, the resources and committed participation of both the Republic and Diaspora groups and organizations will be of great benefit in the process.

The first part of the question should be addressed by a very long answer. In simple terms, based on Jermaine McCalpin’s innovative theoretical work, the report calls for an Armenian Genocide Truth and Rectification Commission to operate for Armenians and Turks.  This would not be any kind of “historical commission” discussing whether the genocide actually occurred.  The starting point of the AGTRC is that a genocide did occur; its purpose is to involve the many well-intentioned Turkish people today in a process that does not simply provide a forum for more debate on denial, but instead focuses on what reparations should be made.  This kind of open and inclusive approach can support rehabilitation of the Turkish state and society, whereas forcing a reparations package on Turkey would likely increase animosity toward Armenians without having a positive impact on Turkish individuals and group.

Yekaterina Poghosyan talked to  Henry Theriault