Interview with Dr. Hratch Gregorian

                                       by Vahram Emiyan

                                                                                                                      17/10/07

Dr. Hrach Gregorian is President of the Institute of World Affairs a non-governmental organization specializing in conflict management and post-conflict peacebuilding. He is also President and CEO, de novo group llc, a management consulting, leadership training, and dispute resolution practice; a Principal in Gettysburg Integrated Solutions LLC, an intellectual capital formation and brokering firm offering integrated solutions to global security challenges; he also occupies similar posts in various consulting firms.
Gregorian is an adjunct faculty member, School of International Service, the American University, Washington, D.C.; Associate Professor, Graduate Program in Conflict Management, Royal Roads University, Victoria, Canada; and Co-director, Peacebuilding, Development and Security Program, Center for Military and Security Studies, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada. From 1980 until 1985 Gregorian was on the faculty of Simmons College in Boston. He was acting chairman of the political science department immediately prior to his departure for government service. In 1985-88, he held several positions at the National Endowment for the Humanities.
Gregorian’s field experience in conflict management and peace-building has taken him to over twenty countries. He regularly provides professional skills seminars and workshops for UN agency and mission staff, U.S. and Latin American military personnel, senior civilian officials, and academic and corporate leaders in the U.S. and throughout the world.
Gregorian’s work has been published in scholarly and popular journals. He has made numerous presentations before professional societies, academic institutions and government agencies. He has appeared on CNN, National Public Radio, USIA Worldnet, Voce of America, the CBC, BBC and local radio and television stations in the United States and abroad. Gregorian earned his M.A. and Ph.D. degrees at Brandeis University.
Dr. Hrach Gregorian granted me the following Inteview:


■  Vahram Emiyan:-    How would you define “Peace”?

♦ Hrach Gregorian :- There are two common definitions that I find helpful in thinking about this elusive concept: "Negative Peace," which simply means the absence of armed conflict; and "Positive Peace," a far more comprehensive notion that at a minimum means meeting basic human needs and, I would add, means that there is opportunity for meaningful political participation and economic advancement.

■ V. Emiyan :-    Can there be a real and durable peace without justice or will it be merely a ceasefire?

♦ H. Gregorian :- If durable means permanent, then justice certainly plays a central role. It is remarkable how injustice permeates the world view of those who feel victimized and if left unaddressed, rather than dissipating over time actually grows in intensity. 

 ■ V. Emiyan :-     Provided that such a thing exists in international politics, what must the US do in order to be perceived by Arab and Muslim countries as an honest broker?

♦ H. Gregorian :- It would be at best presumptuous of me to claim to know the answer to such a question. What I hear from colleagues, Arab and Muslim, is that the US must play a more evenhanded role with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; that it must be consistent in pressing for democratization with friend and foe alike; and that it should assume a far more consultative as opposed to unilateralist posture in Arab and Muslim lands.

 ■ V. Emiyan :-     How would you define “victory in Iraq”?
♦ H. Gregorian :- One country, whole and undivided, with secure borders, internal stability, free of any and all foreign occupiers, and able to determine its economic and political future.

■ V. Emiyan :-      Do you think that the Bush administration should implement the Baker-Hamilton report? and why?

♦ H. Gregorian :- I think peace in Iraq will require far greater engagement of Iraqis from all segments of Iraqi society in nation-building. It will also require the engagement of Iraq's neighbors. Given the divergent interests of these neighbors, it is unrealistic to assume that they will put Iraq's interests above their particularist national interests. Honest brokers are hard to come by in the region. Baker-Hamilton may be the least bad of a host of unpalatable options. I wonder, however, if it isn't merely a recipe for a semi-graceful exit for the U.S. as opposed to a recipe for doing right by the Iraqi people. We can argue forever about motives for the U.S. invasion, fact is we (the U.S) have made a mess of the country and raised the misery index to new heights. We have a moral responsibility now to stay the course and work with the Iraqis in rebuilding their country on their terms. Haffez al-Assad was famously quoted as observing that when it came to foreign military ventures the US was "short of breath." This is a terrible reputation to have, particularly in a place like the Middle East. To cut and run from Iraq now would only reinforce this perception of America's stayiong power and lose it yet more allies in the region.

■ V. Emiyan :-  Can democratization by force work?

♦ H. Gregorian :- I think you mean can it be forceably imposed by an outsider power. The answer is yes, if that power is willing to stay the course for at least three generations, which is about how long it will take for the changes required in the political culture of the targeted society to "take." It can be argued that for all its obvious faults and injustices the British empire did indeed democratize many of the regions where it held sway for a rather lengthy period.

 ■ V. Emiyan :-  During your career in conflict management and peace-building which conflict did interest you most?

♦ H. Gregorian :- The Arab-Israeli conflict, given its complexity, its shape-shifting and oscillations, its impact on modern history, its intractability, and the sheer human tragedy of it all.

■ V. Emiyan :-       Based on your expert opinion which international conflict is the most difficult to solve? and why?

♦ H. Gregorian: - Ditto my answer to the previous question. For many of the same reasons, I would place Lebanon, Sri Lanka, and Kashmir near the very top.

 ■ V. Emiyan :-    How do you assess the input of the media in conflict resolution? And what role should it play?

♦ H. Gregorian :- The media can play a positive role in advancing communication and understanding and a very negative function when manipulated to spread destructive propaganda, as in the case of "hate radio" in Rwanda, to provide just one example. The fundamental concern I have with the media generally is the paucity of deep coverage that can help the public better understand conflict and approaches to effective conflict management. The typical sound bite or thirty second report does grave damage to comprehension of complex social poblems. Some of the most interesting reportage I see these days is done by "amateurs" using small scale audio and video technology and the Internet, and in the process democratizing the exchange of information and ideas.