Lawsuit Seeks Return of Seized Lands: Incirlik Airbase Sits on
Disputed Territory
Posted on September 30, 2011 by Editor
Overview of Incirlik Airbase
By Aram Arkun
Mirror-Spectator Staff
LOS ANGELES ‘ The struggle for justice concerning the Armenian
Genocide has taken many forms. Armenians have tried to use academia,
the media, legislation and diplomacy, protests and even, briefly,
violence in this struggle. Until recently international political and
scholarly recognition of the Armenian Genocide’s very existence was
the primary goal, but with this seemingly largely accomplished,
despite some important exceptions, Armenian efforts have turned to the
issue of compensation and land. American and international courts have
furnished new arenas to pursue these efforts. The California-based
lawyer Vartkes Yeghiayan has been the most active single individual in
initiating lawsuits for compensation to Genocide victims and their
descendants. Most recently, after a series of suits against insurance
companies withholding payments to the heirs of Armenian victims, he
filed suit directly against the Republic of Turkey and two Turkish
banks concerning Armenian-owned land now either near or part of an
airbase used by the United States in Incirlik, Turkey.
This airbase, seven miles east of the city of Adana in southeastern
Turkey, has played an important role in supporting the US wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan. Its construction began in 1951 and was completed in
1954 as part of US Cold War efforts. Its strategic location turned it
into a primary host for U2 spy missions into the Soviet Union and for
the 1958 US intervention in Lebanon. It also has served as a hub for
US humanitarian aid to Turkey. The US operates there as part of NATO.
Nuclear bombs are stored at the base. More mundanely, but pertinent
for the lawsuit, large American corporations like Baskin- Robbins,
Taco Bell and Pizza Hut operate on the territory of the base. The
properties on which the base lies were entrusted to Ziraat Bank from
1915 to 1923, and to the Central Bank of Turkey thereafter.
The three Armenian-American plaintiffs ‘ Rita Mahdessian, Alex
Bakalian and Anais Haroutunian ‘ are represented by the Yeghiayan Law
Firm, together with Los Angeles attorneys Kathryn Lee Boyd and David
Schwarcz of Todd, Ferentz, Schwarcz & Rimberg. Michael Bazyler from
the Chapman University School of Law, a specialist on genocide law and
restitution, is serving as a consultant. The three plaintiffs, acting
on behalf of their respective relatives and families, have deeds and
documents proving that their grandparents owned part of the land of
the base. The lawsuit, filed on December 15, 2010, asks for `fair
market rents and other relief’ for roughly 122.5 acres of property
estimated to be worth $63.9 million based on data from the US
Department of Defense. Roughly $100 million is sought as compensation.
One of the plaintiffs in particular, Mahdessian, is Yeghiayan’s wife,
adding no doubt an additional personal element to the suit, though
Yeghiayan did not initiate it for this reason. Yeghiayan said in a
recent interview, `Many survivors from Incirlik found me. We had about
14 property deeds and we have another 16 deeds of other people who
want to join the lawsuit but are still negotiating conditions. In
almost every property deed they mention the names of neighbors, three
out of four of which are Armenians. So there are a lot more Armenians
for whom we are looking. I put ads in papers to find them but am still
awaiting further contacts.’
Yeghiayan provided additional information about the background of the
plaintiffs. In his words, `plaintiff Alex Bakalian is a resident of
Washington, DC, and lawful heir of three relatives, each of whom owned
property in Turkey. Bakalian’s first relative is his paternal
grandfather, Dikran Bakalian, who was born in 1868 in Adana and died
June 1950 in Beirut, Lebanon. Dikran Bakalian and his family were
forced to flee in 1921, leaving behind all their possessions and
properties. Bakalian’s second relative is his paternal grandmother,
Kalina Hatun (Gulenia) Shamassian. Born in 1892 in Adana, she married
Dikran Bakalian in 1903. She died in Beirut, Lebanon, in 1978. Kalina
Hatun (Gulenia) Shamassian’s only surviving son, Guiragos Bakalian,
currently lives in Beirut, Lebanon, and Bakalian is his nephew.
Bakalian’s third relative is Ahsapet Shamassian (born Bouldoukian),
the sister-in-law of his paternal grandmother. She was born in Adana,
married Hovsep Shamassian (the brother of Kalina Hatun (Gulenia)
Shamassian), and eventually settled in Damascus, Syria.’
The second plaintiff, Anais Haroutunian, `is a United States citizen
and resident of Pasadena, Calif. Anais Haroutunian is the
granddaughter and lawful heir of Apraham Geovderelian. Apraham
Geovderelian owned four pieces of property in Incirlik. In 1915, when
the Armenian Genocide began, he was murdered together with his wife
and three of his children. The four remaining children all relocated
to Beirut, Lebanon, and are now deceased.’
The third plaintiff, Mahdessian, representing the Boyadjian family,
including maternal cousin Mihran Boyadjian, is `related to Mihran
Boyadjian Sr., who owned two properties in Adana. Mihran Boyadjian
Sr., fled Adana in 1915 at the outset of the Armenian Genocide. When
the province of Adana was given to France as a mandate at the end of
World War I, Mihran Boyadjian Sr., returned to Adana to reclaim his
properties. However, when the French mandate was removed in 1922 and
the region returned to Turkey, Mihran Boyadjian Sr., had to escape
from the province of Adana/Incirlik again, with his family, and
relocate to Hama-Homs, Syria. The family then moved to Cyprus.’
In a May 17, 2011 article in the Turkish newspaper Hürriyet by
Vercihan Ziflioglu, Yeghiayan stated the rationale behind his lawsuit,
`In this case our clients are able to sue the government of the
Republic of Turkey, the Central Bank of Turkey and the Ziraat Bankası
because of the following reasons: Turkey committed a violation of
international laws and proceeded to illegally confiscate properties
from their rightful owners; in the process, Turkey also proceeded to
violate its own constitution and the Lausanne Treaty. But more
importantly, they have used these ill-obtained properties to run
commercial operations.’
Turkey refused to accept service of the lawsuit, so the plaintiffs had
recourse to US diplomatic channels. Turkey was given sixty days (by
August 19, 2011) to answer but did not, while the two banks, the
Central Bank of Turkey and T. C. Ziraat Bank, received an extension
allowing them to respond by September 19. They proceeded to hire
several US attorneys, including David Saltzman from the firm of
Saltzman and Evinch. Saltzman has served as counsel for the Turkish
embassy in Washington in the past, and counsel for the Turkish
Coalition of America. He has been involved in a number of other
lawsuits on behalf of Turks or Turkey against various Armenian
parties, and has promoted denial of the Armenian Genocide. The bank’s
newly hired attorneys filed replies on September 19 asking for
dismissal of the case on a number of grounds. They argued that though
banks, the two institutions qualify as `foreign states’ with sovereign
immunity from the jurisdiction of the California court; furthermore,
they claimed that the Act of State doctrine, according to which the
courts of one country may not judge the domestic acts of another
government, bars the suit, while the 1934 claims agreement between
Turkey and the US, and the 1980 agreement for cooperation on defense
and economy between the same two countries also conflict with this
suit. The court and the state of California would be impermissibly
interfering with US foreign affairs. The convenience of the parties
involved and the interests of justice require a different forum for
this action.
The defendant banks argued that all applicable statutes of limitations
bar the suit, and finally, they asserted that there is no relevant
claim given for which relief can be granted. Now it is the turn of the
plaintiffs represented by Yeghiayan to give their counterarguments to
the court against the banks.
The Republic of Turkey, unlike the banks, has continued to take a
different approach. Consequently, on August 29, the plaintiffs asked
the US District Court for the Central District of California to
declare the Republic of Turkey to be in default, which could
eventually result in a variety of penalties and a decision in favor of
the plaintiffs. As Yeghiayan said in the May 17 Hürriyet article,
`Choosing to ignore the lawsuit won’t make it go away.’ The court
agreed that Turkey was in default on September 1.
In addition to the newspaper Hürriyet, the lawsuit has received
further coverage in other Turkish media outlets like Vatan (September
2, 2011), Today’s Zaman (September 9) and haber7.com. In the latter’s
September 7 issue, an article entitled `Incirlik Ermeni degil, vakıf
malı çıktı!’ argues that the Incirlik property actually belonged to
the Ramazanoglu Foundation. Journalist and researcher Fatih Bayhan
claims that his evidence concerning the Incirlik properties goes back
to the 1500s, and wonders how the Armenians would have obtained these
properties. The Ramazanoglu Foundation has opened thousands of
lawsuits, according to Bayhan, to get back its properties in the Adana
area and elsewhere, and has already won some of them. A writer in
Today’s Zaman Mobile Edition (September 15) summarizes an interview of
Yeghiayan in the Turkish-Armenian weekly Agos, wonders about the
statute of limitations, and promises to follow the case as it
develops.
In the Republic of Armenia, Naira Hayrumian in a December 23, 2010
lragir.am article speculated that the United States was somehow behind
this lawsuit, and other actions against Turkey concerning the
Genocide, as a way to threaten and pressure Turkey to carry out
various US policies. In this particular case, she wrote that it was
connected to talks Turkey was holding with Iran concerning a new NATO
anti-rocket defense system. However, Hayrumian has not presented any
evidence to back up this theory, while Yeghiayan’s dedication to the
issue of compensation and justice for the Genocide seems enough to
ensure that similar lawsuits will continue to be filed. Yeghiayan
commented on the claim of US manipulation behind the scenes:
`Absolutely not true. We represent the clients who have justifiable
claims as will be proven in court and we have no connection to the US
Government nor are we trying to put pressure on the US Government.’
Yeghiayan continues his work on other Armenian Genocide-related legal
issues while pursuing the Incirlik case. In 2007, a US district court
judge ruled that Armenian Genocide survivors’ heirs could use a law
passed by the California legislature in 2000 extending the statute of
limitations to sue German insurance companies, but this was reversed
in a 2009 ruling by a three-judge panel of the US Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals. This reversal was overruled in December 2010. This case,
Movsesian v. Victoria Versicherung, still is unresolved as the
defendants now have requested a panel of judges to rehear the case.
There are a number of other Armenian Genocide-related lawsuits that
Yeghiayan is involved in at the present.
There is also an outstanding dispute between Yeghiayan and his former
partners, Mark Geragos and Brian Kabateck, concerning the disposition
of money jointly won from the French insurance company AXA for
Armenian Genocide victims’ heirs, which hopefully will be settled
quickly, justly and openly, thus restoring confidence in the judicial
route for compensation for Armenian Genocide victims. According to
Roman M. Silberfeld, the lawyer representing Yeghiayan on this
particular matter, Yeghiayan has already provided through a voluntary
and cooperative process documents which Silberfeld expects will
satisfy Geragos and Kabateck that in fact nothing improper has taken
place. As far as AXA is concerned, there will be a hearing before
Judge Christina A. Snyder in Los Angeles on September 26. The three
parties (Yeghiayan as represented by Silberfeld, Geragos and Kabateck)
and their law firms are intensively conducting an investigation. They
intend to file a joint report for the court outlining what they
discover about the settlement administration, which was not conducted
directly by any of the three lawyers. There are some half a dozen
problems to be sorted out involving a significant sum of money. Some
75 people who were issued multiple checks say that they did not
receive all the checks to which they were entitled.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
