Category: Authors

 

 

 

 

As the Centennial approaches, Turkish officials and their cohorts are searching for more subtle approaches to deny the Armenian Genocide. Realizing that their past practice of outright denial is no longer credible, they have initiated a more sophisticated campaign that intends to raise subtle questions about the Armenian Genocide, sowing seeds of doubt among uninformed masses.

 

It is not very often that I refer to book reviews in this column, but I could not ignore the masterful way Dr. Israel Charny, Executive Director of the Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide in Jerusalem, dismantles Prof. Michael Gunter’s book, Armenian History and the Question of Genocide, which illustrates the latest revisionist approach at genocide denial.

 

Here are brief excerpts from Dr. Charny’s derisive review of Gunter’s book:

 

“This is the BEST book I have ever read — which means it is the best of the whole terrible world of books that are devoted to ridiculous and ugly denials of absolutely factual known genocides. It is, therefore, a TERRIBLE work…. This is the best DENIALIST work I have ever seen insofar as it is written with a quietness, and solidity of coverage of issues, and even more as if with an apparent fairness of representing ranges of ideas and opinions about issues rather than strong-arm statements of single opinion-truths.

 

“Gunter, a professor at Tennessee Tech, opens the book with a clear acknowledgment-disclosure of his significant period of lecturing in Turkey, and even as he says ‘I have long wanted to present an objective analysis of the Turkish point of view,’ he clearly conveys that he is very much on the side of Turkish denial of the Armenian Genocide….

 

“Gunter is nonetheless a kind denier who continuously throws us bones for our respite — and thereby of course it would seem proves and reproves his announced objectivity. Thus in the same poisonous ‘Foreword’ he quickly adds to his core statement of denial crocodile tears: ‘Of course in no way does this excuse the horrible excesses committed by the Turks.’

 

“Perhaps the highest praise I can give Gunter is that unlike other great deniers he cites a large number of scholars and writers, who have published the now wonderfully strong literature confirming the Armenian Genocide — and I would add genocides of other peoples alongside the Armenians, specifically the Assyrians, Greeks, and Yezidis, and also the beginning moves of the Ottoman government toward a potential genocide of the Jews in Palestine. Deniers generally stay away like the plague from writers who confirm the Armenian Genocide….

 

“How does our intrepid ‘objective’ scholar conclude his book? Of course, he wants to be helpful in curbing the denial that fuels ‘continuing fear and revenge.’ So he offers strategies beginning with splitting the ‘more affluent Armenian Diaspora’ that is so concerned with ‘allegations of genocide’ from ‘the nation in Armenia’ and the ‘immediate economic reality of Armenia.’ Yes, he wants to be large-hearted and he calls on Turkey to help Armenia with its economic problems, and thus in eternal realpolitik ‘Turkey may begin to split the two Armenian actors.’ But all is not lost in deception. Goodhearted Gunter also includes a proposal to Turkey to open the borders it has lockjammed with Armenia for so many years.”

 

Charny concludes his incisive review by suggesting that Gunter’s book “should be studied by all students of denial for its artful stratagems of sounding fair, acting fairly, citing scholarship that covers divergent and contradictory points of view, speaking consistently softly, and of course calling for justice and peace, all in the course of organizing a disarming, deceitful, anti-history and anti-value-of-life work that should frighten anybody who is concerned with integrity in intellectual and scholarly works, and genuine valuing of human life.”

 

Taking one last jab at Gunter’s insidious denialism, Charny gives him a parting underhanded praise: “Once upon a time, deniers were so wild and obvious buffoons that they claimed that the Ottoman Turkish government protected and took care of the poor Armenian exiles in their forced march out of Armenia…. Now increasingly we have a whole series of recognized academicians who write in our contemporary language of scholarship and make their points in the name of open discussion and fairness. Gunter can be congratulated that he has risen to the top of this group….”

 

 

 

 

Lawyers on behalf of Armenian plaintiffs responded last week to the U.S. Government’s brief which had urged the Supreme Court not to review a Federal Appeals Court decision striking down a California law extending the statute of limitations on Armenian Genocide-era insurance claims.

 

The Solicitor General, on behalf of the U.S. government, had filed a politically-motivated and flawed brief that completely misrepresented the insurance case and raised unwarranted questions about the legality of the California law.

 

In his brief on the plaintiffs’ behalf, Igor Timofeyev, argues that the California statute (Section 354.4) does not violate any established federal policy and should therefore not be preempted. He asserts that California has the right to regulate the obligations of insurance companies, a traditional sphere of state competence and jurisdiction.

 

The plaintiffs’ lawyer accuses the US government of advancing “an unprecedented theory of federal affairs preemption: All claims arising out of international incidents are committed exclusively to the federal competence, even when these claims involve private actors and private contracts, and the federal government has taken no action to resolve them.”

 

Timofeyev qualifies the U.S. government’s position as “revolutionary” and “antithetical to the respect due to the states as separate sovereigns.” He then summarizes his counter-arguments in six points:

 

1) “To justify the Ninth Circuit’s aberrant decision, the Government articulates a foreign affairs field preemption theory of unprecedented breadth.” Timofeyev asserts: “Petitioners’ claims are against a private [German insurance] company, not against a foreign sovereign. Nor are these claims integral to ‘a major foreign policy dispute’ between the U.S. and a foreign nation.” The State of California, being “home to the overwhelming majority of Armenian-Americans,” has “a legitimate interest in securing compensation for its injured residents, irrespective of whether the underlying injury occurred in-state or abroad.”

 

2) “The court of appeals committed a fundamental error: It adjudged illegitimate a state’s well-established interests in regulating insurance, setting the statute of limitations for state-law claims, and ensuring compensation for its injured residents simply because the events giving rise to these claims occurred overseas. That is not the law.”

 

3) Countering the Government’s contention that Section 354.4 is based on “a distinct political point of view on a specific matter of foreign policy…

one that decries the actions of the Ottoman Empire,” Timofeyev reminds the court that Pres. Obama himself acknowledges that the Ottoman mass murders were “one of the worst atrocities of the 20^th century.” Furthermore, the President commended states for commemorating “the massacre [of Armenians] in the final days of the Ottoman Empire.” Timofeyev also asserts that “the President’s repeated praise for states’ commemorative efforts is fundamentally inconsistent with the Government’s claim that the foreign affairs doctrine automatically preempts any state action expressing a ‘point of view’ on this issue.”

 

4) “The Government tries to bootstrap its preemption argument by invoking the U.S. efforts to negotiate a resolution of World War I era claims…. The Government concedes that Section 354.4 ‘does not conflict’ with any of these diplomatic efforts. Indeed, the Government acknowledges that ‘the United States did not…attempt to negotiate the resolution of claims by Armenians who were injured by the Ottoman Empire during that period.’” In fact, one of the reasons why the US Senate refused to ratify the American Treaty of Lausanne was “the absence of provisions for the Armenian refugees and exiles from the Ottoman Empire.”

 

5) The Government seems alarmed that Section 354.4 “imposes the politically charged label of ‘genocide’” on Turkey, which “could provoke Turkey’s ire. But fear of ‘upsetting foreign powers…even when the Federal Government desperately wants to avoid upsetting foreign powers’ is not a legitimate reason to preempt traditional state activity…. The Government cannot explain why, if the term ‘Armenian Genocide’ employed by Section 354.4 would have an adverse effect on foreign affairs, the same would not hold equally for laws and resolutions adopted by about forty states that expressly recognize the Armenian Genocide by name. Nor does the Government explain why a statute ‘creating judicially enforceable rights’ is more offensive to Turkey than state laws including the Armenian Genocide as part of mandatory school curricula.”

 

6) “The Ninth Circuit’s aberrant decision is generating confusion among lower courts.”

 

Timofeyev rightly concludes his brief by urging the Supreme Court to “review and correct the Ninth Circuit’s decision before it causes greater mischief.”

 

 

 

The newly-introduced resolution makes it clear that Armenians, rather than being satisfied by merely regurgitating the well-known facts of the Genocide, demand a just resolution through full and comprehensive restitution.

 

 

 

The U.S. Supreme Court asked the Obama Administration last October if it should review a Federal Appeals Court decision that had struck down a California law (Section 354.4) extending the statute of limitations on Armenian Genocide-era life insurance claims.

 

The U.S. Solicitor General, the lawyer representing the United States government before the Supreme Court, filed a response last week. He urged the Supreme Court not to hear the appeal, and let stand the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the California law “impermissibly” intruded into the federal government’s foreign relations powers.

 

Given Pres. Obama’s disappointing record of kowtowing to Turkey, particularly on Armenian Genocide issues, it is not surprising that the Administration’s brief went far beyond the question whether the Supreme Court should hear the appeal.

 

The U.S. Solicitor General erroneously claimed that:

 

— Contrary to the assertion of Armenian litigants, “California was not acting within an area of its traditional competence,” i.e., insurance regulation.

 

— The California law “intrudes upon substantial foreign affairs powers” of the federal government and leads to judgments “based on politically contentious events that occurred in the Ottoman Empire nearly a century ago”;

 

— Beyond simply intruding, this law would “disturb foreign relations” with Turkey. Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush had opposed congressional resolutions on the Armenian Genocide, alleging that such measures would “undermine efforts to encourage improved relations between Armenia and Turkey”;

 

— Section 354.4 “would impermissibly intrude upon the federal foreign affairs power” in an area where the United States “acted in the post-World War I era to resolve certain claims by American citizens” through the Ankara Agreement (Oct. 25, 1934), American Treaty of Lausanne (August 6, 1923), and Treaty of Berlin and Claims Agreement (Aug. 10, 1922).

 

Several rebuttals are in order to the Solicitor’s General’s misguided and politically-motivated arguments:

 

— The California law does not intrude on the federal government’s foreign affairs powers as it simply attempts to regulate the obligations of insurance companies, an area of state competence and jurisdiction. This law provides an opportunity to right a historic wrong by forcing insurance companies to make long overdue payments to heirs of their deceased clients;

 

— German insurance companies are the defendants in this case, not Turkey, even though the latter filed a brief opposing the lawsuit. Remarkably, the Solicitor General’s brief mirrors some of the arguments advanced by Turkey.

 

— The Solicitor General selectively cites the opposition of Clinton and Bush administrations to congressional resolutions on the Armenian Genocide, ignoring the long-standing U.S. record on genocide recognition, including resolutions adopted by the House of Representatives in 1975 and 1984, Pres. Reagan’s Presidential Proclamation of 1981, and U.S. Government’s 1951 written statement to the International Court of Justice (World Court) acknowledging the Armenian Genocide.

 

— All three treaties/agreements cited by the Solicitor General are unrelated to the subject matter of this lawsuit. The Ankara Agreement and the American Treaty of Lausanne involve the Republic of Turkey, not German insurance companies. Also, the American Treaty of Lausanne lacks any legal standing as a non-ratified treaty. The Solicitor General undermines his own position by acknowledging that the California law “does not expressly conflict with the Ankara Agreement, the American Treaty of Lausanne, or the Treaty of Berlin and Claims Agreement,” which “addressed only the claims of those who were U.S. citizens at the time of World War I, not those who became U.S citizens after the war had concluded.”

 

The Solicitor General’s “legal opinion,” besides being flawed on all counts, is more of a political statement that deprives American citizens of their right to insurance claims.

 

One would hope that the Supreme Court will ignore the Solicitor General’s brief, and agree to hear the case, even though the chances are slim, because the Court accepts only a small percentage of cases submitted to it.

 

The Solicitor General’s overreaching arguments, if unchallenged, would have a chilling effect on all future genocide restitution efforts, particularly on the eve of the Armenian Genocide Centennial!

 

Armenian-American community leaders should take all possible measures to counter the Solicitor General’s politically-motivated arguments, by cutting all ties with the Obama Administration, organizing protests at presidential appearances, seeking congressional intervention to establish a federal commission for genocide restitution similar to that of the Holocaust, and amending Section 354.4 of the California law to circumvent the presented objections, no matter how flimsy. Moreover, the Armenian government should immediately withdraw its signature from the Armenia-Turkey Protocols which are repeatedly cited by the White House and U.S. courts as a pretext for opposing Armenian Genocide-related efforts, under the guise of wanting not to undermine Armenia-Turkey relations, which are non-existent!

 

It is now crystal clear that Pres. Obama’s deceptive use of ‘Meds Yeghern’ in his annual commemorative statements does not amount to an acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide, contrary to the gleeful pronouncements of some gullible souls.

 

Finally, the Armenian-American community should reconsider its strategy of seeking genocide acknowledgment through congressional resolutions which are not only unnecessary, but counter-productive, as these unsuccessful attempts undermine previously adopted resolutions and cast doubt on the long-established U.S. record of Armenian Genocide recognition.

 

 

 

 

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.