Turkish Forum

Category: Armenian Question

“The great Turk is governing in peace twenty nations from different religions. Turks have taught to Christians how to be moderate in peace and gentle in victory.”Voltaire’s Philosophical Dictionary

  • Turkish Diaspora Manages To Dismiss Us Congress’s Resolution On “armenian Genocide”

    Turkish Diaspora Manages To Dismiss Us Congress’s Resolution On “armenian Genocide”

    Tuesday, 25 August 2009

    The United States, Washington, Aug. 25 /Trend News, N.Bogdanova/

    The political circuits of Washington DC and US based Turkish Diaspora organizations are not accepting seriously the Armenian initiatives concerning “Armenian genocide” in the US Congress and local law-making organizations, one of leaders of the Turkish Diaspora in California Karahan Mete toldTrend News.

    For example, during the last several months Armenians tried to put through three resolutions in California State’s local Congress, but US based Turkish organizations (TCCA, Turkish Defense Fund, ATAA, TAAF, PAX Turcica, TAAC, Turkuaz, TADF) managed to dismiss those three resolution projects, Mete said.

    He mentions that, the State of California, where Armenian and Greece Diasporas are dominant – is the center for Armenian’s anti-Turkish activities.

    Close relationship between Turkish Diaspora and Senator Darrel Steinberg helped to hinder implementation of a resolution project number AJR 14, which was dedicated to the issue of “Armenian genocide”, and was aimed to keep the “Armenian genocide” on agenda, Mete said.

    The Turkish Diaspora also prevented Armenians’ another resolution number SB 234, which was aimed to propaganda the “Armenian genocide” issue in California’s schools.

    The first version of this resolution meant that any Armenian could go to a school and talk about what happened in 1915 to his relatives, Mete said.

    But in the last version (revised by the Turkish Diaspora) only those ones who participated in 1915 events can do these kinds of lectures at schools.

    “And as nearly none of the participants are alive it seems impossible,” told Mete.

    The third resolution project still remains on California Senate’s agenda under the number AB 961, and it is aimed to prohibit the cooperation between local government and organizations which are working with Turkey.

    The Turkish Diaspora is working hard in Washington DC on dismissing the discussion of “Armenian genoside” in the US Congress during the up-coming fall session.

    Besides the Turkish organizations, the Congressional Caucus on Turkey also works closely with this issue, Congressman Ed Whitefield (Co-Chair of the Congressional Caucus on Turkey)  office told Trend News.

    According to Congressman Whitefield’s office, in an open editorial about US-Turkey relations the law-maker says that with Turkey’s record as such a steadfast ally to the U.S. during troubled times; it would be a dangerous misstep to unnecessarily risk alienating the Turkish people. Yet, efforts are, once again, afoot in the U.S. Congress to label the deaths of ethnic Armenians during the final days of the Ottoman Empire in World War I as genocide.

    He stresses that, “This sort of proclamation, which bears no legal effect, would almost certainly be seen as a slap in the face to Turkey and a harpoon to U.S. relations with the country”.

    According to Congressman, the “Armenian genocide” issue remains a matter of debate by historians, making it foolish, arrogant, and dangerous for politicians to make historical claims for political points”.

    Ed Whitefield also adds that with the two countries (Turkey and Armenia) already working in step to resolve their differences and advance their relationship, U.S. involvement in the situation appears unnecessary and intrusive.

    Turkish Weekly

  • Armenian-American Lawyers and Leaders Should Counter Ruling of Appeals Court

    Armenian-American Lawyers and Leaders Should Counter Ruling of Appeals Court

    sassun-23
    The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an outrageous judicial opinion last week, ruling that the California law that extended the deadline for Armenian-Americans to sue life insurance companies for unpaid claims from the Genocide-era was unconstitutional.
    Furthermore, in a split decision, the Court made a sweeping pronouncement claiming that the State of California had infringed on the foreign affairs power reserved by the Constitution exclusively to the federal government, just because the law in question included a reference to the Armenian Genocide. Two of the three federal judges asserted that Section 354.4 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, adopted by the California Legislature in 2000, contravened the federal government’s policy of not acknowledging the Armenian Genocide.
    By adopting this law, the State of California intended to provide its residents and others the opportunity to protect their legal rights by allowing them until December 31, 2010 to file lawsuits against foreign and domestic life insurance companies which had not paid claims dating back to the Genocide era.
    On the basis of this law, a class action lawsuit was filed against New York Life Insurance Company which was settled in 2005 for $20 million dollars. A second class action lawsuit was filed against Axa, a French life insurance company. It was settled for $17.5 million.
    A third class action lawsuit was filed against Victoria Verisherung AG and two affiliated German insurance companies in 2003. Father Vazken Movsesian, Pastor of St. Peter Armenian Church in Glendale, was the lead plaintiff.
    The attorneys for the German companies contested the lawsuit and filed a motion to dismiss. Federal Judge Christina Snyder rejected the defendants’ contention by ruling that Section 354.4 did not infringe on the federal government’s foreign affairs powers. The defendants then filed an appeal claiming that the California Law “conflicts with the Executive Branch’s policy prohibiting legislative recognition” of the Armenian Genocide. They pointed out that the Administrations of Presidents Bush and Clinton had opposed all three Armenian Genocide resolutions submitted to the House of Representatives in 2000, 2003 and 2007.
    Last week, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals over-ruled Judge Snyder, asserting that the California Law in question “impermissibly infringes” on the jurisdiction of the U.S. government. Two of the three judges of the Appeals Court, David R. Thompson and Dorothy W. Nelson, sided with the German insurance companies. The third judge, Harry Pregerson, sided with the Armenian plaintiffs, contending that the State of California has the right to ensure that its residents are fairly treated by insurance companies. He also asserted that he could not find “any evidence of an express federal policy” forbidding states from using the term “Armenian Genocide.”
    This Appeals Court ruling has very serious consequences for the Armenian Cause, far beyond the issue of mere life insurance claims.
    It was highly unusual that Judge Dorothy Nelson was absent from the bench when attorneys from both sides were presenting their oral arguments to the Court of Appeal. Given her apparent lack of interest in this case, one wonders if she delegated viewing the videotape of the hearing to her law clerks.
    Armenian-Americans should call for the impeachment of Judges Thomson and Nelson for legislating from the bench, falsely claiming that Congress and individual states are “prohibited” from adopting resolutions on the Armenian Genocide, and injecting political views into their judicial opinion. It is incredible that judges who live in Southern California — in the midst of the largest Armenian community in the world — are so ignorant about the most basic facts of the Armenian Genocide.
    There are also serious errors in the opinion issued by the two judges on August 20, 2009. For example, on page 11434, they claim that “there is no citation or evidence in the record of these other thirty-nine state statutes which purportedly reference the ‘Armenian Genocide.’” This statement is patently false. On page 19 of the “Answering Brief” filed on April 30, 2008, the plaintiffs’ attorneys provide the following citation: “To date, thirty-nine states have formally recognized the Armenian Genocide by legislation or proclamation. See, Armenian National Committee of America, ‘Genocide Recognition by U.S. States’ Online at .“
    Judges Thompson and Nelson, in their eagerness to prove that California contradicted the Executive Branch’s policy on the Armenian Genocide, selectively refer only to the resolutions that had failed to come to a full House vote. The judges do not mention the material fact that in line with California’s statute 354.4, the U.S. House of Representatives twice adopted resolutions on the Armenian Genocide in 1975 and 1984, and Pres. Reagan issued a Presidential Proclamation in 1981, acknowledging the Armenian Genocide.
    These judges are also plainly wrong in claiming that the U.S. Congress and individual States had interfered in the formulation of U.S. foreign policy on the Armenian Genocide. The resolutions adopted by 41 U.S. States and hundreds of proclamations issued by governors, mayors, and county supervisors throughout America are commemorative in nature, simply reaffirming the U.S. record on the Armenian Genocide and urging the President of the United States to do likewise. Furthermore, the U.S. government does NOT have a policy of denying the Armenian Genocide.
    Interestingly, the Appeals Court judges disclosed that Turkish officials had made a sinister attempt to interfere in their ruling. They stated that Nabi Sensoy, the Turkish Ambassador to the United States, sent them a letter expressing his country’s strong opposition to California statute 354.4, and asking the Court to overturn it. The Turkish Ambassador had sent a similar letter earlier to another Federal Judge, trying to interfere in a lawsuit by Armenian plaintiffs against German banks. Although Judges Thomson and Nelson assert that they ignored the Turkish Ambassador’s angry letter, it must have surely reinforced their own view that California was intruding into Washington’s conduct of foreign policy. It is simply appalling that the Turkish government would try to stick its nose in a lawsuit between Armenian-Americans and German insurance companies even though the plaintiffs in this case neither accuse Turkish officials of any wrongdoing nor make any demands from them. Similarly, the attorneys for the German insurance companies have no business objecting to whether California was infringing upon U.S.-Turkish relations.
    The Law offices of Geragos & Geragos; Kabatek, Brown, Kellner LLP; and Yeghiayan Law Firm — the attorneys for the plaintiffs — must have realized by now that this is no longer simply a life insurance issue dealing with the unpaid claims of their clients. This lawsuit has now mushroomed into a case that calls into question the authority of California and 40 other States to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide. Furthermore, it is highly puzzling why the plaintiffs’ attorneys had not invited California’s Attorney General to file a friend of the court brief to defend his State from accusations that it had adopted a statute that ostensibly violated the U.S. Constitution. Hopefully, this serious oversight would be remedied by requesting that the State Attorney General file such a brief when the plaintiffs’ attorneys seek a rehearing of the case “en banc” by a larger panel of the Court of Appeals. Should all appeals fail, however, Armenians could lobby for the adoption of a new California statute that would allow the filing of lawsuits against foreign insurance companies, without the problematic language.
    For several years, this writer has been urging the Armenian American community and its political leadership to stop pursuing the adoption of additional congressional resolutions that simply repeat what was already accomplished in 1975 and 1984, and to re-channel their efforts to more productive legal demands from the government of Turkey through U.S. and European courts. It is now clear that the repeated and failed Armenian attempts to pass previously adopted resolutions may not only be wasting valuable time and resources, but could also be detrimental to the pursuit of Armenian legal claims.
    Finally, Pres. Obama and several previous Presidents must bear their share of responsibility for this unwelcome judicial development, given the fact that they pledged to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide as candidates and reneged on their promises, once in office. Pres. Obama should be made aware of the serious legal consequences of his breach of trust and asked to make good on his campaign promise.
    Armenians and all those who believe in justice should urge the establishment of a U.S. commission — similar to the one for Holocaust victims — to settle all claims of properties and possessions arising from the Armenian Genocide. Even though this would not be an easy task, it would at least be the start of a tangible and meaningful process!
  • FALSIFIERS OF TURKISH-ARMENIAN CONFLICT

    FALSIFIERS OF TURKISH-ARMENIAN CONFLICT

    There is not a day when some Armenian activist somewhere around the country is not deliberately defaming and demonizing Turks, Turkish-Americans, Turkey, and even friends of Turkey. This is done by signs, blogs, letters, talks, films, panels, exhibitions, indoctrination summer camps, and/or a combination of these and other vehicles. Why?

    If the Armenian claims are so truth, so watertight, so slam dunk, why such passionate, radical, sometimes even fanatic behavior, which is known in the past, to have led to Armenian terrorism victimizing ordinary citizens?

    Do you see the Irish going around and bombing British facilities to have the potato famine acknowledged?

    Do you see the Jews going around and bombing German installations to have the Holocaust recognized?

    Do you see Japanese bombing American owned buildings to have the Japanese internment admitted?

    What is wrong with Armenians? Especially those who still revere Armenian terrorists (like the notorious Lisbon Five ?)

    And those who never condemn Armenian terrorism of the past 40+ years victimizing 70+ innocent men, women, and children, mostly of Turkish heritage, but some non-Turkish ones, too?

    ARMENIAN HYPOCRISY IN SUPPORTING TERRORISM

    What can one say in the face of an incredible hypocrisy that while all Armenians mourn the assassination of Hrant Dink in 2007 by a Turkish teenager, no Armenian will remember, much less mourn, the assassination in 1982 of the Turkish consul general, Kemal Arikan, by an Armenian teenager? Both victims were 52 years old, married, had teenage daughters, and killed by a teenager filled with hate by his elders. Why this double standard in the Armenian community? Why would they now acknowledge, much less condemn, more than 2000 acts of terrorism committed by brainwashed and fanatic Armenian youth?

    Armenian love to hate all things Turkish. So much so, that they even falsify the record of one of the most accomplished Turkish historians, Prof. Esat Uras, the founder of Turkish Armenianology. His 1000+ plus book “Armenians in History and The Armenian Question” still shines the brightest light into a dark chapter of history that is the Turkish-Armenian conflict. You know what Armenian propagandists call him? Pan-Turkish ideology and former Turkish secret service agent. Give me a break!

    If it were this simple to defame a man’s personality, character, and lifelong career, then the Armenian lobby would have nothing to do today, as there is not anyone in the contra-genocide camp, yours truly included, that the Armenian did not call Turkish government agent, someone paid by Turkish interests, lobbyist, propagandist, or similar. Such intimidation, harassment, and even veiled threats by Armenians, though, only help create only a bitter smile on our faces and more research, publications, and public education in return.

    Why do Armenian attack the doyen of Turkish historians, Prof. Esat Uras, so viciously? Because of many of his books? Yes. But perhaps more for what he wrote about Armenia and the Armenian identity:

    “Armenia cannot be anything other than simple memory based on geography, a region without political boundaries.”

    IS ARMENIAN HISTORY MOSTLY PROPAGANDA MADE IN GLENDALE ?The

    Armenians prefer to call mountainous eastern Anatolia Armenia but they only lived there, scattered over a very wide territory and were always a small minority in the areas they lived. If communities can claim the right to every place they lived, then there would be thousands of countries as members of the United Nations today. Can Armenians claim California as their own just because they number 20% of Glendale and 10% of Fresno? Or Massachusetts because 5 % of some town there is Armenian?

    Armenians were also furious with what Center for Strategic Research, a think tank in Ankara that is similar to Hudson Institute in Washington DC, wrote in “Armenian Claims & Historical Facts”:

    “It is certain that the Armenians did not originate in Armenia (Eastern Anatolia highlands) not did they live there for three to four thousand years as claimed. They put forward these ideas merely to support their claim that the Turks drove them out of a homeland in which they lived for thousands of years. But these claims cannot stand up the facts.”

    Armenians still think they can humiliate Turks and destroy Turkish history with falsifications, fabrications, and deception. They still think they can implement an apartheid on Turkish soil, where a tiny minority would be allowed (by the powers east and west) to rule over a majority of non-Armenians. They still think they can pressure, harass, and eventually destroy Turkey. Then again, Armenians are not exactly known for their sound thinking. They also think that a tail can wag the dog.

    The most shocking of all is that some American institutions of higher education would allow themselves to become a vehicle used by directly/indirectly-paid-Armenian-agents and/or direct/indirect beneficiaries of the Armenian-financed-genocide-industry (Akcam, Gocek, et.al.) to promote Armenian version of history.

    “…Armenians further claim that they were the people of Urartu which existed in Anatolia starting about 3000 BC. This claim has no basis in fact. No form of the name Armenian was found in any inscription in Anatolia dating from that period, nor was any similarity at all between the Armenian language and that of Urartu, the former being a satem group of Indo-European languages while the latter was similar to Ural-Altaic languages. Nor were there any similarities between their cultures. There is, therefore, absolutely no evidence at all to support the claim that the people of Urartu were Armenian…”

    Source: “Armenian Claims & Historical Facts”, Center for Strategic Research, Ankara (A think-tank like Hudson Institute in Washington DC.)

    ARMENIAN NARRATIVES ARE PARTI PRIS, SELECTIVE, AND UNTRUSTWORTHY

    So, much of poses to be serious writings in academic journals about modern Armenian history, produced by academics like C.J. Walker, well known for his passionate support of the Armenian cause, are parti pris, discriminatory, and unreliable.

    It is the Armenian-financed and/or supported genocide scholars who have an interest in cover up, distortion, secretive reviewing of data, falsification, fabrication, and deception, and who do not seek to discover or explain the situation as it really was.

    The Karabagh territory historically belongs to Azerbaijan. Armenians relocated there by Tsarist Russia in accordance with the long standing Russian policy of substitution of Muslims of Caucasus (by killing or expelling) by reliable elements (Armenians and others.)

    Armenians are newcomers and colonists even in the eastern Anatolian highlands. The ancestors of Armenians arrived there in the 6th century BC and actually destroyed the Urartians. The three so called 5th century historians, Buzand, Khorten, and Yeghiske, are non-existent and the works attributed to them are non-credible para-historic texts.

    Armenian propagandists are busy defaming and demonizing the Turkish identity, promoting the false Armeniological school, which corrupts and distorts Turkish history in accordance with the Armenian designs.

    SEVEN ARMENIAN OR ARMENOPHILE SCHOLARS IN TROUBLE

    Armenians are so intolerant to dissent and responsible opposing views that if you do not tow the official Armenian party line in telling the Armenian history, you will be declared an enemy of the Armenians even if your career is spent in appeasing them. If you don’t believe me, ask these scholars: Nina G. Garsoian, Ronald Grigor Suny, Robert W. Thomson, Richard G. Hovannisian, James R. Russel, Peter S. Cowe, Alina Ayvazian, Simon Payaslian, and others.

    Can you believe the Armenian fanatics? These seven scholars spent a life time trying to appease the Armenian propagandists but just because they question the Armenian identity or homelands, they were “nixed”. If I were any one of these seven scholars, I would definitely avoid Armenian functions in the next… uh… 195 years. Armenian fanatics are in no mood to see any of these seven scholars or the scholars will “get it”. The Armenian hoodlums made derogatory videos about them and posted them in youtube. These seven scholars are “shish kebab” now as far as the Armenian thugs are concerned. You see what I mean?

    Ronald Grigor Suny is the holder of the first Alex Manoogian chair in Modern Armenian History in the Univ. of Michigan. In other words, he is as “partyline” as you can possibly get to the Armenian version of history. In his book “Looking Towards Ararat: Armenians in Modern History” , 1993, page 4-5, he writes this:

    “…The national consciousness of Armenians about their identity is nothing but a collection of beliefs…”

    Now if I say this, Armenians falsifiers and their Turk-hating stooges are quick to label me Turkish-government agent, paid-lobbysist, genocide denier, blah…blah…blah… But look who is saying it?

    Let’s continue with the writings of this Armenian-propagandist-turned-instant-Armenian-enemy:

    “…The present Armenian people are a product of natural intermingling of different ethnic groups…

    The ancestors of Armenians were invaders of Armenian (eastern Anatolian) highlands who have migrated to Armenia in the 6th century BC…”

    Source: Same book, page 7. Wow!

    Again, if I uttered these words, columnists kissing Armenian (you know what) would walk all over each other to call me names. Sorry to disappoint them but one cannot argue with facts, can one?

    Fasten your seatbelts for this one:

    “…The Armenian-Turkish conflict was provoked by the Armenian nationalists in order to overtake Turkish Anatolia and the Turkish side simply reacted…”

    Source: Ronald Grigor Suny, “Nation Making, Nation Breaking: The End of the Ottoman Empire and the Armenian Community”, 1996, page 3.

    Forgive me, your honor, you majesty, your high and mighty genocide scholar of the 17th order, but isn’t that exactly what I have been writing all these years? If what I was subjected to by the Armenian falsifiers and Turk-haters is any indication, then this poor Ronald Grigor Suny is in serious trouble. Who knows, Armenian terrorists might bomb his house, too, just like they did UCLA’s Prof. Stanford Shaw’s house in 1977 for saying the same things. Ah, but in those days, who knows, people like you, Ronald Grigor Suny, ridiculed Prof Stanford Shaw and ignored his freedom of speech, didn’t you?

    Well, what do you know, now you are in the same spot as Prof Stanford Shaw was in 1977! You are not exactly a (so called) genocide denier, but you deny worse: you deny Armenian identity and homeland. (Don’t you love it? Does this thing get any better than this?)

    Finally, there is this:

    “…The Turkic-Azeris are the direct descendants of the Caucasian Albanians and the territory of Karabakh historically belonged to (Azeris)…”

    Source: Ronald Grigor Suny, “Looking Towards Ararat: Armenians in Modern History” , 1993, page 193

    Thank you, Ronald Grigor Suny, the Armenian-propagandist-turned-instant-Armenian-enemy. Who is going to save you from the Armenian Revolutionary federation now?

    Lesson of the day: Truth rules, sooner or later.

  • Court tosses Calif. law on payments to Armenians

    Court tosses Calif. law on payments to Armenians

    Armenians have been told by the court that the use of the word ‘genocide’ is illegal.

    rebelsrectangleaug25

    By LISA LEFF (AP) – 10 hours ago

    SAN FRANCISCO – A federal appeals court invalidated a California law Thursday that allowed heirs of Armenians killed in the Turkish Ottoman Empire nearly a century ago to seek payment on the life insurance policies of dead relatives.

    The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the law amounted to unconstitutional meddling in U.S. foreign policy.

    It based its 2-1 ruling on a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down another California law designed to help Holocaust survivors collect on Nazi-era insurance policies.

    The federal government does not recognize the mass killings of Armenians during World War I as genocide, but the California Legislature did in 2000 when it enacted the disputed law.

    About half of the people of Armenian descent living in this country reside in California.

    Lawyer Brian Kabateck, who represents Armenian-American heirs, plans to appeal.

    “The ruling is wrong. It’s a disaster,” Kabateck said. “The one million Armenians that live in California today have been told by the court that even the use of the word ‘genocide’ by a government is illegal.”

    If the ruling is not set aside, it would prevent Armenian heirs from claiming inheritances and prohibit California and other states from marking the anniversary of the onset of the ethnic bloodshed that claimed the lives of up to 1.5 million Armenians between 1915 and 1919 in what is now eastern Turkey, Kabateck said.

    He alleges European banks and insurers illegally retained assets valued in 1915 at about $15 million, a sum worth substantially more at today’s value.

    The California Legislature passed the law giving heirs of Armenians who died or fled to avoid persecution until the end of next year to file claims for old bank accounts and life insurance policies.

    Class-action lawsuits brought by Armenian descendants in California and other states led to a $20 million settlement with New York Life Insurance Co. in 2005 and a $17 million settlement the same year with French life insurer AXA.

    William Werfelman, a spokesman for New York Life, said the company had no intention of trying to get back any of the money it paid out under the 2005 settlement.

    “By acting honorably, and in keeping with our company values of humanity and integrity, New York Life made many friends in the Armenian community and we cherish these friends,” Werfelman said.

    Thursday’s ruling reversed a lower court judge who refused to dismiss another class-action suit against the German life insurance companies.

    Turkey long has denied the loss of so many Armenian lives constituted genocide and instead describes the deaths as resulting from civil unrest that accompanied the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

    The appeals court agreed with the German companies that California’s policy improperly conflicted with the federal government’s foreign policy aims.

    Neil Soltman, the lawyer who represented the German insurance companies that prevailed in the case, said his clients had stood to lose in payouts to Armenian-Americans in California. Soltman said it was not clear the companies ever sold life insurance policies to victims of the Ottoman Empire violence.

    “We are very pleased with the decision. We think it is entirely consistent with recent Supreme Court cases and 9th Circuit cases which have held that California and other states should not be passing legislation that deals with questions of foreign affairs,” he said.

    The court recounted successful efforts by former presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush to defeat congressional legislation that would have recognized an Armenian genocide.

    U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Pasadena, who as a state assemblyman co-wrote the law that was overturned by the 9th Circuit, was perplexed by the court’s reasoning.

    “You have a group of people that has a government that hasn’t had the will to recognize the genocide and as a result of that failing, are being told they don’t have valid insurance claims,” he said.

    More coverage (from here: )

    000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

    From:  https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/State-can-t-let-Armenian-victims-heirs-sue-3220858.php

    State can’t let Armenian victims’ heirs sue

    Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

    Thursday, August 20, 2009

    (08-20) 14:25 PDT SAN FRANCISCO — A California law allowing heirs of victims of the Armenian genocide to sue in state courts for unpaid insurance benefits is unconstitutional because it conflicts with U.S. foreign policy, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.

    The law contradicts past presidents’ opposition to describing Turkey’s slaughter of as many as 1.5 million Armenians as a genocide, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said in a 2-1 ruling.

    The same panel struck down another California law Wednesday allowing owners of art stolen by the Nazis to sue for recovery of their possessions until the end of 2010.

    The court ruled that both laws intruded into the federal government’s exclusive authority over foreign affairs. State and federal courts have also have invalidated California laws that would have allowed suits over Holocaust-era insurance benefits and slave labor during World War II.

    “The federal government has made a conscious decision not to apply the politically charged label of ‘genocide’ to the deaths of these Armenians during World War I,” said Judge David Thompson, who wrote the majority opinions in both Wednesday’s and Thursday’s rulings. “Whether or not California agrees with this decision, it may not contradict it.”

    The case decided Thursday was brought by a Southern California man of Armenian descent whose class-action suit accused insurance companies of failing to pay benefits on their policies.

    His lawyer said he would ask the full appeals court for a rehearing.

    The attorney, Brian Kabateck, said there was no conflict between the state law and federal policy. About 40 states have passed resolutions recognizing the Armenian genocide, with no public objections by the U.S. or Turkish governments, he said.

    Neil Soltman, lawyer for one of the insurance companies in the case, said the ruling was consistent with past decisions overturning “efforts by California to adopt legislation which interferes with one or another aspect of the national government’s foreign policy.”

    The law, passed in 2000, refers to mass killings, death marches and other abuses of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire from 1915 to 1923 as the Armenian genocide, a description that most historians also accept. The measure allows victims’ descendants to sue insurers doing business in California for unpaid benefits until the end of 2010.

    The court said national policy on the issue was defined by Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, who opposed congressional resolutions that described the killings as a genocide. The presidents’ warnings that any such measure would damage U.S. relations with Turkey persuaded House leaders to drop the resolutions without a floor vote three times, the court said.

    President Obama said during his campaign that the nation deserves “a leader who speaks truthfully about the Armenian genocide.” But he refrained from using the term during a trip to Turkey in April. His administration has not taken a position in the court case.

    E-mail Bob Egelko at [email protected].

    Yeghern

    8/20/2009 4:53:29 PM

    Since when are States forbidden to deal with genocide issues?Lets close down museums and change school curriculums for fear of offending the Turkish ambassador who wrote to the US Federal Judges telling them to stay out of genocide!Devastating decision for US justice..

    purkel

    8/20/2009 4:33:48 PM

    The USA should not overlook any evidence of ethnic cleansing or genocide. Shame on Clinton and Bush.

    username withheld

    8/20/2009 4:01:09 PM

    This comment violated SFGate’s Terms and Conditions, and has been removed.

    Read more: https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/State-can-t-let-Armenian-victims-heirs-sue-3220858.php#ixzz0OmABenFF

  • State can’t let Armenian victims’ heirs sue

    State can’t let Armenian victims’ heirs sue

    Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

    Thursday, August 20, 2009

    (08-20) 14:25 PDT SAN FRANCISCO — A California law allowing heirs of victims of the Armenian genocide to sue in state courts for unpaid insurance benefits is unconstitutional because it conflicts with U.S. foreign policy, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.

    The law contradicts past presidents’ opposition to describing Turkey’s slaughter of as many as 1.5 million Armenians as a genocide, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said in a 2-1 ruling.

    The same panel struck down another California law Wednesday allowing owners of art stolen by the Nazis to sue for recovery of their possessions until the end of 2010.

    The court ruled that both laws intruded into the federal government’s exclusive authority over foreign affairs. State and federal courts have also have invalidated California laws that would have allowed suits over Holocaust-era insurance benefits and slave labor during World War II.

    “The federal government has made a conscious decision not to apply the politically charged label of ‘genocide’ to the deaths of these Armenians during World War I,” said Judge David Thompson, who wrote the majority opinions in both Wednesday’s and Thursday’s rulings. “Whether or not California agrees with this decision, it may not contradict it.”

    The case decided Thursday was brought by a Southern California man of Armenian descent whose class-action suit accused insurance companies of failing to pay benefits on their policies.

    His lawyer said he would ask the full appeals court for a rehearing.

    The attorney, Brian Kabateck, said there was no conflict between the state law and federal policy. About 40 states have passed resolutions recognizing the Armenian genocide, with no public objections by the U.S. or Turkish governments, he said.

    Neil Soltman, lawyer for one of the insurance companies in the case, said the ruling was consistent with past decisions overturning “efforts by California to adopt legislation which interferes with one or another aspect of the national government’s foreign policy.”

    The law, passed in 2000, refers to mass killings, death marches and other abuses of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire from 1915 to 1923 as the Armenian genocide, a description that most historians also accept. The measure allows victims’ descendants to sue insurers doing business in California for unpaid benefits until the end of 2010.

    The court said national policy on the issue was defined by Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, who opposed congressional resolutions that described the killings as a genocide. The presidents’ warnings that any such measure would damage U.S. relations with Turkey persuaded House leaders to drop the resolutions without a floor vote three times, the court said.

    President Obama said during his campaign that the nation deserves “a leader who speaks truthfully about the Armenian genocide.” But he refrained from using the term during a trip to Turkey in April. His administration has not taken a position in the court case.

    E-mail Bob Egelko at [email protected].

    http://contribute.sfgate.com/ver1.0/Content/images/no-user-image.gif

    Yeghern

    8/20/2009 4:53:29 PM
    Since when are States forbidden to deal with genocide issues?Lets close down museums and change school curriculums for fear of offending the Turkish ambassador who wrote to the US Federal Judges telling them to stay out of genocide!Devastating decision for US justice..
    Recommend:    (1) (3)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

    http://contribute.sfgate.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/13/9/fd0d8852-1c26-4818-b929-16061c33d685.Small.jpg

    purkel

    8/20/2009 4:33:48 PM
    The USA should not overlook any evidence of ethnic cleansing or genocide. Shame on Clinton and Bush.
    Recommend:    (3) (3)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

    http://contribute.sfgate.com/ver1.0/Content/images/no-user-image.gif

    username withheld

    8/20/2009 4:01:09 PM
    This comment violated SFGate’s Terms and Conditions, and has been removed.

    Read more: https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/State-can-t-let-Armenian-victims-heirs-sue-3220858.php#ixzz0OmABenFF

  • Matthew Bryza’s Plans for Artsakh: Formula for Disaster for Armenians

    Matthew Bryza’s Plans for Artsakh: Formula for Disaster for Armenians

    sassun-21

    By Harut Sassounian

    Publisher, The California Courier

    Matthew Bryza, the U.S. mediator for Artsakh (Karabagh), discussed in great detail for the first time the critical issues dealing with the behind the scene negotiations on resolving that conflict.

    Mr. Bryza is the U.S. Co-Chair of the Minsk Group and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs. He delivered a speech on the Artsakh conflict at the International Center for Human Rights in Tsakhkadzor, Armenia, on August 7. Mr. Bryza’s lengthy presentation, followed by an extensive question and answer period (19 pages), was transcribed by NEWS.am Armenian news agency.

    While Mr. Bryza has regularly met with members of the media during his frequent visits to Armenia and Azerbaijan, often recanting in Yerevan what he reportedly said in Baku, he has never before disclosed the details of the settlement being negotiated between the presidents of the two conflicting countries and the three Co-Chairs of the Minsk Group, composed of France, Russia, and the United States.

    The Armenian public certainly appreciates Mr. Bryza’s willingness to discuss the terms of a future agreement on the Artsakh conflict. Nevertheless, one wonders why was Mr. Bryza in such a talkative mood? Was he preparing the Armenian public for the painful compromises that are to be made or was he trying to impress his Washington superiors with his negotiating skills, as he is being considered for an ambassadorial post in Baku?

    Mr. Bryza began his remarks by stating that the negotiations for the settlement of the Artsakh conflict are based on the three fundamental principles of the Helsinki Final Act: Self-determination, territorial integrity, and non-use of force.

    Claiming that the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan “right now are on the verge of a breakthrough,” an assertion he has made many times before, Mr. Bryza proceeded to disclose a highly controversial roadmap of the agreement currently under consideration. Mr. Bryza stated that Artsakh would preserve its current status for an “interim period.” Armenians would then turn over to Azerbaijan most of the “seven territories” surrounding Artsakh. After the Azeri refugees who left Artsakh during the war return to their homes, a referendum would be held to determine the final status of Artsakh.

    During the question and answer period, Mr. Bryza stated that the Minsk Group Co-Chairs were disappointed that during their July 17 meeting in Moscow, Presidents Sargsyan and Aliyev did not come to an agreement “on several of the final elements of the basic principles,” despite the fact that, during their January meeting in Zurich, they had “agreed on the basic concepts.” He said he expected an agreement in September “on the last few elements of the basic principles that remain not yet agreed.”

    When asked if Azerbaijan was making any compromises, Mr. Bryza pointed out Baku’s increasingly accommodating position on the Lachin Corridor which links Artsakh to Armenia, its concern for the security of Artsakh Armenians and their need to run their own affairs. Mr. Bryza further claimed that “Azerbaijan had to give up quite a bit from a position where it was in the beginning when it said it will never talk about self-determination. And, of course, to bring Azerbaijan to that point, Armenia had to give something up as well…. So, both sides are making compromises.”

    Mr. Bryza defended the non-recognition of Artsakh by the United States, by pointing out that the government of Armenia has not recognized it either. He said that the reason Armenia does not recognize Artsakh’s independence is that “it knows that if it does that, the chances to negotiate a peaceful settlement finish.”

    In response to a complaint from the audience that Artsakh was left out of the negotiations, Mr. Bryza blamed its absence on the Kocharian government. “Until 1998, Karabakh Armenians were formally part of the negotiations, when it was the former government of Armenia who decided to change that situation. It was not the Co-Chairs who made the decision — that was the government of Armenia,” he said. Mr. Bryza did not mention the fact that Azerbaijan had rejected Artsakh’s inclusion in the talks.

    Responding to another question, Mr. Bryza made the surprising disclosure that the international peacekeeping troops to be stationed in or around Artsakh would not be armed, simply because they would not be able to compel the two sides not to fight, if they are intent on going to war against each other. He stated that “the Co-Chairs have to be smart and skillful enough to put at place a settlement in which the international peacekeepers will be primarily observers.”

    Mr. Bryza candidly told his Armenian audience not to trust the international peacekeepers to secure the peace in Artsakh. He also stated that a “legally binding” referendum to determine the status of Artsakh would be held in several years, after the original Azerbaijani inhabitants, who before the war constituted 20% of the territory’s population, would return to Artsakh.

    Mr. Bryza concluded by urging Armenians to accept “a compromise settlement now,” warning that “a decade ago, Armenia was in a much stronger negotiation position!”

    The terms of the possible settlement, as outlined by Mr. Bryza, is a disaster waiting to happen to Armenians. They are supposed to first turn over to Azerbaijan practically all of the territories surrounding Artsakh. Then the former Azeri inhabitants of Artsakh are to return, after which a referendum would be held on the status of Artsakh, under the watchful eyes of UNARMED international peacekeepers. If Azerbaijan, at a future date, uses its massive petrodollars to acquire sophisticated weaponry and invade Artsakh, particularly after Armenians have given up the buffer zones they are currently holding, the population of Artsakh risks being completely destroyed.

    From the Armenian point of view, the only acceptable solution to the Artsakh conflict would be to either maintain the status quo or to agree to a package deal that would require Azerbaijan’s recognition of Artsakh’s independence and the establishment of a demilitarized zone on the Azeri side of the border, before giving up a single inch of land or allowing the return of a single Azeri refugee!