English
Հայերէն
Davidian: Land Reparation: Statics and Dynamics
Many individuals conclude that geopolitical change cannot occur without resorting to violence, power, or force. This leads many to mentally and politically disengage from actively entertaining involvement in the political or democratic process. After all, what can an individual or group expect to accomplish? This viewpoint assumes a constant static geopolitical stage.
In reality, when one looks at a map of the world from only a century ago, we find profound changes, some made through force, and others through negotiation. Many of these changes, such as frontier modifications and the creation of new states, occurred during times of dynamic geopolitics, be they wars or other destabilizing events such as the disintegration of the Soviet Union.
The extermination of the European Jews and Armenians could only have taken place during times of dramatic dynamic change. The fight for Nagorno-Karabagh could only have taken place during the chaos of the late 1980’s and early 1990’s—not today. The creation of Israel would never happen today, but could when it did and was a culmination of a long process of forethought and demands.
While this may seem obvious to some, what is not so obvious is the effort expended in preparing (or even exacerbating conditions) for times of dynamic change. Too often characteristics of dynamic change are mistakenly imposed upon a static situation and a stalemate is concluded. This latter condition leads to political complacency.
A generation ago, when the ever-present subject of reparations for the Turkish genocide of the Armenians was discussed within Armenians circles or in academic settings, dynamics such as what constitute historic borders or discussing the applicability of the Treaty of Sevres were common.
The treaty was negotiated between the Ottoman Empire and Allies at the end of World War I. It eventually granted Armenia about 110,000 sq. km. of land (versus today’s Republic of Armenia, with about 30,000 sq. km.) based on demarcations by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson. However, this treaty was never adopted and was superseded by the less favorable Treaty of Lausanne.
While the Sevres document is a strong reference in any land reparations settlement, to base reparation efforts today on this document would involve re-negotiating the end of World War I between “The British Empire, France, Italy and Japan, These Powers being described in the present Treaty as the Principal Allied Powers; Armenia, Belgium, Greece, The Hedjaz, Poland, Portugal, Roumania, the Serb-Croat-Slovene State and Czecho-Slovakia, These Powers constituting, with the Principal Powers mentioned above, the Allied Powers, of the one part; and Turkey, of the other part…” (see wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Peace_Treaty_of_Sèvres).
Therefore, the chances of re-legitimizing this treaty is effectively zero, despite the fact that it was a just resolution to many issues that continue to haunt us today, including the war in Iraq.
A generation ago we might have heard Armenians say, “I don’t want my grandmother’s house in Kharpert!” or “How are we going to force the Turks to give reparations?” These responses are not surprising considering they are based on the fallacy of imposing a dynamic upon a static geopolitical environment and making conclusions.
It is not one’s family home in Kharpert that is the issue. It is the ability of Armenians to prosper on Armenian land that was taken away from the Armenians by genocide and the expropriation of their land and property. The ability of Armenia to live, prosper, and determine its own future is what Armenians demand.
Today’s Armenia is not the culmination of a natural evolutionary process, but is the geopolitical repository for the survivors of that genocide. This is today’s condition. Today’s conditions can only be addressed by today’s realities. Gone is the assumption that another 80,000 sq. km. will be awarded to Armenians simply by having a just case. There are no shortages of just cases.
Land reparations, as part of a comprehensive agreement between Turkey and Armenia, would include land between Armenia and the Black Sea placed under Armenian sovereignty. Armenia could then build an economy not subject to the whims and blackmail of its neighbors. Any land awarded Armenia would also rightfully include its inhabitants. This indigenous population would be offered Armenian citizenship. For Armenians, the concept of multi-ethnic Armenian citizens must be reconciled with before any land reparations can go forward.
Movement on such a demand will only take place when it is in the greater interest of the Turkish state to provide reparations rather than to deny genocide. Clearly it is in the immediate interest of Turkey for Armenian demands to degenerate into a nondescript apology. In addition, Armenia is not going to war with Turkey for land reparations. This is the static condition.
However, any positive outcome of a developing dynamic geopolitical situation is at least predicated on a reasonable demand—that is, a clear demand—stated by Armenians. Without a demand, the chance of failure is virtually guaranteed. For a reasonable demand, see www.regionalkinetics.com.
It is beyond the scope of this article to describe dynamic scenarios; however, consider the following simplistic dynamic: Iraq disintegrates into a Sunni, Shia administrative regions and a Kurdistan. Any Kurdistan will be taken as an existential threat to the Turkish state (it should be noted that a static condition rarely slips into a dynamic one without external interests modulating events). Turkey engages in heavy repression of its Kurdish population. Israel, having strategic interests in the emerging Kurdistan, finds itself at odds with Turkey and decides Kurdistan is more important than a wavering Turkey and uses its influence against Turkish interests. Syria is at odds with Turkey because its Kurdish population becomes radicalized. Syria subsequently demands the return of the Alexendretta province (given to Turkey by the French in 1938 as a bribe not to enter World War II on the side of Germany—another event that could not happen today) and an Israeli quid pro quo supports this as Syria gives up its demand for Golan.
Azerbaijan uses this regional instability and starts making claims against Iran’s northern Azerbaijani-populated regions, but still refrains against attacking Karabagh because Russia is attempting to influence events in Georgia as centrifugal forces try to dismember Georgia. Armenians have already made clear demands on a swath of land between itself and the Black Sea. Russia supports Armenian demands using them to further strangle Georgia. Iran sees this as a trade route to the Black Sea, as does Kurdistan. Turkey is petrified that it may lose all its eastern regions and determines that it is better to concede to Armenian land reparation demands and have any border with Armenia than to have an entire Kurdistan to its east.
While this is a simplistic scenario, who in 1910 would have thought that starting in less than 5 years half of the world’s Armenian population would be murdered and survivors would be left a starving mass? Who in 1985 would have thought that in less than 10 years the aggressive Azerbaijani treatment of Armenians in Nagorno-Karabagh would come to an end?
There will be no benefit from change without participation in its process.
David Davidian manages the U.S. office of Regional Kinetics. In 2005, he produced a documentary on the genocide, which is available at www.regionalkinetics.com/documentary.html.
57 Comments
David Davidian:
Your opinions are strong as mine. Where is your analysis ? Let me guess if someone agrees with your insights then no analysis needed…if someone does not agree with your analysis they better come to the table with excel spreedsheets.
All the GDP’s of countries in the region are down. Furthermore, I would guess ( and no I have not done an full analysis) that the war with Russia last year might have a slight effect on Georgia’s economy… would effects of war on an economy be included in an economics 101 class? Is your Georgia example a sample of your analysis ? I know you want facts to fit your conculsions but give it another try.
Show me an example or as you would like to say analysis that closing borders between two countries is beneficial.
Do I think an open border with Turkey will solve all of armenia’s problems. No. Not even close. Do I think demanding land from Turkey is going get us anywhere..No.
By the way, you mentioned earlier that if you didn’t write this article I would have nothing to talk about. That is an extremely presumtious remark. I am not the one who is writing articles in the weekly and putting up websites. I am sure if someone commended your for laying down some sort of intellectual basis for great victories in the future you wouldn’t disagree. Or perhaps you would politely disagree but be thrilled at the sentiment. So, you need to accept the reality that people, even people you deem intelliectually inferior to you, are going to think you are completely in your own world.
Root:
You wrote: “Show me an example or as you would like to say analysis that closing borders between two countries is beneficial.” I am not making an argument for keeping the Armenian border closed. However, you can conclude that I am suggesting keeping it closed because no rational argument exists for opening it. I am asking those who claim any good can come from such border opening to provide analysis for such a claim, not wishful thinking.
You wrote: “Is your Georgia example a sample of your analysis ?” No, it’s not sample analysis. It’s a question that those who want an open Armenian-Turkish border need to answer. Having an open border particularly with Turkey apparently hasn’t helped Georgia, even in light of a Russian blockade and world-wide recession. Why this is and what conclusions can be drawn from it must be established.
You wrote: “By the way, you mentioned earlier that if you didn’t write this article I would have nothing to talk about. That is an extremely presumtious remark.” I have never seen anything authored by RootArm in opposition to land reparation or in opposition to preparting for dynamic geopolitical change. This means that an effort was put forth in active affirmation and you are simply in reactive opposition.
Our discussion has become meaningless. Feel free to have the last word
To Rootarmo:
Repeating a true statement pertaining to a totally different case (Franco-German) or a general statement about closing borders adversely affecting trade may sound reasonable to you but it doesn’t help explain our particular case or it doesn’t provide an automatic example of conflict resolution. Everybody (I believe including you) agrees there is no serious and detailed study to prove or disprove the benefits of the open border. So, what is the sense in repeating “no, you prove that border opening harms Armenia”?
I believe if people look at the Regional kinetics proposal for what it is what it isn’t, they’ll soon or later will see it isn’t for victories, pound of flesh to be ripped away from Turkey, proof of intellectual superiority, etc. We know that a number of other Armenian individuals (a couple of whose articles were posted above) also think that an access to the Black Sea is crucial to Armenia’s survival. To me, this proposal is trying to make the Armenian individual think about what is best for the survivability of Armenia. It has no outlandish claims that it can be achieved easily, soon, or under all circumstances. It is challenging people to debate it, add to it, come up with your own improved one, or completely debunk it. However, what the proposal isn’t inviting people to do is dismissing altogether because it is difficult to achieve given the current equilibrium of forces, because of it generality, or because of it doesn’t contain things you may or may not wish to see.
Your continued references to “winners and losers”, “your proposal versus mine”, other Armenians’ “provincialisms” etc. is making me and possibly others think that this is the window through which you are viewing your interactions here and possibly this is what’s really important to you. I am not sure if you honestly think these distractions help in any way to the discussion. What happens next when you get to say the last word, say just anything and rebut everybody, what’s next?
Minchev aysor sireli paregamner, asonk ashgharen ge bardatren erentz eravoonke. Ov DER mer kaghoote inch gesbase?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/world/europe/02restore.html?_r=1&hpw
August 2, 2009
Hurdles in Eastern Europe Thwart Restitution Claims
By DAN BILEFSKY
PRAGUE — Seventy years have passed since members of the Thorsch family fled German-occupied Czech lands in 1939. They left behind a lucrative oil refinery business that was seized by the Nazis, nationalized after World War II and then taken over by the Communist government.
Marie Warburg — granddaughter of Alfons and Marie Thorsch, who owned the Privoz refinery and escaped the Holocaust by emigrating to Canada — laments that her family has received no compensation for its loss. She says the Thorsches are blocked by a law under which only Czech citizens can qualify for restitution of businesses or homes.
Twenty years after the collapse of the Iron Curtain, restitution experts say the countries of Eastern and Central Europe are still lagging in compensating for private property seized during the Holocaust. For example, Poland, home to the largest prewar Jewish population in Europe, has not enforced legislation on private property restitution, fearful that it would prompt tens of thousands of claims.
Efforts at restitution in other countries, like the Czech Republic, remain hampered by the reluctance of governments to relax requirements the way Germany has in an effort to remove daunting or unfair legal obstacles.
“Providing proof of citizenship is a problem for the heirs of Holocaust victims, whose families were expelled or fled from Czechoslovakia or ended up in a chimney at Auschwitz,” said Ms. Warburg, an American citizen who lives in Berlin and whose German-born father was a member of the Warburg banking dynasty.
Czech officials declined to comment on the specifics of Ms. Warburg’s case. Jiri Cistecky, a senior official at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, noted that in the last 20 years alone, the Czech Republic distributed roughly $185 million to Nazi victims, including money to care for elderly Holocaust survivors. Still, Mr. Cistecky acknowledged that Czech laws could complicate restitution efforts in some cases.
As part of an effort to improve the system, the Czech Republic held a conference in late June in Prague in which 46 countries backed the formation of an institute in a former Nazi camp, Terezin, aimed at tracking the return of Jewish property stolen by the Nazis. While the conference ended with a declaration calling for restitution, Holocaust education and improved provenance research, critics complained that it had no legal enforcement mechanism to prod recalcitrant nations to take action.
A number of Western European countries, led by Germany, carried out far-reaching measures to provide restitution of Nazi-looted properties in the aftermath of World War II, including setting up commissions to deal with heirless property and communal property illegally seized during the war. But similar efforts were stymied in Eastern Europe, where, by the end of the 1940s, the very basis of property ownership had been supplanted by socialist ideology and the nationalization efforts of Communist regimes.
Even after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, restitution experts say, establishing moral and legal certainties of claims has proved elusive in a region where not only citizens but also governments view themselves as victims of Nazism and Communism.
“They say, ‘Let the Germans or Austrians do it, they were the bad guys,’ ” said Stuart E. Eizenstat, who was deputy treasury secretary under President Bill Clinton and has led the international restitution drive. “It is hard to create the political will for restitution to take place.”
Another major hurdle, many experts say, is a visceral fear among governments that citizens who had nothing to do with past crimes will be thrust out of homes or businesses or face financial liabilities for properties they acquired legally. Some countries are loath to part with artistic treasures said to have been looted by the Nazis that were long ago incorporated into national museums.
Michal Klepetar, the great-nephew of Richard Popper, a Czech who was killed in the Holocaust, said that a few years ago he learned that several pieces of his great-uncle’s old masters art collection were in the hands of the National Gallery in Prague. But according to the Holocaust Act of 2000, he does not qualify for restitution, because he is not a direct heir, even though Mr. Popper’s wife and daughter were also killed by the Nazis. His disqualification, Mr. Klepetar asserted, conflicts with Czech inheritance law, which allows nephews and nieces to claim property. The National Gallery declined to comment.
Ms. Warburg said her efforts were a matter of principle as well as a responsibility toward her mother’s family, the Thorsches, who have roots in the Czech Republic dating from the 16th century, when family lore suggests that they emigrated to Prague from Toledo, Spain, during the Inquisition.
In the 1880s, the Thorsch family provided financing for the establishment of Privoz, the refinery eventually bought out by her grandfather, Alfons Thorsch. The family had moved to Vienna from Prague in the 1870s, when Jews were being persecuted, and became prominent bankers.
By the 1930s, Privoz had 10 percent of the Czech energy market and owned 202 rail cars to export oil.
One month before Austria was incorporated into Nazi Germany in March 1938, Alfons Thorsch, his wife and one of their five daughters, Marie’s mother, fled from Vienna to Canada. Her uncle, a Czechoslovak who was living in Prague and had been director of Privoz, fled Nazi-occupied Czechoslovakia one year later.
Within weeks of her family’s escape, Ms. Warburg said, the oil refinery in Moravia — a region east of Prague with important industries — was occupied by the Nazis, who fired all of its directors, some of whom ended up in concentration camps. The Nazis then invested tens of millions of dollars in refurbishing the plant to help fuel the German war effort.
When World War II ended, Ms. Warburg said, the refinery was nationalized under the Czechoslovak government of President Eduard Benes.
Ms. Warburg said the family’s efforts to gain restitution during the Communist era had proved fruitless because the state was ideologically opposed to private property. In the early 1990s, after the fall of Communism, the Czech Republic established restitution laws that required those seeking compensation for homes or businesses to be citizens of the Czech Republic, effectively pre-empting Ms. Warburg from making any legal claim.
Legal experts say she could file a case in a Czech court under the so-called Benes Decrees of 1945, which are still legally valid and stipulate that those whose property was nationalized by the state and were victims of National Socialism should receive compensation.
Yet experts say the Czech government has thus far proved ill disposed to enforce the decrees for fear of unleashing a torrent of claims from Sudeten Germans, millions of whom were driven from their homes in Czechoslovakia after the war.
This is a little more than a pipe dream, im afraid. Armenia can barely hold on to the small territories we have. You’re talking about regaining historical Greater Armenia and repopulating it with Armenians, yet Armenia is rapidly losing people due to emigration and low birth rate. Who’s going to settle . Diasporans in California and elsewhere are going to move to Armenia to enjoy the lower living standards there?
Hayko,
This is a demand to restore Armenia’s ability for self-sufficiency. With such self-sufficiency, Armenia ceases to become a place where living is a daily challenge for the non-oligarchs. Please note I am not calling for regaining Greater Armenia which generally encompasses what is know as Sevres/Wilsonian Armenia perhaps even extending to the Mediterranean.
If clear demands and preparations are not made now, if and when conditions exist where those demands might in part or in whole materialize, another interest having though this through will fill that vacuum.
If and when the conditions exist when this land could be returned to Armenian sovereignty, it will not be returned on a silver platter. It will include about a million people, some who have an affinity to Armenians, other who don’t. Most likely its jails will be emptied of criminals with more shipped in, for most likely Turkey reluctantly returned this land. The inclusion of the land area noted in the map will not result in simply a larger Armenia with the the same problems, but an Armenia, because it both has native access to the sea and has at least a minimum of genocide reparations, has the ability to prosper on its own terms.
Although highly desirable, not a single Armenian from LA need return.
Regards
While Armenians have been busy over the last 95 years bickering over whether land reparations and justice are necessary as a form of redress for the Armenian genocide, Holocaust survivors and their descendants have been very actively pursuing justice on many fronts. Securing reparations through legal means and ensuring the prosecution of unrepentant perpetrators is an objective they achieve to this very day. Another Ex-Nazi SS was put on trial in Germany today. The Simon Wiesenthal Center has a most wanted list. Restitution claims continue to be brought before the courts to this day.
And while all this justice abounds under your noses, some people still cling to the Armenian genocide recognition only mindset. While Holocaust survivors race to hunt for the last Nazi’s and collect their rightful belongings, Armenians remain indecisive about justice as indicated by the comments above and the Armenian governments own implosion to turkey’s campaign of denial.
Justice, not recognition, is what you should be chanting about in April.