No reaffirmation of the Armenian Genocide, no Senate confirmation

Published: Saturday August 11, 2007

Last week President Bush formally withdrew the stalled nomination of Richard Hoagland as U.S. ambassador to Armenia. From the president's ill-advised deference to Turkey's wishes, to his underestimation of the commitment and strength of the Armenian-American community, to his misjudging the righteousness of members of the Senate when it comes to genocide, the failure of Mr. Hoagland's nomination was first and foremost a failure of presidential leadership.

It remains to be seen whether the White House and State Department will take the right lessons from the Hoagland debacle.

The Armenian-American community can take pride in its victory and in its staunch allies in the Senate, particularly Senator Bob Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey. But whereas this challenge has been met, the larger struggle continues. We cannot stop here.

For Armenian-Americans, the main issue was and remains the following: With the recall of Ambassador Evans for calling the Armenian Genocide by its proper name, the State Department crossed a line. "It is now no longer possible for the United States ambassador to Armenia to be effective without using the G word." ("A Line Has Been Crossed," Reporter Editorial, Sept. 16, 2006)

We continue to oppose any nominee who does not fully acknowledge the Armenian Genocide.

***

The main outlines of the story are by now familiar.

When he was running for president in 1999, Mr. Bush pledged to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide. Every year since, he has issued a statement remembering the events of 1915-17 - frequently making important assertions about the tragedy inflicted on Armenians at the time. But in spite of that, he has studiously avoided calling that tragedy a genocide.

In May 2005, John M. Evans, U.S. ambassador to Armenia, took Mr. Bush's statements to their logical conclusion and used the word genocide. He said to Armenian-American audiences throughout the United States: "I will today call it the Armenian Genocide. I think that we, the U.S. government, owe you, our fellow citizens, a more frank and honest way of discussing this problem."

Mr. Bush made him take it back. As if that wasn't enough, he then in effect fired the ambassador.

In so doing, Mr. Bush disregarded the objections expressed by many distinguished members of Congress from both parties and broad protests from the Armenian-American community.

We wrote in this space at the time ("A sacrificial lamb," Editorial, June 23, 2006):

"There is every reason to believe that Turkey has had an unwarranted role in the Bush administration's foreign policy and personnel decisions triggered by Evans' truth telling....

"We suspect that the humiliations suffered by Ambassador Evans in the immediate aftermath of his speeches on the Armenian Genocide were not enough for Turkey. The ax had to fall to teach all government officials a lesson: do not even think of calling it a genocide.

"We cannot allow this lesson to be taught to the United States Foreign Service. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee should not consider the nomination of Ambassador Evans' designated successor until the State Department provides a full and open accounting of its policymaking on the reaffirmation of the Armenian Genocide, and adopts a policy that is acceptable to the Senate and consistent with American values: confronting the truth and refusing to bow to threats from Turkey."

We urged the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to question Ambassador Hoagland on all aspects of Mr. Evans' recall, on the administration's refusal to use the term genocide, and on the extent of Turkish involvement in the unwarranted firing of a distinguished, career public servant.

We concluded: "No answers, no reaffirmation of the Armenian Genocide, no Senate confirmation."

The California Courier, which made a similar argument, and the Armenian Reporter were joined by the influential voice of the Los Angeles Times Editorial Page, which on July 16, 2006, called on senators to "block the nomination altogether until the ambassador-to-be dares to utter the g-word."

The Los Angeles Times went on to say: "And the Bush administration should have the courage of its lack of conviction and explain forthrightly - not just to Armenian Americans but to all Americans who believe in calling evil by its proper name - why U.S. policy is being dictated by Ankara nationalists."

Armenian-Americans reached out to their senators. The Armenian National Committee of America and the U.S.-Armenia Public Affairs Committee (USAPAC) deserve credit for taking leading roles in this matter.

***

In his confirmation hearings, Mr. Hoagland failed to characterize the Turkish crime against humanity as genocide. On the contrary, he started arguing that the events of 1915 do not fit the definition of genocide.

At least half of the eighteen members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at the time warned the State Department that they would not tolerate outright denial. These members were Senators George Allen (R.-Va.), Joseph Biden (D.-Del.), Barbara Boxer (D.-Calif.), Lincoln Chafee (R.-R.I.), Norm Coleman (R.-Minn.), Christopher J. Dodd (D.-Conn.), John Kerry (D.-Mass.), and Paul Sarbanes (D.-Md.). Senators delayed the vote twice.

The nominee, Richard Hoagland, revised his answers to the senators' questions. Senator Joseph Biden, the top Democrat on the committee, was carefully assured that the United States was not in the denialist camp: "The President's annual statement on Armenian Remembrance Day makes clear our recognition of the terrible events of that period, and firmly sets the United States apart from those who would deny or minimize these atrocities," the State Department wrote at the time.

This response was not adequate, because it stopped short of characterizing the atrocities as genocide. But the State Department's retreat allowed the committee, 13-5, to recommend the nominee to the full Senate.