Turkish Forum

Category: Authors

  • Sassounian’s column of Feb. 17, 2011

    Sassounian’s column of Feb. 17, 2011

    The Court has Spoken: Can Armenians
    Now Unite to Build a Genocide Museum?
    sassounian32
    By Harut Sassounian
    Publisher, The California Courier

    After an unfortunate court battle lasting nearly four years, a Federal Judge ruled last month on several suits and counter-suits filed by the Cafesjian Family Foundation (CFF) and the Armenian Assembly. The dispute revolved around plans to build an Armenian Genocide Museum & Memorial (AGM&M), two blocks from the White House.
    For the first time in a court verdict, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly began her 190-page ruling with the chilling words of Adolf Hitler: “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?” She went on to explain that Hitler was referring to “the largely successful efforts by the Ottoman Turkish government to eliminate the Armenian population living on its historical homeland during the World War I era, known today as the Armenian Genocide.” The Judge further added: “The Armenian Genocide is widely recognized as the first genocide of the 20th century. Of the estimated 2.1 million Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire on the eve of World War I, approximately 1.5 million were killed, and hundreds of thousands more were deported. During this period, the Armenian people were subjected to deportation, expropriation, forced conversion, abduction, torture, massacre, and starvation.”
    In the lawsuit, the Assembly and AGM&M claimed that Gerald Cafesjian and John Waters (Vice President of CFF) breached their fiduciary duties to AGM&M and the Assembly, that Cafesjian breached his duty of good faith and fair dealing to the Assembly, and that Cafesjian and Waters misappropriated the trade secrets of the Assembly. The Judge found all of these charges to be without merit.
    In response to accusations from CFF, the Court found that “neither the Assembly nor the AGM&M breached the Grant and Transfer Agreements or their corresponding implied duties of good faith and fair dealing.” The Court also ruled that the claim for “unjust enrichment is barred by the existence of written agreements.”
    Before reaching her verdict, Judge Kollar-Kotelly painstakingly reconstructed the convoluted and often antagonistic relationship between the parties, while they served together for many years on the boards of the Armenian Assembly, AGM&M and its planning committee. During their testimonies in court, several Assembly leaders could not recall basic details about meetings and events, further complicating the Judge’s task, who suspected that their “lack of memory appeared to be driven more by convenience than cognition.” The Judge surmised that “the convenient lack of memory” of Assembly leaders Hirair Hovnanian, Van Krikorian, and Peter Vosbikian “is an attempt (conscious or otherwise) to minimize their involvement in an agreement that turned out badly for the Assembly.” She further stated that some of the minutes of the museum committee meetings were either missing or, at least in one case, altered by an Assembly official.
    The Judge traced the origins of the dispute to year 2000, when the Assembly paid $7.25 million to purchase a bank building in Washington, as a possible site for an Armenian Genocide Museum. This amount was given to the Assembly in equal sums by Anoush Mathevosian and the Cafesjian Family Foundation. CFF also provided the Assembly with a $500,000 loan. Cafesjian subsequently paid an additional $12 million to acquire four more properties next door to the bank building and donated them to the Assembly to expand the space allotted to the museum. In making this contribution, Cafesjian included in the terms of the grant agreement, signed on Nov. 1, 2003, a “reversionary clause” stipulating that the grant funds or donated properties would be returned to CFF, if the Assembly failed to develop the museum by December 31, 2010.
    The museum was originally expected to open to the public on April 2002. As committee members began to argue over the scope of the project and other issues, the opening date kept getting delayed. Almost 10 years later, the museum is not expected to open anytime soon. While Hovnanian, Assembly’s Chairman of the Board, preferred a museum with a budget limited to $15 million, Cafesjian proposed a more ambitious project costing many times that amount. Cafesjian was also concerned that the controversial Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission (TARC), which was strongly supported by Hovnanian and Krikorian, would discourage potential donors to the museum.
    After several failed attempts to secure consensus between the “competing visions” of Cafesjian and Hovnanian, Cafesjian concluded that their differences were irreconcilable. He left the museum board and asked that the properties be returned to the CFF, as per the “reversionary agreement” signed earlier. Hovnanian angrily told Waters: “I will spend every last nickel that I have to destroy him [Cafesjian] and his foundation.” On September 13, 2006, Cafesjian resigned as Chairman and President of AGM&M.
    Both parties then filed separate lawsuits making a series of claims and counter-claims. The most significant outcome of the protracted litigation is Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s ruling that the reversion clause in the Grant Agreement is “valid and enforceable,” which means that CFF is entitled to a return of the properties earlier donated to the Armenian Assembly. Furthermore, the court ruled that CFF retains the right to appoint one of four trustees to the AGM&M Board.
    Additionally, the Judge found that, although the Assembly had breached its contractual obligation to CFF by failing to pay the March 2000 promissory note of $500,000, CFF could no longer receive this amount, as the statute of limitations had expired.
    She further ruled that the AGM&M has to pay the legal expenses that Cafesjian and Waters had incurred in defending themselves against the lawsuits filed by the Assembly or AGM&M; the Court would rule later this month on the amount of legal fees to be reimbursed — $3 million according to Cafesjian and Waters.
    At the end of her comprehensive opinion, Federal Judge Kollar-Kotelly urged the two sides “to work amicably to settle their remaining disputes.” She expressed her sincere wish that “after years of fighting legal battles, the parties can put aside their differences and accomplish the laudable goal of creating an Armenian Genocide museum and memorial.”
    It is clear that further legal proceedings would simply be a complete waste of time and money. If the two sides cannot come to a quick agreement on how to proceed, leaders of major Armenian-American organizations and other benefactors should step forward and indicate their willingness to come together and carry out the necessary planning and fundraising for such a vital project in the nation’s capital.
    The museum’s original concept, first developed 12 years ago, could benefit from the additional input of a cross-section of the Armenian-American community. Beyond including exhibits and artifacts documenting the facts of the Armenian Genocide, the museum could be a research center for scholars and international lawyers to pursue legitimate Armenian demands from Turkey through national and international courts. The museum could also highlight not only the survival, but the renaissance of the Armenian nation, and the many positive contributions Armenians have made to America and the world community.

  • Diaspora to be Represented in Armenia’s Senate: Many Questions, Few Answers

    Diaspora to be Represented in Armenia’s Senate: Many Questions, Few Answers

    sassounian31
    By Harut Sassounian

    Publisher, The California Courier

    The Republic of Armenia plans to amend its constitution in order to create a new legislative upper house — a Senate — that would include representatives from the Diaspora, according to a January 30 announcement in Los Angeles by Hranush Hakobyan, Armenia’s Diaspora Minister.

    This news spread like wildfire throughout the Armenian world, and the reaction was mixed. Pro-government circles welcomed the proposal with great enthusiasm, while opponents severely criticized it. In my view, both praise and criticism were premature, as the Minister’s announcement contained few details about the proposed Senate.

    Interestingly, despite Minister Hakobyan’s declaration about Pres. Sargsyan’s intent to establish a Senate, the President’s spokesman Armen Arzumanyan cautioned that this is one of many such proposals deserving of serious consideration. He went on to explain that amending the constitution is a complicated and long process. A week later, Parliament Chairman Hovik Abrahamyan further downplayed the Minister’s announcement stating that it will not be considered until after next year’s Parliamentary elections, given the legislative body’s crowded agenda.

    At this early stage, one can only ask questions, because of the Minister’s assertion that there would be extensive consultations in Armenia and the Diaspora before any decision is taken on the structure and responsibilities of the proposed Senate.

    Here are key questions that individuals, organizations, and government officials should consider, before deciding to amend Armenia’s constitution and establishing a Senate:

    — Would Armenia’s citizens feel comfortable about the presence of Diaspora Armenians in their legislature or view them as foreign citizens, albeit Armenians, meddling in their domestic affairs?

    — Should the Armenian government include hand-picked Diaspora representatives in the Senate, would this be viewed as an attempt by Armenia’s officials to exercise undue influence over the Diaspora?

    — Instead of establishing a Senate, why can’t Diaspora Armenians be included in the existing Parliament?

    — What would be the Senate’s legislative mandate, and how would it be different from that of the existing Parliament?

    — Since the majority of Armenians live outside of Armenia, would the proposed Senate consist of many more Diaspora representatives than those from Armenia?

    — How would Senators be chosen? Would they be elected by the public or appointed by the government or major organizations? If elected, what should be the qualifications of voters and candidates, who sets the criteria, and who organizes the elections?

    — In case the Senators are elected, what steps should be taken to ensure that there would be free and fair elections?

    — Can Diaspora Senators maintain their current citizenship, become dual citizens or be forced to give up their foreign citizenship?

    — Would Diaspora members be obliged to move to Armenia to participate in year-round sessions or would they come to Armenia for brief periods for meetings dealing only with pan-Armenian issues?

    — Are there any plans to undertake a comparative study of countries with Diaspora representatives in their legislatures?

    — In order to maintain Diaspora’s independence and Armenia’s sovereignty, would it not be better to create a separate Diaspora structure in line with the process I proposed during last November’s USC conference? Armenian communities worldwide would elect representatives to a transnational assembly which would then select delegates from its ranks to serve in Armenia’s legislature.

    — Was it mere coincidence that ARF leaders had publicly discussed the idea of creating a Senate that would include Diaspora representatives, long before Minister Hakobyan’s recent announcement? Interestingly, the ARF promptly announced its support for this initiative, while the Heritage Party opposed it, and the Armenian National Congress, led by ex-President Levon Ter Petrosyan, called the proposal an “absurdity!”

    The good news is that at long last the Armenian government has recognized the need to involve Diaspora Armenians in pan-Armenian decision-making processes and structures. However, before rushing to judgment, it would be wise to wait and see what exactly Armenia’s leaders have in mind in proposing Diasporan representation in a new Senate. The final decision should be solely based on whether this or any other arrangement is in the best interest of Armenians, both in Armenia and Diaspora.

  • Sassounian’s column of Feb. 3, 2011

    Sassounian’s column of Feb. 3, 2011

    Turks and Germans:
    Partners in Crime and Allies in Court
    sassounian3
    Last month, when German life insurance companies requested a rehearing from a Federal Court of Appeals, contesting its decision in favor of Armenian claimants, the Republic of Turkey filed an “amicus curiae” (friend of the court) petition in support of the German defendants.
    This was an intriguing development. The heirs of now deceased Armenian policyholders were suing German insurance companies; and Turkey — not a party to the lawsuit — was shamelessly siding with the delinquent firms. No one was demanding payment from the Turkish government! Why would Turkey, a foreign country, interfere in a U.S. lawsuit against German companies?
    The Turkish petition is a 15-page-long propaganda piece that denies the facts of the Armenian Genocide. It describes the United States and Turkey as working “shoulder-to-shoulder,” adding that 120,000 Turks reside in the United States, and that 700,000 Americans visit Turkey every year. The Turkish brief does not explain, however, how any of these assertions have any relevance to the failure of German insurance companies to compensate the heirs of Armenian policyholders.
    The Turkish petition attacks the California law extending the statute of limitations on Armenian claims against insurance companies by heirs of genocide victims. It alleges that the California statute “offends Turkey’s sovereignty by legislating Turkish history and by declaring Turkey and its predecessor state guilty of the crime of genocide.” The petition goes on to state: “Turkey resents having any U.S. legislature or other official formulate its own definition of genocide specifically to declare that Turkey or its predecessor state is guilty of this crime.” Ironically, the Turkish government never expressed any resentment or complaint when 42 U.S. states and many American cities were recognizing the Armenian Genocide in recent decades. Ankara justified its inaction by claiming that its counterpart is the federal government, not individual states or cities.
    The Turkish petition lamely claims that foreign states can not “monitor and react to the individual actions of fifty state legislatures and governors. Rather, Turkey’s interlocutor with the fifty United States is the U.S. federal government.” It then quotes from Turkish Ambassador Nabi Sensoy’s letter to the Court of Appeals on December 4, 2008, stating that “Turkey has not as such protested state proclamations on this historic controversy because it conducts it (sic) foreign affairs directly with the U.S. Federal Government, primarily the Executive Branch. We do not have similar relations with the states.”
    The petition falsely refers to the Genocide as “mutual suffering of Ottoman Armenians and Turks” and “wartime misery.” It flippantly dismisses Pres. Reagan’s 1981 Proclamation acknowledging the Armenian Genocide, and omits any reference to the two Congressional resolutions of 1975 and 1984 recognizing the Genocide. Instead, the Turkish government proudly proclaims that no new resolutions were adopted on this subject during the Obama administration!
    The Turkish government drops a bombshell by revealing in its petition that Prime Minister Erdogan had written to Pres. Obama on December 19, 2010, complaining about the Federal Appeals Court’s decision that “the position of the US administration is not against the recognition of ‘genocide’ at the state or federal level.” This is yet another blatant attempt by a foreign leader to intervene in U.S. court proceedings. Interestingly, the petition discloses only a portion of Erdogan’s letter to Obama, claiming that “the balance of this letter constitutes a confidential diplomatic communication.”
    The appeals court should either reject the Turkish petition as unwarranted interference by a foreign power in American judicial proceedings or demand the release of the full text of Erdogan’s letter to verify the accuracy of the quoted portion and to confirm if it includes any other reference to the lawsuit. The Turkish government cannot hide behind “diplomatic confidentiality,” as it has waived the claim of “privileged communication” by selectively disclosing portions of the letter.
    In their petition, Turkish officials make the misleading suggestion that the Armenia-Turkey Protocols, signed over a year ago, “will seek to overcome all hurdles in their present relations, and jointly consider the historic controversy.” The authors of the disingenuous Turkish petition cleverly conceal from federal judges the fact that they have not ratified the Protocols and have no intention to do so. Ankara is attempting to exploit the now defunct Protocols to quash a legitimate lawsuit against German insurance companies.
    The Turkish government has attached two letters to its petition, one signed by its Ambassador to the U.S., and the other by the Chairman of the Turkish Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee. The Federal Appeals Court should promptly disregard both letters, along with the petition, as propaganda materials lacking any legal merit or standing.

  • “It was a step to open the church”

    “It was a step to open the church”

    What media members think about Turkish-Armenian relations? Aram Abrahamyan, Chief of Aravot Daily in Armenia, shares his ideas about this issue. He points out the important points about this sensitive subject.

    (more…)

  • German Insurance Companies Should Stop Cheating their Armenian Clients

    German Insurance Companies Should Stop Cheating their Armenian Clients

    sassounian33

    By Harut Sassounian

    Publisher, The California Courier

    German firms filed a petition for a rehearing by the full 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, after a panel of three judges of that court had ruled that heirs of Armenian Genocide victims could seek payment from life insurance companies operating in the Ottoman Empire.

    Rather than spending a fortune on high-powered lawyers, German insurance companies should promptly settle this case and pay the compensation owed to heirs of perished Armenian policy-holders. Many Armenian residents of the Ottoman Empire trusted these European companies and dutifully paid their premiums so that someday, when they passed away, their families would receive the proceeds of their policies.

    This lawsuit has nothing whatsoever to do with genocide recognition or rights of states vis-a-vis the federal government. These German companies have violated their contractual agreements and failed to live up to their promises to Armenian policy holders. Their heirs are entitled to receive the payments owed to them, regardless of whether their ancestors were killed by genocidal maniacs or drunk drivers! The only relevant issue here is that upon their deaths, the heirs should have been promptly paid in keeping with the terms of the life insurance policies.

    Instead, these German companies have avoided meeting their financial obligations for almost a century, and shamefully use Turkish denialist propaganda as their cover. Their lawyers even quote from revisionist materials posted on the Turkish Embassy’s website. If these companies had filed a similar motion denying the Jewish Holocaust and quoting from neo-Nazi websites, they would have been out of business within 24 hours!

    The lawyers argue that recognition of the Armenian Genocide by the U.S. government would “cause great harm to the nation’s foreign policy interests.” It is preposterous that German insurance companies are using such irrelevant arguments in order to continue enriching themselves. Safeguarding the interests of this nation is the responsibility of the U.S. government, not that of German companies.

    In their appeal, the lawyers for the German firms cleverly start their recitation of the record on U.S. recognition of the Armenian Genocide by citing only the last three American Presidents, because during their term in office the House of Representatives did not adopt new congressional resolutions on the Armenian Genocide.

    Fortunately, U.S. history does not start with the year 2000. The lawyers conveniently ignore the fact that the U.S. government first acknowledged the Armenian Genocide back in 1951 in a document it submitted to the International Court of Justice (World Court). Since then, the House of Representatives on two occasions — 1975 and 1984 — adopted resolutions commemorating the Armenian Genocide, and in 1981, Pres. Reagan issued a Presidential Proclamation mentioning the Armenian Genocide. Furthermore, 42 U.S. states and scores of American cities have acknowledged the Armenian Genocide during the past 50 years. The federal government has never objected to or expressed disagreement with any of those actions. If recognizing the Armenian Genocide is not in the best interest of the United States, as these lawyers contend, then Pres. Reagan, the U.S. Justice Department, hundreds of House members who voted for the Genocide Resolution, thousands of legislators in 42 states, and scores of Mayors and Governors must be anti-American!

    In fact, these historic affirmations are far more relevant to this case than the politically-motivated and morally bankrupt pronouncements of the last three U.S. Presidents. When California adopted a law in 2000 extending the statute of limitation on insurance claims by Armenian Genocide victims, it did so on the basis of the extensive record of U.S. recognition up to that time. Since then, no new resolutions were adopted and no votes cast contradicting this historical record. No U.S. official has ever denied the truthfulness of the Armenian Genocide. In reality, that record has been strengthened considerably by the fact that during the terms in office of the last three Presidents, successive House committees, on at least four occasions — 2000, 2003, 2007 and 2010 — have adopted resolutions acknowledging the Armenian Genocide.

    The most ridiculous aspect of the German companies’ appeal is their attempt to justify their irresponsible behavior by citing this writer as an “authority” and quoting from one of my articles in which I criticize Pres. Obama for referring to the Armenian Genocide as “Meds Yeghern.” Ken Hachikian, Chairman of the Armenian National Committee of America, is also listed as an “authority.” He too had complained about Obama’s use of that term. Pres. Obama’s choice of words has no relevance to the fact that these companies have cheated their Armenian clients and their heirs by not paying the payments owed to them.

    Rather than filing an appeal, it is high time for German life insurance companies to stop playing games with the legitimate claims of their perished clients, and promptly pay what they owe to their descendants.

  • Turkish Prime Minister Shoots Himself in the Foot Again

    Turkish Prime Minister Shoots Himself in the Foot Again

    sassounian32
    Prime Minister Erdogan embarrasses himself and his government just about every time he opens his mouth! His angry statements, often bewildering and insulting, give Turkey a black eye internationally and provide fresh ammunition to his domestic opponents.
    A year ago, the Prime Minister threatened to deport 100,000 Armenians from Turkey, thereby reminding everyone around the world that Ankara’s present leaders are not much different from their bloodthirsty forefathers who deported and killed 1.5 million Armenians during the Genocide of 1915-23. After he was roundly condemned at home and abroad, Erdogan explained that he had meant to deport only undocumented workers from Armenia. When told that the 100,000 figure included both native and foreign Armenians, the Prime Minister blamed his aides for giving him faulty population figures!
    Erdogan made another faux pas early this month during a visit to Kars, when he called for the demolition of a gigantic monument symbolizing “Armenia-Turkey Friendship.” The 100-foot, 1,500-ton unfinished statue was commissioned by the city’s former mayor who believed that reconciliation and open borders with Armenia would boost his city’s sluggish economy. The monument depicted the figure of a man sliced into two, extending a hand of friendship to his other half. Calling the statue “freakish” or “grotesque,” the Prime Minister urged the new mayor to have the $1.5 million monument torn down before his next visit.
    By calling the Kars monument an “ugly” work of art, Erdogan unleashed a torrent of criticism and triggered a chain of events that made him the laughing stock of the world:
    — Erdogan’s political opponents accused him of pandering to the city’s Azeri voters who vehemently oppose any reconciliation with Armenia. They attributed the Prime Minister’s demolition order to crass electoral motives rather than to his artistic taste.
    — Turkey’s Culture Minister tried to come to Erdogan’s rescue by claiming that the Prime Minister had called the surrounding shanty houses “freakish,” rather than the statue itself. Undeterred, Erdogan embarrassed his Minister by rebuking him and repeating his earlier statement. Next, Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc jumped into the fray by wishing that “God would spare him from finding himself in the same awkward situation as the Culture Minister.”
    — Even Ahmet Davutoglu, Turkey’s much-touted Foreign Minister, got into the act, vainly trying to make his Prime Minister look good. Davutoglu claimed that the real problem with the monument was that it “fails to blend into the Seljuk, Ottoman and Russian character” of Kars. In a sarcastic retort, The Economist of London accused Davutoglu of conveniently erasing the city’s “Armenian legacy,” adding that “a long-abandoned tenth-century Armenian church recently reopened — as a mosque!”
    — Mehmet Aksoy, the well-known sculptor of the monument, compared Erdogan’s order to the Taliban’s demolition of ancient Buddha statues in Afghanistan. Aksoy warned that Turkey’s image would suffer terribly should the monument be blown up. He threatened to sue the Prime Minister for insulting his artwork.
    — The international media excoriated Erdogan by ridiculing his artistic taste and exposing his crass political motives. The Wall Street Journal, The Economist, the Associated Press, Radio Free Europe, Reuters, BBC, the Washington Post, Liberation, and hundreds of other media outlets, condemned Erdogan’s destructive directive.
    — Several Turkish journalists questioned the Prime Minister’s right and authority to have a statue removed and destroyed.
    — Armenia’s Foreign Minister reacted indignantly to Erdogan’s statement and urged him to build a new foundation for normalizing bilateral relations, rather than damaging them. Most commentators interpreted the Prime Minister’s detrimental words as the last nail in the coffin of the unconsummated Armenia-Turkey Protocols.
    Not surprisingly, Mubariz Gurbanli, a member of Azerbaijan’s Parliament, expressed his pleasure with Erdogan’s order to demolish the “Armenia-Turkey Friendship” statue. Gurbanli was correct in pointing out: “There is no need to erect a monument to the non-existent friendship with Armenia.”
    Of course, tearing down monuments is nothing new for Azeri and Turkish officials. A few years ago, Azerbaijan demolished thousands of historic Armenian khatchkars (cross-stones) at a cemetery near Julfa, Nakhichevan, seeking to emulate the Turkish government’s wholesale destruction of hundreds of Armenian churches and monuments ever since the Genocide. Indeed, Erdogan himself is continuing the age-old tradition of his predecessors in ordering the destruction of the Kars “friendship” statue.
    If Davutoglu and Erdogan are truly sincere in promoting Armenian-Turkish friendship, they should promptly demolish the monstrous “genocide monument” built in Igdir in 1997, consisting of five 130-foot swords thrust towards the sky, intended to perpetuate the great lie about Armenians killing Turks!