Turkish Forum

Category: Authors

  • A Glimmer of Hope, Amid the Discord On the Armenian Genocide Museum

    A Glimmer of Hope, Amid the Discord On the Armenian Genocide Museum

    sassounian31

    In a recent column titled, “There is a Time to Sue and a Time to Settle,” I urged the Armenian-American community to come together and launch the long-awaited Armenian Genocide Museum and Memorial in Washington, located two blocks from the White House.

    I made that suggestion after a federal judge ruled that the Cafesjian Family Foundation is the rightful owner of the Museum buildings. Many Armenian-Americans were hopeful that the court’s verdict would put an end to several years of legal wrangling that delayed the development of the Genocide Museum and cost millions of dollars in attorney fees.

    Although many in the Armenian community welcomed my call for a united effort to make the Museum a reality on the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, Armenian Assembly’s leadership disagreed, and proceeded to appeal the court’s verdict. Of course, the Assembly has the right to appeal, but doing so may not be the right course of action. Continuing the litigation would further delay the creation of an Armenian Genocide Museum in the nation’s capital, and undermine not only the interests of the Armenian-American community, but also the interests of the Assembly itself!

    Members and supporters of the Assembly must be concerned about the insistence of some of their leaders to prolong this legal dispute. It would have been far more preferable to devote their limited resources to expand the organization’s social and political activities that have been considerably curtailed in recent years because of the economic downturn and the departure of key staff members from its offices in Washington, Los Angeles, and Yerevan. The organization’s finances were also impacted due to the loss of several Assembly donors after some of its leaders got involved in the highly controversial Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission (TARC). The Assembly acknowledged that shortage of funds was the reason for its decision to withdraw from the United Armenian Fund, a coalition of seven largest Armenian-American philanthropic and religious organizations that has provided over $600 million of humanitarian aid to Armenia and Artsakh since the 1988 earthquake.

    Under these circumstances, it may be counterproductive for the Assembly’s leaders to spend millions of more dollars to appeal the verdict, particularly since the Judge ruled that in addition to paying their own legal expenses, they have to reimburse Mr. Gerard Cafesjian for a portion of his attorney fees, which could be a substantial sum! Those funds could be better utilized to re-energize the Assembly’s lobbying work in Washington or to fund other worthy projects, such as the Genocide Museum.

    The Assembly leaders also do not need to waste their efforts by re-trying their legal case in the media. The California Courier received last week a letter to the editor signed by a gracious and generous couple who are major supporters of the Armenian Assembly. They were expressing disagreement with my column titled, “There is a Time to Sue and a Time to Settle.” Interestingly, parts of this letter bore some similarity to a press release issued by the Assembly a week earlier. In fact, the text reads more like a court brief drafted by an attorney than a letter expressing a reader’s opinion. The letter was sent to 10 Armenian newspapers and websites in the U.S. and Canada, asking them to publish it as a response to my column which did not appear in some of these news outlets.

    I sincerely hope that the Assembly leaders are not engaged in wasteful efforts to conduct letter-writing campaigns in a vain attempt to win a war of words with the media, because there is no point in re-trying a lawsuit in the pages of a newspaper! That issue has already been settled in a court of law by an independent federal judge.

    Nevertheless, a hopeful sign emerged last week, buried deep amid the disputes and recriminations. In an “Open Letter,” Mr. Hirair Hovnanian, Chairman of the Armenian Assembly, suggested that he “may be able to convince all interested parties to agree not to file an appeal,” if Mr. Cafesjian would guarantee the development of the Genocide Museum.

    Since Mr. Cafesjian has already made such a commitment in court, the time has come to bury the hatchet, end all lawsuits and appeals, and go on with the important task of forming a pan-Armenian entity that would establish an Armenian Genocide Museum in Washington by April 24, 2015, the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide.

  • California to Extend until 2016 Deadline to Sue Insurance Companies

    California to Extend until 2016 Deadline to Sue Insurance Companies

     

     

    sassounian3 

    By Harut Sassounian

     

    Eleven years ago, the California Legislature extended until the end of 2010, the deadline for filing lawsuits against insurance companies that had failed to pay benefits to heirs of Armenian Genocide victims.

     

    Until the year 2000, these heirs could not sue insurance companies, as the deadline for filing such lawsuits had expired long ago. Under California law, the time limit for such lawsuits is 4 years.

     

    During the past decade, after the statute of limitation was extended, Armenian-Americans successfully filed lawsuits in U.S. Federal Courts against New York Life insurance company and French AXA insurance company.

     

    Additional lawsuits against German insurance companies and banks are still pending. With the support of the Turkish government which is not a party to these lawsuits, these German firms have unsuccessfully challenged in court the legislature’s action by claiming that the reference to the Armenian Genocide in the California bill is an encroachment on the foreign policy prerogative of the federal government.

     

    After the expiration of the December 31, 2010 deadline, the Armenian-American community asked the California Legislature to extend the statute of limitation once again, since several new insurance companies have been identified that had not paid the benefits owed to their genocide-era clients.

     

    To avoid further court challenges by the Turkish government and insurance companies, some have argued that there may not be a need to include a reference to the Armenian Genocide in the new California bill, as the companies were contractually obligated to pay the beneficiaries regardless of the cause of death. The legislators decided, however, not to give in to Turkish pressures and retain the reference to the Armenian Genocide, particularly since the justification for extending the filing deadline for genocide victims was that they lacked the necessary documents — death certificates and insurance policies — to file their claims in a timely manner.

     

    It is noteworthy that the State of California defines the Armenian Genocide in the insurance bill as follows: “The Legislature recognizes that during the period from 1915 to 1923, many persons of Armenian ancestry residing in the historic Armenian homeland then situated in the Ottoman Empire were victims of massacre, torture, starvation, death marches, and exile. This period is known as the Armenian Genocide.”

     

    The California State Assembly adopted the new bill (AB 173) on April 14, 2011, extending to December 31, 2016 the deadline for lawsuits against insurance companies by heirs of Armenian Genocide victims. Despite objections by the self-proclaimed “Turkish Peace and Justice Commission of California,” the bill was approved 10-0 by the Judiciary Committee of the California Assembly, and 61-0 by the full State Assembly. AB 173, formally supported by the Consumer Attorneys of California and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, was introduced by Assemblyman Mike Gatto on January 20, 2011. Assemblyman Katcho Achadjian was its principal co-author.

     

    The Assembly’s Legislative Counsel provided the following digest of the bill: “Existing law authorizes any Armenian Genocide victim, as defined, or the heir or beneficiary of that victim, who resides in this state and has a claim arising out of an insurance policy or policies purchased or in effect in Europe or Asia between 1875 and 1923 from a defined insurer, to bring a legal action to recover on that claim in a court in this state. Existing law also provides that any action, including any pending action brought by an Armenian Genocide victim, or the heir or beneficiary of that victim, whether a resident or nonresident of this state, seeking benefits under the insurance policies issued or in effect between 1875 and 1923, shall not be dismissed for failure to comply with the applicable statute of limitation, provided the action is filed on or before December 31, 2010. This bill would extend the deadline for filing that action to December 31, 2016. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.”

     

    After the State Assembly’s approval in April, the bill was referred to the California Senate Judiciary Committee on May 12, 2011. It will then be sent to the full Senate, and submitted to Governor Brown for his signature. This bill would amend Section 354.4 of the California Code of Civil Procedure that was initially signed into law on September 18, 2000. The new bill would extend the deadline to file lawsuits by heirs of Armenian Genocide victims against insurance companies from 2010 to end of 2016 — a year beyond the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, allowing many more lawsuits to be filed against delinquent insurance companies.

     

     

  • Council of Europe not Deceived By Erdogan’s Double-Talk

    Council of Europe not Deceived By Erdogan’s Double-Talk


    sassounian33
    Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan made an embarrassing appearance before the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) last month.
    Erdogan was invited to the podium after lavish praise by Mevlut Cavusoglu, who was acting more like a Turkish lobbyist than President of PACE. Cavusoglu is a founding member of the ruling AKP party and member of the Turkish Parliament.
    In his lengthy speech, the Prime Minister shamelessly lectured European Parliamentarians about democracy and freedom. Given his country’s dismal human rights record, Erdogan should have not raised such issues! Claiming that Turkey’s accession was “vital to the European Union,” he described as “foolish” those who opposed Turkey’s EU membership “for populist or artificial reasons.”
    Making a series of dubious and inflated claims about his government’s accomplishments, Erdogan asserted that: “Turkey has achieved historic reforms, especially in the area of democratization…. The government has also worked to lift restrictions on freedom. Freedoms have been strengthened in the last decade, and many issues are now discussed freely that could not have been discussed a decade ago. There is zero tolerance of torture, and barriers to freedom of expression have been removed. Some have alleged that there are restrictions on freedom of expression, but this is wrong…. The press is free, and freely criticizes anyone and everyone…. In Turkey, 26 journalists have been detained or arrested, because they are criminals, not because they are journalists.” These incredible words are uttered by a Prime Minister who does not hesitate to sue newspapers simply for publishing a cartoon likeness of him!
    When Erdogan finished his speech, Cavusoglu shielded him from further embarrassment by allowing only a handful of Parliamentarians to ask 30-second questions.
    Erdogan was displeased when Swiss Parliamentarian Andreas Gross reminded him about “the dark side of Turkish history,” asking him why Nobel Laureate Orhan Pamuk was being persecuted for exercising his right to free speech.
    In response to Parliamentarian Anne Brasseur’s (Luxembourg) question about censorship in Turkey, Erdogan claimed that the Turkish “judiciary is independent and is entitled to conduct its investigations as it saw fit.”
    Armen Rustamyan, Chairman of the Armenian Parliament’s Foreign Relations Committee, asked Erdogan what was the point of signing the Armenia-Turkey Protocols, if Turkey is not going to open its border with Armenia until the Karabagh (Artsakh) conflict is resolved?
    The Prime Minister responded that Turkey could not let Armenia “usurp the rights of Azerbaijan” and would indeed keep the border closed until the Karabagh issue is resolved. Erdogan then made a series of outlandish statements. He inadvertently reminded his European audience of the Turkish deportations of Armenians during the 1915 genocide by stating that even though Turkey could, it would not deport the 40,000 undocumented Armenian workers! He also complained that Armenia is not sufficiently pressuring its Diaspora. The Prime Minister seems to have forgotten that millions of Turks living illegally in Europe could also be deported! Erdogan carefully avoided responding to Rustamyan’s question about his personal order to dismantle the “Armenian-Turkish Friendship Statue” in Kars!
    The most embarrassing part of the PACE meeting was Erdogan’s rude answer to French Parliamentarian Muriel Marland-Militello who asked about the protection of religious minorities in Turkey. Erdogan insulted the lady by point out that in the Turkish language an ignorant person is described as someone from France, which she clearly happens to be! He invited her to Turkey, so she could learn about his country. To Erdogan’s chagrin, Marland-Militello turned out to know much more about Turkey’s minorities than the Prime Minister himself. As she disclosed during a subsequent press conference, Marland-Militello is a descendant of an Armenian family that had escaped from Turkey during the genocide! Erdogan also falsely claimed that the Armenian Holy Cross Church on Akhtamar Island is “now open for worship.” The fact is that the Turkish government converted the church into a state museum, allowing Divine Liturgy to be performed there only once.
    Another member of PACE, Naira Zohrabyan, having been blocked by Cavusoglu from asking a question, chased Erdogan down the corridor after the session and pushed her way past his bodyguards to hand him a photo album of murdered Armenian children during the genocide.

    While the Prime Minister may easily impress his devout followers at home, he completely embarrassed himself during his appearance at PACE in Strasbourg. In view of his blatantly deceptive statements, one would hope that Erdogan would appear more frequently in front of European audiences so he could help convince them that Turkey does not belong in Europe!
  • Turkey Meets Over Half Its Defense Requirements Domestically

    Turkey Meets Over Half Its Defense Requirements Domestically

    Turkey Meets Over Half Its Defense Requirements Domestically

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 8 Issue: 100

    May 24, 2011

    By: Saban Kardas

    The 10th International Defense Industry Fair (IDEF), held in Istanbul on May 10 – 13, was an important venue to demonstrate the transformation of the Turkish defense industry in recent years. Organized biannually since the 1990s, the event featured over 600 companies or company representatives from 49 countries, including Turkey, while delegations from over 70 countries visited (www.idef11.com). Delivering an address at the inauguration, President Abdullah Gul reiterated the importance Turkey attaches to the defense industry. He referred to Turkey’s efforts to increase local input in defense procurement through greater utilization of various joint production programs and boosting domestically designed production (Star, May 11).

    Despite some international representation, the fair largely served to exhibit products of Turkish producers, as well as to publicize the achievements of Turkey’s flagship defense projects in recent years. Leading defense companies such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing and EADS were also present, but Western defense observers reportedly maintained that “in nature, the fair remains mostly a Turkish, regional and Middle Eastern event.” In a development reflecting the regional nature of the event, the largest deal struck at IDEF 2011 was reportedly an agreement for Turkey’s export defense equipment to Qatar, including small unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), worth $120 million (Hurriyet Daily News, May 13).

    Armored vehicles, Turkey’s major export items, which find buyers in the Middle East and South Asia, were on display at the event. Moreover, a great deal of publicity was devoted to Turkey’s main battle tank project, which was developed in partnership with South Korea’s Hyundai Rotem, supplying the technological know-how (EDM, August 7, 2008). Turkish military vehicle producer, Otokar, introduced the first prototype of the tank at the fair, named Altay. Otokar expects the tanks to be ready for sale by 2016.

    Similarly, the results of Turkey’s national warship projects were also publicized at the fair. A Turkish corvette designed and produced in Turkey’s shipbuilding yards was on display. In recent years, Turkey has placed greater emphasis on developing its national capacity to build warships of different classes to meet the Navy’s needs. Murad Bayar, the head of the Under Secretariat for the Defense Industry (SSM), the organization in charge of procurement programs, argued recently that Turkey is capable of producing aircraft carriers domestically (Star, May 8).

    Another high publicity weapons system on display was various UAV projects. The Turkish armed forces use several small-sized UAVs produced in Turkey and SSM has recently signed a contract with another defense manufacturing firm to produce tactical UAVs (Anadolu Ajansi, January 4). Turkey has also been working to develop a national medium-altitude long-endurance (MALE) UAV system to reduce its dependence on the United States and Israel for strategic intelligence gathering. ASELSAN, contractor for Turkey’s MALE UAV project, announced recently that its UAV, named ANKA, successfully passed test flights and could become operational in one year’s time. Defense industry analysts expect the UAV market to record rapid growth in the coming years. They argue that with its recent investments in the UAV sector, Turkey is poised to emerge as a leading supplier in its region (Haberturk, May 9).

    Turkey is also working on a national attack helicopter project, ATAK, in partnership with Italy. Meanwhile, to meet the Turkish army’s needs for general attack helicopters, Turkey has been evaluating various offers for some time (EDM, July 7, 2009). Turkey finally made a decision on a long-awaited tender and awarded the deal to U.S. Sikorsky. Turkish Defense Minister, Vecdi Gonul, described the $3.5 billion deal as a milestone, as it would involve joint helicopter production (Anadolu Ajansi, April 21).

    Although foreign participation remained limited, the expanding product line on display at IDEF underscored the transformation of the Turkish defense industry and its expanding potential to meet the needs of the armed forces. In that regard, the recent figures released by the Defense Industry Manufacturers’ Association also represented a bright picture for the sector (Anadolu Ajansi, April 26). In 2010, 52 percent of Turkish armed forces weapons systems needs were supplied by domestic producers. This development was seen as a success story, as the SSM had set the target of meeting 50 percent of the TAF’s needs domestically. In 2003, the ratio of domestic production in the military procurement total was only 25 percent.

    At the same time, the total volume of Turkish arms exports reached $634.2 million in 2010, five percent less than the previous year, reflecting the impact of the global financial crisis. Nonetheless, considering that in 2004 Turkey’s exports were only $196 million, there is a visible improvement in its overall export potential. Representatives of the sector aim to reach an annual export volume of $1 billion this year and $2 billion by 2016. According to other statistics, total revenues for Turkish defense firms reached $2.7 billion in 2010, again a significant leap from $848 million ten years earlier. Reflecting this growing economic potential, Turkey invested over $500 million in research and development activities in 2010.

    Determined to maintain this momentum, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan argued during a recent meeting with businessmen that the Turkish defense industry’s annual revenues will exceed $8 billion in five years (Hurriyet, May 19). Indeed, it has been part of Erdogan’s goals to achieve self-sufficiency in military procurement since his party came to power in 2002. In 2004, Turkey overhauled its military modernization programs and rules on military procurement, seeking to increase the domestically manufactured share. The recent advances in that direction have pleased Erdogan, as he constantly refers to the transformation of the Turkish defense industry in his state of the union addresses (Anadolu Ajansi, October 30, 2010).

    While Turkey was largely dependent on defense sector imports during the 1990s, the military modernization programs during that decade were focused on joint production with foreign manufacturers to supply the Turkish army. These facilitated the emergence of a domestic arms industry. In the last decade, the Turkish defense industry has increasingly shifted in the direction of national design and production, based on the accumulated experience and technology transfers achieved through international partnerships. This growth, which is geared toward meeting the Turkish army’s needs, has been achieved largely thanks to support and protection provided by the Turkish government. Yet, the Turkish defense industry seems to be moving to a new phase of mass production for international markets, where it is likely to face fiercer competition.

    https://jamestown.org/program/turkey-meets-over-half-its-defense-requirements-domestically/

  • Turkey Refuses to Stop Second Mavi Marmara

    Turkey Refuses to Stop Second Mavi Marmara

    Turkey Refuses to Stop Second Mavi Marmara

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 8 Issue: 97

    May 19, 2011

    By: Saban Kardas

    The Turkish-Israeli relationship has been in a limbo since the deadly Mavi Marmara incident in late May 2010, and various efforts to bridge the differences have failed (EDM, July 7, December 10, 2010). The approaching anniversary of the flotilla incident has reignited the debate on the future of Turkish-Israeli relations. Representatives of international advocacy groups, including the Turkey-based Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief (IHH), are planning to hold the Freedom Flotilla II to shed light on Israel’s blockade over Gaza. Around fifteen ships from various nations are expected to take part in the flotilla, to which over 10,000 volunteered to join. As the Middle East experiences troubled times, however, concerns have grown that this development might escalate the tensions. In a recent meeting, the flotilla organizers reiterated their determination to go ahead with their plans, though they indicated that they might postpone it until late June in order to avoid the intermingling of this campaign with the upcoming Turkish elections, slated for June 12 (Cihan, April 11).

    There has been rising concern in the United States over how the “second Mavi Marmara crisis” might unfold. Thirty six members of Congress sent a letter to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan requesting that he prevent the second convoy and dampen the tensions. The members of the House, including both Turkey sympathizers and critics, expressed their deep concern over the developments and called on Erdogan to develop positive relationship with Israel. They also underlined Israel’s right to defend itself and argued that Israel would be forced to board the ships and search for weapons if a second flotilla sails to Gaza, raising the risk of another crisis (Sabah, May 13).

    In an interesting development amidst these reports, Turkish media speculated that the Israeli Ambassador to Turkey, Gaby Levy, paid a visit to the Turkish foreign ministry to relay Israel’s concerns and prevent a second Mavi Marmara crisis. Reportedly, he told Turkish diplomats that “the new flotilla is also [organized] for provocative purposes. If a similar situation emerges again, there will not be violent actions as in the Mavi Marmara. But, be assured, all that is necessary will be undertaken [by Israel].” Those words were interpreted in the Turkish media as akin to veiled threats (Haberturk, May 14).

    Turkish diplomatic sources reportedly maintained the position that Turkey officially cannot stop the convoy. Although Ankara could advise the organizers to cancel their plans, it would not be able to tell a civilian initiative not to go to Gaza. Moreover, according to some sources, intervening now might undermine Turkey’s position, as it would raise the question as to why Turkey had not stopped the first flotilla (www.cnnturk.com, May 16).

    The low attendance to the reception at the Israeli embassy in Ankara commemorating the foundation of the State of Israel was yet another occasion highlighting the ongoing tensions. While no member of the cabinet was present at the reception on May 16, foreign ministry officials and the Turkish military were represented at lower levels. Similarly, opposition parties did not have significant representation at the reception. The low interest in the event was interpreted in the media as the Turkish government’s boycott of Israel (Sabah, May 17).

    Meanwhile, there has been speculation that Turkey was threatening to withdraw from a UN panel investigating Israel’s attack on Mavi Marmara. The Palmer Commission, set up by the UN Human Rights Council in June 2010, was expected to present its report to UN Secretary-General Ban-ki Moon by mid May. Turkey’s objections to certain sections of the draft report, however, and the draft’s failure to name Israel’s actions in international waters as a violation of international law reportedly angered Turkey. While the announcement of the panel’s conclusions has been delayed, the Turkish media even maintained that Turkey threatened to withdraw from the panel if the final report appears to be favoring an Israeli point of view (www.cnnturk.com, May 16).

    In a live TV appearance evaluating Turkish foreign policy, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu also commented on these various issues on the bilateral agenda. Davutoglu presented a different interpretation to the picture that has emerged in the Turkish media (Hurriyet Daily News, Anadolu Ajansi, May 17). Regarding the press reports that Levy issued a warning to Turkish foreign ministry to stop the organization of the second flotilla, Davutoglu contended that it was out of the question. On the contrary, Davutoglu maintained that Turkey summoned Levy in order to send serious warnings to Israel and convey Ankara’s expectation so that last year’s bitter experience would not be repeated. Davutoglu also criticized those who call on the Turkish government to stop the second flotilla, arguing that telling a civil society organization what to do would be an undemocratic approach.

    Davutoglu acknowledged Turkish dissatisfaction with the content of the draft report prepared by the UN fact finding mission, but rebuffed claims that Turkey would withdraw from the panel. Nonetheless, he added that Ankara’s response will be strong, if the final report contains elements that contradict the initial report last year, which was more favorable to the Turkish position. Last year’s report appeared to describe Israel’s actions in Gaza and the raid against Mavi Marmara as incompatible with international law. Regarding the delays in the presentation of the report’s findings, Davutoglu also put the responsibility on Israel, arguing that Israel delayed submitting its report to the UN panel.

    Davutoglu also sought to make the case that the task of the UN mission is not to reconcile Turkey and Israel, but “to serve justice.” “Why were nine civilians killed? Who dares to kill civilians in international waters? We want this to be described. We do not want a mediator with Israel,” Davutoglu added.

    Although Egypt now allows for the flow of humanitarian aid to Gaza following the fall of Mubarak, the organizers of the Freedom Flotilla remain determined to press ahead with their plans for a second convoy, largely to publicize their position worldwide. Also, Davutoglu’s comments indicate that Turkey remains determined to seek retribution for Israel’s deadly raid. Moreover, Turkey wants Israel’s acknowledgement of its responsibility and the issuing of an official apology. It may be too early to expect an improvement in the Turkish-Israeli relationship any time soon.

    https://jamestown.org/program/turkey-refuses-to-stop-second-mavi-marmara/

     

  • There is a Time to Sue And a Time to Settle

    There is a Time to Sue And a Time to Settle



    By Harut Sassounian

    sassounian32

    It is unfortunate that the noble and sacred concept of establishing an Armenian Genocide Museum and Memorial (AGM&M) in Washington D.C., had to end up in court.

    But contrary to popular belief, the issue was not simply a feud between two wealthy individuals — Gerard Cafesjian and Hirair Hovnanian — or a mere disagreement over the size and scope of the project. The actual dispute resulted from an attempt by Armenian Assembly leaders to take control of the multi-million dollar museum buildings donated by the Cafesjian Family Foundation (CFF) and exclude Cafesjian from any decision-making powers as a Board member of the AGM&M charitable organization.

    After a lengthy litigation, Federal Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ruled on January 26, 2011, that the museum buildings had to be returned to CFF. She upheld the validity of the “reversionary clause” included in the grant agreement signed by the Armenian Assembly of America on Nov. 1, 2003, which stipulated that the properties donated by CFF to the Assembly for the purpose of establishing an Armenian Genocide Museum and Memorial would be returned to CFF, if the Assembly failed to develop the museum by Dec. 1, 2010. That obligation was subsequently conveyed to the AGM&M organization.

    In response to a new filing by the Assembly objecting to the January 26, 2011 verdict, Judge Kollar-Kotelly made a final ruling on May 9, 2011 ordering the Assembly to transfer ownership of the museum property to CFF no later than May 23, 2011. She rejected the Assembly’s demand for a new trial. She also asked a magistrate judge to recommend to her the exact amount of Cafesjian’s legal fees to be reimbursed by AGM&M.

    While CFF must be satisfied with the verdict, the Assembly is probably considering its legal options. However, given the Judge’s two recent verdicts in favor of CFF, filing more lawsuits or appeals is neither in the Assembly’s interest nor that of the Armenian-American community. The time has come to put a stop to the legal wrangling and start concentrating on the important task of building a genocide museum.

    CFF’s chairman, Gerard Cafesjian, made the right decision when he announced that “the court’s concluding verdict frees us all to build this long-awaited museum and memorial about the fact and ongoing consequences of the Armenian Genocide.”

    CFF’s Board member Ross Vartian pledged that CFF would relaunch the museum project “with the participation of ALL interested organizations and individuals.” During a subsequent Voice of America interview, Vartian made it clear that CFF welcomed the participation of the Armenian Assembly in such a community-wide effort.

    This is a very sensible approach. As the Bible states, “to everything there is a season. …A time to break down and a time to build up, …a time for war and a time for peace.” In this instance, one could appropriately add: There is a time to sue and a time to settle!

    Over a decade ago when the idea of an Armenian Genocide museum was first discussed at an Armenian Assembly board meeting, long before any internal disputes had surfaced, the organizers asked for my view on their initiative. I suggested that they invite major Armenian-American organizations to participate in a community-wide effort to oversee the fundraising and implementation of this pan-Armenian project. Regrettably, back then, my advice was unanimously rejected.

    CFF is moving in the right direction by inviting major Armenian-American organizations, including the Armenian Assembly, and prominent Armenian and non-Armenian individuals to come together to realize the laudable, yet long-delayed plan to establish an Armenian Genocide Museum and Memorial by April 24, 2015 — the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. In order to accomplish such a lofty goal in four years, everyone must put aside all other considerations and concentrate on the monumental task at hand. Internal Armenian squabbles only serve to provide Turks with further ammunition to ridicule Armenians and their sacred cause. Rather than wasting more time and money on further lawsuits and appeals, the funds and energies of the Armenian-American community should be channeled towards establishing this important edifice which is expected to cost well over $100 million.

    An Armenian Genocide museum located in the heart of the nation’s capital, just two blocks away from the White House, will be a lasting memorial to the 1.5 million innocent victims and a tribute to the indomitable spirit of the survivors.