The U.S. Supreme Court asked the Obama Administration last
October if it should review a Federal Appeals Court decision that had
struck down a California law (Section 354.4) extending the statute of
limitations on Armenian Genocide-era life insurance claims.
The U.S. solicitor general, the lawyer representing the United States
government before the Supreme Court, filed a response last week. He
urged the Supreme Court not to hear the appeal, and let stand the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the California law “impermissibly”
intruded into the federal government’s foreign relations powers.
Given President Obama’s disappointing record of kowtowing to Turkey,
particularly on Armenian Genocide issues, it is not surprising that the
administration’s brief went far beyond the question of whether the
Supreme Court should hear the appeal.
The U.S. solicitor general erroneously claimed that:
– contrary to the assertion of Armenian litigants, “California was
not acting within an area of its traditional competence,” i.e.,
insurance regulation;
– the California law “intrudes upon substantial foreign affairs
powers” of the federal government and leads to judgments “based on
politically contentious events that occurred in the Ottoman Empire
nearly a century ago”;
– beyond simply intruding, this law would “disturb foreign relations”
with Turkey (Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush had opposed
congressional resolutions on the Armenian Genocide, alleging that such
measures would “undermine efforts to encourage improved relations
between Armenia and Turkey”);
– Section 354.4 “would impermissibly intrude upon the federal foreign
affairs power” in an area where the United States “acted in the
post-World War I era to resolve certain claims by American citizens”
through the Ankara Agreement (Oct. 25, 1934), American Treaty of
Lausanne (August 6, 1923), and Treaty of Berlin and Claims Agreement
(Aug. 10, 1922).
Several rebuttals are in order to the solicitor general’s misguided and politically motivated arguments:
– The California law does not intrude on the federal
government’s foreign affairs powers as it simply attempts to regulate
the obligations of insurance companies, an area of state competence and
jurisdiction. This law provides an opportunity to right a historic wrong
by forcing insurance companies to make long overdue payments to heirs
of their deceased clients.
– German insurance companies are the defendants in this case, not
Turkey, even though the latter filed a brief opposing the lawsuit.
Remarkably, the solicitor general’s brief mirrors some of the arguments
advanced by Turkey.
– The solicitor general selectively cites the opposition of the
Clinton and Bush Administrations to congressional resolutions on the
Armenian Genocide, ignoring the long-standing U.S. record on genocide
recognition, including resolutions adopted by the House of
Representatives in 1975 and 1984, President Reagan’s Presidential
Proclamation of 1981, and the U.S. government’s 1951 written statement
to the International Court of Justice (World Court) acknowledging the
Armenian Genocide.
– All three treaties/agreements cited by the solicitor general are
unrelated to the subject matter of this lawsuit. The Ankara Agreement
and the American Treaty of Lausanne involve the Republic of Turkey, not
German insurance companies. Also, the American Treaty of Lausanne lacks
any legal standing as a non-ratified treaty. The solicitor general
undermines his own position by acknowledging that the California law
“does not expressly conflict with the Ankara Agreement, the American
Treaty of Lausanne, or the Treaty of Berlin and Claims Agreement,” which
“addressed only the claims of those who were U.S. citizens at the time
of World War I, not those who became U.S citizens after the war had
concluded.”
The solicitor general’s “legal opinion,” besides being flawed on all
counts, is more of a political statement that deprives American citizens
of their right to insurance claims.
One would hope that the Supreme Court will ignore the solicitor
general’s brief and agree to hear the case, even though the chances are
slim, as the court accepts only a small percentage of cases submitted to
it.
The solicitor general’s overreaching arguments, if unchallenged,
would have a chilling effect on all future genocide restitution efforts,
particularly on the eve of the Armenian Genocide centennial!
Armenian-American community leaders should take all possible measures
to counter the solicitor general’s politically motivated arguments by
cutting all ties with the Obama Administration, organizing protests at
presidential appearances, seeking congressional intervention to
establish a federal commission for genocide restitution similar to that
of the Holocaust, and amending Section 354.4 of the California law to
circumvent the presented objections, no matter how flimsy.
Moreover, the Armenian government should immediately withdraw its
signature from the Armenia-Turkey protocols, which are repeatedly cited
by the White House and U.S. courts as a pretext for opposing Armenian
Genocide-related efforts, under the guise of not wanting to undermine
Armenia-Turkey relations—which are non-existent!
It is now crystal clear that Obama’s deceptive use of the term “Meds Yeghern”
in his annual commemorative statements does not amount to an
acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide, contrary to the gleeful
pronouncements of some gullible souls.
Finally, the Armenian-American community should reconsider its
strategy of seeking genocide acknowledgment through congressional
resolutions that are not only unnecessary, but counter-productive, as
these unsuccessful attempts undermine previously adopted resolutions and
cast doubt on the long-established U.S. record of Armenian Genocide
recognition.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment