Author: Harut Sassounian

International Legal Expert Affirms Artsakh’s Right of Self-Deter mination

A colloquium was held on February 27, 2018, at the European Parliament in Brussels on the legal right of self-determination for Nagorno-Karabagh (Artsakh). It was hosted by European Parliament deputies Michèle Rivasi (Verts/A LE) and Lars Adaktusson (EPP); and co-organized by the Armenian Legal Center for Justice and Human Rights, Tufenkian Foundation, and the European Armenian Federation for Justice and Democracy.

The speakers at the colloquium were: Dr. Alfred de Zayas, a UN Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order; Dr. Paul Williams, Professor of Law, American University Washington College of Law and co-founder of Public International Law & Policy Group; Dr. Sergey Markedonov, Associate Professor at Russian State University; Armine Aleksanyan, Deputy Foreign Minister of Artsakh Republic; and moderator Giro Manoyan, Board Member of the Armenian Legal Center for Justice and Human Rights.

Prof. Alfred de Zayas started his legal argument by quoting from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which stipulate that “All peoples have the right of self-determination.”

Furthermore, international legal expert de Zayas emphasized that according to the two UN Covenants, “duty bearers of the right of self-determination are all States parties to the Covenants, who are not merely prohibited from interfering with the exercise of the right, but ‘shall promote’ its realization proactively…. They must not only respect the right, but implement it. Moreover in modern international law, self-determination is an erga omnes [towards everyone] commitment stipulated in numerous articles of the UN Charter and in countless Security Council and General Assembly resolutions. The empowerment of peoples to enjoy human rights without discrimination and to exercise a degree of self-government is crucial for national and international stability. Otherwise, a significant potential for conflict remains.”

Significantly, Prof. de Zayas stressed: “Even though self-determination has emerged as a jus cogens [compelling law] right, superior to many other international law principles, including territorial integrity, it is not self-executing.” Among “legitimate claimants to the right of self-determination,” Prof. de Zayas included the Kurds, Sahraouis, Palestinians, Kashmiris, Igbos of Biafra, and Tamils of Sri Lanka. He also mentioned as examples “the Russian-Ukrainian entities of Lugansk and Donetsk, the Republic of Pridnestronia (Transnistria-Moldavia), the Republic of Artsakh (Nagorno Karabagh), Alkhazia, and Southern Ossetia… among peoples that have achieved self-determination through effective separation from State entities with which they had hitherto been associated, but their international status remains inchoate because of the political bickering among the great powers and consequent lack of international recognition.”

Prof. de Zayas added that people seeking self-determination “are entitled to the full protection of the International human rights treaty regime. A solution to the impasse can only be through peaceful negotiation, since the use of armed force against self-determination would violate numerous international treaties, including the UN Charter, the human rights Covenants, and the Geneva Red Cross Conventions.”

“If there is a compelling demand for separation,” de Zayas insisted, “it is most important to avoid the use of force, which would endanger local, regional and international stability and further erode the enjoyment of other human rights.” In addition, “The implementation of self-determination is not exclusively within the domestic jurisdiction of the State concerned, but is a legitimate concern of the international community.”

Prof. de Zayas explained that the principal of territorial integrity is only valid in the case of an external attack: “The principle is not intended for internal application, because this would automatically cancel out the jus cogens [compelling law] right of self-determination. Every single exercise of the right of self-determination that results in secession has entailed an adjustment to the territorial integrity of the previous State entity. There are too many precedents to count.”

There should be no discrimination among people who seek self-determination, according to Prof. de Zayas: “The independence of the former Soviet republics and the secession of the peoples of the former Yugoslavia created important precedents for the implementation of self-determination. These precedents cannot be ignored when modern self-determination disputes arise. It is not possible to say yes to the self-determination of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, but then say no to the self-determination of the people of Abkhazia, Southern Ossetia or Nagorno Karabagh. All these peoples have the same human rights and must not be discriminated against. As in the case of the successful claimants, these peoples also unilaterally declared independence. There is no justification whatever to deny them recognition by applying self-determination selectively and making frivolous distinctions that have no base in law or justice.”

For those who juxtapose the principle of territorial integrity to self-determination, Prof. de Zayas countered: “The principle of territorial integrity is not sufficient justification to perpetuate situations of internal conflict that may fester and erupt in civil war, thus threatening regional and international peace and security.”

Finally, Prof. de Zayas suggested that “In order to ensure sustainable internal and external peace in the twenty-first century, the international community must react to early warning signs and establish conflict-prevention mechanisms. Facilitating dialog between peoples and organizing referenda in a timely fashion are tools to ensure the peaceful evolution of national and international relations. Inclusion of all stakeholders must be the rule, not the exception. In conclusion, let us celebrate the implementation of self-determination of peoples as an expression of democracy, as indeed democracy is a form of self-determination.”

March 13, 2018
Terminated Armenia-Turkey Protocols Should be a Lesson for Armenia’s Leaders

Finally, the Armenian President officially declared null and void the infamous Armenia-Turkey Protocols during a meeting of the National Security Council last week. Pres. Sargsyan had made several announcements since 2009, warning that he would remove the Protocols from the Parliament’s agenda unless Turkey ratified them shortly. Pres. Sargsyan’s most recent such warning was made last September during his remarks at the United Nations General Assembly, stating that he would declare the Protocols null and void before the Spring of 2018.

The Protocols were signed by Armenia’s Foreign Minister Eduard Nalbandian and Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu on October 10, 2009, in Zurich, Switzerland. Also present at the signing ceremony were the Foreign Ministers of Russia, France, Switzerland, U.S. Secretary of State, and high-ranking officials of the European Union.

The lengthy text of the Protocols called for the opening of the borders between Armenia and Turkey, and establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries. The Protocols also included many other unrelated matters, such as recognizing the existing Armenian-Turkish border, and the establishment of a historic commission to examine problems between the two countries, meaning the Armenian Genocide.

As a result, there was a worldwide outcry against adoption of the Protocols with protests both in Armenia and many Diasporan communities. Shortly before the signing of the Protocols on October 10, 2009, Pres. Sargsyan embarked on a worldwide tour of major Armenian communities in Paris, New York, Los Angeles,

Beirut, and Rostov-on-Don (Russia) ostensibly to listen to their concerns regarding the Protocols. However, it was clear from his remarks at these meetings that he had made up his mind to go ahead with the Protocols, and the intent of the tour was to persuade Diaspora Armenians to give up their objections. During his visits overseas, Pres. Sargsyan was greeted with angry protests and confrontations making his propaganda tour a failure.

During Pres. Sargsyan’s stop in Los Angeles on October 4, 2009, he met with leaders of 60 Armenian organizations with the overwhelming majority criticizing the pending Protocols, while thousands of Armenians demonstrated outside the hotel where the meeting was taking place.

In my remarks at that meeting, I cautioned Pres. Sargsyan that Ilham Aliyev, Azerbaijan’s President, by objecting to the Protocols would block their eventual ratification by Turkey. Ironically, such an outcome would mean that Azerbaijan’s President, not Armenian’s President, would be inadvertently defending Armenia’s interests.

It was clear to many Armenians, both inside and outside of Armenia, that Turkey had no intention of opening its mutual border. The Protocols were a Turkish ploy to pressure Armenia to make territorial concessions to Azerbaijan on Karabagh (Artsakh).

In fact, the signing ceremony in 2009 was delayed by several hours when it became known that Turkey’s Foreign Minister, in his remarks, would link the unrelated subject of the Karabagh conflict to the Protocols. Only the last-minute intervention by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton temporarily resolved the dispute and the two sides proceeded to sign the Protocols.

However, in the years following the signing ceremony, the Turkish leaders made repeated statements that they had no intention to ratify the Protocols unless Armenia made concessions on Karabagh. Indeed, Azerbaijan had vigorously protested the signing of the Protocols and warned Turkey not to proceed with ratification. Azerbaijan intended to pressure Armenia to make territorial concessions on Karabagh by keeping Armenia’s borders with Turkey closed.

Armenia’s leaders had allowed major foreign powers to pressure them into making a decision that was contrary to the Armenian people’s interests. As a small state, it is understandable that Armenia could not act like its larger and more powerful Turkish neighbor which repeatedly flaunts the wishes of the international community. Nevertheless, Armenia’s leaders could at least make an effort to keep foreign intervention to a minimum.

Another lesson Armenia’s leaders should learn from the Protocols’ debacle is that before they embark on initiatives that affect Armenian interests worldwide, they should hold serious consultations to make sure that the majority of Armenians in Armenia and the Diaspora are on board with their decisions. Naturally, internal matters affecting those living within Armenia’s borders are their prerogative, however, issues that affect all Armenians, such as the Armenian Genocide, Armenian territorial demands from Turkey, and the final settlement of the Artsakh conflict are major concerns to all Armenians. Long before signing any documents on these subjects, Armenia’s leadership should ensure that most Armenians agree with them. Otherwise, we shall see the repetition of ugly confrontations in Armenia and the Diaspora with Armenian authorities.

I raise these concerns in response to Pres. Sargsyan’s two statements last week:

1) “When we started the negotiation process, we naturally predicted two outcomes — positive or negative.”

2) “If we get proposals tomorrow, or the next day, we will be ready to discuss them.”

Pres. Sargsyan’s statements indicate that Armenia’s leaders have not recognized their mistaken approach to Armenian-Turkish issues. It is not true that Armenia did not lose anything. Turkey manipulated the Protocols to ensure that no foreign country meddled in the Armenian Genocide issue. In fact, Pres. Obama also exploited the Protocols to refrain from using the term Armenian Genocide in his April 24 statement of 2009 and in the subsequent seven years.

Furthermore, Pres. Sargsyan’s statements indicate that Armenia is apt to make the same mistake again. For years, he had been declaring that Armenia is ready to ratify the Protocols the same day that Turkey ratifies them. Fortunately, Turkey never ratified the Protocols, preventing Armenia from taking an action contrary to its own national interests!

March 6, 2018
Pres. Erdogan, a Menace to the World,Should be Stopped Before it ’s Too Late

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has become a major danger to his own nation as well as many others. His actions and statements in recent years should seriously worry his neighbors and the entire world.

The last tyrant ignored by the international community was the genocidal butcher Adolf Hitler who unleashed World War II, invading scores of countries and killing millions of people. Regrettably, Western leaders have tried to appease Erdogan, thereby creating a monster! Strangely, some in the Islamic world treat him with respect, while many Western countries consider Turkey as one of their key allies. To make matters worse, Russia is also trying to win Erdogan over, to distance him from the West and NATO.

A vivid example of Erdogan’s unfit mental state is his recent bizarre public statement posted on the Turkish President’s website, titled: “Turkey is the Standard-Bearer of the Global Fight for Justice.”

No one in their right mind would make such a deceptive statement. Turkey is the last country in the world to be described as “the standard bearer of the global fight for justice.” With hundreds of journalists and tens of thousands of professors, lawyers, judges, and public employees in jail, how can Pres. Erdogan make such a false claim? Besides the current injustices perpetrated on the Turkish people, Erdogan also denies massive past injustices such as the genocide against Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians.

Earlier this month, during a speech at the AK Party’s Eskisehir Provincial Congress, Pres. Erdogan shamelessly announced: “Turkey is also the standard-bearer of the global fight for justice. Turkey is a safe haven for the oppressed and a nightmare for the oppressors.” If Turkey is such a ‘safe haven,’ why so many Turks are trying to escape from the country and seeking asylum in Europe? Why is the Turkish government issuing arrest warrants for the escapees and pressuring European countries to extradite Turkish journalists, intellectuals and human rights activists?

Appointing himself as a world leader, Erdogan has cast a wide net, meddling in the internal affairs of many countries, near and far: “Turkey is the hope for our Crimean brothers and sisters, the oppressed of Turkestan [Turkic people in Central Asia] and our friends from Caucasia, Sarajevo and Africa.” Erdogan goes on to affirm: “If we stumble, Al-Quds [Jerusalem] will fall, Palestine, Rakhine [region in Myanmar] and Somalia will fall.”

Several days after Erdogan’s pompous speech, Turkish opposition journalist Uzay Bulut wrote a critical commentary in The Washington Times, titled: “Turkey’s violence-tinged foreign policy.”

Uzay reminded readers that “the Ottoman Empire’s occupation of vast lands and Islam’s flag of conquest still influence Turkey’s foreign policy, including its invasions and ethnic cleansings.”

The prominent Turkish commentator specifically cited Erdogan’s interventionist policies in Northern Syria (Afrin) and Cyprus. Uzay mentioned that Turkey, having illegally occupied Northern Cyprus since 1974, now threatens what remains of the Republic of Cyprus. Erdogan declared: “Cyprus’ courage will only last ‘until they see our army, our ships and our planes.’” Turkey has ignored dozens of UN Security Council resolutions asking for the withdrawal of its troops from Northern Cyprus.

Erdogan also warned the European companies that are exploring gas fields in Eastern Mediterranean, in the territorial waters of the Republic of Cyprus. Uzay wrote that earlier this month “Turkish warships blocked a rig belonging to the Italian energy firm ENI from reaching Cypriot waters to start exploring for gas.”

Erdogan admitted his expansionist policies drawing parallels between Afrin, Cyprus and the Greek islands of the Aegean which are frequent targets of Turkish threats and demands. Erdogan brazenly declared: “Whatever Afrin is to us, our rights in the Aegean and Cyprus are the same. Do not ever think that the natural gas exploration in the waters of Cyprus and the opportunistic attempts in the Aegean Sea drop off from our radar.”

Going to more extremes, Yigit Bulut, one of Erdogan’s principal advisers, boastfully threatened Greece over the islet of Imia, which Turks call ‘Kardak.’ He warned: “Athens will face the wrath of Turkey worse than that in Afrin. We will break the arms and legs of officials of the [Greek] Prime Minister and any minister who dares to step on the Kardak islet in the Aegean. There is not an armed force in this region that could contend against the Turkish armed forces. So, everyone will know their place. All imperialists will accept that the people in this land are Turks and the nation in this land is Islamic ummah [nation] and they will kiss the hand that they cannot bend.”

Commentator Uzay reported that Erdogan himself threatened Cyprus with yet another military invasion: “Just as we disrupt the plots [in Syria] through Operation Euphrates Shield and Operation Olive Branch, and soon in Manbij and other regions, we can and we will disrupt the plots of those who engage in miscalculations on our southern border. Our warships and air force are keeping an eye on the area in order to intervene in any way whenever required.”

Turkey’s neighbors should be aware that Erdogan is intending to recover the Ottoman territories. He openly threatened: “Those who think that we’ve erased from our hearts the lands from which we withdrew in tears a hundred years ago are wrong.”

At the end of his article, Uzay rightly pointed out that the Western countries are mostly responsible for Erdogan’s out of control behavior: “The global inaction in response to Turkish aggression encourages Mr. Erdogan, the president of a so-called “ally” of the West, to threaten Cyprus with yet another military assault…. What enables him to get away with his intimidating rhetoric and ongoing hostility is the apparent weakness and confusion of the West in the face of violent Turkish supremacism.”

February 27, 2018
Sassounian: ‘ANCA & US Armenians Should Sue The Daily Caller and Forbes Magazine

In recent years, scores of ‘hired pens’ have written derogatory commentaries about Armenia and Armenian-Americans. Many of these anti-Armenians commentators are paid by the governments of Azerbaijan or Turkey.

It is sad that some countries resort to such cheap tricks to repair their damaged reputation and disparage others. These countries have serious domestic problems widely known throughout the world without anyone getting paid to publicize them. The governments of Azerbaijan and Turkey have paid millions of dollars to public relations and lobbying firms in the United States and Europe trying to whitewash their tarnished images. Political leaders in Washington, London, Paris, Berlin and Moscow are not fooled by these tricks. They know well the extent of miserable conditions and human rights violations in these two Turkic countries.

Today, I feel obligated to respond to a particularly deceitful article that appeared on Feb. 5, 2018 in the Daily Caller which is “a conservative American news and opinion website based in Washington, D.C. It was founded by political pundit Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel, former adviser to former Vice President Dick Cheney,” according to Wikipedia. Carlson left the website to focus on his Fox News television program “Tucker Carlson Tonight.”

The Daily Caller’s article, written by Raoul Contreras, is titled: “Armenian Influence Presents a Case Study on the Foreign Agents Registration Act.” The writer quotes from earlier article published by Forbes Magazine on Nov. 27, 2017 which falsely claims that “the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) is purported to be a ‘non government organization’, but is widely believed to have deep ties to Russian influence. The Committee betrays Armenia’s post-Soviet nation’s longstanding tradition as a proxy to its former motherland.” This sentence is a complete lie as ANCA does not represent the policies of Russia or any other country. It solely represents the views of a large segment of the Armenian-American community. The writer of the Forbes article is Mfonobong Nsehe, an Africa specialist, who knows very little about Armenia or ANCA.

Based on the falsehood published by Forbes, The Daily Caller claims that “ANCA represents views of the government of Armenia and, by proxy, the Russian government. Without registration, that may violate FARA [Foreign Agents Registration Act] and lobbying laws.”

Contreras highlights the fact that Armenia has signed a military treaty with Russia, but, fails to understand that Armenia has no choice but to enter into such a defensive pact. Should Armenia recklessly risk its existence when someday Azerbaijan and Turkey put into practice their hostile and threatening warnings? Contreras ignores the fact that Armenia also enjoys close economic, political and military relations with Western Europe and the United States.

The Daily Caller’s Contreras concocts another lie in referring to contributions made by Armenian-Americans to U.S. political candidates. He falsely calls them “questionable campaign contributions.” A small amount of political donations are given by ANC PAC (Political Action Committee) which is a separate entity from ANCA and perfectly legal. Furthermore, Contreras does not seem to know that ANCA is a 501(c)(4) IRS (Internal Revenue Service) entity that has the right to make political endorsements. Contreras wrongly calls the ANCA’s endorsements “potentially illegal.” They are not illegal under American law!

Contreras then brings up a long-settled issue — the 2009 complaint by CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics) in Washington with the Justice Department, the IRS and the Congress, alleging that ANCA violated FARA by not registering as a “foreign agent.” This complaint was thoroughly reviewed and dismissed nine years ago! Contreras does not have the honesty to report that CREW’s complaint had been dismissed by the IRS!

Contreras goes on to recount ANCA’s success in blocking the Senate confirmation of Matthew Bryza as Ambassador to Azerbaijan. This is a great accomplishment and ANCA is rightly proud of it.

Finally, Contreras quotes from a Washington Post editorial of 2010 which claims that ANCA’s “lobbying has made reconciliation between Armenia and Turkey, and between Armenia and Azerbaijan, more difficult — thus helping perpetuate Armenia’s impoverishment and overdependence on Russia.” It is laughable when non-Armenians like Contreras, U.S. publications, and hostile nations like Azerbaijan and Turkey, tell Armenians what is in their best interest. Armenians know much better than anyone else what is in their interest. They don’t need a lecture from anyone!

Rather than suggesting that ANCA should register as a foreign agent, Contreras himself should do so for propagating the interests of Azerbaijan and Turkey in the United States!

ANCA and Armenian-Americans should consider suing Contreras, The Daily Caller and Forbes for anti-Armenian defamation. The Daily Caller noted at the end of its article that “the views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of The Daily Caller.” Forbes published a similar note at the end of its article. Publishing lies is defamatory and nothing to do with the writer’s opinion. These two publications must be held responsible for disseminating falsehoods.

February 13, 2018
Mikoyan’s Surprising Comments to Nixon In 1959 About Armenian Rights in Turkey

Recently I came across a document from the U.S. archives that describes the fascinating conversation between Anastas Mikoyan, First Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Soviet Union, and Vice President Richard Nixon on July 25, 1959 during the latter’s visit to Moscow. The two had met earlier during Mikoyan’s historic visit to the United States.

The discussion between the two rival leaders at the height of the Cold War was polite, but animated. Nixon praised Mikoyan “who had left in the United States many friends who admire him for his stamina and agility in expressing his views.” Nixon also stated that “Mikoyan’s visit to the U.S. had broken the ice not only officially but also privately, regarding the respective points of view of the two countries.” The archival document noted that Mikoyan “returned the Vice President’s compliments in kind and added that the Vice President is a great debater who never leaves anyone in his debt.”

The conversation quickly turned political when Mikoyan complained about the inappropriateness of a recent congressional resolution on captive nations — states subjugated to Communist rule, including Armenia. Mikoyan felt that the resolution was intended to undermine Nixon’s visit to the Soviet Union. Nixon gave the excuse that the U.S. Congress is an independent body and not even the President can control its decisions! Vice President Nixon went on to explain: “there are in our population elements, whether Mr. Mikoyan believes they are wrong or not, who feel that governments in their former homelands should be changed. Our Congress often passes resolutions representing the views of those elements, who include such nationalities as Polish, Hungarian, etc. The resolution, and particularly the proclamation of the President, had made a point that it was only an expression of the opinion of American people and the American Government and that they are not attempting to engage in so-called subversive activities.”

Surprisingly, Mikoyan, one of the highest ranking Soviet officials, then brought up his Armenian heritage by telling Nixon that “he was an Armenian, and that although he is not active in the Government of Armenia proper, he knows some 30 Supreme Soviet Deputies of that Republic and all of them have been wondering who gave the American Government the authority to act in their behalf and why the American Government is not doing something for the liberation of really oppressed peoples, such as the Armenian minority in Turkey.”

Mikoyan’s statement was surprising because he was speaking with Vice President Nixon as a Soviet leader, not as an Armenian. Furthermore, Mikoyan was not known as an Armenian nationalist. In fact, he had been blamed for the deaths of many Armenians during the infamous purges under Communist rule. Mikoyan also had not supported the reunion of Karabagh (Artsakh) with Soviet Armenia. These are some of the reasons Armenians were unhappy with the recent decision of the Yerevan City Council to erect Mikoyan’s monument in Yerevan.

A further indication of Mikoyan’s anti-nationalist views is his statement of December 1919, during the short existence of the first independent Republic of Armenia (1918-1920): “Armenian chauvinists relying on the allies of imperialism push forward a criminal idea — the creation of a ‘Great Armenia’ on the borders of Historic Armenia. The absence of Armenians and the presence of an absolute Muslim population there does not concern them…our [Communist] party cannot support the idea of either a ‘Great’ or ‘Small’ Turkish Armenia.” The reality is that the Soviet Union did not defend the rights of the Armenians in Turkey.

However, Mikoyan rightly pointed out that the United States is against “the liberation of oppressed peoples” when “the peoples in question are oppressed by its friends and allies,” such as Turkey, and many others.

Mikoyan also questioned whether the Soviet leaders should pay attention to the positive gestures of the White House or the more hostile reactions of the State Department. Mikoyan “wondered whether the Soviet Union should believe the pronouncements by the President or the Vice President or whether it should regard this statement by the State Department as a direct expression of American policy.” Mikoyan explained that “the President had instructed the Department of State to work out measures for the development of foreign trade [with the Soviet Union]. In view of the actions taken by the State Department it appears that the President wants one thing and the Department of State another.”

Mikoyan’s meeting concluded on a conciliatory note with Vice President Nixon promising that “upon his return to the United States he would work on the problem of trade, but that one must realize that difficulties cannot be resolved by a stroke of pen.”

The above conversation shows that Mikoyan was in fact as “wily” as described by Western officials. He had survived for several decades at the highest echelons of the Soviet Union, ending up as Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, the nominal Head of State, from 1964 until his forced retirement in 1965.

February 6, 2018
New Biography Portrays Kirk Kerkorian,Not Trump, as ‘the Greatest Deal Maker’

Monday, January 29, 2018 9:31 PM

William Rempel, a veteran investigative reporter, just wrote a comprehensive biography of industrialist and philanthropist Kirk Kerkorian published by Harper Collins. The book is titled, “The Gambler: How Penniless dropout Kirk Kerkorian became the greatest deal maker in capitalist history.”

Rempel has meticulously pieced together the details of Kerkorian’s phenomenal and extremely private life through war records, business archives, court documents, recollections and recorded memories of longtime friends and associates.

Although both are Billionaires and casino owners, Kerkorian and Donald Trump had very little in common. Rempel wrote: “Fellow casino owner Donald Trump called Kirk ‘the king’ and told friends: ‘I love that guy.’ However, Kirk was Trump’s polar opposite in style and temperament. Kirk was soft-spoken and understated with a paralyzing fear of public speaking. He wished, he said, that he ‘could talk like Trump.’ Kirk also wanted his name on nothing — not on buildings, not on street signs, not even on his personal parking spot at MGM Studios. And Kirk never defaulted on a loan and always regarded his handshake as a binding contract.”

When Kerkorian’s new multi-billion dollar ‘CityCenter’ hotel-casino complex at the heart of Las Vegas ran into financial trouble in 2009, Rempel wrote that Trump initially expressed some sympathy: “I love Kirk and hope it works out for them.” Trump then turned around and called the ‘CityCenter’ project “an absolute catastrophe” during an interview on CNN’s Larry King Show. Trump later stated: “It will be the biggest bust in the history of real estate…too bad.” Of course, Trump was wrong in his prediction. Kerkorian, once again, bounced back on his feet and ‘CityCenter’ became a great financial success!

While Kerkorian was on the Forbes magazine’s billionaires list in 1989, Trump was also initially on that list. However, soon after, Forbes dumped Trump from its list of billionaires explaining that “they had been misled by incomplete information provided by Trump…. The future U.S. president’s net worth was then, said the editors, ‘within hailing distance of zero.’”

A press release issued by Harper Collins described Rempel’s biography of Kerkorian as the “rags-to-riches story of one of America’s wealthiest and least-known financial giants, self-made billionaire Kirk Kerkorian — the daring aviator, movie mogul, risk taker, and business tycoon who transformed Las Vegas and Hollywood to become one of the leading financiers in American business.”

One of the key advantages of this biography is the extensive coverage of Kerkorian’s philanthropy for the Armenian-American community and the Republic of Armenia. In the past two years, I spent several hours with author William Rempel to brief him about Kerkorian’s contributions to American-Armenian charitable organizations and major projects in Armenia. Rempel described me in the book as: “Publisher of the California Courier, an English-language Armenian weekly based in Glendale, California, was also president of the United Armenian Fund [now Armenia Artsakh Fund] and the driving force behind Kirk’s Armenian charity efforts.” In reality, Kerkorian himself was the driving force behind his charitable giving! He really cared about the Armenian community’s well-being and Armenia’s prosperity.”

Although Kerkorian remains a very well-known and highly respected name among Armenians worldwide, many non-Armenians are unaware that he was an Armenian-American. Fortunately, Rempel’s biography devotes three chapters to Kerkorian’s Armenian heritage and philanthropy.

Chapter 12 of the book is titled: “The Armenian Connection.” It describes Kerkorian’s chance meeting in Las Vegas with Manny Agassi in 1963, a waiter at Tropicana hotel and a fellow Armenian originally from Tehran, Iran. Manny became a close friend of Kerkorian and named his future son, Andre Kirk Agassi, who became a famous tennis player. Rempel also described Kerkorian’s business dealings with George Mason (Elmassian), his longtime stockbroker, and the founder of the California Courier newspaper in 1958.

In chapter 31, Rempel described the tragic earthquake of December 7, 1988, in Northern Armenia and how Kerkorian agreed to join the United Armenian Fund in sending over 150 airlifts for the next 25 years to transport $700 million of humanitarian aid initially to the survivors of the earthquake, and subsequently to the entire population of Armenia and Artsakh (Nagorno Karabagh). The biographer Rempel also described how the United Armenian Fund was founded, a coalition of the seven largest Armenian-American charitable and religious organizations, including Kerkorian’s Lincy Foundation. Alex Yemenidjian was Chairman of the United Armenian Fund and Harut Sassounian was its President.

Chapter 36 is titled: “Genocide and Generosity.” It described Kerkorian’s first-ever visit to Armenia in 1998 on his private jet accompanied . The chapter relates conversations about Turkey and the occupied Armenian lands during the flight to Armenia and discussions to fund new projects by Kerkorian’s Lincy Foundation. I was subsequently appointed Vice Chairman of the Lincy Foundation to oversee $242 million of infrastructure projects in Armenia and some in Artsakh. This revealing book also includes amusing anecdotes about Kerkorian’s uncomfortable stay in an old Soviet-style mansion which forced him to switch to the Marriott Hotel, and his traumatic visit to the Armenian Genocide Museum in Yerevan!

Kirk Kerkorian’s biography is the fascinating story of a unique human being. He was a brilliant businessman, an extremely modest philanthropist, a true American as well as a true Armenian. As a last indication of his kindness and generosity, he departed this world in 2015 at the age of 98, leaving his entire fortune of $2 billion to charity, in addition to the $1 billion he had already donated to American and Armenian charitable causes through the Lincy Foundation.

I recommend that every Armenian buy a copy of Kirk’s biography and suggest it to their non-Armenian neighbors, friends and colleagues. Kerkorian’s incredible accomplishments bestow a great honor upon Armenians worldwide!

January 30, 2018