Category: Harut Sassounian

Harut Sassounian is the Publisher of The California Courier, founded in 1958. His weekly editorials, translated into several languages, are reprinted in scores of U.S. and overseas publications and posted on countless websites.<p>

He is the author of “The Armenian Genocide: The World Speaks Out, 1915-2005, Documents and Declarations.”

As President of the Armenia Artsakh Fund, he has administered the procurement and delivery of $970 million of humanitarian assistance to Armenia and Artsakh during the past 34 years. As Senior Vice President of Kirk Kerkorian’s Lincy Foundation, he oversaw $240 million of infrastructure projects in Armenia.

From 1978 to 1982, Mr. Sassounian worked as an international marketing executive for Procter & Gamble in Geneva, Switzerland. He was a human rights delegate at the United Nations for 10 years. He played a leading role in the recognition of the Armenian Genocide by the U.N. Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities in 1985.

Mr. Sassounian has a Master’s Degree in International Affairs from Columbia University, and a Master’s in Business Administration from Pepperdine University.

DNA Study Busts Myth that One Million Appalachians are of Turkish Descent

For decades, Turkish pseudo-historians and propagandists have made bizarre claims about Turks being the ancestors of various ethnic groups around the world, including Native Americans, African-Americans, and the strangest of all — Melungeons — a little-known group of dark-skinned residents of Appalachia.

To counter Armenian political activities in Washington, the Turkish government regularly reaches out to anyone who could be co-opted with all-expense paid trips, special gifts, and other financial inducements, including funding studies and conferences on the alleged Turkish origin of Melungeons. Even though these one million Appalachians do not carry much political clout in Congress, Ankara is interested in claiming them to be of Turkish descent, hoping to strengthen its political and economic clout in the United States.

The Turkish initiative faced one ‘minor’ problem: there was no evidence that Melungeons were descendants of Turks. This issue was easily resolved when the Turkish government provided a “research grant” to a Melungeon named N. Brent Kennedy. In April 1995, he flew to Istanbul and wrote a book alleging that hundreds of captured Ottoman sailors were dumped on the shores of North Carolina by Sir Francis Drake in the 16th century!

Kennedy compiled a long list of “amazing” similarities between Turks and Melungeons, such as eating beef and mashed potatoes, the habit of hugging each other, Appalachian quilts having Ottoman designs, Anatolian folk dancers performing square dance, and Turkish music sounding like bluegrass! He discovered that the Turkish word “neyaygara” sounds like Niagara, “dilhah yer” is pronounced Delaware, “tenasuh” means Tennessee, “kan tok” is Kentucky, and “allah bamya” is Alabama!

Kennedy further stated that Turkish scholars have “long believed that a connection existed between themselves and eastern seaboard American Indians, based on both physical appearance and shared words and customs.” He gathered these “important facts” from Turkish “historians” during his meetings at Marmara University in Istanbul. “Several hundred Ottoman sailors could exert a powerful genetic, cultural, and linguistic influence on the sixteenth-century Native American Tribes into which they married,” Kennedy confidently concluded.

Appalachians, however, were infuriated by the distortion of Melungeons’ ethnic origin and exploitation of their history. Historian and award-winning journalist Tim Hashaw of Houston, Texas, sent a letter asking me to “investigate the tawdry connection between the ATAA (Assembly of Turkish American Associations) and the Melungeon Heritage Association.” Hashaw asserted that “Melungeons are an obscure tri-racial (white, black, and American Indian) community in Appalachia — Virginia and Tennessee. We are not now, nor have we ever been, Turkish. Yet, Melungeons are being wrongly exploited by Turkish associations to deny the Armenian Genocide and to support questionable Turkish agendas in Washington DC.”

Hashaw revealed in his letter that Turkey “sent gifts such as water fountains (cesme) to those who deny the Armenian Genocide. They have said in the press that they expect our support in Washington DC. I kept asking myself: why is the very influential Turkic World Research Foundation bothering to pay for airfare to send waves of humble Appalachian hill folk from the US to Turkey? We are not a large or affluent people. Why do the President and Prime Minister of Turkey give personal interviews to Melungeons from Appalachia when they visit? Why are the ATAA and the Istanbul Alumni group paying to send Melungeons to New York in order to honor them in recognition for their services to Turkey?”

Hashaw’s published works regarding the ethnic origins of the Melungeons were validated by a new DNA study published in the Journal of Genetic Genealogy which disproved the “wild claims” that Melungeons are descendants of Turkish slaves. Instead, the research indicated that they were the offspring of “sub-Saharan African men and white women of northern or central European origin.” Shortly after release of this study, the red-faced leader of a Turkish-American group gave his followers the bad news: “Appalachia’s Melungeons are not Turks”!

Despite the incontestable DNA evidence, incorrigible Turkish propagandists may not be deterred by scientific studies. They will continue to claim that just about everyone on Planet Earth somehow originated from Turks! As Tim Hashaw mockingly wrote:
“Abraham Lincoln was a Turk! Elvis Presley was a Turk! American Indians are Turks! Obama’s mama was a Turk! Melungeons were born in the country of the Hatfields and McCoys. The blood feud is in our DNA. The Turks do not know yet, but they will regret bribing greedy ignorant people to deny the Armenian Genocide.”

=======================================

Special Documentary on Armenia from MTV Lebanonhttp://mtv.com.lb/Political_Specials/Armenia

========================================

honoring Ataturk ………….by an Azeri

==========================================

July 27, 2012
Turkey Shows Interest in Armenian Demand for Access to Trabzon Port

In a recent column, I reported that Turkey’s Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu had indicated an interest in meeting with “Diasporan leaders” to discuss Armenian demands emanating from the Genocide of 1915.

In response, I suggested that before Armenians consider meeting Davutoglu, he must prove his sincerity by making eight preliminary concessions, one of which is providing the Republic of Armenia special commercial access to the Turkish port of Trabzon.

Last week, the Turkish website Gunebakis and other media outlets reported the positive reaction of Muzaffer Ermish, General Manager of the Trabzon Port: “In a recent article, Harut Sassounian, editor-in-chief of the California Courier newspaper, pointed out that Turkish authorities were actively pursuing the start of a dialog with the Armenian Diaspora, and further contended that they were engaged in a series of meetings ahead of 2015, the 100th Anniversary of the Deportation. Sassounian, who advised the Diaspora not to make conflicting demands from Turkish authorities, listed the demands that a united Armenian delegation could make, including the demand that ‘Armenia be given special commercial access to the Port of Trabzon.’” Gunebakis confirmed that “Trabzon has given a green light to that request.”

However, the General Manager observed: “should the Turkish government provide us with the necessary permission, we are ready. Armenia can easily import and export through this location. The $7.5 billion trade volume of Armenia would be an amazing event for Trabzon.” The Gunebakis article, headlined “Armenia’s Eyes are on the Port of Trabzon,” indicated that most of Armenia’s imports and exports currently pass through the Georgian Port of Poti.

Port manager Ermish indicated the benefits of using Trabzon instead of Poti. He pointed out that the distance from Trabzon to Yerevan is 430 kilometers (270 miles). “While the Port of Poti provides the advantage of a railroad link, there is a significant delay in shipments. On the other hand, there is a convenient highway between Trabzon and Yerevan, which is available at all hours of the day. From the Port of Trabzon to Alican [Armenia’s Margara border crossing point] is 400 kilometers, and from there to Yerevan the distance is only 30 kilometers…. Any vehicle that departs from our location will be in Armenia within 6-7 hours, which is an unbelievable advantage for that country,” Ermish stated.

The General Manager stressed that “Trabzon’s Port capacity is capable of accommodating new projects,” and that “we have increased the capacity of the Port from 3.9 to 10 million tons. We are only utilizing 25% of the Port’s capacity. We are prepared for any commercial opportunity that might present itself regarding Armenia.”

One can draw several conclusions from Port Manager Ermish’s swift and positive reaction:

— This deal is in the mutual interest of both Armenia and Turkey. Trabzon would utilize its port capacity more fully, while Armenia would save on cargo handling fees, pay lower freight rates, and gain an alternate land access to the outside world.
— The General Manager would not have made a public announcement on the sensitive topic of cooperation with Armenia, unless he had advance clearance from Ankara. It is possible that the Turkish government is using Ermish’s positive statements as a trial balloon to gauge the degree of support or opposition to such a move. While there has been no negative reaction from anti-Armenian nationalist circles in Turkey and Azerbaijan, Armenian merchants have welcomed the Turkish gesture.
— Since the Trabzon Port’s Manager has announced that Armenian cargo can directly cross the currently closed Armenian-Turkish border rather than being rerouted through Georgia, even a limited opening of the border for cargo shipments would eliminate the need for the highly controversial Armenian-Turkish Protocols, once and for all.

Finally, a truly sincere gesture of reconciliation by Turkey would be acknowledging that Trabzon was a major center of extermination during the Armenian Genocide. A monument should be erected in Trabzon Port in memory of thousands of Armenian women and children who were placed in boats and cruelly dumped to drown in the Black Sea.

It should be clear that neither giving Armenia special access to the Trabzon Port nor the erection of a monument could be considered restitution for the Genocide. These are simply steps Turkish officials must take to prove their good faith before Armenians can sit with them at the negotiating table.

July 17, 2012
US Supreme Court May Hear First Ever Armenian Genocide-Related Lawsuit

For the first time, a lawsuit indirectly involving the Armenian Genocide is being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Since its initial filing in 2003, various federal courts have taken conflicting positions on this lawsuit.

Here is a brief background to the case: In 2000, the California legislature adopted a law — Section 354.4 of the California Code of Civil Procedure — extending to 2010 and subsequently to 2016 the deadline for Armenian Genocide victims or their heirs to file claims on insurance policies issued from 1875 to 1923 to persons living in the Ottoman Empire between 1915 and 1923.

In December 2003, several California Armenians filed a class action lawsuit in Federal Court against German insurance companies for refusing to pay the proceeds of life insurance policies purchased by their ancestors in the Ottoman Empire. The German companies, supported by the Turkish government, objected to the lawsuit and sought to have it dismissed. They claimed that the California law authorizing the lawsuit was unconstitutional because its reference to the Armenian Genocide conflicted with the federal government’s policy on this issue.

When the Federal District Court rejected the insurance companies’ argument on June 6, 2007, they appealed to a panel of three federal judges on the Ninth Circuit Court. In a 2-1 opinion, the judges ruled on August 20, 2009 that the California law conflicted with the Executive Branch’s foreign policy prerogative. The Armenian plaintiffs then sought a rehearing of the case by the same panel of three judges. On December 10, 2010, the majority of the judges ruled that the California statute did not violate the foreign affairs doctrine.

Unhappy with this reversal, the German companies appealed to the full (en banc) Ninth Circuit Court. By a unanimous decision, the panel of 12 federal judges ruled on February 23, 2012 that the California law was unconstitutional, as it “intruded on the federal government’s foreign affairs power.” Using the rarely-invoked doctrine of “field preemption,” the judges ruled that Section 354.4 was unconstitutional not due to any conflict with specific actions of the federal government, but because it dealt with an area of exclusive federal responsibility, namely foreign relations.

On June 22, 2012 Igor Timofeyev of Paul Hastings LLP, Counsel for the Armenian plaintiffs, asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. He argued that this is the “perfect vehicle to clarify the foreign affairs preemption doctrine” and that “the Ninth Circuit’s unwarranted expansion of the field preemption doctrine would…imperil numerous state laws dealing with traditional areas of state competency.” Citing congressional and executive branch pronouncements favoring the recognition of the Armenian Genocide, Timofeyev pointed out that the US government not only did not object to the Armenian Genocide resolutions issued by various states over the years, but in fact welcomed them, as Pres. Obama had done in his statement of April 24, 2012.

Meanwhile, a Supreme Court ruling in another case may have improved the prospects for the Armenian appeal. Just days after Timofeyev filed his petition, the Supreme Court issued a ruling on an Arizona statute dealing with undocumented immigrants. The Arizona case raised the very issue that is at the heart of the Ninth Circuit’s en banc decision on Armenian insurance policies, namely whether a state law that could indirectly impact foreign relations in a particular area is subject to “field preemption” even in the absence of federal action in that area.

In ruling on the Arizona case, several justices found no preemption in the Arizona statute. Even the majority, which found some preemption in the Arizona statute, severely limited the application of the field preemption doctrine. Specifically, the Court ruled that, while states cannot act in an area where the federal government has a “complete,” “integrated and all-embracing” regulatory system, they can do so where the federal government has “expressed no more than a ‘peripheral concern’” or “done nothing to suggest it is inappropriate” for the states to act.

These statements provide strong support for overturning the Ninth Circuit’s en banc decision on the Armenian insurance claims. That point will no doubt be urged on the Supreme Court by the plaintiffs and in the amicus briefs to be filed by the Armenian Bar Association and others.

This lawsuit is basically about non-payment of valid insurance claims and not about genocide recognition. German insurance companies are shamefully exploiting the genocide issue simply to avoid paying long overdue benefits to insurance claimants.

It is not known at this time if the Supreme Court will take up this appeal, since it accepts for review only a small number of cases each year.

July 3, 2012
Congress May Cut off Aid to Turkey For Hosting Sudan’s Genocidal President

A congressional committee adopted an amendment last month that would suspend U.S. foreign aid to any country hosting a visit by Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir. Members of Congress intend to isolate this brutal leader and help bring him to court for his crimes in Darfur.

Congress decided to take this action after several countries, including Turkey and Egypt, ignored the arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court in March 2009, charging the Sudanese President with genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity in Darfur. In contravention of their international obligations, these countries hosted visits by al-Bashir, instead of capturing him and dispatching him to the ICC for prosecution.

In November 2009, when the President of Sudan was about to visit Ankara, Amnesty International warned: “It would be a disgrace for Turkey to offer him safe haven. If the Turkish authorities fail to arrest President Omar al-Bashir and hand him over to the ICC, this would be inconsistent with Turkey’s international obligations. It would not only amount to obstruction of justice, but just as offering shelter to a fleeing bank robber constitutes a crime under national law, so, too, would sheltering a fugitive from international justice be complicity in crime.”

Four US non-governmental organizations issued a joint statement in November 2009, criticizing the Obama administration for refusing to protest the Sudanese President’s visit to Turkey. The NGO’s sought to ensure that “a wanted war criminal does not continue to travel with impunity.”

Meanwhile, the Turkish Prime Minister, not only allowed the Sudanese President to visit Turkey, but tried to absolve him of any wrongdoing by claiming that “Muslims don’t commit genocide!” Making matters worse, Turkey continues to sell lethal weapons to Sudan, helping al-Bashir kill more innocent people!

To put an end to such irresponsible behavior by Turkey and many other countries, the House Appropriations Committee adopted on May 17, 2012, an amendment to a State Department funding bill that would cut off non-humanitarian aid to countries that do not comply with ICC’s directive. The amendment sponsored by Cong. Frank Wolf (Republican-Virginia) states that no economic assistance would be provided by the United States “to any country that admits President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan.”

After reports began circulating that the Obama administration is trying to block this proposed law, 70 leading Holocaust and genocide scholars signed a joint letter on June 14, urging the White House to support the congressional amendment that would stop providing assistance to countries hosting Sudan’s President. Among the signatories of the letter are Dr. Israel Charny of Jerusalem, Dr. Irving Greenberg, former chairman of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, and Dr. Deborah Dwork of Clark University.

The scholars’ letter, organized by the David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies in Washington, D.C., was sent to presidential advisor Dr. Samantha Power, who heads the recently-established Atrocities Prevention Board. The scholars reminded Power that in her Pulitzer Prize winning book, “A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide,” she had urged the US government to adopt “economic sanctions” to counter genocidal actions. Since the proposed bill “does exactly that,” the 70 signatories expressed the hope that Power and the White House would support Cong. Wolf’s amendment, particularly when it is brought up for reconciliation between the House and Senate.
It is doubtful, however, that Samantha Power would speak out in favor of this amendment. Since joining the White House staff, she has distanced herself from the issues she had boldly advocated in her book. She has also remained eerily silent on Pres. Obama’s unfulfilled pledges regarding the Armenian Genocide. Power had issued several appeals during the last presidential campaign, seeking the Armenian-American community’s support for Barack Obama’s candidacy. She had solemnly pledged that Pres. Obama would acknowledge the Armenian Genocide after the election.

So far, Armenian-Americans have not gotten involved in lobbying for the adoption of this important bill, most probably because they were unaware of its introduction in Congress. Armenian scholars were also left out of this issue, since no one had approached them to obtain their support.

An aide to Cong. Wolf advised this writer that the Congressman would appreciate the Armenian-American community’s support for this bill which would discourage Turkey and other countries from wining and dining al-Bashir and would help bring this indicted criminal to justice.

June 26, 2012
Israel Has One Good Reason For Recognizing the Armenian Genocide

Israel’s Parliament — the Knesset — held “an historic session” on June 12, during which “seven different political parties overwhelmingly endorsed recognition of the Armenian Genocide,” according to Dr. Israel Charny, Executive Director of the Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide in Jerusalem. He cautiously predicted that the Knesset would complete its legislative procedures leading to recognition of the Armenian Genocide.

While acknowledging the Armenian Genocide would be salutary, Israel should have done so long ago. In fact, the Jewish State should have been the first country to recognize the genocide, in view of the awesome legacy of the Holocaust — Shoah. Who should empathize more with the victims of genocide than those who have suffered a similar fate themselves? As Knesset member Nino Abesadze pointed out during the hearing: “It is precisely because we have been a victim people that we do not dare fail to identify with another victim people.” Another influential Knesset member, Zeev Elkin, Chair of the Likud Caucus stated: “We are one of the last nations in the world that has still not recognized the Armenian Genocide. It is our moral responsibility that we have still not met.”

During the June 12 hearing, Knesset Chairman Reuven Rivlin spoke “firmly and inspiringly” with “profound feeling of both a Jewish and an Israeli imperative to extend a long overdue recognition,” Dr. Charny reported. Chairman Rivlin announced that there was no need for a new vote to recognize the Armenian Genocide since the Knesset had already voted unanimously for its recognition last year. Dr. Charny explained that unlike the US Congress, Knesset resolutions first go to the plenary session before being considered by one of its committees. The next step for the Armenian Genocide resolution is the Education Committee, after which it would be sent back to the Knesset for a final vote. Only then it could be said that the Knesset has officially recognized the Armenian Genocide.

One of the unexpected developments at the June 12 hearing was a statement by Minister of Environmental Affairs Gilad Erdan who announced that he was speaking officially on behalf of the government. He stated unambiguously that Israel had decided to recognize the Armenian Genocide. Furthermore, Minister Erdan claimed that “the State of Israel has never denied it, on the contrary, we deplore the [Armenian] genocide.” This was a surprising statement, since it is well known that, under Turkish pressure, Israel has persistently opposed recognition of the Armenian Genocide. Nevertheless, in defiance of Israeli state denialism, on April 24, 2000, Minister of Justice Yossi Beilin and Minister of Education Yossi Sarid acknowledged the Armenian Genocide, prompting the government to repudiate their statements. Beilin had also recognized the genocide in 1994, while serving as Deputy Foreign Minister.

The fact that serious discussions on the Armenian Genocide are now taking place at a time of deteriorating relations between Turkey and Israel raises troubling questions about the motives of the Israeli government. It would be morally repugnant to see the mass murder of a nation being exploited for crass political calculations. Yet, one has to realize that international relations are rarely based on moral principles. Were it not for economic and political considerations, the whole world would have long ago recognized the Armenian Genocide.

While critics may be displeased that Israel is considering recognition of the Armenian Genocide at a time of discord with Turkey, the greater wrong, in my view, was not doing the right thing for all these years. Even now, despite efforts to rectify the past and uphold the truth, some Israeli officials are concerned that raising the Armenian Genocide issue would further exacerbate relations with Turkey. Knesset member Arieh Eldad dismissed such objections by pointing out the illogical stance of the naysayers: “A few years ago, people said we couldn’t talk about it because of our good relations with Turkey. Now people say we can’t talk about it because of our bad relations with Turkey.” Eldad added that when people are reluctant to address moral and ethical issues there is always a claim that the timing of such a discussion is wrong.

There is, however, one red line that no Armenian should cross. Israeli officials have sought to obtain political concessions from Armenia and Armenians in return for genocide recognition. Such demands should be rejected outright since Armenians do not owe anything to Israel for recognizing the genocide — a universally acknowledged historical fact. Israel should recognize the Armenian Genocide simply because it is the right thing to do, reflecting the sentiments of all righteous Jews worldwide.

June 19, 2012
Sassounian’s column of June 14, 2012

Clinton Should Share the Blame

For Killings of Armenian Soldiers

A tragic pattern of bloody engagements continues to recur along the Armenia-Azerbaijan border at great human cost. Whenever high level visits or international meetings are scheduled on the Artsakh (Karabagh) conflict, Azerbaijan unfailingly initiates attacks on Armenian border guards causing many casualties.

Azerbaijan’s leaders hope that such hostile action would impress upon the mediating countries the urgency of resolving the conflict by pressuring Armenia’s leadership to make territorial concessions on Artsakh.

Last week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited the Caucasus republics. On the day of her arrival in Yerevan, Azeri forces attacked two Armenian border posts, killing three soldiers and wounding many others. In the ensuing days, more Azeri attacks took place, drawing Armenian return fire, resulting in scores of casualties, mostly on the Azeri side.

Armenians expected Secretary Clinton to strongly condemn Azerbaijan after its initial attack. Clearly, the Azeri military action was timed to coincide with her visit to Armenia. Yet, regrettably, the Secretary merely urged both countries to refrain from “the use of force,” stressing that the Artsakh conflict “can be resolved exclusively by peaceful means.” Clinton’s totally unacceptable statement equated the aggressors with the victims. Moreover, by not condemning the Azeri attacks, she actually emboldened Azerbaijan to commit further acts of aggression against Armenia.

Since it is common knowledge that Azerbaijan orchestrates such attacks to coincide with visits of high-ranking officials to the region, Secretary Clinton should have warned Azerbaijan, before embarking on her trip, not to initiate any hostile action while she was in the area. The State Department should have advised the Azeri government that any breach of the ceasefire during the Clinton visit would be personally embarrassing for the Secretary of State, leaving her no choice but to cancel her trip to Baku. Even if such a warning was not issued in advance, Clinton should have refused to go to Baku after the Azeri attacks. Unfortunately, the Secretary placed a higher value on Azeri oil than on Armenian blood. By her actions, she also undermined the international prestige and moral standing of the United States!

As this could be Clinton’s farewell visit to the region — she is retiring from public service later this year — it is regrettable that she will leave behind a legacy of violence and conflict rather than peace and reconciliation. The US Secretary may have come to Yerevan and Baku to encourage a negotiated settlement to the Artsakh conflict, yet she left the region more destabilized than before.

Another factor that has encouraged Azerbaijan to continue its attacks is the inadequate Armenian response to the countless ceasefire violations since 1994. Armenians will be unable to stop Azeri aggression simply by firing back. The Aliyev regime should be made to understand that it would pay a heavy price for breaching the ceasefire. Rather than simply returning fire, the Armenian response should be to neutralize the Azeri military positions responsible for initiating the attacks.

Although some may fear that a more robust Armenian response would lead to all-out conflict, such concerns are misplaced because Azerbaijan is not ready to wage war, according to most military experts. By starting a premature war, the Azeris risk losing even more territories, not to mention the enormous economic losses!

To deter further Azeri aggression and reduce Armenian casualties, here are seven actions that Armenia may consider taking should Azerbaijan continue to violate the ceasefire:

— Respond by targeting Azerbaijan’s petroleum industry, disrupting its oil and gas pipelines. The best defense is a good offense.

— Take preemptive action to neutralize Azeri snipers who regularly target Armenian border guards and civilians in nearby villages.

— After each attack suspend peace talks with Azerbaijan for an indefinite period. One cannot talk peace and fight at the same.

— Demand that all countries refrain from the sale of weapons to Azerbaijan.

— Urge CSTO (Collective Security Treaty Organization), a defense-alliance that includes Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, to warn Azerbaijan that any further attacks on Armenia would trigger a collective military response from all CSTO members.

— Declare that Turkey’s support for Azerbaijan in the Artsakh conflict constitutes a hostile act, and hence withdraw Armenia’s signature from the Armenia-Turkey Protocols.

— Recognize the Republic of Artsakh as an independent state and invite other countries to do likewise.

June 12, 2012