Author: Harut Sassounian

Tsarni Retracts Apology to Armenians; Breaks Promise to Rectify Earlier Claim

Armenians woke up on April 30 to the breaking news: “Ruslan Tsarni Apologizes to Armenian Community,” as reported by Alin Grigorian, editor of the Armenian Mirror-Spectator of Watertown, Mass.

Prior to this apology, Tsarni had been telling the international media that “an Armenian convert to Islam had brainwashed” his nephews — Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev — the Boston bombers. By linking an Armenian to such a heinous crime, Uncle Tsarni had infuriated Armenians who suspected dubious motives behind his outlandish claim.

Armenians were naturally relieved upon learning that Tsarni had told the Mirror-Spectator: “Armenia has a very strong culture, therefore, I want to stress that his [Misha’s] ethnicity has nothing to do with it. I wish I had never said it. I felt for you [Armenians] and wish I had never done it.” He went on to apologize for linking the Armenian community “to this evil event.”

While this apology was a good start, it was inadequate compared to the magnitude of the damage Tsarni had caused to the good name of Armenians worldwide. Merely apologizing to an Armenian newspaper could not undo that harm, unless he repeated it on CNN or other TV networks.

I contacted Tsarni asking him if he would issue a similar apology on national television. He responded affirmatively since he regretted dragging the Armenian name into “this sad episode.” Tsarni stressed that he did not “speak about all Armenians, just one man of Armenian descent. I never had the intention of harming Armenians or anyone else. I feel sorry that the name of the Armenian people was used. I feel somehow guilty. I would like to apologize. No one likes to be brushed with an act like this.” Tsarni asked me to report that he felt terrible about mentioning Armenians in his TV interviews.

Given his willingness to make a new public statement, I offered to assist him in drafting the text of an apology for a possible future network appearance. He first welcomed the idea, but later informed me that he would neither accept my suggestion nor issue his own statement, claiming that his earlier remarks were accurate, since Misha was of Armenian descent, overlooking the fact that Misha Allakhverdov, born in Azerbaijan, was of mixed Armenian and Ukrainian parentage. Tsarni further advised that he never meant to refer to “the entire [Armenian] ethnicity. It was a simple technical characteristic of the person whose name I did not know at the time. Had I known his name was Misha, he would be Misha, not an Armenian or anyone else.” He justified the use of the phrase ‘a new convert to Islam of Armenian descent,’ by claiming that his intent was “to help the media, reporters, and law enforcement agencies to locate that person.” He, therefore, decided not to issue an apology on television, as he had promised.

Furthermore, he disputed Mirror-Spectator’s report of his apology, by claiming that he was “misquoted.” He asserted: “I never said, ‘I wish I never said it.’ I said that I had no intention to have the name of Armenians used in association with the bombing. I spoke about the certain individual who I was told about and that information was confirmed as true information.” Despite Tsarny’s belated denial, the Mirror-Spectator stands by its story and I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of its report!

I reminded Tsarni of his unfulfilled commitment to appear on national TV and set the record straight on his allegation about ‘the Armenian’ Misha. He has yet to respond, as he has been busy making funeral arrangements for his nephew, Tamerlan.

There are many unanswered questions about Tsarni. Although the internet is replete with all sorts of allegations about his background, we prefer to concentrate on questions of more immediate interest to the Armenian community:

— Why did Tsarni apologize to the Armenian Mirror-Spectator and then turn around and claim that he was misquoted? Could it be that he had felt sorry for his earlier statements to the media, and then backtracked after being advised by ‘unknown interests’ that he should not apologize to the Armenians?

— Why did he make a personal commitment to me to appear on major TV networks to apologize for maligning Armenians, and then refuse to do so?

With these unanswered questions, one can only wonder about Uncle Tsarni’s mysterious motives and enigmatic connections.

May 7, 2013
Moles, Informants and Double Agents In Boston Marathon Bombings

The bizarre circumstances and dubious names in the Boston Marathon bombings have raised many questions that have yet to be answered by government officials and journalists.

The most mysterious character is ‘Misha’ whom Ruslan Tsarni, uncle of the Boston bombers, described as an Armenian convert to Islam who had supposedly brainwashed and radicalized Tamerlan, the elder of the suspected Tsarnaev brothers. Ruslan described ‘Misha’ as a heavy-set bald exorcist with a long reddish beard!

Initially, no one could find ‘Misha.’ While his alleged affiliation with Tamerlan and Armenian origin was prominently and repeatedly mentioned in the media, it took the authorities 10 days to announce that they knew who ‘Misha’ was and that he had no connection to the terrorist acts!

Last Sunday, Christian Caryl of the New York Review of Books, was finally able to locate and interview the elusive ‘Misha’ in his Rhode Island home. Even though Caryl disclosed that ‘Misha,’ a native of Baku, Azerbaijan, is the son of an Armenian father and a Ukrainian mother, and that his last name is Allakhverdov, the media continues to refer to him as an ‘Armenian.’ Notably, neither Caryl nor anyone else mentions the fact that ‘Misha’ or ‘Mikayel’ — a common Christian name — cannot be the name of a Muslim! Moreover, after the break up of the Soviet Union, many Muslim Azerbaijanis applied for asylum in Europe and the United States, under the pretext that they were persecuted Christian Armenians! It is odd that ‘Misha,’ supposedly a Christian, would flee from Islamic persecution in Baku, only to convert to Islam in America!

Interestingly, Caryl reports that ‘Misha’ had nothing to do with the Boston bombings, which is exactly what government investigators had earlier announced. Could it be that US officials had put Caryl in contact with ‘Misha’ in order to confirm their declaration of his innocence, leading some analysts to speculate that ‘Misha’ may have been an FBI informant whose cover is now being meticulously protected!

The next suspicious character is Uncle Ruslan who has accused ‘Misha the Armenian’ of having a powerful influence over Tamerlan. Ruslan himself has had a checkered past, having worked for USAID and several Caspian Sea energy companies, while married to Samantha Ankara Fuller, daughter of Graham Fuller, a retired top CIA official. Because of Ruslan’s close relationship to the bombers’ family, his employment with Central Asian oil companies including Halliburton, and marriage to the daughter of a high-ranking CIA official, some analysts have suggested that the enigmatic uncle warrants a closer look.

Last week, prominent Armenian-American attorney Mark Geragos blasted Ruslan Tsarni on CNN, suggesting that “somebody needs to give this uncle a field sobriety test, because I think this guy is under the influence of something.” Geragos was furious that Ruslan had linked the Boston bombers to the ‘Armenian Misha,’ while Armenians worldwide were commemorating the 98th Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide! Ruslan then tried to reach Geragos by telephone, seeking “to clarify” his earlier statement. Geragos refused to take his call.

Some analysts suggest that Tamerlan may have been recruited by the Russian secret services (FSB) to spy on Chechen extremists during his six-month stay in Chechnya and Dagestan last year. Having informed the FBI and CIA of Tamerlan’s links to radical Islamist groups, and not receiving a satisfactory response from US officials, it could be that the FSB took matters into its own hands and recruited the unemployed and penniless young Chechen during his lengthy stay in Russia.

Other analysts speculate that Tamerlan may have been an informant for the US government. Such a supposition is much more credible than assuming that the FBI and CIA were too incompetent or too busy to conduct a thorough investigation of Tamerlan’s background after the Russian FSB brought his name to their attention. It could be that US authorities knew Tamerlan only too well and may have even encouraged him to travel to Russia as their mole in Jihadist circles.

Finally, there are those who believe that Tamerlan ended up betraying both the Russian and American intelligence services, deciding instead to support radical Islamic groups, “out of anger over US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,” according to his younger brother Dzhokhar’s jailhouse confession.

Of course, these speculations are advanced by various analysts based on preliminary information, pending a thorough Congressional investigation to uncover the true facts. Americans killed and maimed in the Boston bombings deserve an honest answer!

May 3, 2013
False Accusation Linking Armenian To Boston Bombings Should Be Condemned

Many unanswered questions remain in the wake of the barbaric Boston Marathon bombings last week.

In the absence of established facts, it is difficult to reach an informed conclusion and find a motive for the murderous actions of the Tsarnaev brothers — Tamerlan, 26, and Dzhokhar, 19. It is interesting to note that Tamerlan carries the name of a vicious 14^th century Turkic warlord who razed entire cities to the ground and butchered millions of innocent people.

Instead of jumping to unwarranted conclusions and making generalizations about Chechens, Muslims, and the Tsarnaev family, some probing questions are in order:

— Back in 2011, when the Russian intelligence services asked the FBI to investigate Tamerlan’s radical Islamist ties and plans to join underground groups, how thoroughly did the FBI carry out this task? If the FBI agents did a thorough job and found nothing sinister, why did they not follow up a few months later when Tamerlan returned to the US in 2012, having spent six months in the troubled Russian republics of Chechnya and Dagestan? And why did US law enforcement agencies fail to investigate the Jihadist videos and links to radical Islamist websites found on Tamerlan’s computer?

— If the Russian tip was not seriously pursued by US officials, was their decision based on political considerations or a proper assessment of the risk of terrorism? Since Chechen insurgents were fighting Russia for independence, did US officials prefer not to meddle in an internal Russian conflict? Did the US view Chechen “terrorists” as “freedom fighters,” concluding that they represented no threat to the United States? More significantly, what role did the anti-Russian stance of influential neo-conservative American circles play in assessing the warnings on Tamerlan?

— Did the Russian intelligence services thoroughly investigate Tamerlan when he fell in their lap while visiting Dagestan and Chechnya for six months, particularly if they were dissatisfied with the FBI’s lukewarm response to their earlier request?

— Would this terrorist act killing four Americans and injuring close to 200 now prompt US intelligence agencies to cooperate more fully with their Russian counterparts to jointly combat terrorism regardless of international political concerns?

— Will the US investigate the 10-day visit to Turkey in July 2003 by Tamerlan and three of his family members, as disclosed by Turkish Interior Minister Muammer Guler? What was the purpose of Tsarnaevs’ visit to Turkey and who were their contacts?

Turning to Ruslan Tsarni, the talkative uncle of the Tsarnaev brothers, who made controversial and contradictory comments disseminated worldwide by CNN, NBC, Wall Street Journal, Reuters, and Time magazine, among others. Uncle Tsarni accused an unnamed Armenian convert to Islam in Cambridge, Mass., for radicalizing Tamerlan!

Tsarni, a Maryland resident, told the NBC Today show that one of his Armenian acquaintances informed him about an “outside influence” on Tamerlan: “He [the acquaintance] said, there is someone who brainwashed him [Tamerlan], some newly convert to Islam. I would like to stress [the acquaintance] was of Armenian descent.”

However, Uncle Tsarni, gave CNN a completely different explanation for the despicable actions of his nephews. He had accused them of being “losers,” claiming that they had brought shame on their family and the Chechen people. But, he later told NBC Today that he had called his nephews “losers” out of anger, and that he was now sure their crime had nothing to do with Russia or Chechnya. Tsarni also contradicted himself on CNN by claiming that the person who had “brainwashed” Tamerlan was the “new convert to Islam of Armenian descent,” not the acquaintance!

The question is, who is Tsarni and why is he accusing an Armenian? A cursory internet search reveals that he has had direct ties to western energy companies involved in the Caspian region. He has worked for Big Sky Energy, Golden Eagle Partners, and Nelson Resources Ltd., all three with direct investments in Caspian Sea energy projects. Could Tsarni’s ties to these energy companies explain his accusation against an Armenian?

Finally, why hasn’t a single Armenian organization or official complained to the news media about their dissemination of Tsarni’s baseless and libelous statements, accusing an Armenian for radicalizing Tamerlan? A similar situation occurred years ago, when an Australian newspaper, The Canberra Times, reported: “Pope Shot by Armenian Gunman.” In reality, Pope John Paul II was shot by Mehmet Ali Agca, a Turk!

It is high time that Armenians organize an anti-defamation organization that would vigorously pursue all those who libel and defame them around the world.

April 24, 2013
Remember, Remind, and Reclaim: Guidelines for the Genocide Centennial

Armenian communities around the world are gearing up for the Centennial of the Genocide on April 24, 2015, by coordinating their commemorative plans at the local, regional, and international levels.

A Pan-Armenian Centennial Committee was established in Armenia two years ago consisting of the leadership of the Republics of Armenia and Artsakh (Karabagh), heads of religious denominations, and representatives of major Armenian political, charitable, and cultural organizations. Local committees have also been formed throughout the Diaspora. As reported earlier, the international committee of Armenian Genocide experts met in Yerevan last month to recommend specific projects to be adopted by the Pan-Armenian Centennial Committee during its May 30 meeting.

On April 6, the Centennial Committees of eight Middle Eastern countries (Cyprus, Egypt, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, and Iran represented by committees in Tehran, Esfahan, and Tabriz,) met in Beirut to coordinate their plans on a regional basis. Also attending was Hayk Demoyan, Secretary of the Pan-Armenian Centennial Committee in Armenia.

His Holiness Aram I, Catholicos of Cilicia, presided over the meeting and gave a timely keynote address outlining the principles that should guide the regional committees in planning for the Centennial. Aram Vehapar succinctly formulated the objectives in three key Armenian words: “Hishel, Hishetsnel, yev Bahanchel” [To Remember, To Remind, and To Reclaim].

His Holiness went on to explain: “for 100 years, we stressed the remembrance of the Genocide. We lit candles, organized commemorative evenings, and published books. These important activities will imbue our youth with the sacred testament and souls of our martyrs. Yet, we should not singly focus on this subject. For 100 years, we reminded people through demonstrations, lobbying, and raising our voices. We aim to continue

these activities with different approaches. However, it is imperative that we stress our demands for restitution.”

The Vehapar reminded the attendees about the international conference organized by the Catholicosate of Cilicia a year ago with the theme: “From Recognition to Restitution,” with the participation of international legal experts. “We need legal experts in order to present, defend, and pursue our claims appropriately in international courts,” the Catholicos stated.

Aram I went on to suggest a division of labor between the Republic of Armenia and the Diaspora: “We should work in unison. Our approaches and emphasis could be different from one another; and sometimes they must be different! Let’s not forget that Armenia is a state, and the Diaspora is a diaspora. Neither the state nor the diaspora can speak on each other’s behalf. Each has its own unique voice and function. But, there should be intra-Armenian harmony and coordination. In other words, we should plan and work with a common purpose, holding on firmly to our demands for restitution.”

The Catholicos then urged Armenians to include the far-flung regions of Africa, the Far East, and South America within the scope of the Centennial activities. Turning to the Middle East, Aram I made three important points:

1) The pursuit of the Armenian Cause in the Islamic world requires a special approach, because Turkey is a Muslim state.

2) Turkey’s ever-increasing and penetrating influence in the region is a serious problem. “In my meetings with leaders of countries in the region, I always tell them: ‘you have kept your doors very wide open in front of Turkey. The day will come when you will recognize your mistake. Turkey uses different masks.’ Therefore, we must be alert as the genocidaire is closely following our steps. We will not retreat and will not weaken in the face of Turkish meddling.”

3) Genocide is not an event that belongs to the past. The Diaspora is a consequence of the Genocide, and in a sense, it is still continuing.

Catholicos Aram I concluded by categorizing the Armenian efforts for recognition and restitution into three dimensions: historical, political, and legal. “The time has come, without ignoring the first two, to place a clear priority on the legal aspect. In this regard, we have a massive amount of work to accomplish,” he stated.

Significantly, Hayk Demoyan, Secretary of the Pan-Armenian Centennial Committee, also speaking at the regional meeting in Beirut, noted: “We know that we cannot undo some of the consequences of the Armenian Genocide, such as the lost lives and destroyed churches, nevertheless, the major consequence is the loss of the territories!”

April 16, 2013
Istanbul Patriarchate Ignores Armenian Community’s Religious Needs

The Armenian Patriarchate of Istanbul upset many Armenians in Turkey and around the world when it failed to send a clergyman to the recently renovated Saint Guiragos Church in Dikranagerd (Diyarbakir) to celebrate Divine Liturgy on Easter Sunday.

St. Guiragos is not just any Armenian church. With seven altars and a capacity for 3,000 worshipers, it is one of the largest Christian churches in the Middle East. The church’s belfry was destroyed on May 28, 1915, by Turkish artillery because it was much taller than the minarets of nearby mosques. Turkish soldiers forced the city’s Deputy Prelate, Mgrditch Vartabed Chlghadian, to watch the destruction of the belfry as he was dragged to his eventual martyrdom!

Amazingly, St. Guiragos remained a functioning church until the 1980’s with a local priest performing regular church services year round. As the few remaining descendants of Armenian Genocide survivors left the city, the church fell into disrepair and was abandoned.

In recent years, Dikranagerd Armenians who had resettled in Istanbul established the St. Guiragos Foundation which renovated the church at a cost of $3.2 million. Two thirds of the funds were donated by Armenians of Istanbul, Europe, and North America. The remaining one-third was provided by Diyarbekir’s Kurdish city government which has been highly supportive of many local Armenian initiatives.

To their great chagrin, St. Guiragos parishioners were deprived of liturgical services on Easter Sunday as the Armenian Patriarchate informed them that it could not spare a clergyman to perform Mass in their church. They were told that none of the Patriarchate’s 23 clergymen were available, as they had to officiate in Istanbul’s more than two dozen functioning churches, but were promised that a priest would arrive in Dikranagerd the Sunday after Easter.

St. Guiragos parishioners were terribly disappointed, since they had just installed new church bells procured from Moscow at great expense and effort. They had to ring the bells on Easter Sunday for the first time in almost 100 years, without a cleric’s presence to hold services! The worshipers, inspired by the majesty of the church, lit candles and recited prayers, assisted by local Armenian language teacher Kevork Fikri.

The Armenian Patriarchate does not seem to be the least bothered by its inexcusable failure to provide a clergyman to the Dikranagerd church on the joyous occasion of Easter Sunday, even though the embarrassing details of its unacceptable behavior were widely publicized in the pages of several Turkish newspapers, including Hurriyet and Radikal.

In the absence of Patriarch Mesrob Moutafian, who has been hospitalized for years with a terminal illness, the Deputy Patriarch Aram Ateshian has been running the Patriarchate’s affairs. He should have assigned a clergyman to serve in Dikranagerd not only on Easter Sunday but throughout the year. He should have also provided all possible assistance to the many Islamized and Turkified Armenians who have come forward asking to be baptized in the newly renovated church.

Even more disturbing is the fact that Aram Srpazan on several occasions has made critical remarks about Diaspora Armenians asking the Turkish government to return to the Armenian Patriarchate over 2,500 confiscated churches. He has repeatedly asserted that the Patriarchate has neither the funds nor the clergy to renovate and operate these churches. Srpazan Ateshian fails to understand that the first step is to secure the return of the church structures before worrying about renovating them. Whether the Patriarchate has the necessary funds or not, Armenians have the right to demand the return of these churches. Moreover, many of the confiscated Armenian churches owned adjacent lands and buildings that could provide the necessary income to renovate and operate these parishes.

Given Archbishop Ateshian’s lack of enthusiasm about the return of Armenian churches to the Patriarchate, it is not surprising that, even though he is a native of Dikranagerd, he has not made a sincere effort to provide a clergyman to St. Guiragos Church on Easter Sunday. One wonders if he is buckling under Turkish pressure to discourage the budding national and religious revival movement among Dikranagerd Armenians. Otherwise, making advance arrangements to send a clergyman from Istanbul, Armenia, Lebanon, Jerusalem, Europe or even the United States, would have been an easy task.

It is unfortunate that Islamized and Turkified Armenians have to confront the Patriarchate while battling the Turkish government in their quest to return to their ethnic and religious roots, and regain their usurped rights and properties.

April 9, 2013
Federal Judge Wrongfully Dismisses Lawsuit on Armenian Properties in Turkey

Federal Judge Dolly M. Gee, wrongfully claiming lack of jurisdiction, dismissed a lawsuit on March 26, filed by Armenian-Americans demanding compensation from the Republic of Turkey for confiscating their properties during the Armenian Genocide.

Attorneys Berj Boyajian, Mark Geragos, Ara Jabagchourian, and Brian Kabateck had filed a class action lawsuit on July 29, 2010, on behalf of Garbis Davoyan of Los Angeles, Hrayr Turabian of New York City, and all Armenians whose ancestors had real estate holdings in Turkey. The grandparents of Davoyan and Turabian owned land near Aintab and Adana. The complaint also charged Turkey’s Central Bank and Ziraat Bankasi of unjust enrichment by benefiting from the proceeds of the confiscated Armenian properties.

Since the Republic of Turkey and its two major banks contended that US courts lacked jurisdiction over foreign entities due to sovereign immunity, the Armenian plaintiffs argued that the lawsuit should proceed due to two exceptions to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA): “Commercial Activity” and “Expropriation.”

The Federal Judge ruled that both of these exceptions did not apply in this case. She found the banks’ commercial role in the US to be minimal and unrelated to the claimed grievances. She ruled that the expropriation exception is also not valid because the property was not “taken in violation of international law.” She stated that the appropriation of personal property contravenes international law if: 1) it does not serve a public purpose; 2) it discriminates against or singles out aliens; and 3) the foreign government does not pay compensation. Judge Gee held that Armenians were citizens of the Ottoman Empire based on the Law of Nationality of January 19, 1869, “which treated all persons found within the Ottoman Empire as Ottoman subjects.” According to the Judge, this law “remained in effect until May 23, 1927, when Law No. 1041 stripped Turkish citizenship from the Armenians who had fled or were deported from the Empire during the events at issue in this lawsuit.” She concluded: “Legally, Armenians whose property was taken and who were deported from the Ottoman Empire were citizens at the time.”

In making these rulings, Judge Gee made a series of grave factual errors and misapplied the law. Her contention that Armenians were Ottoman citizens at the time of the genocide and deportations, and therefore not subject to US court jurisdiction, is flatly wrong. In a telegram dated Sept. 9, 1915, Minister of Interior Talaat issued the following order: “The rights of Armenians to live and work on Turkish soil are totally abolished.” Thus, Talaat had revoked the Armenians’ Ottoman citizenship as of Sept. 9, 1915, making them non-citizens at the time of the expropriation of their properties. This fact alone invalidates the fundamental premise of the Judge’s ruling that the Federal Court has no jurisdiction over Turkey’s expropriation of its citizens’ property.

Furthermore, since Ottoman citizenship was imposed upon native Armenians after their territory was overrun by Ottoman armies, Armenians were forced to become the unwilling subjects of a foreign invader. The Judge’s erroneous ruling leads to the absurd and dangerous notion that the rights of people under occupation can be violated without any recourse to international law, once the conquering nation declares them to be its citizens.

Judge Gee committed a second serious error when she made the convoluted argument that expropriation of foreign properties could have fallen under the jurisdiction of her court if carried out in conjunction with acts of genocide, because “genocide violates international law.” However, she ruled that the Armenian lawsuit does not meet the foregoing criteria, because it involves a “Political Question” related to foreign policy that falls under the jurisdiction of the executive and legislative branches, not the judiciary. She completely ignored the fact that the lawsuit was not filed under a claim of genocide, but as a violation of international law that includes Crimes Against Humanity, but not necessarily genocide. Apparently, the Judge was not aware that the US government on several occasions had recognized the Armenian Genocide, making her argument about the separation of powers completely meaningless.

There is a good possibility that the Federal Court of Appeals would reverse Judge Gee’s baseless and erroneous ruling. The plaintiffs’ lawyers could strengthen their case considerably by pointing out some of the factual errors in her ruling, as well as rectifying the shortcomings in their own filing.

Lawsuits against Turkey must be filed with utmost care, preparation and professionalism, since they impact the interests of the entire Armenian nation, particularly on the eve of the 100th Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide.

April 3, 2013