Author: Harut Sassounian

A unique lawsuit, not based on the Armenian Genocide, was filed on May 29, 2019, by two Armenian-Americans against the Turkish government in the United States Federal Court, Central District of California.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Barkev Ghazarian, 88, and his son Garo Ghazarian claiming “statutory elder abuse, intentional affliction of emotional distress, violation of international law, breach of fiduciary duty, and intentional interference with expectation of inheritance,” according to a 44-page complaint filed by the law firm of Kerkonian Dajani LLC.

Plaintiff Barkev Ghazarian is a United States citizen born in Kaladouran, Turkey, on April 20, 1931. He currently resides in Glendale, California. His son, Garo, born in Beirut, Lebanon, is also a United States citizen who lives in Glendale.

The complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs suffered personal injury caused by tortuous acts or omissions of the Turkish government’s employees or agents in the United States.

In the 1930’s Kaladouran was a small Armenian village in the outskirts of Kessab, Syria. Barkev Ghazarian was baptized as an Armenian Christian “at a sacred ceremonial site in Ballum, Turkey, in 1931,” according to the lawsuit. Ballum or Barlum is the ancient site of Greco-Roman ruins, located at a short distance from Karadouran. For centuries local Armenians, including Barkev’s family, went on pilgrimages to Ballum to perform their religious and cultural rites.

In 1939, Kaladouran was divided between Syria and Turkey, leaving Barkev’s home on the Syrian side, while his family’s fields and lands remained on the Turkish side. Since Ballum was also left under Turkish control, the Armenians of Karadouran could no longer practice their rituals in that locality.

On October 11, 2017, Barkev decided to go to Turkey to visit Ballum. He submitted his visa application to the Turkish Embassy in Washington, D.C., indicating that his expected entry date would be December, 23, 2017. In the visa application, under the category of “Type of passport,” he checked the box for “Other,” and under “please specify,” he wrote, “Armenian minority Christian (Treaty of Lausanne).” Barkev also indicated that he was born in Karadouran, Turkey, and was seeking entry “for religious pilgrimage” purposes. He intended “to pass native religious and cultural traditions to his son, Plaintiff Garo, and progeny,” according to the lawsuit.

Coincidentally, on October 8, 2017, Turkey suspended issuing visas to U.S. citizens in retaliation to a similar ban by the United States to Turkish citizens until December 28, 2017. Barkev did not possess a U.S. passport, but even if he did, Turkey would have refused to issue him an entry visa under the ban. The Turkish Embassy received Barkev’s visa application 71 days prior to his arrival in Turkey, whereas the Embassy required that such applications be submitted at least 30 days prior to his expected date of departure. Having received no response from the Turkish Embassy, Barkev sent a reminder on December 6, 2017, inquiring about the status of his visa application.

On December 11, 2017, an employee of the Turkish Embassy called the office of Barkev’s son Garo, indicating that the Embassy did not know what type of visa Barkev was requesting, even though it was clearly marked “short stay” on the visa application. In response, Barkev sent an email to the Embassy on December 18, 2017. Then on December 21, 2017, he sent a reminder to the Embassy by overnight mail. On December 22, 2017, on the same day that Barkev was supposed to fly to Turkey, the Embassy’s Consular Section sent an email to Barkev instructing him to reapply to the Turkish Consulate in Los Angeles with a passport. The complaint filed by Barkev’s attorneys stated that Turkey’s representatives “harassed, agitated, confused and thwarted Barkev, intending to devalue his identity as an Armenian Christian born in Turkey.”

The lawsuit also quoted Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of the Republic of Turkey in 1923, proclaiming: “Armenians have no rights at all in this prosperous country. The land is yours, the land belongs to the Turks. In history this land was Turkish, therefore it is Turkish and will remain Turkish forever. The land has finally been returned to its rightful owners. The Armenians and the others have no rights here at all. These blessed regions are the native lands of the true Turks.”

The lawsuit further stated that “by such proclamations, and then through a series of legislative, executive, administrative, and other official and/or unofficial acts, Defendant established the Targeted Policy at the very founding of the Republic of Turkey. The core purpose of the Targeted Policy was to strip native Armenian Christians of their rights and identities by dehumanizing, degrading, expropriating, alienating, disenfranchising, liquidating and otherwise severing Armenian Christians from their native lands and their native customs and religious practices on such lands. This Targeted Policy has been pursued, institutionalized, enhanced and adhered to by Defendant’s successive governments and agents.”

The lawsuit accused Turkey and its agents of violating the following international agreements by their mistreatment of Barkev:

— The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights;

— The United Nations Principles for Older Persons;

— The Treaty of Lausanne;

— The European Convention on Human Rights;

— International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights;

— Vienna International Plan of Action on Ageing;

— The Madrid International Plan on Ageing;

— United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Unfortunately, Barkev’s health has deteriorated since his planned visit to Turkey in 2017 to the extent that he is no longer able to travel. This was the last chance Barkev had to visit his native land and practice his religious rites as a Christian Armenian. The Turkish government deprived Barkev of that opportunity by not granting him a visa.

On June 10, 2019, the U.S. Federal Court asked the Plaintiffs to show cause, in writing no later than June 28, 2019, as to why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. As requested by the Court, the Plaintiffs filed a 25-page memorandum on June 28, 2019, explaining that Turkey, as a foreign Sovereign, does not have the right to violate U.S. and international humanitarian laws, particularly on American soil.

On July 11, 2019, the Federal Court decided that it would “defer a determination about its jurisdiction until after Turkey has been served and had an opportunity to provide its views on the issue.”

This lawsuit provides a unique opportunity to affirm the rights of Armenians to visit without a visa their native lands now occupied by the Turkish government!

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit made a decision on August 8, 2019 to deny the appeal of two lawsuits brought by several Armenian-Americans demanding compensation from the Republic of Turkey and two of its banks for confiscating their properties shortly after the Armenian Genocide.

The first lawsuit was filed in December 2010 by Alex Bakalian, Anais Haroutunian, and Rita Mahdessian seeking $65 million from the Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey, and Ziraat Bankasi. The second lawsuit was filed by David Davoyan (administrator of the Estate of Garbis Tavit Davoyan) and Hrayr Turabian against the Republic of Turkey, the Central Bank of Turkey, and Ziraat Bankasi.

The U.S. Court of Appeals confirmed the 2013 decision of Judge Dolly Gee who dismissed the two lawsuits declaring that “under the political question doctrine which says certain questions — in this case, determining whether Turkey’s actions were genocide — should be handled by the executive branch, not the courts,” according to the Courthouse News Service.

The Court of Appeals, however, rejected the appeal for a different reason, claiming that the two Armenian lawsuits are time-barred. In 2006, a California statute had set the deadline of 2016 for such lawsuits stating that: “Any action, including any pending action brought by an Armenian Genocide victim, or the heir or beneficiary of an Armenian Genocide victim, who resides in this state, seeking payment for, or the return of, deposited assets, or the return of looted assets, shall not be dismissed for failure to comply with the applicable statute of limitation, if the action is filed on or before December 31, 2016.”

Unfortunately, in 2012, Ninth Circuit Judge Susan P. Graber, in the case of Movsesian vs. Victoria Versicherung AG, invalidated the California statute extending the time for bringing certain insurance claims based on the Armenian Genocide. Judge Graber wrote that “the statute was preempted under the foreign affairs doctrine,” according to the Metropolitan News-Enterprise.

The August 8, 2019 decision by the Court of Appeals is contradictory in the sense that while Judge Andrew Hurwitz (who wrote the Appeals Court decision) acknowledged the Armenian Genocide, he ignored the fact that genocides have no statute of limitations, therefore regardless of how much time has elapsed, genocide-related lawsuits could not be dismissed on that basis.

Here is what Judge Hurwitz wrote in the decision of the Court of Appeals: “From 1915 to 1923, in what is often referred to as the Armenian Genocide, the Ottoman Empire massacred, forcibly expelled, or marched to death 1.5 million of its Armenian citizens, seizing the property of the dead and deported.”

In another section of the Appeals Court decision, under the subtitle of ‘Facts,’ Judge Hurwitz added the following comments on the Armenian Genocide: “During World War I, the Ottoman Empire began forcibly relocating its Armenian subjects away from population centers and into the desert, causing the deaths of over a million ethnic Armenians. The Empire confiscated the real property left behind by the victims of the Armenian Genocide.”

Judge Hurwitz agreed with the plaintiffs’ assertions in the lawsuits. He wrote: “We assume for purposes of our accrual analysis the truth of the plaintiffs’ allegations that either the Ottoman Empire illegally seized the property of the plaintiffs’ predecessors, or the Empire and the Banks placed the property in trust under Turkish law but later illegally refused to return it. If the initial expropriation was wrongful, the plaintiffs’ claims accrued by 1923. If the property was placed in trust, the plaintiffs acknowledge that ‘laws passed in 1928 and 1929 formally ended Turkey’s disingenuous attempt at the restitution of immovable property to its rightful Armenian owners.’ Thus, the plaintiffs’ predecessors should have known well more than ten years ago that Turkey did not intend to return their property.”

Judge Hurwitz complained that the lawsuits were filed decades after the Armenian Genocide which does not make them timely. “We have no doubt that the survivors of the Ottoman Empire’s atrocities experienced enormous hardships after the seizure of their property. Indeed, we take as true the allegations in the operative complaints that it ‘was impossible for Plaintiffs’ predecessors to seek compensation for their stolen property or focus on anything but rebuilding their lives.’ But, these suits are brought not by the victims of the Armenian Genocide, but rather by residents of the United States long removed from its carnage, many of whose predecessors relocated to this country decades ago. And the current plaintiffs do not allege any attempts to pursue these claims judicially prior to 2010.”

The attorneys for the Armenian-American plaintiffs reacted with anger at the Appeals Court decision. Kathryn Lee Boyd of the law firm Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht — representing three Armenian-Americans whose ancestors owned 122.5 acres of land that was confiscated — told the Metropolitan News-Enterprise:

“It is a sad day for Armenian-Americans when a U.S. court has stripped them of all access to justice, refused to consider or even recognize the extenuating circumstances of the Armenian Genocide, and left them with no remedy against Turkey, which continues to hold and use their stolen property with impunity.”

Mark Geragos of the law firm of Geragos & Geragos, who represents the second group of plaintiffs, was quoted by the Metropolitan News-Enterprise:

“The Turkish Lobby has bought and paid for the United States Executive Branch and State Department for decades. Sadly the Judicial branch is left with very few options to remedy the blatant mendacity of the Turkish lobbying machine.”

The Court of Appeals took the easy way out by basing its decision on the unconstitutionality of the California statute which had given the plaintiffs more time to file their lawsuits. If the Court of Appeals had based its decision on the occurrence of genocide, the issue of time-limitation would have been irrelevant and would have ruled that the Turkish government and its two banks are liable for confiscating the Armenian properties.

I hope the attorneys for the Armenian-American plaintiffs will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse this unjust decision.

The Ottoman Empire entered World War I on the side of Germany against the alliance of France, United Kingdom, Russia, the United States, and several others.

Out of 2.6 million Ottoman soldiers, 250,000 were captured by the Allied Powers as prisoners of war. Tens of thousands of them died during captivity from disease, starvation and harsh weather conditions. The great majority of the Ottoman soldiers were Turks, but there were also a smaller number of Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks, Jews, Kurds, Laz, Circassians, and Arabs. Most Armenian soldiers were disarmed and either killed or forced to work in labor battalions. Around half-a-million Ottoman soldiers deserted the army during World War I.

Dr. Hamid Hussain published in the “Defence Journal” of Pakistan a fascinating account of the fate of Ottoman war prisoners captured by the British army in Iraq and subsequently dispatched to India and Burma (today’s Myanmar). Burma was then part of India before it was separated in 1937.

The largest number of Turkish prisoners of war were captured by the British and held in Cyprus, Egypt, and Malta, in addition to Iraq, India and Burma. Russia, France, Romania and Italy also captured a large number of Turkish war prisoners.

Dr. Hussain wrote that the Turkish POWs (prisoners of war) captured in Iraq by the British were first held in two camps in Basra, an isolation camp “to quarantine prisoners with disease and an observation camp. Usually prisoners stayed for 2-4 weeks at [the] observation camp before transportation to India and Burma. Prisoners were transported by boats to Karachi and Bombay and were then transported by rail to two camps in India. At Bellary, most POWs were ethnic Turks, while [the] majority of [3,336] POWs at Sumerpur were non-Turkish (Arabs, Christians and Jews).”

Interestingly, Dr. Hussain revealed that at the Sumerpur camp “two Armenians fluent in English, French and Arabic acted as interpreters. The Muslims prayed in a small mosque of the camp. A French monk came regularly to camp for mass for Catholic Christians of the camp. Armenian Bishop of Cairo Thorgom Koushagian visited the camp during Christmas of 1916.”

Dr. Hussain also reported that the POW camp at Bellary, India, contained only 137 Ottoman prisoners, almost all officers. Later, more prisoners were brought there. “Turkish officers were [the] product of military reforms and secular in outlook. Many regularly consumed alcohol that was forbidden for Muslims. It needed doctor’s order and an officer could buy three bottles of liquor per month. Whisky and soda were popular among officers. Some POWs who died here were buried outside the camp. Most of the graves disappeared during expansion of the military airport. In 1997, [the] Turkish government erected a memorial at the camp site and restored two remaining graves.”

The camp in Thayetmyo, Burma, “contained 3,591 Ottoman prisoners of which the majority were Turks but there were some Armenians, Syrian Christians and Jews. Muslim, Armenian and Jewish religious communities of Rangoon sent gifts to their co-religionist prisoners,” according to Dr. Hussain.

Interestingly, “the British camp commandant recommended to Turkish officers that a mosque should be built, however, Subhi Bey, who had significant influence among prisoners, opposed the suggestion on religious grounds. He stated that when POWs left, the mosque would be abandoned and that was not permitted in religious texts,” wrote Dr. Hussain.

The camp at Meiktila, Burma, housed around 10,000 Ottoman POWs. “Most prisoners spent the day sitting idly and playing cards or backgammon. Some Ottoman prisoners were used as laborers on tobacco plantations, digging for a dam and on Shan state railways,” according to Dr. Hussain.

Around a thousand Ottoman prisoners died at the two camps in Burma. “In 2012 relations between Myanmar and Turkey improved and the two governments agreed to restore the cemeteries. Thayetmyo cemetery was restored with Turkish funding and work was completed in 2016,” reported Dr. Hussain. However, due to anti-Muslim emotions in Burma, a false rumor was spread that a mosque would be built in addition to restoring the “old and dilapidated cemetery where Ottoman prisoners were buried at Meiktila…. [The] Turkish government had agreed to restore the cemetery, however, there was no plan for building a mosque. This rumor resulted in anti-Muslim violence and the plan to restore the cemetery was shelved…. Gravestones were plundered in the Second World War and seventy years of neglect erased most marks of the past. Over the years, local Muslims retrieved around 200 gravestones and moved them to the courtyard of a local mosque. In 2013, the Turkish government also planned to restore [the] POW cemetery at Sumerpur [India] that had about 149 graves. This area is [the] heartland of proud Rajputs who fought on [the] British side in First and Second World Wars. Some locals protested the restoration project arguing that there is no memorial of Rajputs who fought all over the globe while a memorial was being planned for foreign soldiers.”

It is heartbreaking to learn that Armenian soldiers in the Ottoman Army were captured and held in India and Burma during the years of the Armenian Genocide. They escaped from one disaster to end up in a horrendous situation in captivity. Many of them died and were buried in those faraway lands.

Armenian, Turkish and soldiers of other ethnic groups suffered tremendously because of the reckless decisions of the Young Turk junta to enter World War I on the side of Germany and give the death warrant to millions of Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks.

The Breitbart website published an article by Frances Martel describing the Turkish lobbying efforts in the Colombian City of Armenia which was founded in 1889 and originally called Villa Holguín. According to Wikipedia, the South American city changed its name to Armenia “in memory of the Armenian people murdered by the Turkish Ottomans in the Hamidian Massacres of 1894-97 and later the Armenian Genocide of 1915-23.” Some scholars dispute this assertion, ascribing the origin of the city’s name to the Biblical reference to Armenia.

Ece Ozturk Cil, the Turkish Ambassador in Bogota, Colombia, sent two letters on December 14, 2018 and January 11, 2019 to the Mayor of Armenia, Colombia, inviting him and 10 City Councilmembers to visit Turkey as official guests of the Turkish government.

On February 3, 2019, during a special Sunday night session, Armenia’s City Council by a vote of 12 to 6 approved the visit of Mayor Oscar Castellanos and nine City Councilmembers to Turkey, between Feb. 6 and 13, 2019. During the trip, the Mayor and City Councilmembers of Armenia met with the Mayors of Istanbul and Ankara, the Chairman of the Turkish Parliament, and visited the Center of Latin American Studies at the University of Ankara. They also met with Turkish businessmen and visited the Blue Mosque and the Grand Bazaar.

The trip generated a major controversy in Colombia. Many residents of the city of Armenia objected to the visit, because of the absence of the Mayor and the nine City Councilmembers at a time when the city was in economic disarray and mismanaged. Five mayors of Armenia had been ousted in the past three years due to corruption. The citizens felt that the new Mayor should have stayed home and taken care of the business of the city. The Regional Prosecutor General opened an investigation into the Turkish trip to review the violations committed by the Mayor and the Councilmembers. They should also be investigated to establish what bribes or gifts they received from their “generous” Turkish hosts while visiting Turkey.

The local Colombian publication Semana confirmed the link between Armenia (Colombia), Turkey and genocide: “…It turns out that the [city] council of Armenia, [Colombia], decided through Agreement 08 of 2014, to recognize the Armenian Genocide and as such declare April 24 as the official commemorative date, in solidarity with the country that bears the same name as the Colombian city. Subsequently, the Council ratified these links in Minutes 075 of 2015, through which they sought to establish ties of friendship with the Republic of Armenia….”

In response to the recognition of the Armenian Genocide, Semana explained that “everything seems to indicate that the background of this invitation from the Turkish government is to provide the council members with the other version of a painful historical episode that points to that country as responsible for genocide.”

Semana reported: “As will be remembered, what is known today as the Armenian Genocide happened in 1915 during the First World War and although the figures are still under discussion, there is talk of a minimum of 300,000 and a maximum of 1.5 million deaths. The victims of that extermination were the Armenian people and they point as their executioner to the Ottoman Turkish Empire, today’s Turkey.”

Semana wondered if as a consequence of the city officials’ trip to Turkey they may decide to repeal the recognition of the Armenian Genocide.

In the meantime, the only new development since the trip is a mural of a man wearing Ottoman-era clothing on the side of Armenia’s city council building. Breitbart reported that the mural has “no historical correlation to the city” and “is confusing and angering many residents…. The regional newspaper La Crónica de Quindío reported that locals appear baffled, and some outraged, by the expensive mural, which they find irrelevant to their heritage.”

Breitbart quoted a local woman named Maricela Montes telling La Cronica: “I don’t really understand what Armenia [the Colombian city] has to do with Turkey. I think that what they need is to pay back favors for that little trip they took…. It is not logical that something like this would be painted on such a pretty department.”

The newspaper quoted another resident as saying that he is not angry, but merely “confused.” Jorge Jaramillo told La Cronica: “We are confused because we don’t understand what a sultan has to do with Armenia [the city]. What is happening to us? Please, serious statesmen have to take the reins of this city. This is truly horrible for our capital.” City Councilman Luis Guillermo Agudelo told El Tiempo: “the mural is an absurdity…. This is a public building that has a very important connotation…. This is where our gallery was, and now they are totally changing its identity.”

El Tiempo reported that “the council is not only considering cultural favors to Turkey. They are now openly debating amending the 2014 declaration the city passed recognizing the Armenian genocide,” according to Breitbart.

So far, the Turkish invitation has backfired on Turkey because it has generated a lot of discussion about the Armenian Genocide in the Colombian media and has gotten the Mayor and the City Councilmembers in legal trouble.

It is incumbent on the Armenian Republic’s Ambassador to Brazil, who is also accredited to Colombia, to initiate an immediate action to counter the Turkish lobbying efforts. A similar action has to be undertaken by the Armenian communities in South America. They should also ensure that the City Council does not repeal its earlier decision to recognize the Armenian Genocide and gets rid of the Ottoman mural.