WASHINGTON, DC – Congresswoman Grace Napolitano (D-CA) today submitted a series of questions to a senior State Department official during his testimony before the U.S. House International Relations Committee – including a pointed question about reports that the U.S. Ambassador to Armenia is being recalled due to his public acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide, reported the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA).

As a follow up question, addressed to Assistant Secretary of State Dan Fried, the California Congresswoman asked for a clarification of any restrictions placed on State Department officials concerning the use of the word “genocide” when discussing the extermination of 1.5 million Armenians starting in 1915. She also inquired about U.S. policy on the Turkish blockade of Armenia and the proposed Caucasus railroad line circumventing Armenia.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has yet to respond to an earlier written inquiry regarding Ambassador Evans from Congressman Adam Schiff during her February 16th testimony before the same panel. Since that hearing, the California Courier, a respected Armenian American newspaper, has reported that the State Department is recalling Ambassador Evans, well before the normal end of his three-year tenure, because of his open acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide during a series of presentations last year to Armenian American community groups.

Responding to a reporter’s question at today’s State Department briefing, spokesperson Sean McCormack said, “I’m not aware that we have recalled anybody. . . I believe that he’s still serving as ambassador in Armenia.”

The full text of Congresswoman Napolitano’s questions are provided below.

1) There are reports that U.S. Ambassador to Armenia, John Evans is being recalled because of his speech on the Armenian Genocide. Is there any truth behind these reports? If not, could you explain why his term is being cut shorter than his predecessors who normally served more than a year longer than he has?

2) Have State Department employees been directed not to use the word “genocide” when discussing the extermination of 1.5 million Armenians starting in 1915?

3) Contrary to U.S. and international law and standards with regard to recipients of our foreign aid and as a further threat to stability in the South Caucasus, Turkey refuses to end its now thirteen-year blockade against its neighbor, Armenia. What specific steps is the Administration taking to encourage the Turkish government to open the last closed border of Europe?

4) Would regional security be enhanced and U.S. interests furthered if Turkey lifted its blockade of Armenia?

5) United States policy in the South Caucasus seeks to foster regional cooperation and economic integration and supports open borders and transport and communication corridors. In a move that undermines U.S. efforts to end Turkey’s blockade of Armenia, the President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev has initiated a project to construct a new rail line linking Turkey, Georgia, and Azerbaijan while bypassing Armenia. The proposal is estimated to cost up to $800 million and would take three years to complete. The aim of this costly approach, as publicly stated by President Aliyev, is to isolate Armenia by enhancing the ongoing Turkish and Azerbaijani blockades and to keep the existing Turkey-Armenia-Georgia rail link shut down. This ill-conceived project runs counter to U.S. policy, ignores the standing Kars-Gymri route, is politically and economically flawed and serves to destabilize the region.

a) This proposed rail link would not only undermine U.S. policy goals for the region, but would also specifically isolate Armenia as evidenced by President Aliyev’s recent remarks. Does the Administration support the rail line that would bypass Armenia as an alternative to the Kars-Gymri route?

b) Has the Administration allocated or expended any federal agency funds or otherwise provided financial support for the intended project?

c) What steps is the Administration taking to urge the government of Azerbaijan to reject this counterproductive proposal?