Armenian National Committee of America
Western Region
104 N. Belmont, Suite 200
Glendale, CA 91204
Tel: (818) 500-1918
Fax: (818) 246-7353
Email: [email protected]
Internet:
PRESS RELEASE
January 8, 2007
Contact: Lerna Kayserian
Tel: (818) 500-1918
NINETY-SEVEN PERCENT OF ARMENIAN AMERICANS OPPOSE HOAGLAND NOMINATION
GLENDALE, CA — Ninety-seven percent of Armenian Americans support
opposition to the confirmation of Richard Hoagland as U.S.
Ambassador to Armenia, according to a new Internet poll conducted
by the ANCA-Western Region over the past two weeks in nineteen
Western U.S. states. This viewpoint is aligned with the policy
position of the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA),
which has been leading and vigorously pursuing this issue in
Congress and with the Administration.
The 97% figure is based on polling conducted between December 28,
2006 and January 8, 2007. Asked, as part of a survey of public
policy priorities, about their views on the U.S. Senate’s
opposition to Hoagland’s confirmation, 94% of the respondents said
that they "strongly agreed" with this opposition. An additional 3%
noted that they "somewhat agreed" with this opposition. One
percent reported that they "somewhat disagreed" with opposing
Hoagland, and 2% indicated that they "strongly disagreed" with the
opposition to his confirmation.
The controversy over the Hoagland nomination, which was most
recently covered in a January 7th Los Angeles Times article (see
text below) began with the firing of his predecessor, John Evans,
for speaking truthfully about the Armenian Genocide. This firing,
for breaching the State Department’s policy of complicity in the
Turkish government’s denial of this crime, was compounded by
Hoagland’s outright denial of the Genocide in response to questions
posed during and after his June 2006 confirmation hearing before
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Based on growing
reservations over the Evans dismissal and, later, Hoagland’s deeply
offensive responses, more than half of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee members and over 60 U.S. Representatives formally raised
their concerns on this matter with the Administration. Senator Bob
Menendez (D-NJ) moved on September 7, 2006 to place a "hold" on the
Hoagland nomination, effectively blocking the nomination. On
December 1st of last year the New Jersey legislator joined with
incoming Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) in calling on the
Administration to offer a new candidate for this post.
The full results of the ANCA-WR Internet poll, including details
about Armenian American views about the Armenian Genocide
Resolution, will be issued shortly.
#####
The Los Angeles Times – January 7, 2007
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, even though
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 Armenians 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 or the 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 that debate – 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 said that "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 would be 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 on the genocide issue. But in this case, the
[State Department] policy is going to be very tough to change, and
I don’t think holding up an ambassador is going to get them to
change their policy."