Territorial Reparations: Is it possible?

[Mher]

Re: Territorial Reparations: Is it possible?

No country at a position of power has given back territory because "it was the right thing to do", or "it was encouraged by others". Usually a much stronger country puts a weaker country on its knees with a gun in its mouth, and forces it to give up land. Otherwise, you do it with blood which is usually how it goes. There are special circumstances that can lead to Turkey being in a dire enough situation that Armenia can take advantage, but all of them are predicated on our country being strong enough to take advantage of the situation. Until then, these are a child's dream. It's specially laughable to claim Turkey would give up those specific lands, considering the pipelines and railways and etc that run through that land, and which would basically cut off Turkeys access to Russia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan.

[Chubs]

Re: Territorial Reparations: Is it possible?

President Wilson predicted Armenians would constitute a 75 percent population majority in Wilsonian Armenia...Damn was he wrong.

[Chubs]

Re: Territorial Reparations: Is it possible?

Last Part

Not every Armenian would be able or willing to return, but this mere fact should not automatically disqualify
an Armenian from participation in the reparations territory. Some set of criteria for allowing outside
Armenians to participate and hold repaired land would have to be worked out.

http://www.armeniangenocidereparations.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/20150331-ArmenianGencoideReparations-CompleteBooklet-FINAL.pdf

[Chubs]

Re: Territorial Reparations: Is it possible?

Armenian Reparations Study Group

Determining the Territory to be Returned and and its Post-Reparations status

There are two potential objections to this approach, however. First, the majority of Armenians globally
are not represented by the current Armenian Republic, nor do they have any role in its policies or decisions.
Second, the significant corruption reported in the Armenian Republic393 raises strong concerns about any
state process of reparations distribution. Achieving the goals of reparations—viability and reconstitution—
might not be possible with a simple transfer of land to the present Republic. (2) Another option is the
creation of a second independent Armenian state comprising the territory given in reparations. This leads to
obvious problems, however. A political split does not support viability and reconstitution as well as a single
state. Many Armenians in the Republic trace their heritages to the Genocide, but will be excluded from
the returned territory unless they choose to leave the Republic. The political split will artificially divide
Armenians in a manner inconsistent with prevailing sentiments, while inclusion in a single state would
provide returning Armenians formal representation within the existing Republic’s governmental structures.
Finally, a law can be passed forbidding the Armenian government from explicitly or surreptitiously selling
or ceding away land to individuals or entities within or outside its borders.
(3) Another alternative is to develop a new governmental structure for the combined territory of
the Armenian Republic and reparation lands. A federated structure could preserve a measure of local
independence while also guaranteeing a proportional or half share of power to Armenians taking up
residence on the returned land.
The second and third way of determining land to be given as reparations (above: return of lands that
had high Armenian population figures prior to the Genocide and restoration of the Wilsonian Arbitral
Award territory) also require decisions about land distribution to individuals once a political transfer
takes place. In some cases, land will be returned to the heirs of those who lost it in the Genocide but who
retained documentation or other evidence establishing prior ownership without a reasonable doubt, such
that these options subsume the first approach of exclusively individual land return, except that land given
to individuals will be part of the Armenian state rather than the Turkish. As for land that is not claimed
by individuals, a significant portion should be retained for national use for the benefit of the Armenian
people generally, and the remaining land should be distributed among Armenians tracing their lineage
through the Genocide (or, for simplicity sake, all Armenians globally), in an equitable manner. In general,
though adjusted for the complexities of family size today relative to prior to the Genocide, Armenians
who can document or otherwise corroborate title to specific property in areas of Turkey outside the
transferred land should be awarded comparable property within the transferred territory, and others will
receive an equitable share of unclaimed property. If this results in too great a disparity in land amounts
awarded in favor of those with specific claims or those with unspecific claims, then the claim awards
should be adjusted to make them more equitable or fully equitable. The family size adjustment will
take account of how many family members there were prior to the Genocide as well as how many there
are today, to balance the competing principles that the size of reparation awards should depend on the
number of family members alive prior to the Genocide (with the award to be divided among living family
members today) and the principle that reparations for the Genocide are due equally to all Armenians
(excepting survivors, who should have special status in the process) as they were equally impacted by the
Genocide. All these considerations would be adjusted based on need.
In each of these approaches, a means of providing an avenue of representation for Armenians with
property in the reparations zone but who reside outside of Armenia and Turkey is crucial.

[Chubs]

Re: Territorial Reparations: Is it possible?

Armenian Reparations Study Group

Determining the Territory to be Returned and and its Post-Reparations status

The second approach would not be subject to the above concerns, but the problem of pre-Genocide
population interspersion would still need to be taken into account. The most appropriate way to do this
would be to use pre-Genocide population figures to determine what portion of historically Armenian
lands were Armenian-occupied at the time of the Genocide, and based on this to determine what portion
of the six Armenian provinces and Cilicia should be returned to Armenians. Depending on the actual
pre-Genocide demographics determined by careful study, the implementation of this approach might
depend on offsetting pre-Genocide Armenian population centers further from the present-day Republic
with non-Armenian-majority areas closer.
The third approach would simply apply the Wilsonian Arbitral Award after a nine-decade suspension.
This approach has a distinct advantage over the other two approaches: the lands to be given to Armenians
were determined through a painstaking process (see Subsection 5.3.1) that took into account a range of
factors related to the need for an appropriate territory to ensure the future viability of the Armenian
people. The territory designated for Armenians, in fact, was intentionally designed to support the goals
of repair. Further, this approach is based on a post-Genocide analysis of what land should be given to Armenians, rather than relying on pre-Genocide or historical habitation. Because the land calculation
done for the Wilsonian Arbitral Award concerned what was needed for the viability of an Armenian
state and the reconstitution of Armenian identity, it can be argued that it remains valid on these grounds
today. It should also be noted that the awarded territory is significantly smaller than the six provinces
and Cilicia, and so represents a compromise claim.
While the Wilsonian Arbitral Award is a very good solution to the problem of determining lands
to be given in reparation, one objection that use of it—or either of the other two possibilities just
presented—might face is that reliance on a long-past determination of territory to be returned does not
take account of the current demographic realities of Armenians. If Armenians are granted extensive
land reparations, will they be able to inhabit the lands at anywhere near the population density of the
present-day population? The population of Turkey relative to the global number of Armenians is so
disparate, with Turks greatly outnumbering Armenians much more than prior to the Genocide, that
large-scale land reparations will possibly displace a substantial number of Turkish citizens and leave the
lands to be inhabited by a smaller number of Armenians. This objection can be addressed in a way that
follows the Subsection 6.2.4 requirement that consideration of present residents does not in itself negate
reparations claims.392
In deciding (1) which of these approaches best serves reparative justice by taking account of past
harms and present realities in a properly balanced way and (2) the actual territory to be returned,
one issue that needs to be considered in a more complex manner than typical in the general and
Armenian-specific literature on reparations is how post-genocide population densities should be taken
into account in determining the size of the territory to be returned. The temptation when considering
present population figures is to use a straight proportion of the populations to determine the correct
proportion of claimed territory to be given to Armenians, compared to that retained by Turkey. If
the present population of Turkish citizens on the land in question is, for instance, four times the
number of Armenians who would occupy the land if it were given to the Armenian Republic, then
proportional fairness would dictate that only one-fifth of the land in question should be returned to
Armenians, to achieve a balanced population density. It would be possible to vary this approach by
using the population of the Turkish Republic, approximately 70 million, and the worldwide population
of Armenians, an estimated 8 million, for a similar calculation, though this would include many people
on both sides who would not inhabit the land.
The problem with this kind of proportional approach is that the population figures in question are the
result of (1) the demographic destruction of Armenians through the Genocide, (2) the assimilation of many
Armenians to Turkish identity through the Genocide, and (3) nearly a century of Turkish population
growth within secure borders, as opposed to a difficult post-Genocide situation for many Armenians
that affected population growth. Thus, what appears to be a fair use of proportions today in fact rewards
the perpetrator group for genocide. The demographic effect of genocide on land reparations must be
balanced for—that is, the proportion used to determine how much territory contemporary Armenians
are to receive as reparations should not be based on simple population figures, but must be adjusted for
the effects of the Genocide. One way to do this would be to use demographic projections, such as the 20
million figure for the present-day Armenian population cited in Subsection 6.2.2 (though even this did
not adjust for population losses in the first phase of the Genocide), with an adjustment of the Turkish
population regarding Armenians forcibly assimilated and their progeny and other appropriate factors.

[Chubs]

Re: Territorial Reparations: Is it possible?

armenian genocide reparations study group excerpt:

Determining The Territory To be Returned and its Post-Reparation Status

As previously discussed, there are three primary factors in determining specifically which land should
be transferred to armenians as restitution for land lost through the armenian genocide, including its
second phase. First, large amounts of land privately held by armenians in a lawful manner in the ottoman
empire were expropriated through the armenian genocide. Second, the traditional armenian homeland,
referred to as the “six armenian vilayets (provinces)” (erzerum, van, bitlis, diyarbekir, mamuret-ulaziz,
and kharpert/harput391) or “western armenia,” in addition to the region of cilicia in the center
of southern asia minor, were emptied of armenians by deliberate government policies including the
391 see rouben paul adalian, historical dictionary of armenia, 2nd ed., “historical dictionaries” book series (lanham, md, usa:
Scarecrow press, 2010),

genocide. While these lands were under ottoman governance (having been conquered centuries before
the genocide), the clear attempt to “de-armenianize” them is grounds for an armenian right to this land
as compensation. Third, a portion of these lands was given to the 1918 armenian republic through a
legally binding arbitration process, in recognition of the armenian historic right to the lands, armenian
habitation of the lands, and the need for armenians to have independence from turkish rule that had just
subjected them to genocide and clearly could never be a legitimate authority over armenians again. The
armenian republic was prevented from actual possession of some of this land, and lost the remainder
through direct military invasion and conquest by turkish nationalist forces.
These three points correspond to three possible ways of determining the land that should be returned
to armenians: (1) land could be returned to the heirs of individual owners of property, (2) specific areas
of pre-genocide armenian population concentrations could be determined and returned, or (3) the lands
determined by the wilsonian arbitration award process could be given.
There are three problems with the first approach. (a) it would require detailed documentation or
historical accounts fixing the specific lands held by hundreds of thousands of armenian families. (b) it
would not provide a basis for group reparations, as the lands in question were typically interspersed with
land occupied by other groups. While armenians might have been a majority, the emphasis on individual
title as the basis of entitlement to reparations would prevent any group reparative process involving
territory, and thus limit greatly the reparative effects of land return. (c) this approach would ignore the
wilsonian arbitral award as well as the actual possession of territory by the 1918 armenian republic and
the violent seizure of much of this land by turkish forces. For this approach to be properly reparative
and not subject to these objections would require a way of consolidating territory into one unit. This
could be accomplished by determining by actual documentation and by extrapolation the approximate
amount of territory held privately by armenians before the genocide and designating a territory of
the same size contiguous to the present armenian republic as the land to be given as compensation for
the land expropriated through the genocide. In this way, land return would not be direct repair, but
compensation. Determination of the specific lands to be given would have to take account of historical
issues—the cultural importance of certain areas to armenians—as well as present-day needs, such as the
need for access to the sea.

http://www.armeniangenocidereparations.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/20150331-ArmenianGencoideReparations-CompleteBooklet-FINAL.pdf

[Artashes]

Re: Territorial Reparations: Is it possible?

I want Mount ARARAT back oh well.

We never loose hope and never forget who we are dealing with.
Armenia needs to retake its land to the east and fragment Azerbaijan at ethnic level. then years go by and Armenia keeps getting stronger and then can concentrate to deal with the real Turks.

Yes Eddo, that's actually the reasonable path.
I'm done dealing with the capitalizing crap.
A basic straight line in an purposeful steady pace. We are picking ourselves up from the ashes.
We have to continue and strive to do better.
There are a lot of negatives , but there are also many significant positives.
We've come a long way from the ashes in terms of infrastructure and military capability/co-ordination as well as general govt function .
We can't stop now. And we cannot capitulate to the status quoe that can't even recognize a blatant genocide consistently carried out by the most heinous tortures that the turc could figure out.
A hundred years ago. ----- not to be confused with a long , long, time ago.
Only hundred years ago.
We cannot forget who we are dealing with. Look at erdotwits speeches concerning Hayastan . They aren't going to change.
Eddo's right, when opportune is right, we are going to have to thump them.
----- PERIOD ----


From the ashes comes a hammer.
The hammer is carried by those who don't forget.
One does not agree with a liar.

[Eddo211]

Re: Territorial Reparations: Is it possible?

I want Mount ARARAT back oh well.

We never loose hope and never forget who we are dealing with.
Armenia needs to retake its land to the east and fragment Azerbaijan at ethnic level. then years go by and Armenia keeps getting stronger and then can concentrate to deal with the real Turks.

[Chubs]

Re: Territorial Reparations: Is it possible?

Whats idiotic is to think Turkey will do such thing.....might as well open the borders.
City of Trabson. After all the adults were butchered they were left with all these Armenian kids. They put them all in the Armenian church and used gas. I think it didn't work so they burned the church. That area especially now is very ultrnationalist that you show on your map. You want a corridor? Never happen.



Turkey will never recognize the AG. btw, I don't fight them.....I expose them to other readers.




I never implied such a thing you dumdum......just saying that land is always taken and lost with blood.
remember I always say....the road to Western Armenia is through the East.



What? face palm




Give nothing to Turks.....what are you talking about a road in Artsakh and how connected with your topic.

Read the damn text, return some of the buffer zone, largely just one road, a ghost city, and a series of villages to the Azeris in return for Turks being appeased and agreeing to principles set forth in negotiations for territorial reparations. Some high up Turk official claimed Turkey would consider lifting the blockade in exchange for NKR releasing a territory to Azerbaijan. just one. This could possibly be incorporated into negotiations for territorial reparations in order to appease Turkey.

They put them all in the Armenian church and used gas.

They burned the church down with kids inside, they didnt use gas. Thats very misleading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trabzon_during_the_Armenian_Genocide

What? face palm

The claim that those people are ultra nationalist are just as credible as claiming all of Van is ultra nationalist because of what happened there. I dont think you are xenophobic Eddo, but whats wrong with having a Turkish minority? If they want to leave, the Turkish gov and Armenian gov would facilitate their relocation and assign a financial compensation/settlement for them. The ones who wish to stay will become citizens of Armenia. I am sure the vast majority of Turks and Azeris would choose relocation over living in Armenia due to their own xenophobic fears.


This is the ONLY logical territorial reparation. It will insure the development and survival of the country thanks to Black Sea access. Turks of course will never do it, because they will never recognize it. This is in the case they do, and are willing to negotiate. Its hypothetical Eddo.

the road to Western Armenia is through the East.

Care to explain?


Eddo, our nation is doomed if something doesnt change. Something, anything really. We are stuck in a never ending war with Azerbajian, we have a declining population and an economy completely reliant on some empire that largely doesnt care if we were wiped off the face of the earth. Armenia needs to become, at least in some way, self-reliant. If this doesnt happen, I dont know if there will be an Armenia worth going back to in the next 20 or so years. These regions are largely impoverished, Ardahan has already faced large scale population decline to other parts of Turkey. Its not like Turkey would lose Van or Istanbul.

[Eddo211]

Re: Territorial Reparations: Is it possible?

Thats idiotic, and I dont even know how you concluded that considering the fact that alot of the people who live there are Laz and Muslim Georgian. Turkish Azeris are concentrated in Kars, while Turks live near Ardahan.

Gonna need a source on that Church gassing Captain Eddo, because that sounds largely ridiculous considering the fact that it was in the deserts of Syria where they made makeshift gas chambers where Armenians were stuffed into caves and killed through setting brush fires near it. Ive never heard of Turks using toxic gas on Armenians stuffed in a Church in Russian controlled Ottoman Empire

Whats idiotic is to think Turkey will do such thing.....might as well open the borders.
City of Trabson. After all the adults were butchered they were left with all these Armenian kids. They put them all in the Armenian church and used gas. I think it didn't work so they burned the church. That area especially now is very ultrnationalist that you show on your map. You want a corridor? Never happen.

This is a hypothetical situation Eddo, where Turkey does recognize the genocide. You have obviously spent hours fighting Turks on the internet, and are too clouded to think rationally about this. This thread is about the territory being given, and its implications on the Armenian state.

Turkey will never recognize the AG. btw, I don't fight them.....I expose them to other readers.

Lol, even implying the Armenian military can take on the Turkish Army is hilarious. Dont Eddo, enough of the internet warrior stuff...can you be serious about this?

I never implied such a thing you dumdum......just saying that land is always taken and lost with blood.
remember I always say....the road to Western Armenia is through the East.

If those people are that Ultra-Nationalist then they will leave to live in their Great Toorkey obviously. I dont want them to be forced out or to leave disgruntled, thats what its Erdogans job to pay them as they enter their new mansions in Istanbul.

The groups i doubt will leave are the Laz and Georgians, who are also indigenous. They would make great contributions to the Armenian nation and its culture Im sure.

What? face palm

I belive the main question about Armenian obligations is: Are Armenians willing to give up a road in Artsakh in order to develop the nation?

Give nothing to Turks.....what are you talking about a road in Artsakh and how connected with your topic.