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 Armenian National Committee of America -Western Region (ANCA-WR) 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.”