U.S. AND TURKEY THWART ARMENIAN GENOCIDE BILL
By Carl Hulse

New York Times, NY
Oct 26 2007

WASHINGTON, Oct. 25 – With backing from more than half of the House
this summer, proponents of a resolution condemning the Armenian
genocide were confident that they would finally prevail in their quest
for Congressional recognition. Adding to their optimism, Speaker Nancy
Pelosi was a longtime backer of the resolution, which had been pushed
mainly by her fellow Californians, and was committed to bringing it
to a House vote. But supporters of the measure were not prepared for
the vehement opposition of two powerful governments – Turkey, the
successor state to the Ottoman Empire, which historians say conducted
the genocide, and the United States, which needs Turkey’s help in
Iraq. Their combined resistance caused the resolution to falter,
embarrassing the speaker on a high-profile foreign policy front. On
Thursday, supporters surrendered, at least for now, telling Ms. Pelosi
they were willing to wait until next year. "We believe that a large
majority of our colleagues want to support a resolution recognizing
the genocide on the House floor and that they will do so, provided
the timing is more favorable," the four chief sponsors said in
a letter to Ms. Pelosi. The faltering of the push to denounce
the genocide illustrates what can happen when domestic politics
collide with international affairs and how treacherous that can be
for Congressional leaders like Ms. Pelosi, who came under criticism
this year for a trip to Syria. It also turned a near triumph into a
disappointment for those who believe Congress has a responsibility
to send a message on past inhumanities to prevent future ones. "We
certainly thought it would be a very tough fight, but it was a
much more lopsided one than we expected," said Representative Adam
B. Schiff, a California Democrat and a main sponsor of the bill. Once
Democrats gained control of Congress in January, supporters of the
measure mobilized, seeing a way clear to the final vote that had eluded
them because of opposition first from the Clinton administration and
then from the Bush White House. Ms. Pelosi as well as Representative
Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the new majority leader, were dedicated
proponents of the resolution that would put the House on record
as defining the deaths of an estimated 1.5 million Armenians in
1915 as genocide. The crisis in Darfur, in Sudan, had raised public
consciousness about genocide as well. "This issue had a constituency,
and there was a lot of momentum due to the switch in leadership and
Darfur," said Aram Hamparian, executive director of the Armenian
National Committee of America. It did not hurt that Armenians are
an influential bloc in California, Ms. Pelosi’s home, and that the
resolution was a top priority of California House members of both
parties, including Mr. Schiff and two other Democrats, Brad Sherman
and Anna G. Eshoo. Ms. Eshoo is a lawmaker of Armenian heritage who
is a close friend of Ms. Pelosi’s.

Mr. Sherman said the speaker’s decision to pledge a vote by the full
House was not about personal relationships but about principle. "You
don’t have to have a special relationship with this speaker to get
her to be in favor of recognizing genocide," he said. While the
backers of the resolution pressed ahead, the Turkish government
also went to work, hiring a lobbying team to raise concerns about
the potential backlash in Turkey if the resolution was approved,
particularly when Turkey is a staging ground for the Iraq war. The
Turkish government has resisted the characterization of a genocide,
seeing the deaths as among the many tragic losses in a time of brutal
conflict. But most of the lobbying against the resolution centered
on the need not to antagonize Turkey at a time when it was of crucial
strategic value. Among those carrying that message was Representative
John P. Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat and a close ally of
Ms. Pelosi’s, who began warning her in February against the bill. "I
explained what the ramifications were from a military standpoint,
but she said she felt compelled to do it," said Mr. Murtha, who
welcomed Thursday’s decision. By midsummer, the advocates had 225
sponsors, more than the minimum of 218 needed to assure passage. But
they refrained from pushing for a vote because Turkey was having its
own national elections. Instead, they aimed for the fall. Encouraged
to consider the bill, the Foreign Affairs Committee approved
it on Oct. 10, but by a relatively narrow 27-to-21 vote, because
lawmakers were well aware that the measure could reach the floor this
year. Mr. Bush and the Turkish government intensified their opposition
and within days, co-sponsors of both parties began abandoning the
resolution.

Ms. Pelosi said it was the responsibility of its backers to
secure the needed votes. "This is the legislative process," she
told reporters last week when asked about the furor. Its backers
began reassessing their strategy and one result was the letter to
the speaker on Thursday. Even some of Ms. Pelosi’s allies said the
bill’s withdrawal, while an embarrassment, may well have averted a
larger problem for her had the proposal been approved, setting off
problems with Turkey. Advocates of the bill predicted that Congress
would eventually regret backing off in the face of a threatened
backlash from an ally. "This sets a terrible example," Mr. Hamparian
said.