Turkish Forum

Author: Harut Sassounian

  • Istanbul Armenians Document Violations of Minority Rights in Turkey

    Istanbul Armenians Document Violations of Minority Rights in Turkey

    By Harut Sassounian

    Publisher, The California Courier

    Two recent documents from Istanbul shed new light on violations of minority rights in Turkey. The authors of these reports make cautious, yet accurate assessments of the problems facing the Armenian, Greek and Jewish communities.

    The first document, dated February 2011, is titled: “Report on non-Muslim Minorities.” It is written by three well-known Istanbul Armenians: Krikor Doshemeciyan, Yervant Ozuzun, and Murat Bebiroglu.

    The authors’ stated aim is to seek solutions to the problems of minority populations in Turkey, at a time when the government is planning to revise the constitution to bolster its chances of joining the European Union. Even though the writers do not indicate as to whether their report has been submitted to Turkish officials, the authorities undoubtedly are aware of its contents. It has been posted in Turkish on the Istanbul-based hyetert.com website. The main points of the report are presented below in translation:

    The authors trace the difficulties facing the non-Muslim minorities to the establishment of the Republic of Turkey in 1923 as a monolithic, homogeneous state based on a single culture and religion. This policy had serious consequences for the minorities, forcing them to flee or be assimilated.

    The non-Muslim minorities were viewed either as foreigners or internal enemies of the state. One cannot find a single policeman or officer who is a member of a minority group. The 1934 displacement of the Jews of Thrace, the exorbitant 1942 Wealth Tax on minorities, and the large-scale attacks on Greeks in Istanbul on Sept. 6-7, 1955, resulted in the impoverishment of these communities and the devastation of their culture. Such discriminatory policies and brutal attacks led to a significant decrease in Turkey’s minority population from 350,000 in 1927 to 80,000 today, while the number of Turks increased six-fold.

    The writers point out that the Turkish government has recently returned a few of the properties belonging to minority institutions that were confiscated starting in 1974. Due to contradictions and shortcomings in the new law on minority foundations, the returned properties can not be put to good use, because none of the communities are allowed to repair them.

    The government has further violated Articles 41 and 42 of the 1923 Lausanne Treaty which obligated Turkey to provide funding and facilities to non-Muslim minorities for educational, religious, and charitable purposes, and to protect their religious establishments. Beyond the Lausanne Treaty, several provisions of UN conventions and the European Convention on Human Rights are continuously violated by the Turkish government.

    One of the most serious problems facing these minorities is the Turkish government’s non-recognition of the Armenian Patriarchate and the Jewish Rabbinate as legal entities. The Greek Patriarchate was finally recognized as a legal entity last year.

    Another problem is the government’s appointment of Turkish Vice Principals to oversee minority schools which causes deep mistrust. The preparation of new teachers and clergymen has also become impossible due to the closing down of religious seminaries by the Turkish state. The writers of the report request that clergymen be allowed to teach religion in minority schools, as they had done previously.

    In conclusion, the authors urge the Turkish authorities to take into account all of the foregoing legal issues when drafting a “democratic and modern” constitution.

    The second document is an interview conducted by Agounk Center’s Meline Anoumyan with Archbishop Aram Ateshian, Vicar General of the Armenian Patriarchate of Istanbul, as the Patriarchate is preparing to celebrate its 550th anniversary. According to Abp. Ateshian, 67,000 Armenians live in Istanbul, while another 3,000 reside in the country’s interior — 500 in Ankara, 300 in Iskenderoun, 70 in Sepastia, 50 in Malatia, and 20 families in Kharpert. In addition, the Vicar General revealed that there are 100,000 Armenians in Turkey who fear disclosing their true identity. This figure does not include the undocumented workers from Armenia who are not allowed to get married and whose children cannot be baptized by the Patriarchate due to their illegal status.

    Abp. Ateshian is pleased that a few of the confiscated properties have been returned to Armenian foundations in recent years. He disclosed that there are 44 functioning Armenian Apostolic churches in Turkey — 37 in Istanbul, 3 in Iskenderoun, 2 in Dickranagerd, 1 in Mardin, and 1 in Gessaria. In addition, there are 12 Armenian schools associated with the Patriarchate, and Armenian Catholics have 3 schools and 10 churches. A total of 3,000 Armenian Catholics and 1,000 Armenian Protestants live in Turkey.

    It is encouraging that after nine decades Armenian religious and lay leaders in Istanbul have mustered enough courage to raise their voices in defense of their violated civil rights!


  • Sassounian’s column of Feb. 24, 2011

    Sassounian’s column of Feb. 24, 2011

    Three Questions Turkey’s Ambassador

    Would not Answer…

    By Harut Sassounian

    Publisher, The California Courier

    Turkey’s Ambassador to the United States, Namik Tan, spoke at the University of Southern California’s Center on Public Diplomacy on February 16. His topic was: “Public Diplomacy: The Turkish Experience.”

    The Turkish Ambassador assumed his post in Washington last February, but shortly after his arrival was recalled to Ankara when the House Foreign Affairs Committee adopted a resolution acknowledging the Armenian Genocide.

    Amb. Tan is no stranger to Washington, where he served as the Embassy’s Counselor from 1991 to 1995 and First Counselor from 1997 to 2001. During his long diplomatic career, he also was Ambassador to Israel, Second Secretary at the Turkish Embassy in Russia, and Deputy Undersecretary at the Foreign Ministry in Ankara.

    During his first visit to Los Angeles this month, the smooth-talking Ambassador managed to meet with Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, spoke to the World Affairs Council, and held meetings with the American Jewish Committee, Turkish community leaders, and the Editorial Board of the Los Angeles Times.

    Prior to his arrival, the Association of Turkish-Americans of Southern California had posted a note on its website, urging local Turks to attend the Ambassador’s public appearances and “show visible support… especially in the face of usual anticipated detractors.”

    Running the risk of being labeled “a detractor,” I decided to attend the Ambassador’s talk which ironically was held at USC’s Ronald Tutor Campus Center — named after its Armenian benefactor, the son of Al Tutor (Varjabedian), a genocide survivor. I made my way through scores of U.S. Secret Service agents, campus security, and Turkish bodyguards who almost outnumbered the guests at the event. Even more surprising was the fact that there were only a handful of Armenians and Turks among the attendees, consisting mostly of USC students and professors.
    Amb. Tan, who spoke in fluent English for half an hour, presented his country in the best possible light. Since he had not addressed Armenian issues, I decided to pose the following interrelated questions:

    The Turkish government recently renovated a couple of Armenian churches. There were thousands of Armenian churches and monasteries throughout Turkey before the genocide, most of which were converted into mosques, warehouses and stables, and many were destroyed. Isn’t it time for the Turkish government to turn over these Armenian churches to the Armenian Patriarchate of Istanbul? Also, after Armenians were deported and killed, they left behind their houses, lands and belongings. Isn’t time for the Turkish government to return these properties to the heirs of their original Armenian owners? Finally, regarding the Armenian Genocide issue, Pres. Obama declared in his statement of last April 24: “95 years ago, 1.5 million Armenians were massacred or marched to death in the final days of the Ottoman Empire.” If you say that is not true, wouldn’t you be calling the President of the United States a liar?

    Here is Amb. Tan’s response:

    “This hate should end. We should put it behind as early as possible. That’s why we are trying to reach out to our Armenian friends and we have signed the [Armenia-Turkey] Protocols. In these Protocols, one of the suggestions that we put is that we want an independent historical inquiry commission which will include representatives from every country — from US, France, and whichever country you like. They will study those claims and we will see the decision all together. But history cannot be legislated. This is not the way that history could be judged. So, I think this has created a lot of ill feelings in our societies. Armenians have given a lot of contribution to our social life historically. Therefore we need to continue such kind of engagements, but this hate should be stopped.”

    I politely reminded Amb. Tan that he had not answered my questions. He responded by saying: “That is my answer.” He probably was not prepared to face such politically sensitive questions. By sidestepping my queries, he left a negative impression on his audience, despite his highly-skilled diplomatic credentials.

    At the program’s conclusion, Amb. Tan walked over, shook my hand, and thanked me for my questions. I told him that his assessment was inaccurate, as the Armenian issue had nothing to do with “hatred.” I explained that a great crime was committed by Turkey against the Armenian nation, and that Armenians are not blinded by “hatred,” but simply demanding “justice.” The Ambassador turned around and walked away with a mysterious smile on his face!

    Even though Amb. Tan avoided answering my questions, our public exchange had the beneficial effect of exposing the university audience, the Ambassador and his entourage to the just demands of the Armenian people for the crimes committed by Turkey. Indeed, it is also imperative to challenge Turkish officials at every opportunity, so that neither they nor their audience would be able to ignore the Armenian grievances.

  • Sassounian’s column of Feb. 17, 2011

    Sassounian’s column of Feb. 17, 2011

    The Court has Spoken: Can Armenians
    Now Unite to Build a Genocide Museum?
    sassounian32
    By Harut Sassounian
    Publisher, The California Courier

    After an unfortunate court battle lasting nearly four years, a Federal Judge ruled last month on several suits and counter-suits filed by the Cafesjian Family Foundation (CFF) and the Armenian Assembly. The dispute revolved around plans to build an Armenian Genocide Museum & Memorial (AGM&M), two blocks from the White House.
    For the first time in a court verdict, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly began her 190-page ruling with the chilling words of Adolf Hitler: “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?” She went on to explain that Hitler was referring to “the largely successful efforts by the Ottoman Turkish government to eliminate the Armenian population living on its historical homeland during the World War I era, known today as the Armenian Genocide.” The Judge further added: “The Armenian Genocide is widely recognized as the first genocide of the 20th century. Of the estimated 2.1 million Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire on the eve of World War I, approximately 1.5 million were killed, and hundreds of thousands more were deported. During this period, the Armenian people were subjected to deportation, expropriation, forced conversion, abduction, torture, massacre, and starvation.”
    In the lawsuit, the Assembly and AGM&M claimed that Gerald Cafesjian and John Waters (Vice President of CFF) breached their fiduciary duties to AGM&M and the Assembly, that Cafesjian breached his duty of good faith and fair dealing to the Assembly, and that Cafesjian and Waters misappropriated the trade secrets of the Assembly. The Judge found all of these charges to be without merit.
    In response to accusations from CFF, the Court found that “neither the Assembly nor the AGM&M breached the Grant and Transfer Agreements or their corresponding implied duties of good faith and fair dealing.” The Court also ruled that the claim for “unjust enrichment is barred by the existence of written agreements.”
    Before reaching her verdict, Judge Kollar-Kotelly painstakingly reconstructed the convoluted and often antagonistic relationship between the parties, while they served together for many years on the boards of the Armenian Assembly, AGM&M and its planning committee. During their testimonies in court, several Assembly leaders could not recall basic details about meetings and events, further complicating the Judge’s task, who suspected that their “lack of memory appeared to be driven more by convenience than cognition.” The Judge surmised that “the convenient lack of memory” of Assembly leaders Hirair Hovnanian, Van Krikorian, and Peter Vosbikian “is an attempt (conscious or otherwise) to minimize their involvement in an agreement that turned out badly for the Assembly.” She further stated that some of the minutes of the museum committee meetings were either missing or, at least in one case, altered by an Assembly official.
    The Judge traced the origins of the dispute to year 2000, when the Assembly paid $7.25 million to purchase a bank building in Washington, as a possible site for an Armenian Genocide Museum. This amount was given to the Assembly in equal sums by Anoush Mathevosian and the Cafesjian Family Foundation. CFF also provided the Assembly with a $500,000 loan. Cafesjian subsequently paid an additional $12 million to acquire four more properties next door to the bank building and donated them to the Assembly to expand the space allotted to the museum. In making this contribution, Cafesjian included in the terms of the grant agreement, signed on Nov. 1, 2003, a “reversionary clause” stipulating that the grant funds or donated properties would be returned to CFF, if the Assembly failed to develop the museum by December 31, 2010.
    The museum was originally expected to open to the public on April 2002. As committee members began to argue over the scope of the project and other issues, the opening date kept getting delayed. Almost 10 years later, the museum is not expected to open anytime soon. While Hovnanian, Assembly’s Chairman of the Board, preferred a museum with a budget limited to $15 million, Cafesjian proposed a more ambitious project costing many times that amount. Cafesjian was also concerned that the controversial Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission (TARC), which was strongly supported by Hovnanian and Krikorian, would discourage potential donors to the museum.
    After several failed attempts to secure consensus between the “competing visions” of Cafesjian and Hovnanian, Cafesjian concluded that their differences were irreconcilable. He left the museum board and asked that the properties be returned to the CFF, as per the “reversionary agreement” signed earlier. Hovnanian angrily told Waters: “I will spend every last nickel that I have to destroy him [Cafesjian] and his foundation.” On September 13, 2006, Cafesjian resigned as Chairman and President of AGM&M.
    Both parties then filed separate lawsuits making a series of claims and counter-claims. The most significant outcome of the protracted litigation is Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s ruling that the reversion clause in the Grant Agreement is “valid and enforceable,” which means that CFF is entitled to a return of the properties earlier donated to the Armenian Assembly. Furthermore, the court ruled that CFF retains the right to appoint one of four trustees to the AGM&M Board.
    Additionally, the Judge found that, although the Assembly had breached its contractual obligation to CFF by failing to pay the March 2000 promissory note of $500,000, CFF could no longer receive this amount, as the statute of limitations had expired.
    She further ruled that the AGM&M has to pay the legal expenses that Cafesjian and Waters had incurred in defending themselves against the lawsuits filed by the Assembly or AGM&M; the Court would rule later this month on the amount of legal fees to be reimbursed — $3 million according to Cafesjian and Waters.
    At the end of her comprehensive opinion, Federal Judge Kollar-Kotelly urged the two sides “to work amicably to settle their remaining disputes.” She expressed her sincere wish that “after years of fighting legal battles, the parties can put aside their differences and accomplish the laudable goal of creating an Armenian Genocide museum and memorial.”
    It is clear that further legal proceedings would simply be a complete waste of time and money. If the two sides cannot come to a quick agreement on how to proceed, leaders of major Armenian-American organizations and other benefactors should step forward and indicate their willingness to come together and carry out the necessary planning and fundraising for such a vital project in the nation’s capital.
    The museum’s original concept, first developed 12 years ago, could benefit from the additional input of a cross-section of the Armenian-American community. Beyond including exhibits and artifacts documenting the facts of the Armenian Genocide, the museum could be a research center for scholars and international lawyers to pursue legitimate Armenian demands from Turkey through national and international courts. The museum could also highlight not only the survival, but the renaissance of the Armenian nation, and the many positive contributions Armenians have made to America and the world community.

  • Diaspora to be Represented in Armenia’s Senate: Many Questions, Few Answers

    Diaspora to be Represented in Armenia’s Senate: Many Questions, Few Answers

    sassounian31
    By Harut Sassounian

    Publisher, The California Courier

    The Republic of Armenia plans to amend its constitution in order to create a new legislative upper house — a Senate — that would include representatives from the Diaspora, according to a January 30 announcement in Los Angeles by Hranush Hakobyan, Armenia’s Diaspora Minister.

    This news spread like wildfire throughout the Armenian world, and the reaction was mixed. Pro-government circles welcomed the proposal with great enthusiasm, while opponents severely criticized it. In my view, both praise and criticism were premature, as the Minister’s announcement contained few details about the proposed Senate.

    Interestingly, despite Minister Hakobyan’s declaration about Pres. Sargsyan’s intent to establish a Senate, the President’s spokesman Armen Arzumanyan cautioned that this is one of many such proposals deserving of serious consideration. He went on to explain that amending the constitution is a complicated and long process. A week later, Parliament Chairman Hovik Abrahamyan further downplayed the Minister’s announcement stating that it will not be considered until after next year’s Parliamentary elections, given the legislative body’s crowded agenda.

    At this early stage, one can only ask questions, because of the Minister’s assertion that there would be extensive consultations in Armenia and the Diaspora before any decision is taken on the structure and responsibilities of the proposed Senate.

    Here are key questions that individuals, organizations, and government officials should consider, before deciding to amend Armenia’s constitution and establishing a Senate:

    — Would Armenia’s citizens feel comfortable about the presence of Diaspora Armenians in their legislature or view them as foreign citizens, albeit Armenians, meddling in their domestic affairs?

    — Should the Armenian government include hand-picked Diaspora representatives in the Senate, would this be viewed as an attempt by Armenia’s officials to exercise undue influence over the Diaspora?

    — Instead of establishing a Senate, why can’t Diaspora Armenians be included in the existing Parliament?

    — What would be the Senate’s legislative mandate, and how would it be different from that of the existing Parliament?

    — Since the majority of Armenians live outside of Armenia, would the proposed Senate consist of many more Diaspora representatives than those from Armenia?

    — How would Senators be chosen? Would they be elected by the public or appointed by the government or major organizations? If elected, what should be the qualifications of voters and candidates, who sets the criteria, and who organizes the elections?

    — In case the Senators are elected, what steps should be taken to ensure that there would be free and fair elections?

    — Can Diaspora Senators maintain their current citizenship, become dual citizens or be forced to give up their foreign citizenship?

    — Would Diaspora members be obliged to move to Armenia to participate in year-round sessions or would they come to Armenia for brief periods for meetings dealing only with pan-Armenian issues?

    — Are there any plans to undertake a comparative study of countries with Diaspora representatives in their legislatures?

    — In order to maintain Diaspora’s independence and Armenia’s sovereignty, would it not be better to create a separate Diaspora structure in line with the process I proposed during last November’s USC conference? Armenian communities worldwide would elect representatives to a transnational assembly which would then select delegates from its ranks to serve in Armenia’s legislature.

    — Was it mere coincidence that ARF leaders had publicly discussed the idea of creating a Senate that would include Diaspora representatives, long before Minister Hakobyan’s recent announcement? Interestingly, the ARF promptly announced its support for this initiative, while the Heritage Party opposed it, and the Armenian National Congress, led by ex-President Levon Ter Petrosyan, called the proposal an “absurdity!”

    The good news is that at long last the Armenian government has recognized the need to involve Diaspora Armenians in pan-Armenian decision-making processes and structures. However, before rushing to judgment, it would be wise to wait and see what exactly Armenia’s leaders have in mind in proposing Diasporan representation in a new Senate. The final decision should be solely based on whether this or any other arrangement is in the best interest of Armenians, both in Armenia and Diaspora.

  • Sassounian’s column of Feb. 3, 2011

    Sassounian’s column of Feb. 3, 2011

    Turks and Germans:
    Partners in Crime and Allies in Court
    sassounian3
    Last month, when German life insurance companies requested a rehearing from a Federal Court of Appeals, contesting its decision in favor of Armenian claimants, the Republic of Turkey filed an “amicus curiae” (friend of the court) petition in support of the German defendants.
    This was an intriguing development. The heirs of now deceased Armenian policyholders were suing German insurance companies; and Turkey — not a party to the lawsuit — was shamelessly siding with the delinquent firms. No one was demanding payment from the Turkish government! Why would Turkey, a foreign country, interfere in a U.S. lawsuit against German companies?
    The Turkish petition is a 15-page-long propaganda piece that denies the facts of the Armenian Genocide. It describes the United States and Turkey as working “shoulder-to-shoulder,” adding that 120,000 Turks reside in the United States, and that 700,000 Americans visit Turkey every year. The Turkish brief does not explain, however, how any of these assertions have any relevance to the failure of German insurance companies to compensate the heirs of Armenian policyholders.
    The Turkish petition attacks the California law extending the statute of limitations on Armenian claims against insurance companies by heirs of genocide victims. It alleges that the California statute “offends Turkey’s sovereignty by legislating Turkish history and by declaring Turkey and its predecessor state guilty of the crime of genocide.” The petition goes on to state: “Turkey resents having any U.S. legislature or other official formulate its own definition of genocide specifically to declare that Turkey or its predecessor state is guilty of this crime.” Ironically, the Turkish government never expressed any resentment or complaint when 42 U.S. states and many American cities were recognizing the Armenian Genocide in recent decades. Ankara justified its inaction by claiming that its counterpart is the federal government, not individual states or cities.
    The Turkish petition lamely claims that foreign states can not “monitor and react to the individual actions of fifty state legislatures and governors. Rather, Turkey’s interlocutor with the fifty United States is the U.S. federal government.” It then quotes from Turkish Ambassador Nabi Sensoy’s letter to the Court of Appeals on December 4, 2008, stating that “Turkey has not as such protested state proclamations on this historic controversy because it conducts it (sic) foreign affairs directly with the U.S. Federal Government, primarily the Executive Branch. We do not have similar relations with the states.”
    The petition falsely refers to the Genocide as “mutual suffering of Ottoman Armenians and Turks” and “wartime misery.” It flippantly dismisses Pres. Reagan’s 1981 Proclamation acknowledging the Armenian Genocide, and omits any reference to the two Congressional resolutions of 1975 and 1984 recognizing the Genocide. Instead, the Turkish government proudly proclaims that no new resolutions were adopted on this subject during the Obama administration!
    The Turkish government drops a bombshell by revealing in its petition that Prime Minister Erdogan had written to Pres. Obama on December 19, 2010, complaining about the Federal Appeals Court’s decision that “the position of the US administration is not against the recognition of ‘genocide’ at the state or federal level.” This is yet another blatant attempt by a foreign leader to intervene in U.S. court proceedings. Interestingly, the petition discloses only a portion of Erdogan’s letter to Obama, claiming that “the balance of this letter constitutes a confidential diplomatic communication.”
    The appeals court should either reject the Turkish petition as unwarranted interference by a foreign power in American judicial proceedings or demand the release of the full text of Erdogan’s letter to verify the accuracy of the quoted portion and to confirm if it includes any other reference to the lawsuit. The Turkish government cannot hide behind “diplomatic confidentiality,” as it has waived the claim of “privileged communication” by selectively disclosing portions of the letter.
    In their petition, Turkish officials make the misleading suggestion that the Armenia-Turkey Protocols, signed over a year ago, “will seek to overcome all hurdles in their present relations, and jointly consider the historic controversy.” The authors of the disingenuous Turkish petition cleverly conceal from federal judges the fact that they have not ratified the Protocols and have no intention to do so. Ankara is attempting to exploit the now defunct Protocols to quash a legitimate lawsuit against German insurance companies.
    The Turkish government has attached two letters to its petition, one signed by its Ambassador to the U.S., and the other by the Chairman of the Turkish Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee. The Federal Appeals Court should promptly disregard both letters, along with the petition, as propaganda materials lacking any legal merit or standing.

  • German Insurance Companies Should Stop Cheating their Armenian Clients

    German Insurance Companies Should Stop Cheating their Armenian Clients

    sassounian33

    By Harut Sassounian

    Publisher, The California Courier

    German firms filed a petition for a rehearing by the full 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, after a panel of three judges of that court had ruled that heirs of Armenian Genocide victims could seek payment from life insurance companies operating in the Ottoman Empire.

    Rather than spending a fortune on high-powered lawyers, German insurance companies should promptly settle this case and pay the compensation owed to heirs of perished Armenian policy-holders. Many Armenian residents of the Ottoman Empire trusted these European companies and dutifully paid their premiums so that someday, when they passed away, their families would receive the proceeds of their policies.

    This lawsuit has nothing whatsoever to do with genocide recognition or rights of states vis-a-vis the federal government. These German companies have violated their contractual agreements and failed to live up to their promises to Armenian policy holders. Their heirs are entitled to receive the payments owed to them, regardless of whether their ancestors were killed by genocidal maniacs or drunk drivers! The only relevant issue here is that upon their deaths, the heirs should have been promptly paid in keeping with the terms of the life insurance policies.

    Instead, these German companies have avoided meeting their financial obligations for almost a century, and shamefully use Turkish denialist propaganda as their cover. Their lawyers even quote from revisionist materials posted on the Turkish Embassy’s website. If these companies had filed a similar motion denying the Jewish Holocaust and quoting from neo-Nazi websites, they would have been out of business within 24 hours!

    The lawyers argue that recognition of the Armenian Genocide by the U.S. government would “cause great harm to the nation’s foreign policy interests.” It is preposterous that German insurance companies are using such irrelevant arguments in order to continue enriching themselves. Safeguarding the interests of this nation is the responsibility of the U.S. government, not that of German companies.

    In their appeal, the lawyers for the German firms cleverly start their recitation of the record on U.S. recognition of the Armenian Genocide by citing only the last three American Presidents, because during their term in office the House of Representatives did not adopt new congressional resolutions on the Armenian Genocide.

    Fortunately, U.S. history does not start with the year 2000. The lawyers conveniently ignore the fact that the U.S. government first acknowledged the Armenian Genocide back in 1951 in a document it submitted to the International Court of Justice (World Court). Since then, the House of Representatives on two occasions — 1975 and 1984 — adopted resolutions commemorating the Armenian Genocide, and in 1981, Pres. Reagan issued a Presidential Proclamation mentioning the Armenian Genocide. Furthermore, 42 U.S. states and scores of American cities have acknowledged the Armenian Genocide during the past 50 years. The federal government has never objected to or expressed disagreement with any of those actions. If recognizing the Armenian Genocide is not in the best interest of the United States, as these lawyers contend, then Pres. Reagan, the U.S. Justice Department, hundreds of House members who voted for the Genocide Resolution, thousands of legislators in 42 states, and scores of Mayors and Governors must be anti-American!

    In fact, these historic affirmations are far more relevant to this case than the politically-motivated and morally bankrupt pronouncements of the last three U.S. Presidents. When California adopted a law in 2000 extending the statute of limitation on insurance claims by Armenian Genocide victims, it did so on the basis of the extensive record of U.S. recognition up to that time. Since then, no new resolutions were adopted and no votes cast contradicting this historical record. No U.S. official has ever denied the truthfulness of the Armenian Genocide. In reality, that record has been strengthened considerably by the fact that during the terms in office of the last three Presidents, successive House committees, on at least four occasions — 2000, 2003, 2007 and 2010 — have adopted resolutions acknowledging the Armenian Genocide.

    The most ridiculous aspect of the German companies’ appeal is their attempt to justify their irresponsible behavior by citing this writer as an “authority” and quoting from one of my articles in which I criticize Pres. Obama for referring to the Armenian Genocide as “Meds Yeghern.” Ken Hachikian, Chairman of the Armenian National Committee of America, is also listed as an “authority.” He too had complained about Obama’s use of that term. Pres. Obama’s choice of words has no relevance to the fact that these companies have cheated their Armenian clients and their heirs by not paying the payments owed to them.

    Rather than filing an appeal, it is high time for German life insurance companies to stop playing games with the legitimate claims of their perished clients, and promptly pay what they owe to their descendants.