na-armenia7jan07,0,3732522,full.story?coll=3Dla-ho me-headlines

Armenian genocide question hits home
The former U.S. ambassador’s use of the term leaves Congress poised for a
battle between pragmatism and principle.
By Maura Reynolds
Times Staff Writer

January 7, 2007

WASHINGTON – Nearly two years ago, John Evans did something no U.S.
ambassador to Armenia before him had done: He used the word "genocide"
– in public – to describe the deaths of about 1.2 million Armenians at
the hands of Ottoman Turks.

It has long been a sore point with Armenian Americans that the U.S.
government does not refer to the killings that began in 1915 as
genocide, and Evans’ use of the word did not signal a change in that
policy. It did set off a slow-boiling controversy that eventually cost
him his job.

Now, the issue is preparing to boil over again, setting up a clash
between the Democratic-controlled Congress and the Republican White
House. The dispute has stalled the confirmation of Evans’ successor
and strained U.S. relations with Turkey, a key U.S. ally in the Middle
East.

"Based on what I’ve seen, this is headed to a confrontation," said a
senior Democratic congressional aide. "It’s an issue that’s a
flashpoint of controversy for both parties."

It started at UC Berkeley, in February 2005, soon after Evans took up
his ambassadorship.

"I will today call it the Armenian genocide," Evans said, according to
a transcript by one of the groups attending the gathering hosted by
the university’s Armenian studies program.

Evans’ comments floored – and pleased – his audience, eventhough he
made it clear that he was articulating a personal view, not
U.S. policy.

"I recall being surprised at that moment," said Stephan Astourian,
executive director of Berkeley’s Armenian Studies program, who
organized the session.

Though Armenian Americans and others consider Evans’ statement an act
of courage for which he has been unfairly punished, policymakers call
it a misjudgment that could fuel anti-Western sentiment in Turkey.

Historians have long used the term "genocide" to describe the
murderous campaign against the Armenians in Turkey. Nearly the entire
population of A rmenians was executed, starved or forced into exile on
the orders of the ruling Young Turk Party. Outside Turkey, there is
little debate over the facts orthe use of the word "genocide."

In Turkey, however, official history has long disputed the use of that
term. As a result, American officials have used all sorts of others –
"mass killing," "massacres," "atrocities," "annihilation" – but have
stopped short of "genocide."

"We have never said it wasn’t genocide," explained a senior State
Department official, who agreed to discuss formation of U.S. policy in
detail on condition he not be further identified. "We just haven’t
used that word."

State Department officials believe that Turks will come to their own
acceptance of the term from internal debate.

"That debate needs to happen, but it needs to be a Turkish debate,"
the official said. "It has been our view that our position of
encouraging thatdebate – and not allowing Turks an easy out to say,
‘This is foreign pressure’ – is more effective."

Most Armenian Americans and many members of Congress disagree, arguing
that the U.S. government should call the killings "genocide."

In a short interview, his first since leaving the State Department,
Evans declined to discuss his motives in making the genocide
statement, but saidthat "it wasn’t a slip of the tongue."

"I knew it was not the policy of the United States" to use the word
"genocide," Evans said.

"Ninety years is a long time," Evans added, referring to the decades
since the genocide began. "At some point you have to call a spade a
spade."

In the months after Evans’ remark, the State Department made clear its
displeasure. By July 2005, "it was absolutely crystal clear" that he
wouldbe forced out, he said. Still, it took more than a year more for
him to leave.

"Evans was a career foreign service officer, and you do not go after a
career foreign service officer lightly," said a second State
Department official.

Evans left Armenia in September and formally retired from the State
Department last month.

Meanwhile, the American Foreign Service Assn., the organization that
represents U.S. foreign service officers, granted Evans its 2005 award
for "constructive dissent" by a senior diplomat. But weeks later, the
group rescinded the prize, arousing suspicion that the State
Department had intervened.

Foreign Service Assn. officials who agreed to discuss the matter said
they took back the award after learning that Evans apparently did not
first go through internal channels of dissent before publicly stating
his views.

"Ambassador Evans’ action – admirable as it was – did not fit the
category of ‘constructive dissent,’ " the group said in a statement.

State Department officials said they felt blindsided by Evans’
genocide remarks.

The unanswered questions about Evans’ departure have stalled the
nomination of a successor.

In May, President Bush nominated Ambassador Richard Hoagland, who most
recently served as ambassador to Tajikistan. But in September,
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) put a parliamentary hold on Hoagland’s
nomination, blocking it until the end of the congressional session,
when the nomination expired.

Some Armenian Americans took issue with Hoagland, complaining that in
written responses to questions from the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, he was dismissive of the Armenian genocide. Last month,
Menendez and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) demanded the
administration send over a new nominee.

Bush will have to decide whether to renominate Hoagland. The
administration appears to be standing behind him, and complains that
he has been turned into a scapegoat over Evans’ dismissal.

"Senators can say that our policy on the Armenian massacres is wrong,
but it’s wrong to punish the president’s nominee for adhering to the
president’s policy," said the senior State Department official, adding
that some of Hoagland’s opponents had "twisted" his responses on the
genocide.

"He’s being tarred as a [genocide] denier," said the senior State
Department official. "And the only reason it’s being done is that
they are angry about Evans for the wrong reasons."

Not all Armenian Americans oppose Hoagland’s nomination. The Armenian
Assembly of America has said that although it opposes administration
policy, it would support Hoagland. And the Armenian government has
said that policy on the genocide issue should take second place to
more immediate problems, including diplomatic relations with Turkey.

The Republic of Armenia became an independent state after the breakup
of the Soviet Union in 1991, and today has a population of about 3
million.

To both Democrats and Republicans, support from Armenian Americans is
important. There are an estimated 1.4 million Armenian Americans, with
the largest population center in Glendale.

In the end, Democrats now in control of Congress may need to decide
between pragmatism and principle.

"To the extent that Armenia goes without a U.S. ambassador, that’s a
bad thing by anyone’s standard," said a Democratic staffer involved in
the confirmation process. "We’re 1,000% supportive of the Armenian
community onthe genocide issue. But in this case, the [State
Department] policy is going tobe very tough to change, and I don’t
think holding up an ambassador is going to get them to change their
policy."

maura.reynolds@latimes.com