Turkish Forum

Author: Harut Sassounian

  • As France Tightens the Noose, Turkey Reacts with Outrageous Words and Deeds

    As France Tightens the Noose, Turkey Reacts with Outrageous Words and Deeds

     

     sassounian33
    Turkish leaders routinely proclaim that they are not afraid of facing their country’s past. Yet, the minute someone reminds them of the darkest chapters of their history, they panic and overreact.
    The most recent example of Turkish officials’ irrational behavior is their reaction to French initiatives to adopt a law criminalizing denial of the Armenian Genocide. Despite Turkish threats and retaliatory measures, the bill was adopted by the French Parliament on December 22, 2011 and the Senate is expected to approve it on January 23, 2012.
    Here are a few examples of outrageous Turkish overreaction to France and all things French:
    — Prime Minister Erdogan accused French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s father of participating in the Algerian atrocities, while serving in the French Army. Sarkozy’s father shot back by admonishing Erdogan to read his biography, telling him that he had never set foot in Algeria.
    — To justify his own country’s genocide of Armenians, Erdogan accused France of committing “genocide” in Algeria. Yet, Erdogan was shocked when Algeria’s Prime Minister Ahmed Ouyahia rebuked him for playing politics with Algerians’ blood. Ouyahia also blamed Turkey for the deaths of countless Algerians by providing ammunition to France during the colonial period for which former Turkish Pres. Ozal apologized to Algeria.
    — The Mayor of Ankara announced last week that the City Council had decided to change the name of “Paris Street” to “Algeria Street,” rename “Charles De Gaulle Street” in honor of a yet to be named Algerian hero, and erect a monument dedicated to the Algerian “massacres” in front of the French Embassy in the Turkish capital.
    — Turkish factories have been busily manufacturing toilet paper, trash bags, and baby diapers carrying Sarkozy’s name, and condoms with the picture of French Deputy Valerie Boyer. Meanwhile, a gang of Turkish hackers attacked the websites of French lawmakers and threatened to rape Mrs. Boyer and murder her children.
    — Prof. Oya Akgonenc wrote a hilarious article titled, “Armenian Events in the Triangle of Armenia, France and America.” She identified three “dangerous attackers” of Turkey whose last names start with S: “Sarkozy of France, Sargsyan of Armenia, and Sassounian, head of the Armenian lobby in the United States!”
    — Although Turkey called for a boycott of French products and services, Turkish flights to Paris were fully booked, as the number of Turks visiting France during the holidays increased by 10% compared to last year. Similarly, trade between the two countries increased by 30% after the 2001 French recognition of the Armenian Genocide, despite the Turkish boycott of France.
    — French-Algerian businessman Rachid Nekkaz, who proudly declared during a recent visit to Turkey, “I feel like I am a Turk,” announced setting up a million euro ($1.3 million) fund to pay the fine for any Turk arrested in France for denying the Armenian Genocide. Mr. Nekkaz failed to inform potential Turkish denialists that the pending French law also carries a sentence of one year in jail which his fund would be unable to prevent.
    — The head of a Turkish news agency called for the closing down of French schools in Turkey and banning the teaching of French in Turkish schools.
    Such nutty statements are likely to multiply after the French Senate approves the bill criminalizing denial of the Armenian Genocide and Pres. Sarkozy signs it into law, in view of the fact that the two largest French parties have expressed their support for the Armenian bill. Imagine the whining of Turkish leaders, when Turks are arrested in France for breaking the upcoming law on genocide denial.
    Turkish protests will reach a crescendo when the French government proposes to the 25 other states of the European Union a similar anti-denial law which would lead to the arrest and punishment of Turkish denialists throughout Europe.
    Turkish leaders have no one else to blame but themselves for their embarrassing and demeaning predicament. Yet, Turkey is in no position to give lectures about freedom of expression to anyone, given its draconian laws that violate the basic human rights of its own citizens. In France, it is illegal to lie about genocide, while in Turkey, it is illegal to tell the truth!
    Instead of blaming the French Senate or the three men “whose last names start with S,” Turkish leaders could get out of their century long quagmire by acknowledging the Armenian Genocide and making amends to the descendants of dispossessed victims.
  • Azerbaijan and Obama Suffer Setbacks As Amb. Bryza’s Service is Cut Short

    Azerbaijan and Obama Suffer Setbacks As Amb. Bryza’s Service is Cut Short

    sassounian32

    As a result of successive political blunders by the Obama administration, Matthew Bryza was forced to abandon his ambassadorial post in Azerbaijan last week.
    Pres. Obama ignored repeated warnings that the candidate he was nominating as Ambassador to Azerbaijan in May 2010 had serious flaws. Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee accused Bryza of having a pro-Azerbaijani bias and questionable ties to Azeri officials. The Senators were troubled by reports that foreign officials had given Bryza lavish gifts at his Istanbul wedding, during which the Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan had served as a groomsman. In addition, the nominee’s Turkish-born wife Zeyno Baran was accused of conflicts of interest while working on Caspian energy issues at a Washington think tank. She had also antagonized the Armenian-American community by testifying against recognition of the Armenian Genocide at a Senate Subcommittee hearing.
    When Pres. Obama failed to take these concerns seriously, Senators Barbara Boxer (Dem.-CA) and Robert Menendez (Dem.-New Jersey) had no choice but to place a hold on Bryza’s nomination, effectively blocking his confirmation. Obama then compounded his error by appointing Bryza as Ambassador to Azerbaijan in late 2010 without Senate approval. The President seemed oblivious to the potential damage to his own reputation, the prestige of the United States, and U.S.-Azeri relations, should the Senate not confirm Bryza’s nomination, forcing him to leave his post and return to Washington upon expiration of his 12-month appointment.
    As Amb. Bryza’s temporary assignment was ending in December 2011, Obama administration officials pressured Senators Boxer and Menendez to allow him to continue serving in Azerbaijan by confirming his nomination. The two Senators remained steadfast in opposing Bryza, even though it is not easy for these Democratic politicians to turn down a request from the President of the United States, who also happens to be the nominal leader of their own party.
    The Senators were also pressured by the government of Azerbaijan and its powerful lobbying firms which went into overdrive to justify their exorbitant fees. Through their special connections they were able to get the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post to publish editorials attacking the Senators and the Armenian National Committee of America which had spearheaded a public campaign against this unqualified Ambassadorial nominee.
    Not surprisingly, the Wall Street Journal heaped lavish praise on Bryza, calling him a “respected career foreign service officer,” and accused the two Senators of “kissing up to the Armenian-American lobby.”
    The Washington Post was even nastier. Its editorial could be described as outright racist and anti-Armenian. Contrary to its claim of defending “the larger U.S. national interest,” the newspaper was actually advocating the confirmation of an Ambassador with questionable credentials who would weaken, rather than strengthen America’s interests.
    The Washington Post concluded its shameful editorial by accusing “oil-poor” and “isolated” Armenia as being the biggest loser in the Bryza controversy. We beg to disagree. This is an American issue and Armenia had no role in it. In fact, the biggest losers are those who lobbied long and hard for the confirmation of an ill-qualified Ambassador who was more intent on serving the interests of Baku in Washington than those of America in Azerbaijan.
    In my opinion, the real losers are:
    1) Pres. Obama who picked a poorly qualified nominee and stubbornly pushed for his confirmation when it was crystal clear from day one that Bryza did not have the chance of a snowball in hell to get confirmed.
    2) The government of Azerbaijan which spent a fortune on lobbyists who miserably failed to get the job done.
    3) Azeri and Turkish organizations, such as the Azerbaijani-American Council, Azerbaijan Society of America, Pax Turcica Institute, US Azeris Network, and Assembly of Turkish-American Associations, which issued countless press releases and sent thousands of e-mails to the Senate — to no avail. By supporting Bryza, they confirmed that in fact he was “their man,” and not an unbiased diplomat.
    4) The Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post which compromised their journalistic integrity to please their “petro-friends.”
    5) The 36 former U.S. officials who signed a joint letter urging the Senate to confirm Bryza. It is no mere coincidence that most of these signatories are currently associated with think tanks and lobbying firms that are funded by Azerbaijan or expect such funding in the future.
     
    There are, however, two clear winners:
    1) The Armenian-American community which has sent a loud and clear message to Baku, Ankara, and Washington that it represents a powerful political force to be reckoned with.
    2) Matthew Bryza and his wife, who as lobbyists for Azerbaijan and Turkey, can be expected to make millions by cashing in on their high-level connections in Baku and Ankara.
  • Turkey Besieged by Armenian Successes Long Before the Genocide Centennial

    Turkey Besieged by Armenian Successes Long Before the Genocide Centennial

    sassounian3

    Turkish leaders made a serious tactical error in 2011. They were so preoccupied with countering the upcoming tsunami of the centennial of the Armenian Genocide in 2015, that they lost sight of the more immediate political storms facing them.

    Armenians quickly capitalized on the Turkish blunder, managing to score a series of early successes: 1) the French Parliament adopted a bill banning denial of the Armenian Genocide, 2) the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution calling on Turkey to return Armenian churches and other properties to their rightful owners, 3) an Israeli parliamentary committee held a public hearing on the recognition of the Armenian Genocide, and 4) a U.S. Federal Court may shortly issue a default judgment against the Republic of Turkey.

    Facing a tenacious French President who refused to be intimidated by insults and threats, Turkey reacted with slash and burn tactics that aggravated its problems and undermined its bid for European Union membership. By withdrawing its ambassador from Paris, the Turkish government deprived itself of the services of a capable diplomat at a crucial time when the French Senate is about to take up the bill criminalizing denial of the Armenian Genocide. Judging from past experience, the Turkish Ambassador will be sent back to Paris soon, making his dramatic recall an exercise in futility and attracting the ridicule of the diplomatic community. If Turkey withdraws its ambassador every time a country recognizes the Armenian Genocide or adopts a decision contrary to Ankara’s wishes, it will isolate itself from the rest of the world.

    Even more damaging to Turkey’s interests is the threat to boycott goods imported from countries that are deemed to be “unfriendly.” Turkey would simply damage its own economy by purchasing inferior products at higher prices from alternative sources. Moreover, should Turkey stop buying highly technical items such as passenger planes and advanced missiles from the few countries that make them, it will end up with an antiquated air transport system and a weakened military. In recent days, however, Turkish leaders have sheepishly withdrawn their bombastic boycott threats, after realizing that the World Trade Organization would impose severe penalties on Turkey for violating its membership obligations.

    Turning to the House resolution on return of church properties, the Turkish government and its high-priced lobbying firms were caught flat-footed on how to counter such a delicate matter. After years of success in derailing Armenian Genocide resolutions, the Turkish side was clueless about fighting a motion that called for the return of church buildings and other properties to their respective Christian communities. Consequently, the resolution was approved by a vote of 43-1 in the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and by more than two-thirds of the full House. This is the first time that the U.S. Congress has gone on record demanding that Turkey restore the rights of genocide victims beyond the mere acknowledgment of the Genocide. In the coming months and years, Armenians will be presenting an ever growing list of demands to international organizations, parliaments around the world, and the Turkish government itself.

    The third positive development took place in Israel, when the Knesset’s Education Committee held an unprecedented three-hour public hearing on the Armenian Genocide, despite pressure from Turkey, its lackey Azerbaijan, and the Netanyahu government. This discussion, held in front of TV cameras, and not behind closed doors, is expected to continue at a later date. It is shameful that the Israeli government continues to obstruct recognition of the Armenian Genocide, perhaps hoping to regain Turkey’s trust and friendship. Rather than playing political games with mass murder, the Netanyahu government should acknowledge the truth of the Armenian Genocide for the sake of its own reputation.

    The final salutary development is an expected default judgment to be issued by a U.S. Federal Court against the Republic of Turkey on two lawsuits demanding payment for Armenian properties confiscated during the Genocide. Such a judgment would be a stern warning to the Turkish authorities that they cannot continue to enjoy the ill-gotten gains from the blood money of genocide victims.

    Long before the arrival of the Armenian tsunami in 2015, Turkey is increasingly confronted by pressures for greater human rights and Kurdish autonomy, and far-reaching Armenian demands, while experiencing acute problems with virtually all of its neighbors. A Turkish regime besieged with serious internal and external challenges is less of a threat to its own population and its neighborhood, and more likely to settle past injustices and present conflicts.
  • Congress Urges Turkey to Return Churches:

    Congress Urges Turkey to Return Churches:


    First Successful Attempt at Restitution
     sassounian32
     
    Turkey suffered a major setback last week when the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a landmark resolution calling on the Turkish government to return over 2,000 confiscated Christian churches and other properties “to their rightful owners.”
     
    This victory is particularly significant as it comes at a time when Turkey is said to be at the apex of its power both regionally and internationally. Yet, despite its considerable political and economic clout, neither the Turkish regime nor its high-powered lobbyists could openly oppose a congressional resolution intended to protect the religious rights of Christian minorities in Turkey. This is the reason why, when the resolution was first submitted to the House Foreign Affairs Committee on July 20, as an amendment to the State Department’s Foreign Relations Authorization Act, it was easily adopted by a vote of 43-1.
     
    Just before the resolution came up for a vote on the House floor on December 13, the State Department, at Turkey’s request, made discreet but ultimately futile efforts to derail it. Turkish-American groups also unsuccessfully lobbied against the resolution. Neither the House Republican majority nor the Democratic minority heeded their denialist demands. The strong bipartisan consensus paved the way for the resolution to overcome the hurdle of needing over two-thirds of the House votes for passage, since the motion was presented under a special parliamentary procedure known as the Suspension Calendar.
     
    The Turkish government and its high-priced lobbying firms were greatly embarrassed when only one member of Congress rose on the House floor to speak and vote against the resolution. Even then, Cong. Ed Whitfield (R-KY), a co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on Turkey, readily acknowledged that not “very many people would oppose” this bill! He then added: “The mere fact that the resolution is being introduced would leave an objective observer with the intent (sic) opinion that religious freedom is being systematically denied in Turkey!” After rambling on for a few more minutes and running out of things to say, Cong. Whitfield yielded the balance of his time to his opponents — the supporters of the resolution!
     
    After such a devastating defeat, the Turkish Foreign Ministry did not have much to say, except to express its disappointment. This is standard Turkish practice — initially
    applying heavy pressure and making threats to prevent an unfavorable decision, and after losing the vote, dismissing the bill as being unimportant, in order to hide their embarrassing failure. If the Turkish government did not think the bill was important, why did it turn the world upside down in trying to defeat it?
     
    In attempting to fool the unsuspecting public, Turkish officials claimed that the resolution was merely adopted by two to one vote, without explaining that during voice votes, most House members are not usually in the Chamber. Once the leadership of the two parties comes to an agreement on an issue, only a handful of members are then required to adopt the bill. The real question that Turkish authorities must answer is why only one Congressman out of 435 voted against the resolution? This episode demonstrates that the new Ottoman emperor has no clothes!
     
    Even though this resolution is not binding, unless the Senate also adopts it and the President signs it into law, it is still a significant breakthrough for all Christian minorities in Turkey whose properties have been confiscated for decades. Encouraged by this positive development, the Armenian, Assyrian, and Greek communities will continue their active collaboration to pressure Turkey to restore their historic rights.
     
    For Armenians worldwide, this is the first time that the U.S. Congress has demanded restitution from Turkey, rather than mere recognition of the Genocide. This resolution could serve as an impetus for other countries and international organizations to follow suit, demanding the restoration of property rights in Turkey. Henceforth, the Turkish government has to be much more cautious when trampling on these rights, knowing full well that the international community is keeping a watchful eye on its recurring violations.
     
    The successful passage of this bill will energize Armenians around the world to continue the struggle for restitution of their losses during the Genocide. Regrettably, no clergyman or official in Armenia has said a single word on this important issue, as if the fate of Armenian churches in Turkey is of no interest to them! Wouldn’t it be in Armenians’ best interest if Armenia joined with the Diaspora to seek restitution, particularly in view of Pres. Sargsyan’s recent declaration in Marseille, France, demanding “justice” from Turkey?
  • Pres. Sargsyan Makes Major Strategic Shift in Armenia’s Demands from Turkey

    Pres. Sargsyan Makes Major Strategic Shift in Armenia’s Demands from Turkey

    sassounian31

     
     
    Pres. Serzh Sargsyan delivered a major speech in Marseille, France, last week, during which he introduced a new strategy for the resolution of Armenia’s demands from Turkey. Until now, the Armenian government had merely pursued the recognition of the Armenian Genocide.
     
    For the first time, the President spoke about Armenia’s demand for “justice.” To ensure that his message was received loud and clear, he repeated the word “justice” three times in three separate sentences:
    — “Every Armenian demands justice, whether he or she lives in Armenia, Artsakh or the Diaspora.”
    — “We were strong enough to survive the Meds Yeghern [Great Calamity], and we are just as strong now to demand justice.” The President used the term “Armenian Genocide” six times in other parts of his speech.
    — “That was the joyful news for justice, not revenge,” Pres. Sargsyan stated, describing the joy of Marseille Armenians in 1921, when they heard the acquittal of Soghomon Tehlirian, Talat’s assassin, by a German court.
     
    Surprisingly, not a single political commentator in Armenia, Turkey or elsewhere took note of the significant shift in the approach articulated by Pres. Sargsyan. Seeking “justice” for the victims of genocide is a completely different objective than simply attaining recognition. In this context, the word “justice” encompasses the undoing of as much of the damage as possible, by demanding the restitution and return of all looted assets, confiscated properties, and occupied territories.
     
    While advancing a more comprehensive set of demands from Turkey, Pres. Sargsyan expressed his conviction that the day would come when Turkey’s leaders would acknowledge the mass crimes committed by their predecessors: “We are confident that Turkey will repent. That is neither a precondition nor a desire to exact revenge. Turkey must face its own history. Someday, Turkey’s leadership would find the strength to reassess its approach to the Armenian Genocide. Our position has not changed — it is clear cut. We are prepared to establish normal relations with Turkey, befitting neighboring countries. For example, neighboring countries Poland and Germany led by Chancellor Willy Brandt, acknowledging his country’s terrible crimes, dropped to his knees at the Warsaw Ghetto. Sooner or later, Turkey, a self-described European country, will have a leadership worthy of being called European, which will bow its head at the Tsitsernagapert [Genocide] Memorial. The sooner the better, but, that’s the prerogative of the Turkish people. We cannot impose anything on them. They should do that for the sake of the Turkish people, just as Willy Brandt did for the sake of the German people.”
     
    Egemen Bagis, Turkey’s Minister for European Union Affairs, perhaps not comprehending the far reaching consequences of Pres. Sargsyan’s demand for “justice,” reacted angrily to other parts of the Armenian President’s remarks. Bagis arrogantly stated: “There is no power in the world that could bring the Turkish people to its knees. On the contrary, the Turkish people know full well how to bring to their knees those who make such ill-informed statements.”
     
    I fully endorse Pres. Sargsyan’s new approach to the pursuit of Armenian demands from Turkey. Through my columns, speeches, interviews, and private meetings, I have repeatedly urged Armenia’s leaders to demand “justice” from Turkey, rather than simply seeking genocide recognition. One of my articles on this topic, “Genocide Recognition and Quest for Justice,” was published last year in The International & Comparative Law Review of the Loyola Law School of Los Angeles.
     
    Armenia is better off presenting its claims from Turkey in terms of seeking “justice,” to avoid the danger of making official territorial demands from a powerful and menacing neighbor. Nevertheless, the demand for “justice” is a code word or shorthand for a comprehensive set of claims from Turkey. Not even Turkey’s denialist leaders would dare challenge the universally-accepted notion of “justice” based on the rule of law, specifically, international law.
     
    While Pres. Sargsyan’s remarks in Marseille are highly commendable, it remains to be seen how this newly articulated concept of seeking justice for the Armenian Genocide will be translated into action. What practical steps will the Armenian government, particularly the Foreign Ministry, take to demand justice from Turkey? Will Armenia back the lawsuits filed by Diaspora Armenian communities in American and European courts against Turkey, demanding restitution for Armenian losses during the Genocide or will Armenia bring its own lawsuit against the Republic of Turkey in the World Court?
  • US Court to Rule on Turkish Banks’ Motion to Dismiss Armenian Lawsuits

    US Court to Rule on Turkish Banks’ Motion to Dismiss Armenian Lawsuits

     

    sassounian3
    Two separate lawsuits were filed last year in US Federal Court in Los Angeles against the Republic of Turkey and two of its major banks demanding compensation for properties confiscated from Armenians after the 1915 Genocide.
    The first is a class action lawsuit seeking what could amount to billions of dollars from the Turkish Republic, T.C. Ziraat Bankasi, and the Central Bank of Turkey for unjust enrichment from liquidation of properties belonging to Armenians deported and exterminated during the Genocide.
    The second lawsuit, filed by three Armenian-Americans, seeks $64 million for their confiscated properties in Adana, Turkey, and millions more for accrued rent and interest paid by the U.S. government in the past 60 years for use of the strategic Incirlik Air Base, built on land taken from families of the Armenian plaintiffs.
    When these lawsuits were initiated, the Turkish government and its two banks ridiculed the charges, claiming that US courts have no authority to judge the actions of other governments. In order to block the lawsuits, the Turkish entities refused to be served with the legal documents, which is the first step in filing a lawsuit. After lengthy cat and mouse games, Turkish officials finally received the court documents transmitted to them by the US Embassy in Ankara at the request of the State Department.
    After grudgingly accepting the court papers, the Republic of Turkey refused to appear in US Federal Court, despite warnings from the State Department that it risked a default judgment. The Turkish banks, however, fearing a similar fate, rushed to the court and filed a motion to dismiss the pending lawsuits.
    In their filings, the banks objected to the lawsuits, claiming that American courts lacked jurisdiction due to sovereign immunity. They argued that the lawsuits should not go forward because of the Ankara Agreement of 1934, the “political question doctrine,” potential harm to U.S.-Turkish relations, lack of evidence that the plaintiffs are heirs of the owners of the confiscated properties, and the expiry of the statute of limitations.
    Surprisingly, the Turkish banks conceded that even if the Republic of Turkey did confiscate Armenian properties, international law precluded the filing of such lawsuits, since Turkey had taken “the property of its own nationals.”
    The banks’ lawyers made the outrageous suggestion that the wills of Armenian Genocide victims be reviewed to determine the legal heirs of the confiscated properties. In case these victims did not have a will, the lawyers proposed that the relevant laws be examined to see who was really entitled to their properties!
    The attorneys for the Armenian plaintiffs countered the Turkish objections and asked the court to deny the motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs asserted that the Ziraat bank branch in the United States is a private commercial bank and has no reason to enjoy sovereign immunity. Moreover, “genocide and the associated plunder of property is never deemed a legitimate act of the state. There is no application of a political question, as this case focuses on the return of unjust gains from the sale and/or rental of property held in trust. Finally, the statute of limitations does not apply because the properties were held in trust, and the failure to return them is a continuing injury.” The attorneys further asserted that there are no statutes of limitations for War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity.
    Contradicting the Banks’ claims, the lawyers for the class action lawsuit maintained that the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act does not preclude the prosecution of foreign entities engaged in commercial activity in the United States which both the Republic of Turkey and the two banks have done for many years. The lawyers also asserted that the defendants falsely claimed that international law does not apply to foreign countries “for wrongs perpetrated against their own nationals.” On the contrary, “international law prohibits states from expropriating property of nationals conducted during genocide and human rights abuses.”
    A hearing is scheduled in Federal Court on December 19 to determine the validity of the Turkish banks’ motion to dismiss the two lawsuits. Should the court reject the Turkish motion, and the Armenian plaintiffs end up winning their lawsuits during a subsequent trial, the court may order that the US assets of both Turkish banks be seized, up to the value of the claims, and turned over to the heirs of dispossessed Armenian victims as fair compensation.