U.S. CONFIRMATION ROW SHOWS POWER OF DIASPORA LOBBIES

Radio Free Europe, Czech Republic
Aug 2 2006

By Julie A. Corwin

The U.S. Senate on August 1 decided once again to postpone
its confirmation of the man designated to serve as the new U.S.
ambassador to Armenia. Richard Hoagland has raised concern among some
lawmakers because of his refusal to characterize the mass killings
of Armenians by Turks in the early 20th century as genocide.

WASHINGTON, August 2, 2006 (RFE/RL) — U.S. Senator Joseph Biden,
recommending that Hoagland’s confirmation be postponed until a future
date, summarized his doubts about the official White House stance on
the genocide debate.

"I know that the administration’s not likely to change their policy,"
he said. "But there was genocide in Armenia, and it’s very difficult
to deny history."

Issues & Influence

In all, nine of the 18 members of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee have pressed Hoagland to clarify U.S. policy on the Armenian
genocide debate.

It might seem surprising that so many U.S. lawmakers are prepared to
weigh in on the politically loaded debate over whether the Ottoman-era
killing of Armenians by Turks constitutes genocide.

The prominence of the issue is due in large part to the efforts of
two powerful lobbying groups — the Armenian National Committee of
America (ANCA), and the Armenian Assembly of America (AAA).

The logo of the Armenian National Committee of America (courtesy
graphic)There are lobbying groups representing the concerns of nearly
every diaspora community in the United States. The Armenian lobby is
one of the most successful.

Bryan Ardouny is the executive director of the AAA. He says the issue
remains high on the group’s agenda.

"We will continue to press forward with the ultimate goal of having the
United States, on record, reaffirming the Armenian genocide," he says.

Record Of Success

The Armenian lobby has scored other victories as well.

Both the AAA and the ANCA were instrumental in persuading lawmakers
to block U.S. financing for a proposed railway that would link Turkey,
Georgia, and Azerbaijan but circumvent Armenia.

They also played a role in legislation passed in 1992 that excluded
Azerbaijan from a list of former Soviet republics available for U.S.
aid.

The exclusion, meant to censure Baku for what was termed "offensive
use of force" against Armenia and the ethnic Armenian exclave of
Nagorno-Karabakh, remained in force until 2002, when U.S. President
George W. Bush granted the first in a series of annual waivers of
the provision.

Fingerprints Not Required

Aram Hamparian, the executive director of the Armenian National
Committee, says his lobby also helped remove Armenia from a U.S. list
of countries considered sources of potential terrorists.

"A few years ago the Justice Department placed Armenia on a [terrorism]
watch list," Hamparian says. "This meant citizens from Armenia would
need to register and be photographed and fingerprinted and all the
rest. And we were successful in just the course of a couple of days
in getting Armenia taken off that list."

So what makes the Armenian lobby so successful?

Yerevan, to a greater degree than Baku, is dependent on the largely
loyal U.S. lobby groups to advance its agenda in Washington.It’s
not a matter of strength in numbers. There are fewer than 2 million
Armenian-Americans living in the United States, a country with a
population of nearly 300 million.

But diaspora members like Hamparian say the community is bound by a
common belief in the power of political participation.

And although the majority of Armenian-Americans are concentrated on
the East and West coasts of the United States, Hamparian says the
community is represented and active in almost every congressional
district across the United States.

A Study In Contrasts

The success of the Armenian lobby runs in sharp contrast to that of
Armenia’s South Caucasus neighbor, Azerbaijan.

Azerbaijan, like Armenia, has its own congressional caucus — a group
of U.S. lawmakers who pursue common legislative objectives.

But while the Armenian caucus is highly active, its Azerbaijani
counterpart is considered far less effective.

The Azerbaijani lobby’s biggest victory to date has been the annual
presidential waiver on U.S. aid restrictions. Beyond that, however,
it has had little influence.

Facing The Giant

Glen Howard is the director of the Jamestown Foundation, a public
policy group that monitors developments in the former Soviet Union.
He compares the Azerbaijani and Armenian U.S. lobby groups to David
and Goliath — but says there’s reason to believe Azerbaijani-Americans
will catch up.

"The Armenians have been practicing and organized for a very long time,
much longer than the Azerbaijanis," Howard says. "But then again,
the Turks 40 years ago did not have a lobby, and it took them quite
a while. But they eventually reached a level stage where they can
compete and hold their ground with the Armenians."

Just as the Turkish lobby squares off against the Armenians on the
genocide issue, many Azerbaijani-Americans would like to increase
their influence in the debate over Nagorno-Karabakh.

But while the Armenian diaspora comprises several generations and
maintains close, nationalistic ties with Armenia proper, the U.S.
Azerbaijani community is less rooted — many Azerbaijani-Americans
are first-generation. They are also more diverse, with many coming
not from Azerbaijan, but Iran.

Divergent Views

Bedir Memmedli, a member of the Washington-based Azerbaijan Society
of America, says the views of the Azerbaijani diaspora diverge on
some points — but do come together on a few key issues.

"There are a lot of common issues we all share — for example, the
occupation of Azerbaijan by our neighboring Armenia. There is also
the oppression of ethnic Azerbaijanis in Iran, cultural discrimination
against Azerbaijanis in Iran," Memmedli says.

"These are common issues that we are all concerned about. But there
are also some specific issues — for example, those Azerbaijanis
from the Republic of Azerbaijan, they usually ask or try to have
their voices heard regarding such issues as putting more investment
in Azerbaijan’s economy."

Lobbies Vs. Leaders

The Azerbaijani lobby may be struggling for influence with U.S.
lawmakers. But Washington is somewhat more receptive when it comes
to the Azerbaijani president, Ilham Aliyev.

The logo of the Azerbaijan Society of America (courtesy
graphic)Aliyev, who presides over an ascendant oil-fed economy and
geographic proximity to Iran, in April visited the White House for
talks with President Bush.

Aliyev’s Armenian counterpart, Robert Kocharian, has yet to receive
a similar invitation. Yerevan, to a greater degree than Baku,
is dependent on the largely loyal U.S. lobby groups to advance its
agenda in Washington.

How To Help?

Richard Giragosian, an independent security analyst and regular
contributor to RFE/RL, says the two diaspora communities have "very
different" perceptions about ties to their home government.

"From a political standpoint, the diaspora for Armenia is seen as
a pillar of support for the state, and for the regime, in terms of
lobbying leverage. And the diaspora, for the Armenians, is almost an
element of state power, or an element of foreign policy," he says.

"Interestingly, in Azerbaijan’s case, it’s the exact opposite, where
Azerbaijan seeks to co-opt its diaspora, because it basically sees it
as a potential threat to the regime — the youth, and the diaspora.
And it seeks basically to co-opt any potential for revolutions of fruit
or flower" — a reference to the Orange, Rose, and Tulip revolutions
in Ukraine, Georgia, and Kyrgyzstan.

It isn’t a guarantee that Azerbaijan will benefit from a U.S. lobby
that acts in lockstep with Baku. Giragosian says officials in Armenia
sometimes feel the nationalistic zeal of the Armenian-American lobbies
leaves Yerevan with less leverage in terms of foreign policy.

This is particularly true on the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh, where, he
says, Yerevan sometimes feels the diaspora has been "more a liability
than an asset."