DOCSLIB.ORG

Resolution with Justice: Reparations for the Armenian Genocide

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Resolution with Justice: Reparations for the Armenian Genocide RESOLUTION WITH JUSTICE REPARATIONS FOR THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE THE REPORT OF THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE REPARATIONS STUDY GROUP Final ReportMarch – 2015March 2015 RESOLUTION WITH JUSTICE REPARATIONS FOR THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE THE REPORT OF THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE REPARATIONS STUDY GROUP March 2015 Armenian Genocide Reparations Study Group: Chair: Henry C. Theriault Members: Alfred de Zayas Jermaine O. McCalpin Ara Papian This independent study was initially made possible by a grant from the Armenian Revolutionary Federation- Dashnaktsutyun. The Armenian Genocide Reparations Study Group (AGRSG) wishes to express its deep appreciation to George Aghjayan for serving as a consultant regarding the analysis of financial reparations in Part 8 of this report. The AGRSG is indebted to Nayiri Arzoumanian for her invaluable copy editing. The AGRSG gives special thanks to Ambassador John Evans and Drs. Levon Chorbajian, Susan Karamanian, Antranig Kasbarian, Asbed Kotchikian, Roger Smith, Ernesto Verdeja, and Margaret Urban Walker, each of whom provided invaluable comments on the draft of the report. Of course, though the AGRSG has tried to incorporate the many excellent suggestions from these commentators and tried to improve the report to address their insightful criticisms, all shortcomings of the report are the responsibility of the AGRSG. The positions taken and perspectives expressed are those of the AGRSG members alone, and do not necessarily represent the views of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation-Dashnaktsutyun or any of the draft commentators. www.armeniangenocidereparations.info All contents copyright © 2015 by Alfred de Zayas, Jermaine McCalpin, Ara Papian, and Henry Theriault. All rights reserved. CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ i INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................... 1 1. AGRSG FORMATION AND MISSION .................................................................................................... 1 2. THE ARMENIAN CASE IN GLOBAL HISTORICAL CONTEXT ..................................................................3 3. TIMING OF FINAL REPORT ...............................................................................................................4 4. REPORT OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 9 5. ASSYRIANS AND GREEKS ............................................................................................................... 10 6. CHALLENGES ................................................................................................................................. 10 7. POTENTIAL MISREPRESENTATIONS AND MISUSES OF THE REPORT ................................................. 12 8. IS REPAIR FEASIBLE? ..................................................................................................................... 13 TERMINOLOGY ...................................................................................................................................... 15 PART 1: HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................... 17 PART 2: THE HARMS INFLICTED THROUGH THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE ...................................................20 PART 3: THE FIVE COMPONENTS OF REPARATIONS FOR GENOCIDE ........................................................ 25 PART 4: REPARATIONS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE ARMENIAN CASE ........................................... 27 4.1 GENERAL LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR PROPERTY SEIZURE WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE ........................................................................29 4.2 APPLICABILITY OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENOCIDE CONVENTION ............................................... 31 4.2.2 NON-PRESCRIPTION OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE .............................................................34 4.2.3 UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION AND ‘THE PROTECTIVE PRINCIPLE’ .......................................... 43 4.3 THE DOCTRINE OF STATE SUCCESSION .........................................................................................44 4.4 THE RIGHT TO RESTITUTION HAS NOT LAPSED DUE TO THE DEATHS OF POTENTIAL CLAIMANTS OR TIME PASSAGE ............................................................................................................................ 45 4.5 FROM INTERNATIONAL LAW TO DOMESTIC CASES ........................................................................49 PART 5: HISTORICAL OBLIGATIONS AND REPARATIONS .........................................................................50 5.1 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................. 51 5.2 SÈVRES AND LAUSANNE ............................................................................................................... 53 5.3 WILSON’S ARBITRATION ..............................................................................................................56 5.3.1 THE PROCESS AND REPORT ............................................................................................... 57 5.3.2 VALIDITY OF THE ARBITRAL AWARD ................................................................................59 5.3.3 FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE VALIDITY OF THE ARBITRAL AWARD ..........62 5.3.4 IMPLICATIONS FOR LAND STATUS TODAY .........................................................................63 PART 6: ETHICAL DIMENSIONS OF THE REPARATIONS QUESTION ...........................................................65 6.1 APPLICATION OF MAJOR ETHICAL THEORIES TO REPARATIONS .................................................... 73 6.2 REFINING THE MORAL ARGUMENTS: RESPONDING TO CHALLENGES, OBJECTIONS, AND ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................................................82 6.2.1 CHALLENGE: THE PASSAGE OF TIME ..................................................................................82 6.2.2 CHALLENGE: RESTORATION OF THE PRE-GENOCIDE STATE OF AFFAIRS IS IMPOSSIBLE AND UNDESIRABLE, AND CREATION OF THE STATE OF AFFAIRS HAD THE GENOCIDE NOT OCCURRED IS IMPOSSIBLE ...............................................................................................86 6.2.3 CHALLENGE: A FULL AND ACCURATE ACCOUNTING OF WHAT IS DUE TO ARMENIANS AND TO WHOM SPECIFICALLY IT IS DUE IS IMPOSSIBLE ....................................................88 6.2.4 OBJECTION: MATERIAL REPARATIONS WILL BE UNACCEPTABLY DISRUPTIVE, HARM THE INNOCENT, AND BENEFIT THE UNDESERVING .............................................................90 6.2.5 OBJECTION: THE NOTION OF PRE-GENOCIDE ‘ARMENIAN TERRITORY’ IS UNTENABLE .........94 6.2.6 ALTERNATIVE: RECOGNITION AND/OR APOLOGY ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE LEGACY OF THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE ...............................................................................................95 6.2.7 ALTERNATIVE: GOVERNMENTAL OR CIVIL SOCIETY DIALOGUE WITH TURKISH PEOPLE TOWARD RECONCILIATION IS A BETTER PATH TO ARMENIAN WELL-BEING THAN REPARATIONS ..................................................................................................................98 6.2.8 ALTERNATIVE: DEMOCRATIZATION OF TURKEY, NOT REPARATIONS, WILL LEAD TO THE OPTIMAL RESOLUTION OF THE LEGACY OF THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE ........................... 100 6.2.9 OBJECTION: GRANTING OR EVEN CALLING FOR REPARATIONS WILL PRODUCE A COUNTERPRODUCTIVE BACKLASH ............................................................................... 101 6.2.10 OBJECTION: LAND REPARATIONS ARE AN UNACCEPTABLE EXISTENTIAL ASSAULT ON TURKISH STATEHOOD AND IDENTITY ..............................................................................104 PART 7: THE REPARATION PROCESS AND THE PROCESS AS REPARATION ..............................................107 7.1 LEGAL CASES AND POLITICAL NEGOTIATION AS PATHS TO REPAIR ..............................................107 7.2 THE TRUTH COMMISSION APPROACH ..........................................................................................107 7.3 THE TURKISH TRANSITION ......................................................................................................... 108 7.4 THE TRUTH COMPONENT ............................................................................................................. 110 7.5 THE REPARATIVE COMPONENT .................................................................................................... 114 7.6 AGTRC STRUCTURE AND PROCESS ............................................................................................. 118 7.6.1 COMPOSITION .................................................................................................................. 118 7.6.2 ORIGIN OF THE COMMISSION ........................................................................................... 119 7.6.3 FRAME OF REFERENCE .....................................................................................................120 7.6.4 POWERS AND LIMITATIONS .............................................................................................120 7.6.5 SOURCE OF RESOURCES FOR REPARATIONS ..................................................................... 121 PART 8: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A COMPREHENSIVE REPARATIONS PACKAGE
Load more

Recommended publications
  • THE IMPACT of the ARMENIAN GENOCIDE on the FORMATION of NATIONAL STATEHOOD and POLITICAL IDENTITY “Today Most Armenians Do
    ASHOT ALEKSANYAN THE IMPACT OF THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE ON THE FORMATION OF NATIONAL STATEHOOD AND POLITICAL IDENTITY Key words – Armenian Genocide, pre-genocide, post-genocide, national statehood, Armenian statehood heritage, political identity, civiliarchic elite, civilization, civic culture, Armenian diaspora, Armenian civiliarchy “Today most Armenians do not live in the Republic of Armenia. Indeed, most Armenians have deep ties to the countries where they live. Like a lot of us, many Armenians find themselves balancing their role in their new country with their historical and cultural roots. How far should they assimilate into their new countries? Does Armenian history and culture have something to offer Armenians as they live their lives now? When do historical and cultural memories create self-imposed limits on individuals?”1 Introduction The relevance of this article is determined, on the one hand, the multidimen- sionality of issues related to understanding the role of statehood and the political and legal system in the development of Armenian civilization, civic culture and identity, on the other hand - the negative impact of the long absence of national system of public administration and the devastating impact of the Armenian Genocide of 1915 on the further development of the Armenian statehood and civiliarchy. Armenian Genocide in Ottoman Turkey was the first ever large-scale crime against humanity and human values. Taking advantage of the beginning of World War I, the Turkish authorities have organized mass murder and deportations of Armenians from their historic homeland. Genocide divided the civiliarchy of the Armenian people in three parts: before the genocide (pre-genocide), during the genocide and after the genocide (post-genocide).
    [Show full text]
  • The Armenian Genocide
    The Armenian Genocide During World War I, the Ottoman Empire carried out what most international experts and historians have concluded was one of the largest genocides in the world's history, slaughtering huge portions of its minority Armenian population. In all, over 1 million Armenians were put to death. To this day, Turkey denies the genocidal intent of these mass murders. My sense is that Armenians are suffering from what I would call incomplete mourning, and they can't complete that mourning process until their tragedy, their wounds are recognized by the descendants of the people who perpetrated it. People want to know what really happened. We are fed up with all these stories-- denial stories, and propaganda, and so on. Really the new generation want to know what happened 1915. How is it possible for a massacre of such epic proportions to take place? Why did it happen? And why has it remained one of the greatest untold stories of the 20th century? This film is made possible by contributions from John and Judy Bedrosian, the Avenessians Family Foundation, the Lincy Foundation, the Manoogian Simone Foundation, and the following. And others. A complete list is available from PBS. The Armenians. There are between six and seven million alive today, and less than half live in the Republic of Armenia, a small country south of Georgia and north of Iran. The rest live around the world in countries such as the US, Russia, France, Lebanon, and Syria. They're an ancient people who originally came from Anatolia some 2,500 years ago.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 7. Remembering Them
    University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository University of Calgary Press University of Calgary Press Open Access Books 2017-02 Understanding Atrocities: Remembering, Representing and Teaching Genocide Murray, Scott W. University of Calgary Press http://hdl.handle.net/1880/51806 book http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives 4.0 International Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca UNDERSTANDING ATROCITIES: REMEMBERING, REPRESENTING, AND TEACHING GENOCIDE Edited by Scott W. Murray ISBN 978-1-55238-886-0 THIS BOOK IS AN OPEN ACCESS E-BOOK. It is an electronic version of a book that can be purchased in physical form through any bookseller or on-line retailer, or from our distributors. Please support this open access publication by requesting that your university purchase a print copy of this book, or by purchasing a copy yourself. If you have any questions, please contact us at [email protected] Cover Art: The artwork on the cover of this book is not open access and falls under traditional copyright provisions; it cannot be reproduced in any way without written permission of the artists and their agents. The cover can be displayed as a complete cover image for the purposes of publicizing this work, but the artwork cannot be extracted from the context of the cover of this specific work without breaching the artist’s copyright. COPYRIGHT NOTICE: This open-access work is published under a Creative Commons licence. This means that you are free to copy, distribute, display or perform the work as long as you clearly attribute the work to its authors and publisher, that you do not use this work for any commercial gain in any form, and that you in no way alter, transform, or build on the work outside of its use in normal academic scholarship without our express permission.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cost of Memorializing: Analyzing Armenian Genocide Memorials and Commemorations in the Republic of Armenia and in the Diaspora
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR HISTORY, CULTURE AND MODERNITY www.history-culture-modernity.org Published by: Uopen Journals Copyright: © The Author(s). Content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence eISSN: 2213-0624 The Cost of Memorializing: Analyzing Armenian Genocide Memorials and Commemorations in the Republic of Armenia and in the Diaspora Sabrina Papazian HCM 7: 55–86 DOI: 10.18352/hcm.534 Abstract In April of 1965 thousands of Armenians gathered in Yerevan and Los Angeles, demanding global recognition of and remembrance for the Armenian Genocide after fifty years of silence. Since then, over 200 memorials have been built around the world commemorating the vic- tims of the Genocide and have been the centre of hundreds of marches, vigils and commemorative events. This article analyzes the visual forms and semiotic natures of three Armenian Genocide memorials in Armenia, France and the United States and the commemoration prac- tices that surround them to compare and contrast how the Genocide is being memorialized in different Armenian communities. In doing so, this article questions the long-term effects commemorations have on an overall transnational Armenian community. Ultimately, it appears that calls for Armenian Genocide recognition unwittingly categorize the global Armenian community as eternal victims, impeding the develop- ment of both the Republic of Armenia and the Armenian diaspora. Keywords: Armenian Genocide, commemoration, cultural heritage, diaspora, identity, memorials HCM 2019, VOL. 7 Downloaded from Brill.com10/05/202155 12:33:22PM via free access PAPAZIAN Introduction On 24 April 2015, the hundredth anniversary of the commencement of the Armenian Genocide, Armenians around the world collectively mourned for and remembered their ancestors who had lost their lives in the massacres and deportations of 1915.1 These commemorations took place in many forms, including marches, candlelight vigils, ceremo- nial speeches and cultural performances.
    [Show full text]
  • Balkanlar the Balkans
    DOSYA / FILE: Balkanlar The Balkans ULUSLARARASI SUÇLAR ve TARİH Yıllık Uluslararası Hukuk ve Tarih Dergisi INTERNATIONAL CRIMES and HISTORY Annual International Law and History Journal sayı / issue Panslavizmin Çarlık Rusyası’nın ve Sovyetler Birliği’nin 17 Balkan Politikaları Üzerindeki Etkisi 2016 Ali ASKER - Merve Suna ÖZEL ÖZCAN The Making of the Rhodopean Borders and Construction of the Pomak Identities in the Balkans Cengiz HAKSÖZ Yugoslavya’nın Dağılması Bağlamında Josip Broz Tito ve Slobodan Miloseviç’in Söylem ve Politikalarının İncelenmesi İbrahim Fevzi GÜVEN Kosova ve Kırım Vakalarının Uluslararası Hukuk Perspektifinden Karşılaştırmalı Bir Analizi Abdullah TUNÇ - Hamdi Fırat BÜYÜK The Fabricated Pontus Narrative and Hate Speech Teoman Ertuğrul TULUN RAPOR / REPORT 81. Yılında Montrö Sözleşmesi’nin Karşılaştığı Güvenlik Sorunları ve Sözleşmenin Feshi ve Tadili İçin Girişimler Vukuunda Karşılaşılacak Senaryoların Analizi Mustafa Şükrü ELEKDAĞ ULUSLARARASI SUÇLAR VE TARİH INTERNATIONAL CRIMES AND HISTORY Yıllık Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi Annual International Peer-Reviewed Journal 2016, Sayı / Issue: 17 ISSN: 1306-9136 EDİTÖR / EDITOR E. Büyükelçi - Ambassador (R) Ömer Engin LÜTEM SORUMLU YAZI İŞLERİ MÜDÜRÜ / MANAGING EDITOR Dr. Turgut Kerem TUNCEL İMTİYAZ SAHİBİ / LICENSEE AVRASYA BİR VAKFI (1993) Bu yayın, Avrasya Bir Vakfı adına, Avrasya İncelemeleri Merkezi tarafından hazırlanmaktadır. This publication is edited by Center for Eurasian Studies on behalf of Avrasya Bir Vakfı. YAYIN KURULU / EDITORIAL BOARD Alfabetik Sıra ile / In Alphabetic Order Prof. Dr. Dursun Ali AKBULUT E. Büyükelçi / Ambassador (R) Alev KILIÇ (Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi) (Avrasya İncelemeleri Merkezi Başkanı) E. Büyükelçi / Ambassador (R) Yiğit ALPOGAN E. Büyükelçi / Ambassador (R) Ömer Engin LÜTEM (AVİM Danışmanı) (Avrasya İncelemeleri Merkezi Onursal Başkanı) Prof. Dr. Ayşegül AYDINGÜN E.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethnic Return of Armenian Americans: Per- Spectives
    Karolina Pawłowska: Ethnic return of Armenian Americans: Perspectives Ethnic return of Armenian Americans: Per- spectives Karolina Pawłowska University of Adam Mickiewicz in Poznan, [email protected] Abstract The field research conducted among the very few Armenian Americans who have moved to Armenia showed that the phenomena of migration of the diaspora of Armenians to Armenia holds great potential both as a theoretical issue within migration studies and potentially a social phenomenon, as Armenian Americans differ from other migrants and expats in Armenia, because they carry stereotyped pre-images of that land that influence their expectations toward their future lives there. Field research conducted in Armenia in 2012 shows that the disillusionment that repatriation brings causes internal tensions and identity crises, eventually forcing migrants to redefine their role in Armenia in the frame- work of their contribution to the development of their homeland, often isolating them from local Armenians through diaspora practices and maintaining the symbolic boundary between these two groups of Armenians in Armenia. KEYWORDS: diaspora, ethnic return, symbolic boundary, boundary maintenance, so- journers Introduction Both diaspora and specifically the Armenian diaspora are topics well explored in litera- ture (Cohen 2008; Dufoix 2008; Bauböck & Faist 2010; Tölölyan 2012). However, the migration of Armenians from the diaspora to Armenia is not a popular topic among re- searchers and the diaspora of Armenians themselves. The number
    [Show full text]
  • THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE and INTERNATIONAL LAW Alfred De Zayas
    THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE AND INTERNATIONAL LAW Alfred de Zayas Murder has been a sin since Cain killed Abel, long before the first attempts by lawyers to codify penal law, before the Hammurabi and other ancient codes. More fundamentally, murder is a crime by virtue of natural law, which is prior to and superior to positivistic law. Crimes against humanity and civilization were crimes before the British, French and Russian note condemned the Armenian massacres in 1915 1. Genocide was a crime before Raphael Lemkin coined the term in 1944. 2 According to article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, general principles of law are a principal source of law. Not only positivistic law – not only treaties, protocols and charters – but also the immanent principles of law are sources of law before the ICJ and can be invoked. Among such principles are “ ex injuria non oritur jus ” which lays down the rule that out of a violation of law no new law can emerge and no rights can be derived. This is a basic principle of justice – and of common sense. Another general principle of law is “ ubi jus, ibi remedium ”, where there is law, there is also a remedy, in other words, where there has been a violation of law, there must be restitution to the victims. This principle was reaffirmed by the Permanent Court of International Justice in its famous judgement in the Chorzow Factory Case in 1928. Another general principle is that the thief cannot keep the fruits of the crime. Another principle stipulates that the law must be applied in good faith, uniformly, not selectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking Genocide: Violence and Victimhood in Eastern Anatolia, 1913-1915
    Rethinking Genocide: Violence and Victimhood in Eastern Anatolia, 1913-1915 by Yektan Turkyilmaz Department of Cultural Anthropology Duke University Date:_______________________ Approved: ___________________________ Orin Starn, Supervisor ___________________________ Baker, Lee ___________________________ Ewing, Katherine P. ___________________________ Horowitz, Donald L. ___________________________ Kurzman, Charles Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Cultural Anthropology in the Graduate School of Duke University 2011 i v ABSTRACT Rethinking Genocide: Violence and Victimhood in Eastern Anatolia, 1913-1915 by Yektan Turkyilmaz Department of Cultural Anthropology Duke University Date:_______________________ Approved: ___________________________ Orin Starn, Supervisor ___________________________ Baker, Lee ___________________________ Ewing, Katherine P. ___________________________ Horowitz, Donald L. ___________________________ Kurzman, Charles An abstract of a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Cultural Anthropology in the Graduate School of Duke University 2011 Copyright by Yektan Turkyilmaz 2011 Abstract This dissertation examines the conflict in Eastern Anatolia in the early 20th century and the memory politics around it. It shows how discourses of victimhood have been engines of grievance that power the politics of fear, hatred and competing, exclusionary
    [Show full text]
  • Machine Age Humanitarianism”: American Humanitarianism in Early-20Th Century Syria and Lebanon
    chapter 8 “Machine Age Humanitarianism”: American Humanitarianism in Early-20th Century Syria and Lebanon Idir Ouahes Historians of humanitarianism have increasingly scrutinized its social and political perspectives in the hope of defining a unitary field of study. One trend has sought to emphasize the pre-existing contexts prior to the formalization of humanitarian activity.1 Other accounts, such as Michael Barnett’s, suggest that humanitarianism as a concept should be considered separately from tra- ditional charity since it is a particularly modern, Western phenomenon that emerged from Enlightenment ethics (transcendentalism and universalism).2 In the Middle Eastern context, Ottoman-era massacres have generated the most attention.3 Historians of the Middle East have nevertheless also sought to emphasize the well-established Islamic charitable experience. Islamic awqāf (mortmain perpetuities) have been an intrinsic part of the region’s human- itarian activity.4 These Islamic financial instruments provided for a range of charitable activities, even for the protection of birds as was the case in a Fezzan waqf. 1 Peter Stamatov, The Origins of Global Humanitarianism: Religions, Empires, and Advocacy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013). Stamatov and earlier historian Frank Kling- berg nevertheless recognize the importance of the slavery abolitionists in giving impetus to humanitarianism and forging the domestic welfare state. See Stamatov, The Origins, 155–172; Frank J. Klingberg, “The Evolution of the Humanitarian Spirit in Eighteenth-Century Eng- land,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 66, no. 3 (July 1942): 260–278. David Forsythe notes the parallels between Henry Dunant’s International Committee of the Red Cross, set up in 1859, and London’s Anti-Slavery Society, founded in 1839.
    [Show full text]
  • Yeghishe Charents March 13, 1897 — November 29, 1937
    Հ.Մ.Ը.Մ.-Ի ԳԼԵՆԴԵԼԻ ԱՐԱՐԱՏ ՄԱՍՆԱՃԻՒՂԻ ՄՇԱԿՈՒԹԱՅԻՆ ԲԱԺԱՆՄՈՒՄՔ Homenetmen Glendale Ararat Chapter Cultural Division Get to Know… Volume 2, Issue 3 March 2009 YEGHISHE CHARENTS MARCH 13, 1897 — NOVEMBER 29, 1937 Yeghishe Charents (Yeghishe Soghomonian) was born in March 13, 1897 in Kars, currently located in North-Eastern Turkey. Born into a family of tradesman, he became one of the legendary figures of Armenian art and anti-Soviet activism. His works have fostered generations of patriotic Armenians and have been translated and read by peoples as diverse as the subjects on which he wrote. One of the leaders of the literary elite of the Soviet Union, his poetic dynamism and musical modality set him apart as one of the most inspired poets—not Armenian poet, but poet—of the twentieth century. Charents spent 1924 and 1925 as a Soviet diplomat, traveling throughout the Armenian Diaspora urging Armenian writers to return to Armenia, and continue their literary work there. After returning to Armenia, in 1925, he and a group of other Armenian writers founded a literary organization called the Association of Armenian Proletarian Writers. Unfortunately, many of his colleagues were either deported to Siberia, or shot or both, under Stalin’s regime. During the years following 1925, Charents published his satirical novel, Land of Nairi (Yerkir Nairi), which rapidly became a great success among the people. Later on, Charents became the director of Armenia’s State Publishing House, while he continued his literary career, and began to translate, into Armenian, literary works by various writers. Charents also published such famous novels as: Rubayat (1927), Epic Dawn (Epikakan Lussapats, 1930), and Book of the Road (Grik Chanaparhi, 1933).
    [Show full text]
  • Genocide Bibliography
    on Genocide The Armenian Genocide A Brief Bibliography of English Language Books Covering Four Linked Phases Genocide Facts Presentation of Oral and Written Evidence for the Armenian Genocide in the Grand Committee Room, The House of Commons London 24th April 2007 First and Second Editions 2007, with Addenda 2009, Third Edition 2011, Fourth Edition 2013, Fifth Edition Centennial Presentation, the 1st of January, 2015 Sixth Edition © English By Français T.S. Kahvé Pусский Español Ararat Heritage Հայերեն London Português 2017 Genocide: Beyond the Night, by Jean Jansem, detail photography by Ararat Heritage PREFACE There are certain polyvalent developments of the past that project prominently into the contemporary world with pertinent connotations for the future, decisively subsuming the characteristics of permanence. Their significance dilates not only because well organised misfeasance bars them from justice, but also because of sociological and psychological aspects involving far-reaching consequences. In this respect, the extensive destruction brought about by the Armenian Genocide and the substantive occupation of Armenia’s landmass by its astonishingly hostile enemies will remain a multifarious international subject impregnated with significant longevity. Undoubtedly, the intensity of the issue in motion will gather momentum until a categorically justifiable settlement is attained. A broad reconstruction programme appears to be the most reasonable way forward. PREAMBLE 1st. PRELUDE TO GENOCIDE Encompasses the periods referred to as the Armenian Massacres; mainly covering the years 1894 - 96 and Adana 1909. Some titles in the bibliography record the earlier international treaties that failed to protect the Armenians. Only a small number of works have been included, predominantly relevant to this period.
    [Show full text]
  • Armenian Genocide Refugees, the League of Nations, and the Practices of Interwar Humanitarianism
    Keith David Watenpaugh Between Communal Survival and National Aspiration: Armenian Genocide Refugees, the League of Nations, and the Practices of Interwar Humanitarianism In Aleppo, Syria, home to the largest community of descendants of survivors of the Armenian Genocide in the Middle East, a map greets visitors at the entrance of the Karen Jeppe Jemaran (preparatory high school), showing the boundaries of the medieval kingdom of Armenia overlaid with the borders of ‘‘Wilsonian Armenia,’’ a geographical construction drawn by the American president as the victors of World War I divided the Ottoman Empire among themselves. This map (fig. 1), which Wilson presented to the Paris Peace Conference in 1920, has become an epitomizing image of a lost homeland, affixed to the walls of Armenian schools, cultural centers, and churches throughout the world. For diasporan Armenians, it is a reminder of a nation-state once promised them in the wake of an attempt to destroy them as a people, then briefly established and finally lost as the principle of national self- determination was sacrificed by the League of Nations and the United States, Britain, and France in the face of the military and political ascendancy of the Republic of Turkey and its integration into the international order.1 It is also a stark reminder of the real limits of American power in the interwar period, even at the very apex of that power in the early 1920s.2 While the relationship between Armenians and Armenia and the League of Nations, especially in the League’s first decade, bears out a history in which Armenian national aspirations were abandoned, shifting and evolving member states’ attitudes and League policies still affected the status, position, and even survival of Armenian refugee communities and individuals.
    [Show full text]