by William Bairamian

Euphemisms have always played a part in racism. For those disposed toward cowardice, subtle overtures of a perceived enemy have allowed segregationists to convey their message to the like minded without saying what the masses think. This has been happening in Glendale, and throughout the Los Angeles area, for at least a decade, and now it has come to a silent fever pitch.

Last week, Zanku Armenian artfully examined the state of politics in the City of Glendale. This week, his observations were put on public display. In the Crescenta Valley Weekly, John Drayman, who is running for re-election to the Glendale City Council, attests that “On April 5^th some are hoping that you won’t vote”. Wait, I’ve heard that somewhere before.

I wonder, are these the same people that Mr. Drayman’s supporter, Gerri Cragnotti, a popular Glendale real estate agent, was referring to when she sent out an invitation for select Glendalians to come meet Mr. Drayman and Dave Weaver, another council candidate, at her home? That message read, “Maybe certain special interest groups, groups that win by absentee ballots, may not want you to go to the polls to vote on Tuesday April 5?”

Cloaked in ambiguity and doublespeak, the messages don’t arouse suspicion to the casual onlooker but to their constituents, they serve as an effective fear mongering tactic to suggest that there is some Armenian conspiracy that non-Armenians do not vote.

There are few, if any, “special interest groups” that are more engaged in the empowerment of voters in the Glendale area than the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA). And, because a part of the ANCA’s voter registration efforts aim to help elderly, incapacitated voters, these individuals are registered, and vote, by absentee ballots, primarily because they cannot go to the polls because of their disabilities. This has been shamefully twisted into an ironic rallying cry that “special interest groups”, like the ANCA, who has registered thousands of new voters, are interested in people not showing up to the polls.

But Ms. Cragnotti was right. There are people in the city that do not want their fellow citizens to vote and their names are John Drayman, Dave Weaver, and Frank Quintero.

In 2008, these three members on the City Council voted for an ordinance that effectively made it more difficult for non-English speaking (which, in Glendale, means Armenian) voters to apply to vote absentee.

The effects of this measure were real. In 2007, the percentage of Armenians in Glendale that voted by absentee ballot was 70%. In 2009, after the measure was passed, that number fell to 62%. The three councilmen who voted for passage of this measure, Messrs. Weaver, Drayman, and Quintero, certainly achieved their objective of temporarily lessening the strength of the most powerful voting group in our fair city.

For all the bemoaning of the complaints against him, Mr. Drayman has curiously taken to projecting his troubles unto others – when he’s not curbing voter access, that is. He has made tacit suggestions, in meetings like the one at Ms. Cragnotti’s home, that Ardy Kassakhian, the City Clerk of Glendale, possibly the most upstanding of all Glendale city officials, has been remiss in his duties, with nary a factoid to support his hyperbolic discharge.

It might come as a surprise, then, that while he’s taking shots at Mr. Kassakhian in both public and private, Mr. Drayman is under investigation for criminal activity. It is he, after all, who was cited in the Los Angeles Times, as having work done on his condo by not one, but six, subcontractors for a firm that defrauded the City of Glendale out of millions of dollars.

This is not even something that Mr. Drayman rejects. He simply says that he did not know. It must have been, then, the merest of coincidences that six different subcontractors, all of whom were associated to a company whose services he had dedicated millions of taxpayer dollars to, were the same six doing renovations on his condominium.

Mr. Drayman is adept at deflecting any exposure of his transgressions. Either by trying to focus the attention on someone else by making baseless claims or by smugly ridiculing allegations against him as though they were incredulous. Well, one can only claim for so long that their character precludes them from such misdemeanors while establishing a steady track record of them.

All this ruckus simply underscores the success of the Armenian-American community in becoming politically engaged and active – they vote in higher numbers than any other group in Glendale. But for some reason, cynical people like John Drayman, Dave Weaver, and Gerri Cragnotti, have a problem with this. They have a problem with (certain) Americans exercising their right to vote. They have some inexplicable problem with the same people whom they underhandedly defame. They have created a false conspiracy to serve their own interests.

April 5 is Election Day. Some people don’t want you to vote – and some of those people are running for re-election to another four year term. It takes five minutes to vote. Should the Armenian-American community have to take another four years of attempts to marginalize and disparage them? You decide.

Armenians hold up large banners reading “Recognition, Reparations, Restitution” during the Armenia v. Turkey soccer match in September, 2008

Since its independence, Armenia has seldom had the time or the opportunity to dabble in international politics. The extent to which it has been involved has had to do primarily with the war for the independence of Artsakh and, its dealings with France, Russia, and the United States in establishing the terms for a definitive end to the conflict. Otherwise, Armenia’s involvement within the international framework has been limited to cooperation with European standards of governance, attempts at Western-oriented societal and legal refinements, and activities within the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).

President Serzh Sarkissian strongly deviated from this posture when he invited Turkey’s president, Abdullah Gul, to Armenia, to watch a World Cup qualifying soccer match between the two countries. It was an active diplomatic effort that gained the praise of some and the disapprobation of others. More importantly, it came with an implicit assertion: that Armenia was now willing to undertake greater objectives with regard to its foreign policy.
Heretofore, Armenian-related issues were largely within the purview of Diaspora communities in their adopted countries around the world. From Armenian Genocide recognition to economic and military aid for Armenia to Artsakh’s right to self-determination, Diasporan organizations – like the Armenian National Committee – became adept at fighting for causes that affected not only the Armenians in their own communities but Armenians throughout the world. Expectedly, the Diaspora has become an indispensable part of foreign policymaking that affects Armenia. Noting this, among other considerations, a Ministry of the Diaspora was established, also under President Sarkissian’s administration. This was an important step in fortifying the established goals of the both the Republic of Armenia and the Armenian Diaspora.

Concerning one of these points in particular – the Armenian Genocide – Yerevan should be conscious of the much larger role it can play than it already has.

The stated policy of the Republic is that it demands the recognition of the Genocide by Turkey. As a country in the international system, Armenia is part of apparatuses that allow it to bring forth the Armenian Genocide issue in myriad arenas. For example, it is wholly capable of vigorously objecting the Turkish government’s attempts to silence any discussion about the Genocide within the United Nations. As a member of the UN, the freedom to express itself is Armenia’s right – one that Turkey has no qualms about using – and one that Armenia should feel similarly, and unabashedly, comfortable with.

Turkish President Abdullah Gul and Armenian President Serzh Sarkissian meet in Yerevan in September, 2008

Further, it is incumbent upon Armenia to actively demand that Turkey recognize the Armenian Genocide. This may seem as a simple enough gesture but one that it seems the government in Yerevan has shied away from in the face of diplomatic concerns. The reality is that Turkey closed its border with Armenia 16 years ago for no reason other than an apparent attempt to suffocate its neighbor to the east and make it doubly difficult for its citizens to survive. Unsurprisingly, Armenians once again withstood a vile test of their tenacity and have progressed significantly while eastern Turkey remains a derelict landmass, ignored even by its own government. Thus, when Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan puts preconditions on the amelioration of relations with the Armenian government – such as dropping the pursuit of recognition, reparations, and restitution – Yerevan must respond with equal force and publicly reaffirm its conviction to attain justice for the 1.5 million Armenians who were slaughtered at the hands of Ottoman Turks.

In reemphasizing its efforts, the Armenian government can utilize the newly established Ministry of the Diaspora to communicate and coordinate with those who understand, through decades of experience, the foreign governments Armenia is now dealing with. Likewise, Armenia’s vocal support of Diasporan endeavors in foreign countries would undoubtedly be a boon to those activities. It ought to also be willing to explain the reasoning behind overtures such as those made to Turkey, which have yet to become elucidated by any government official. In that vein, Armenia should emphasize to PM Erdogan that fully normalized relations will be impossible until Turkey acknowledges the truths of its history and remedies the injustices that befell the Armenians in Anatolia as they experienced one of the worst horrors of human history.

There is no place for timidity in world politics and the decades-long struggle of the Diaspora must now be met with commensurate zeal on the part of the independent Republic of Armenia. Having weathered a war, an earthquake, and closed borders for much of its existence, the Third Republic must be supremely confident of its ability to manage complex situations. It cannot and must not be afraid to assert itself on the world stage and it must swiftly respond to the purposeful falsification of its history with vigor. Succinctly, Armenia must be forward, frank, and fastidious in its pursuit of justice for the victims and survivors of the Armenian Genocide at every juncture – it is, indeed, its duty.

Despite the temptation to suggest that it was Michael Moore’s SicKo that provided the impetus for this national discussion, I believe that it was a result of a tacit agreement between Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton and the other frontrunner, John Edwards – who exited the race in its early stages – to finally address a frequently ignored problem. Consequently, health care became a central campaign issue for all three Democrats and each candidate had detailed plans on how they would make health care accessible to a greater number – if not all – Americans.

The relevance of this campaign issue became especially poignant to the Armenian-American community when, tragically, AYF member Nataline Sarkisyan lost her life because the deplorable policies of Cigna Health care prevented her from getting a potentially life-saving organ transplant. Cigna’s purposeful obstruction of the procedure led to an outpouring of Armenian-American activists, along with health care advocacy groups and individuals, protesting the insurance company’s decision to place more importance on their finances than to save an individual’s life. The ensuing debacle was nationally televised and the Edwards campaign even flew the Sarkisyan family to New Hampshire to share their harrowing experience with the state’s constituents in an effort to show voters the seriousness of America’s health care woes.

As the only industrialized Western country to not offer universal health care and as the country with the most expensive health care system in the world, the debate in the United States has intensified. This article will endeavor to explain what is wrong with the health care system in America, what can be done to change it, and how this is all relevant to the Armenian-American community.

What About Health Care?

In America, health care is the responsibility of each individual or head of household, in the case of families with children. That means that, in most circumstances, a person pays for their own health care and that of their children out of their own pocket. The problem with this system is that since health insurance is provided mostly by private companies, they can charge whatever they like to those wanting to buy it and oftentimes, those prices are too expensive for middle-income to low-income workers. First, this can make it difficult even for a person who has a job that pays enough to take care of their family’s basic needs (e.g. housing, food, transportation) but who does not have much money to spend on other expenses. So, buying health insurance for oneself or one’s children becomes a “luxury” that only some can afford, although a person may be working full-time. Unlike other luxuries, health care is a service necessary for all segments of the population and its availability should not be limited solely to those who have extra money to spend.

Also, just like the weather, the economy is cyclical. Most of you reading this have probably been through a few of these up-down economic cycles and you know about the consequences of each: typically, high employment and market growth during up cycles, low employment and market decline in down cycles. The primary concern here is with those who do not have jobs, not because they do not want to work, but because there is no work available to them. A person in this situation is simply negatively affected by circumstance and he or she cannot be expected to buy health insurance in order to be able to go to the doctor, if need be.

In the most loathsome scenarios, insurance companies will refuse their health care plans to those with preexisting conditions. This means that if a child has leukemia or if a woman has breast cancer or if a man has a brain tumor before they have insurance, the insurance company can – and most likely will – deny an applicant because of the higher likelihood of death. Because of the exorbitant cost of uninsured health care, this is essentially a death sentence signed by the insurance companies.

What Can Be Done?

There have been numerous proposals of how to solve the problem of uninsured Americans and, fortunately, a few were made on the presidential campaign trail. Because of the varied living situations of the American populace, most of the proposals have been multifaceted. For example, people would have the choice to either keep the insurance plan provided by their employer or buy into a reasonably-priced program offered by the U.S. government. Most universal health care programs would provide coverage regardless of employment status, making sure that unemployment does not result in the loss of health insurance.

Included in the health care coverage would be regular and unexpected doctor visits, access to necessary pharmaceutical drugs and insurance for health-oriented (i.e. not plastic) surgeries. Also, it would guarantee that those with preexisting conditions would still be able to afford health care, giving them a higher chance of surviving their illness. Such a system would ensure that everyone would receive, at least, basic medical attention required for a normal, healthy life – or, at least, its pursuit.

Where Do We Fit In?

Very simply, any of the aforementioned issues can apply to Armenian-Americans; unfortunately, one of them did and we lost Nataline Sarkisyan because of it. As Americans, we need to be concerned that many people who need medical attention do not receive it although they contribute their fair share to the economic well-being of the country and duly pay their taxes.

As Armenians, the tenets of our culture which have given us an admirable reputation as hospitable and respectful people should be parlayed into a sense of social justice that can be partially achieved through the implementation of universal health care.

It is, as I said, an historical time in the United States and if we, as Armenian-Americans, can agree that health care is the right of each individual, we can be a part of that history – a part of potentially the greatest social change this generation of Americans will ever see.