Two Articles on Threatening Issues for Armenians‏

AZERI MILITARY BUILD UP A MAJOR THREAT TO ARMENIA
By Edmond Y. Azadian
AZG Armenian Daily #150,
25/08/09

We have lost count how many trips have been taken by OSCE
representatives to Yerevan, Stepanakert and Baku, trying to negotiate
a settlement between Armenians and Azeris in the thorny issue of
Nagorno Karabagh. In addition, seven meetings have taken place on
the presidential level between Serge Sargisian and Ilham Aliyev.

No breakthrough has yet been achieved. Yet, after each "constructive"
meeting, Ilham Aliyev comes up with a new bellicose announcement
that the military option is not off the table. Even after signing
the Meindorf agreement, which specifically commits the parties to a
peaceful solution, Mr. Aliyev made yet another threat in London. Still,
neither the OSCE representatives, nor their respective governments,
have ever even given a slap on the Azeri wrist for its threats to
disrupt negotiations and launch a new war in the Caucasus.

This, of course, emboldens the Azeri leadership, which began to
match its words with concrete acts: Indeed the Baku government has
been engaged in a huge military build up using its petrodollars for
arms purchases. During the last five years Azerbaijan has increased
its military budget by 1,300 percent, raising it from a mere $175
million to $2.5 billion in 2009.

Through all the negotiations the Azeri side has not moved an iota from
its original position: evacuate all captured territories, including
Karabagh and we will grant Armenians the "highest degree of autonomy,"
whatever that means.

All this military build-up is being achieved at the expense of one
million Azeri internal refugees, who still live under tents there in
order to generate more sympathy internationally.

The European Armenian Federation has released a statement in Brussels,
this week, warning of the alarming Azeri military build-up and
calling on the OSCE representatives to negotiate a non-aggression
pact between Armenia and Azerbaijan. A timely reminder, indeed. Of
course, a non-aggression pact can last as long as there is parity and
military balance between the two sides. Once the balance is tipped,
no one can tie the aggressor's hands any more. The Ribbentrop-Molotov
pact of 1941, between the USSR and Nazi Germany, is a glaring precedent
about the durability of such pacts.

The Armenian side has been restrained thus far in order not to
escalade the rhetoric. But that was taken as a sign of weakness and
the military chief in Karabagh noted in a statement recently that the
defeated party cannot be that arrogant and that should a war break
out, Azerbaijan has more to lose than Armenia, with all its pipelines,
oil refineries and other related facilities.

But who is behind Azerbaijan? Who is prompting this overblown
arrogance? Certainly Turkey and Israel, two countries furtively
engaged in training and arming the demoralized Azeri Army.

Azerbaijan's arrogance is not only derived from the quantity of its
military hardware; because the Azeri leadership is also reassured
that it enjoys the backing of some regional and world powers, which
will stand by its adventurous course.

Last time the war against Azerbaijan was won by Russia's political,
military and logistical support. At that time, Armenia had veered
off course and was leaning towards Turkey at Russia's expense and
Russia needed a speedy correction to that course. This time around,
the political lineup has a different feature in the Caucasus. While
Turkey is still on the Azeri side, we are not sure of Russia's role,
after its major gas deal with Azerbaijan to thwart Western plans to
undermine Russia's hold on energy sources.

The Baku leadership was emboldened so much by this deal that it even
threatened its closest ally, Turkey, which was negotiating a deal with
Armenia without preconditions. Thus the Ankara government was jolted
into changing its position 180 degrees, by announcing, once again,
that it would not open its border, until the Karabagh problem was
resolved on Azeri terms. Again, the Turkish-Armenian rapprochement
came also to a halt.

External political factors dictate that Armenia take some concrete
actions. In view of Azerbaijan's military preparation, it is incumbent
on Armenia to arm itself, hoping for the best, but getting ready for
the worst.

Also, historic parallels must teach us a lesson. At this time a show
is in progress by Vartan Petrosian, the eminent Armenian comedian,
who has always a powerful message to the people through his art. This
time around, his comedy is based on the events of 1918-20. He laments
the lost opportunity to hang on to historic Armenian territories,
when victory was within reach. Indeed, at that period, the defeated
Ottoman Army was in retreat while Armenian forces were fresh, well
supplied and well armed. But indecision, betrayal and political naivete
broke down the will to fight and we lost Erzerum, Kars, Ardahan,
Mamakhatoun, Baiburt and Sarighamish, which were all abandoned to
the defeated Turks.

Vartan Petrosian's comedy, which is appropriately called "Life
Inmates," concludes with the following message: "Oh, Armenians, the
danger is not beyond the mountains. Wake up, don't sleep. Don't console
yourself by watching Ararat in your dreams. Close your ranks within
your borders, in your own 'jail' because the enemy is waiting for your
loss of sobriety to take over the one-tenth residue of your historic
land with its dwindling population of four and a half persons."

This is a powerful message to our politicians who are engaged in
petty skirmishes. While the enemy is at the gate, the Dashnak party
is calling for the resignation of Foreign Minister Eduard Nalbandian,
directing also the same threat to the president.

Levon Ter-Petrosian's opposition is calling for the overthrow of the
government "to dismantle the kleptocracy."

With all these historic scenarios repeating in Armenia, why do we blame
the Moscow and Kars Treaties, which shrank the Armenian homeland to its
present size? While the Kemalist government was negotiating the border
treaty with Lenin, the Dashnak party overthrew the newly-established
Soviet government in its 1921 February adventure, which in addition
to costing thousands of lives, deprived the Armenian delegation from
participating in Moscow negotiations, giving a free hand to both
parties to redraw the border map according to their own interests.

While Azerbaijan is rearming itself to resume the military conflict,
our politicians are engaged in their old game. If the current state
of affairs continues, Vartan Petrosian's prediction will not be a
far-fetched possibility. Yes, indeed this time around the enemy can
take over "one tenth of our historic homeland, with its dwindling
population of four and a half."

Armenian-American Lawyers and Leaders should Counter Ruling

of Appeals Court
By Harut Sassounian
Publisher, The California Courier

27 August 2009

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 2 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 http://www.anca.org/genocide_resource/states_map.php.";
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 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!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~