OTTAWA Conference

International Workshop on Compensation and Palestinian Refugees
 

In the second of a series of "track-two diplomacy" workshops on Palestinian refugees since 1997, Palestinians, Israelis, international experts, and government officials met in Canada in mid-July to discuss compensation as one component of a comprehensive solution to the Palestinian refugee issue. The workshops, sponsored by the Canadian Centre for Research and Development and the Palestinian Refugee ResearchNet, aim to foster a "just, lasting and negotiated solution" of the Palestinian refugee issue through research and dialogue.

While the workshops are not a direct initiative of the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT), Canada is the gavelholder of the Refugee Working Group (RWG) set up after the Madrid Conference in 1991, and the workshops play an indirect role in facilitating the RWGs activities that are often hampered by structural ambiguity and political constraints. (Since the RWG operates on a consensual basis, input and output is often reduced to the lowest common denominator areas where there is some agreement between the parties. As such the RWG has focused predominantly on development and humanitarian aspects of the refugee issue.) The workshops are not part of the official negotiation process, but the presence of Palestinian, Israeli and international officials, in addition to academics, provides for an airing of positions on the refugee issue, and discussion about the "nuts and bolts" that will part of any solution.

The workshop focused on four major components of compensation: (1) the case for compensation; (2) calculating Palestinian claims; (3) finding the resources to fund compensation, and; (4) the modalities of a compensation regime. In general, participants agreed that refugees have a right to compensation under international law according to the principle of state responsibility. While compensation has been limited to claims between states, over the past decade, international practice and UN Security Council resolutions have increasingly dealt with compensation, repatriation, and repossession of property. Under international human rights law, for example, individuals can now pursue claims against states.

The workshop focused on two basic approaches to calculating Palestinian refugee claims. Full compensation aims to re-establish the situation, which would have existed if refugees had not been displaced from their lands. This would likely include material compensation as well as payments for non-material damages, such as psychological suffering. Adequate compensation, on the other hand, would take into account the various interests and constraints of the parties. Under this type of compensation only a portion of the value of the losses is recovered. Participants also discussed economic development as a type of compensation in-kind as well as compensation for regional countries hosting the refugees. Estimates of the value of compensation ranged, according to the criteria used, from several hundred billion for full compensation to several billion for adequate compensation.

Workshop participants also reviewed the potential range of resources to fund refugee compensation. These included Israel, the Arab states and Western donors. Given the trend towards shrinking foreign aid budgets along with increased demand for aid, some experts considered the likelihood of increased donor aid for refugees as low. Western donors, moreover, would be less amenable to cash transfers for compensation but more likely to fund development and repatriation projects. While donor aid from Arab states remains high on a per-capita basis, new infusions of aid would not likely be forthcoming to support an agreement which did not provide for a significant return of refugees to their homes and lands. Israel, meanwhile, would likely provide compensation payments for resettlement schemes and Palestinian property (provided refugees are able to prove ownership). Payments would be limited, however, by Israel's financial ability to pay, military expenditures, and Jewish claims for property in Arab countries.

Modalities of compensation identified in the workshop included, (1) the categories of claimants, (2) types of formulas for calculating Palestinian claims, (3) mechanisms of compensation, and (4) processes for adjudicating and delivering compensation. A regime that handles individual claims according to the full value of the property with payments made to individuals would provide for a greater degree of refugee satisfaction. A regime handling per capita payments along with a collective payment delivered in a lumpsum to a Palestinian state was seen to be more acceptable to Israeli concerns and political constraints. In general, participants felt that a successful compensation regime should deliver a high degree of refugee satisfaction, facilitate easy documentation of losses, and provide equitable distribution of compensation.

The Palestinian position presented at the workshop was characterized by a rights-based approach. Palestinian participants emphasized that compensation is an entitlement codified in international law and UN resolutions - namely 194 - and compliments but does not substitute for the right of return. Experts agreed that Palestinian refugees, moreover, would have the right to pursue individual claims against Israel if they were not satisfied with a solution negotiated between Israel and the PLO. Israeli participants, meanwhile, advocated a humanitarian-based approach in which compensation would facilitate economic and social development and resettlement but would not entail recognition of moral or legal responsibility. Return was not "on the negotiation table". Compensation, moreover, would extinguish all rights to properties inside Israel, restitution for other losses, and refugee status. The most horrible horrors only with us, do not pass by Horror on Films4K.org the best movies only with us. Look with us

While the second Ottawa workshop addressed many of the technical aspects of refugee compensation, it was unable to bridge the fundamental conceptual differences between Palestinian and Israeli participants. It is therefore critical that these conceptual differences, including the right of return, be addressed in forums like those held in Ottawa. As noted by several participants at the workshop, it is important that refugees themselves be included in these discussions.

Unfortunately, it is not clear that the Ottawa process, as it is known informally, will be able to overcome the political constraints that have hampered the RWG. If dialogue - i.e. consensus - is a pre-condition for future workshops, the refusal of Israeli participants to deal substantively with the right of return in effect becomes a de facto veto over the agenda of the process. Moreover, a focus on "practical" and "policy relevant" research - too often a euphemism for research constrained by the status quo or current balance of power - militates against generation of substantive research and dialogue on fundamental issues like the right of return. The ability of the Ottawa process to address these issues, will, in large part, determine the efficacy of these workshops in contributing towards a just, lasting, and negotiated solution to the Palestinian refugee issue.

For more details on the Ottawa workshop, including a summary and list of participants see the Palestinian Refugee ResearchNet website (www.prrn.org) A more complete analysis is published in the fall issue of the Journal of Palestine Studies, (www.ipsjps.org)