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.

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

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.

December 7, 2011
Sassounian’s column of Dec. 1, 2011

No one should be Fooled by Erdogan’s

Empty Apology for Kurdish Massacres

Turkish society was thrown into turmoil last week when Prime Minister Erdogan issued an unexpected apology for the hitherto taboo topic of the Kurdish massacres in southeastern Turkey in the 1930’s.

There are many striking similarities between the Kurdish massacres and the Armenian Genocide. Under the guise of quelling a rebellion, the Turkish government, led by Kemal Ataturk, ordered the killing and deportation of tens of thousands of Alevi Kurds from Dersim, now known as Tunceli. Turkish warplanes dropped bombs and sprayed poisonous gases on Kurds hiding in mountain caves.

Ironically, taking part in the bombing raids was Sabiha Gokcen, Turkey’s first female pilot, who was an Armenian orphan adopted by Ataturk. Gokcen was unwittingly participating in the killing of not only Kurds, but also fellow Armenians who had sought refuge in the remote region of Dersim, after having survived the 1915 Genocide.

Erdogan’s surprise admission of the “Dersim killings” was prompted not by an honest desire to lift the veil of secrecy from a long concealed state crime, but by the intent to discredit his main political opponent, Kemal Kilicdaroglu, leader of the Republican People’s Party (CHP) which was in power during the Kurdish atrocities.

Erdogan shrewdly scored a major public relations coup when Kilicdaroglu, a native of Dersim who had lost many members of his family, refused to reverse the CHP’s long-standing cover up of these massacres.

Seeing an opportunity to deliver a bigger blow to his reticent rival, Prime Minister Erdogan went on national TV, revealing a series of documents from the state archives that provided chilling details of the brutal torture of Kurdish men, rape of women and mutilation of children. In a dramatic gesture, he tore up the government’s falsified report on the Dersim carnage.

To counter Erdogan’s attacks, Kilicdaroglu came up with a surprise announcement of his own. Despite his failure to acknowledge the Dersim massacres, Kilicdaroglu claimed that an apology was not enough! He challenged Erdogan to release all archival documents on this subject, and return the properties confiscated from the Kurdish victims.

The Prime Minister’s surprise apology generated a major national debate in Turkey. Some media commentators viewed Erdogan’s acknowledgment of the Dersim massacres not only as an effort to undermine Kilicdaroglu’s support with millions of Alevi voters, but also to tarnish Ataturk’s legacy. Others saw hopeful signs that Erdogan was preparing to face other dark chapters of Turkey’s history, including the Armenian Genocide.

Kilicdaroglu, in turn, tried to damage Erdogan’s reputation by accusing him of planning to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide, and likened his mentality to that of Diaspora Armenians. Erdogan promptly distanced himself from what he considered to be an insulting comparison, and sharply rebuked and warned his political opponent for drawing such a parallel!

Erdogan’s racist reaction did not bode well for those who claimed that “the genie is out of the bottle,” hoping that the Prime Minister’s apology to the Kurds would set a precedent for Turkey’s eventual acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide. When one carefully examines the Prime Minister’s distorted statements on the Dersim massacres, one cannot help but note the eerie similarities with Turkey’s denialist views on the Armenian Genocide:

1) Minimizing the Kurdish death toll from tens of thousands to 13,800;

2) Describing the Kurdish massacres merely as “killings” or “events”;

3) Placing the blame for the “killings” on a rival political party rather than the Turkish state; and

4) Offering no compensation and no restitution to heirs of the Kurdish victims.

All those hoping that Erdogan would issue a similar apology for the Armenian Genocide probably do not realize the futility of their expectation. In reality, a Turkish apology would do more harm than good to the Armenian Cause, as it would discourage some Armenians from pursuing restitution from Turkey, mislead the international community into thinking that Armenian demands are now completely fulfilled, and deprive Armenians from attracting further political support for their national cause.

Furthermore, should Erdogan apologize for the Armenian Genocide, the international community would shower him with praise, nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize, and support Turkey’s candidacy to the European Union.

The international community should rather demand that Erdogan fully acknowledge the genocides of Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks, and Kurds, issue a genuine apology, offer compensation, and return the confiscated properties to the heirs of millions of innocent victims.

November 29, 2011
Turkey Seeks to Monopolize Investments In American Indian Tribal Lands

Publisher, The California Courier

In a few weeks, when high-priced Turkish lobbying firms file their mandatory reports with the Justice Department, important revelations will emerge about their behind the scenes role in pushing through Congress a bill which would give Turkish companies a monopoly for investments in American Indian tribal lands.

These reports would disclose the chain of contacts leading to the approval of Resolution 2362, the “Indian Tribal Trade and Investment Demonstration Project Act of 2011,” by the House of Representatives’ Committee on Natural Resources by a vote of 27 to 15, on November 17.

One should not be surprised to learn that this innocent sounding resolution, meant to “facilitate economic development by Indian tribes and encourage investment by Turkish enterprises,” was gliding through Congress helped by the lavish flow of funds — the mother’s milk of politics — to some House members.

Of course, there is nothing wrong in helping Native Americans to attract foreign investments, except that Congress was being asked to give preferential treatment to a single country — Turkey! Strangely, majority of the Committee members were willing to go along with this unusual and illegal request, ignoring strong warnings from the Congressional Research Service that extending special privileges to only one country would violate provisions of major U.S. trade agreements — Most Favored Nation (MFN), North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and World Trade Organization (WTO).

Moreover, there was no need whatsoever for Congress to approve a pilot program for any one country, when the same Committee was simultaneously considering a more inclusive bill — House Resolution 205 — which would provide to all countries an equal opportunity to trade with and invest in Indian tribal lands. In fact, the Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs testified that he had serious reservations about Resolution 2362. That is why he preferred to support Resolution 205 which would “foster the same goals…on a broader scale.” When Cong. John Sarbanes (Dem.-Maryland) tried to introduce an amendment to expand the scope of Resolution 2362 beyond Turkey, it was ruled out of order due to a technicality.

Before the vote, several Armenian-American and Greek-American organizations submitted to the House Committee letters in opposition to Resolution 2362, pointing out the impropriety and illegality of giving Turkey a monopolistic access to Indian tribal lands. These organizations raised five key objections to Congress extending special privileges to Turkey because that country:

1) Remains an unrepentant perpetrator of genocide against millions of Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians.

2) Continues to blockade Armenia, occupy Cyprus, confront Israel, attack Kurds, and undermine U.S. regional interests.

3) Threatens U.S. commercial interests in the Mediterranean region.

4) Is linked to American Turkish entities suspected of involvement in illegal activities.

5) Supports Iran in violation of U.S. sanctions.

The possible aim of the proponents of Resolution 2362 is to pass this particular bill before the more inclusive Resolution 205 is approved, in order to give Turkey a head start and undeserved advantage over all other nations. Turkey could then strike exclusive trade deals with Indian tribes for up to 25 years, renewable for two additional terms of 25 years each, for a total of 75 years. This means that by the time companies from other countries have a chance to sign contracts with Indian tribes, Turkish firms would have snatched up the most lucrative deals, leaving the others empty-handed.

Immediately after the Committee’s adoption of Resolution 2362, Turkish Americans and the Turkish Embassy in Washington rushed to celebrate a premature victory. The Turkish Coalition of America issued a press releaseon November 17, expressing its joy that the Resolution was approved by the Committee, and would soon be adopted by the full House. That same night, the Turkish Embassy hosted a reception in Washington “to mark American Indian and Alaska Native Heritage Month and celebrate the successful passage of H.R. 2362 out of the House Natural Resources Committee.” Turkey’s illustrious Ambassador Namik Tan was personally tweeting pictures of American Indians in their native costumes as the festivities were taking place at the Embassy.

The Ambassador should be reminded that a victory celebration is premature because there are no guarantees that this defective bill would ever reach the House floor, let alone the Senate, since it grossly violates a number of U.S. trade agreements. Even if the bill receives Congressional approval, American civic organizations and many countries would file lawsuits to block this discriminatory piece of legislation.

November 22, 2011
Federal Appeals Court Issues Futile Order on Insurance Lawsuit

Before the Genocide, thousands of Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire bought life insurance from American and European companies, so that after their death, their heirs would receive a lump sum payment.

Regrettably, many of these companies refused to keep their end of the bargain when Armenian policyholders perished along with their entire families during the course of the Genocide. In most cases, no next of kin was left behind to file an insurance claim on behalf of the victims. A few families who did file a claim were turned down due to the lack of proper paperwork. Clearly, these companies broke their contractual obligations and enriched themselves by keeping the funds owed to the heirs of insured genocide victims.

Almost a century later, the State of California stepped in to restore justice to the wronged policyholders. Considering the tragic and unnatural circumstance of these deaths, the State approved two successive extensions to the statute of limitations in 2000 and 2011, to allow the heirs of genocide victims additional time to file claims against delinquent insurance companies.

Recognizing the negative publicity that such a lawsuit would generate, the New York Life and AXA Insurance companies quickly reached out of court settlements and paid a total of $37.5 million to the heirs of Armenian policyholders and charitable organizations. In contrast, German insurance companies Victoria and ERGO, backed by the Turkish government, decided to continue ducking their legal and moral responsibilities towards their ill-fated Armenian policyholders and refused to settle their long overdue claims. The German firms demanded that the lawsuit filed against them in 2003 be dismissed because the California statute included a reference to the Armenian Genocide, which allegedly conflicts with the foreign policy of the federal government on this issue.

A highly unusual series of court decisions ensued after Federal Judge Christina Snyder’s rejection in 2007 of the German insurance companies’ motion to dismiss. In 2009, a three-judge panel of the federal appeals court initially sided with the German companies, but then reversed itself in 2010, finding no legal problems with the California statute. Earlier this year, the German companies appealed once again, this time to a larger panel of 11 federal judges. That hearing, granted on November 7, is to be held in San Francisco during the week of December 12.

Rehearing this case for the third time is unnecessary because the California statute does not violate federal government’s stand on the Armenian Genocide. Indeed, there is no federal policy that bans states from recognizing the Armenian Genocide. Not a single complaint was lodged by any federal official, while more than 40 states adopted resolutions acknowledging the Genocide. In fact the California statute is in line with the federal government’s clear record on this issue. One should not forget that the U.S. House of Representatives adopted two resolutions in 1975 and 1984 recognizing the Armenian Genocide, and Pres. Reagan issued a Presidential Proclamation on this subject in 1981. In addition, the U.S. Justice Department recognized the Armenian Genocide in a document filed with the World Court in 1951, citing the Armenian mass killings as one of the “outstanding examples of the crime of genocide.”

Even though this latest appeal has absolutely no legal merit, the consequences of a negative court decision would not only harm the interests of life insurance claimants, but more importantly, the collective interests of the Armenian people, should the federal appeals court find California’s recognition of the Armenian Genocide to be in conflict with the federal government’s foreign policy. Such a ruling would negate several decades of Armenian-American political activism by reversing all the resolutions on the Armenian Genocide adopted by more than 40 American states.

The federal appeals court should rule in favor of the Armenian plaintiffs. The court could also uphold the California statute by separating the insurance aspect of the case, which is a prerogative of the states, from the unrelated issue of State vs. Federal powers on Genocide recognition. Should the judges rule against the California statute, however, the Armenian-American community would have no choice but to appeal that verdict to the U.S. Supreme Court.

There is one issue here that is crystal clear: the federal court should force the German insurance companies to make good on their contractual obligations to all policyholders, particularly those who are genocide victims!

November 15, 2011
Sassounian’s column of Nov. 10, 2011

Genocide Denier Condoleezza Rice

Unworthy to Teach at Stanford

In her newly published 750-page book, “A Memoir of My Years in Washington: No Higher Honor,” former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice proudly describes her efforts to defeat Armenian Genocide resolutions on two separate occasions. With great relish, she brags about her success in undermining the acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide by the U.S. Congress in 1991 and 2007.

A close scrutiny of Rice’s arguments exposes her flawed judgment and ethical lapses. In her memoir, she relates that her first experience “with this problem” was in 1991, when she worked in the White House as acting special assistant to Pres. George H. W. Bush. Her task was “to mobilize an effort to defeat the resolution in the House of Representatives.” Gloating over her triumph, she depicts herself as battling “the powerful Armenian American lobby” that “has for years pressured Congress to pass a resolution branding the Ottoman Empire’s mass killings of Armenians starting in 1915 as genocide.” In reality, she had no need to counter what had already been acknowledged by the House of Representatives in 1975 and 1984, and by Pres. Ronald Reagan in 1981.

Rice proceeds to maintain that “there are many historical interpretations of what happened,” which is totally untrue, as there are no historical disputes on the Armenian Genocide — a universally acknowledged fact. Furthermore, Prof. Rice does not seem to realize that when she describes the Armenian “killings” as “clearly a brutal, ethnically motivated massacre,” she in fact is recognizing them as genocide, as defined under Article 2 of the UN Genocide Convention.

In her memoir, Rice attempts to justify her obstructionist maneuvers by explaining that the Turks “were outraged at the prospect of being branded for an event that had taken place almost a century before — under the Ottomans!” Instead of behaving as the spineless official of a banana republic, Rice should have sternly admonished the Turks that the United States would not distort historical facts to appease the paranoid leaders of an autocratic state!

Boasting about how well she “had succeeded” in her “assigned task,” Rice callously describes her appalling efforts in “fighting off the dreaded Armenian genocide resolution.” She makes a half-hearted attempt to minimize her ethical transgression by stating that no one denies “the awful events or the tragic deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Armenians,” which even Turkish officials acknowledge. If she was aware that no one was denying the mass murder of Armenians, why was Rice so fervently determined to kill the resolution? She then parrots the nonsensical Turkish propaganda that this issue should be left to “historians — not politicians — to decide how best to label what had occurred.” Rice should have known that reputable historians the world over have already declared that the Armenian killings constituted genocide.

As Secretary of State in 2007, Rice once again battled against the adoption of an Armenian Genocide resolution. She reports that she “begged” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to prevent the House from voting on the resolution, but the Speaker rejected her request. Rice and Defense Secretary Bob Gates then delivered a press statement against the resolution, standing in front of the White House. She also got eight former secretaries of state to sign a joint letter opposing the resolution.

Rice proudly states in her memoir that she managed to block the vote on the resolution, in keeping with her promise to the Turks. Once again, instead of defending the noble values and high principles on which America was founded, the secretary of state of the most powerful nation on earth caved in to the diktats of a third world bully!

Concluding her narrative, Rice makes false accusation against Armenia’s leaders, claiming that “the democratically elected Armenian government had little interest in the resolution. In fact, it was engaged in an effort to improve relations with Turkey, and it didn’t need it either.” Rice is contradicting the U.S. government’s public announcement that the 2003 Armenian presidential elections did not meet international standards. Furthermore, the then Pres. Kocharian did not oppose the genocide resolution and was not seeking to improve Armenia’s relations with Turkey. In fact, a State Dept. official reported that during his meeting with Kocharian in Yerevan, the Armenian President was “in a foul mood” because the White House had just blocked the genocide resolution.

Rice is now a professor at Stanford University. Ironically, another Armenian Genocide denier, former Secretary of State George Shultz, is also at Stanford. Faculty members, students, alumni and donors should advise Stanford University officials that genocide deniers are not welcome at one of America’s most distinguished institutions of higher learning.

Readers are urged to fax Prof. Rice at 1-650-721-3390 , expressing displeasure at her appalling efforts against U.S. acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide.

November 8, 2011
Azerbaijan Wins Security Council Seat, While Armenians Remain Idle

Pres. Aliyev was celebrating last week his country’s historic victory at the United Nations. With an overwhelming number of votes, Azerbaijan was elected for the first time to the prestigious UN Security Council for a two-year term.

This column shall address three questions: 1) how did Azerbaijan manage to get elected to such an elite body? 2) what will Azerbaijan accomplish with its newly-acquired seat? 3) what actions did Armenians take to counter Azerbaijan’s candidacy?

Azerbaijan, Hungary and Slovenia were competing for a non-permanent seat reserved for the Eastern European region in the Security Council. Normally, Azerbaijan would have no chance of getting elected to such a distinguished body, since it is the least qualified of the three countries in fulfilling the requirements of the UN Charter, due to its failure to contribute to international peace and security, and lack of participation in the work of UN agencies.

According to knowledgeable sources, Azerbaijan made up for its deficiencies by offering tour packages and monetary incentives to UN delegates, and economic inducements to financially strapped nations in return for their votes at the UN General Assembly which elects the 10 non-permanent members of the Security Council. By hook or by crook, Azerbaijan acquired the support of Islamic countries, the Arab League, the Non-Aligned Movement, and CIS (former Soviet) countries, including Russia. Yet, despite these unusual lobbying tactics, it took Azerbaijan 17 rounds over a two-day period to garner the necessary votes, and only after Slovenia, its main rival, withdrew in protest from the race. Slovenia’s Foreign Minister Samuel Zbogar complained that his country “did not approve the way this campaign was held.” Although he did not elaborate, he was referring to Azerbaijan’s lavish gift-giving spree.

Naturally, gaining a seat on the powerful UN Security Council accords Azerbaijan international prestige and a new venue to pursue its incessant Armenophobic campaigns. Nevertheless, there is little chance that Azeri officials will be able to succeed in their announced objective of placing the Karabagh (Artsakh) conflict on the Council’s agenda. The Minsk Group co-Chairs — France, Russia and the United States — as three of the five veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council, have made it amply clear that this matter will be handled by the Minsk Group, outside the UN framework. Hence, Azerbaijan’s leaders risk disillusioning their people, having reassured them that the Security Council will take up the Karabagh issue. Azerbaijan could also get entangled in precarious situations, being forced to take sides when voting on confrontational issues involving Iran, Israel, and Syria, among others.

While the Aliyev regime was turning the world upside down to come up with votes for its Security Council bid, what were Armenians doing to counter Azerbaijan’s efforts?

Opponents at home criticized the Armenian government for not declaring Armenia’s candidacy for the Security Council, arguing that this would have taken away votes from Azerbaijan. Such a strategy, however, may not have been in Yerevan’s best interest, because Armenia could not compete with Baku’s vote-buying spree, and would have drawn votes away from Slovenia, assuring a bigger victory margin for Azerbaijan.

In an earlier column, I had suggested that Armenian organizations and prominent individuals in the Diaspora, in consultation with Armenia’s Foreign Ministry, launch a global campaign to counter Azerbaijan’s candidacy. I had urged Armenians around the world to ask their respective governments not to support Azerbaijan’s Security Council bid.

Regrettably, neither the Armenian Foreign Ministry nor the Diaspora leadership initiated such a coordinated effort. Two months ago, when delegates from 50 countries gathered at a Pan-Armenian Conference in Yerevan, Foreign Ministry officials should have taken the opportunity to strategize with activists and heads of organizations on how to counter Azerbaijan’s candidacy. Ironically, one of the topics on the conference agenda was “mechanisms for the development of Armenia-Diaspora partnership.” Such discussions are only useful if they are followed up by concrete actions.

Fortunately, a mechanism for global Armenian coordination is in the works for the 100^th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. For this purpose, a preliminary meeting was held in Yerevan several months ago. Turkey has already announced its UN Security Council candidacy for 2015, at a time when Armenians will be commemorating the centennial of the Genocide. The question is: Will Armenians be better prepared to counter Turkey’s candidacy in four years than they were Azerbaijan’s this year?

November 5, 2011