This was first published in July 19, 2008 Armenian Reporter.
Armenia’s foreign minister visits U.S. to enhance ties
Edward Nalbandian meets Rice, others
Signs anti-nuclearsmuggling deal
by Emil Sanamyan
WASHINGTON – Armenia’s foreign minister held a series of meetings with senior United States officials here this week in a bid to reinforce a key partnership that has come under strain in recent months with a critical U.S. reaction to the Armenian government’s handling of the crisis that followed Armenia’s presidential elections in February.
Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian, who was making his first visit to the United States since his appointment in April, told the Armenian Reporter on July 16 that “the main message I brought with me to Washington is our strong will to deepen and enhance our relations and cooperation in all possible fields with the United States.”
Mr. Nalbandian said that in meetings with U.S. officials he had outlined the steps taken by the Armenian authorities “to address all the problems [and] difficulties raised after the elections,” and “the progress made in that direction.” He said he stressed Armenia’s determination to proceed along the democratic path, as that is the “choice of the [Armenian] people.”
High-level meetings
Between July 14 and 17, Mr. Nalbandian met with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Deputy National Security Advisor James Jeffrey (recently nominated to be the next U.S. ambassador to Turkey). According to the governments of Armenia and the United States, the issues discussed included Armenia’s political and economic reforms, the Karabakh peace process, and relations with Turkey.
Shortly before Mr. Nalbandian’s visit, in a comment to a Turkish media outlet, a U.S. State Department official welcomed President Serge Sargsian’s offer to invite his Turkish counterpart Abdullah Gül to Yerevan to watch an Armenia- Turkey soccer match scheduled for September 6, encouraging the Turkish leader to accept it.
But Foreign Minister Ali Babacan of Turkey reportedly said this week that Mr. Gul’s response will depend on “developments between the two countries ahead of the [Armenia-Turkey football] match.” (See story on p. 17.)
On July 15, Mr. Nalbandian also met with Ambassador John Danilovich, chief executive officer of the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), to discuss the implementation of MCC’s five-year $235 million aid program in Armenia.
Citing the post-election crisis earlier this year, MCC had warned Armenia of possible suspension of the program unless “democratic momentum” is restored. It placed an informal “hold” on one of the projects – rural roads rehabilitation – last May, with other projects continuing at a normal pace.
On July 14, the Armenian government made public a decision it had made to finance the rural road project from the state budget, citing the need to begin construction work well before the onset of fall weather. A source closely familiar with the issue told the Armenian Reporter, “in an effort to keep the road construction on schedule, the MCC is prepared to accept [this] offer” by Armenia.
The MCC program has also been strained by continued devaluation of the U.S. dollar, diminishing the scope of work under the program.
As part of the visit, Mr. Nalbandian also addressed policy experts at a luncheon hosted by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. (That presentation and discussion were off the record.)
He also met with Armenia’s congressional friends, including House Foreign Affairs Committee chair Rep. Howard Berman (D.-Calif.), and representatives of Armenian- American advocacy organizations.
New anti-smuggling agreement
Ms. Rice and Mr. Nalbandian also signed a formal agreement pledging to step up efforts to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
According to a State Department fact sheet, the “Joint Action Plan between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Armenia on Combating Smuggling of Nuclear and Radioactive Materials” signed on July 14 seeks to increase Armenia’s capabilities to prevent, detect, and respond effectively to attempts to smuggle nuclear or radioactive materials that “could be acquired by terrorists or others who would use them to harm” the United States or its allies. The agreement builds on past nonproliferation cooperation between the United States and Armenia.
Armenia formally joined the Nuclear Smuggling Outreach Initiative more than a year ago. The initiative was first launched by President George W. Bush and Russia’s then-president Vladimir Putin in June 2006; it has since been joined by 71 states worldwide (as of May 18, 2008), including most post-Soviet states and all neighbors of Iran – with the odd exception of Azerbaijan.
Armenian became the fifth country to sign a formal agreement with the United States. It was preceded by Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Ukraine; agreements with twenty more countries are anticipated.
—Yelena Osipova contributed reporting for this story.
Showing posts with label Rice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rice. Show all posts
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Briefly on Obama and Turkey, U.S. vs. Iran, U.S. backing of Georgia over Abkhazia
First published in July 19, 2008 Armenian Reporter
Washington Briefing
by Yelena Osipova and Emil Sanamyan
Rep. Wexler: U.S.-Turkey ties to “blossom” under Obama presidency
Under the presidency of the Democratic party hopeful Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, American-Turkish relations will not only do well, but they will “blossom,” Rep. Robert Wexler (D.–Fla.), co-chair of the congressional Turkey Caucus and an Obama supporter predicted on July 14.
Mr. Wexler, who also chairs the House Subcommittee on Europe, made the claim at a presentation of his book, The Fire-Breathing Liberal, hosted by the Turkish Coalition of America, a lobbying group. (A review of the book’s chapter on Turkey will appear in September 13, 2008 issue of the Armenian Reporter.)
Unlike his Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the Democratic presidential hopeful issued a detailed statement on the “importance of U.S.-Armenia relations.” In the January 19, 2008, statement, Mr. Obama pledged that “as President I will recognize the Armenian Genocide,” while supporting a settlement of the Karabakh conflict “based upon America’s founding commitment to the principles of democracy and self-determination.”
Turkish leaders have expressed annoyance and anxiety over Mr. Obama’s statements, with Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan angrily calling him an “amateur” last January.
On April 24, and again earlier this month, Mr. Obama reiterated his strong support for the affirmation of the Armenian Genocide while questioning the Bush Administration’s policy on the issue. (See his questions to Ambassador-Designate Yovanovitch elsewhere in this issue of the Armenian Reporter.)
That didn’t stop Mr. Wexler from stumping for both Mr. Obama and Turkey. “I don’t think there is any legitimate foreign policy voice in this country that would not agree that in order to remove 150,000 American troops responsibly from Iraq we are going to need to cooperate very closely with Turkey. And I know that Sen. Obama understands that,” Mr. Wexler argued, without claiming, however, that the need for cooperation would also force the potential president to renege on his strong and repeated pre-election pledges.
Asked by the Armenian Reporter why he chose not to highlight his role in opposing the Armenian Genocide resolution in the justpublished book, Mr. Wexler noted he represents a district with probably the largest number of Holocaust survivors.
“Issues relating to genocide of any type, alleged or not, have great sensitivity,” Mr. Wexler admitted, adding that one of his opponents an upcoming congressional election is a son of a Holocaust survivor and is very critical of Rep. Wexler’s position on the Genocide resolution.
U.S. seen to be softening approach on Iran
In what is seen as a reversal of the U.S. policy of refusing to negotiate with Iran, and despite another spike in a mutually acrimonious rhetoric over the past month, Undersecretary of State William Burns (the State Department’s number three) will join the European Union’s “foreign minister” Xavier Solana, as he meets Iran’s diplomats in Switzerland this weekend.
The development came just as Britain’s Guardian newspaper reported that the United States will soon establish a diplomatic presence in Iran.
The United States and the European Union are anticipating Iran’s response to their “incentives” offer in exchange for Iran stopping its nuclear program. Previously, the Bush administration refused to talk with Tehran before the Islamic Republic suspends its uranium enrichment program.
Iran argues that it is not bound by any treaty to halt enrichment and claims its program is peaceful.
The White House said that Mr. Burns’ trip is meant to demonstrate the West’s unity on the issue.
Nevertheless, Reuters quoted the White House spokesperson also saying that in case Iran rejects the incentives package, there will be no negotiations, and additional sanctions will be introduced against Iran.
Middle East tensions have been increasing since June, as Israel air forces held massive exercises described as a “mock raid” on Iran, and Iran responded with tests of medium and long-range missiles, which, it says, are capable of reaching Israel.
At the same time, a longtime supporter of revising U.S. policy, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R.-Neb.) and Congressional Democrats including House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Howard Berman (D.-Calif.) have called for unconditional U.S. talks with Iran. Mr. Hagel also argued for stationing U.S. diplomats in the U.S. interests section in Iran, a step short of a full-fledged embassy.
These developments came as Israel and Iran-backed Lebanese Hezbollah exchanged the bodies of two Israeli soldiers for five live Hezbollah prisoners – the first such swap ever. The two soldiers were killed and their bodies captured during a cross-border Hezbollah raid in 2006 which sparked a month-long Israeli war on Hezbollah in Lebanon.
U.S. weighs in for Georgia as explosions in Abkhazia claim lives
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was in Georgia last week to reaffirm U.S. support, as its Caucasus ally appeared nearer to an open military confrontation with the de facto independent Abkhazia and its ally Russia.
Speaking in Tbilisi on July 10, Dr. Rice said it was “extremely important that the conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia be resolved on the basis of principles that respect [Georgia’s] territorial integrity.” She also stressed the need for peaceful settlement of the conflicts, suggesting that “some of the activities that Russia has engaged in have not promoted a peaceful resolution.”
In recent months Russia has beefed up its military presence in Abkhazia from 2,000 to 2,500 and sent combat aircraft on patrols over both Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which it no longer recognizes as Georgian territories. Russian aircraft reportedly flew near Tbilisi, as Ms. Rice arrived.
More recently, so-far-unidentified saboteurs set off a series of explosions throughout Abkhazia, killing four and wounding more than a dozen civilians last week.
Abkhaz officials accused the Georgian government of a “terrorist campaign” and for the first time in several years sealed the border with Georgia.
The developments have led a number of commentators in Georgia, Russia, Europe, and the United States to warn that tensions may spiral out of control and result in
a new war.
But two Abkhazia-based commentators contacted by the Armenian Reporter – Diana Kerselyan of the Sukhum Media Club and Akhra Smyr of the Independent Expert Fund – did not believe that the most recent escalation heralded an outright war.
Mr. Smyr hinted that the escalation was intended by Georgia “for media purposes” to once again draw international attention to the conflict, while Ms. Kerselyan pointed to Georgia’s reliance on the United States, which has argued repeatedly against a resumption of fighting that could also draw in Russia.
Georgia agreed to a Russian peacekeeping presence in its former Black Sea province of Abkhazia in 1993, after losing a war for its control launched a year before. In recent years, as Georgia strengthened its military under its pro-American president Mikhail Saakashvili, Tbilisi sought the removal of Russian forces and return of Abkhazia, and another former province it attacked in the early 1990s, South Ossetia, under its control. At the same time, Georgia has pushed for membership in NATO, to Moscow’s chagrin.
Washington Briefing
by Yelena Osipova and Emil Sanamyan
Rep. Wexler: U.S.-Turkey ties to “blossom” under Obama presidency
Under the presidency of the Democratic party hopeful Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, American-Turkish relations will not only do well, but they will “blossom,” Rep. Robert Wexler (D.–Fla.), co-chair of the congressional Turkey Caucus and an Obama supporter predicted on July 14.
Mr. Wexler, who also chairs the House Subcommittee on Europe, made the claim at a presentation of his book, The Fire-Breathing Liberal, hosted by the Turkish Coalition of America, a lobbying group. (A review of the book’s chapter on Turkey will appear in September 13, 2008 issue of the Armenian Reporter.)
Unlike his Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the Democratic presidential hopeful issued a detailed statement on the “importance of U.S.-Armenia relations.” In the January 19, 2008, statement, Mr. Obama pledged that “as President I will recognize the Armenian Genocide,” while supporting a settlement of the Karabakh conflict “based upon America’s founding commitment to the principles of democracy and self-determination.”
Turkish leaders have expressed annoyance and anxiety over Mr. Obama’s statements, with Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan angrily calling him an “amateur” last January.
On April 24, and again earlier this month, Mr. Obama reiterated his strong support for the affirmation of the Armenian Genocide while questioning the Bush Administration’s policy on the issue. (See his questions to Ambassador-Designate Yovanovitch elsewhere in this issue of the Armenian Reporter.)
That didn’t stop Mr. Wexler from stumping for both Mr. Obama and Turkey. “I don’t think there is any legitimate foreign policy voice in this country that would not agree that in order to remove 150,000 American troops responsibly from Iraq we are going to need to cooperate very closely with Turkey. And I know that Sen. Obama understands that,” Mr. Wexler argued, without claiming, however, that the need for cooperation would also force the potential president to renege on his strong and repeated pre-election pledges.
Asked by the Armenian Reporter why he chose not to highlight his role in opposing the Armenian Genocide resolution in the justpublished book, Mr. Wexler noted he represents a district with probably the largest number of Holocaust survivors.
“Issues relating to genocide of any type, alleged or not, have great sensitivity,” Mr. Wexler admitted, adding that one of his opponents an upcoming congressional election is a son of a Holocaust survivor and is very critical of Rep. Wexler’s position on the Genocide resolution.
U.S. seen to be softening approach on Iran
In what is seen as a reversal of the U.S. policy of refusing to negotiate with Iran, and despite another spike in a mutually acrimonious rhetoric over the past month, Undersecretary of State William Burns (the State Department’s number three) will join the European Union’s “foreign minister” Xavier Solana, as he meets Iran’s diplomats in Switzerland this weekend.
The development came just as Britain’s Guardian newspaper reported that the United States will soon establish a diplomatic presence in Iran.
The United States and the European Union are anticipating Iran’s response to their “incentives” offer in exchange for Iran stopping its nuclear program. Previously, the Bush administration refused to talk with Tehran before the Islamic Republic suspends its uranium enrichment program.
Iran argues that it is not bound by any treaty to halt enrichment and claims its program is peaceful.
The White House said that Mr. Burns’ trip is meant to demonstrate the West’s unity on the issue.
Nevertheless, Reuters quoted the White House spokesperson also saying that in case Iran rejects the incentives package, there will be no negotiations, and additional sanctions will be introduced against Iran.
Middle East tensions have been increasing since June, as Israel air forces held massive exercises described as a “mock raid” on Iran, and Iran responded with tests of medium and long-range missiles, which, it says, are capable of reaching Israel.
At the same time, a longtime supporter of revising U.S. policy, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R.-Neb.) and Congressional Democrats including House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Howard Berman (D.-Calif.) have called for unconditional U.S. talks with Iran. Mr. Hagel also argued for stationing U.S. diplomats in the U.S. interests section in Iran, a step short of a full-fledged embassy.
These developments came as Israel and Iran-backed Lebanese Hezbollah exchanged the bodies of two Israeli soldiers for five live Hezbollah prisoners – the first such swap ever. The two soldiers were killed and their bodies captured during a cross-border Hezbollah raid in 2006 which sparked a month-long Israeli war on Hezbollah in Lebanon.
U.S. weighs in for Georgia as explosions in Abkhazia claim lives
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was in Georgia last week to reaffirm U.S. support, as its Caucasus ally appeared nearer to an open military confrontation with the de facto independent Abkhazia and its ally Russia.
Speaking in Tbilisi on July 10, Dr. Rice said it was “extremely important that the conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia be resolved on the basis of principles that respect [Georgia’s] territorial integrity.” She also stressed the need for peaceful settlement of the conflicts, suggesting that “some of the activities that Russia has engaged in have not promoted a peaceful resolution.”
In recent months Russia has beefed up its military presence in Abkhazia from 2,000 to 2,500 and sent combat aircraft on patrols over both Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which it no longer recognizes as Georgian territories. Russian aircraft reportedly flew near Tbilisi, as Ms. Rice arrived.
More recently, so-far-unidentified saboteurs set off a series of explosions throughout Abkhazia, killing four and wounding more than a dozen civilians last week.
Abkhaz officials accused the Georgian government of a “terrorist campaign” and for the first time in several years sealed the border with Georgia.
The developments have led a number of commentators in Georgia, Russia, Europe, and the United States to warn that tensions may spiral out of control and result in
a new war.
But two Abkhazia-based commentators contacted by the Armenian Reporter – Diana Kerselyan of the Sukhum Media Club and Akhra Smyr of the Independent Expert Fund – did not believe that the most recent escalation heralded an outright war.
Mr. Smyr hinted that the escalation was intended by Georgia “for media purposes” to once again draw international attention to the conflict, while Ms. Kerselyan pointed to Georgia’s reliance on the United States, which has argued repeatedly against a resumption of fighting that could also draw in Russia.
Georgia agreed to a Russian peacekeeping presence in its former Black Sea province of Abkhazia in 1993, after losing a war for its control launched a year before. In recent years, as Georgia strengthened its military under its pro-American president Mikhail Saakashvili, Tbilisi sought the removal of Russian forces and return of Abkhazia, and another former province it attacked in the early 1990s, South Ossetia, under its control. At the same time, Georgia has pushed for membership in NATO, to Moscow’s chagrin.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Briefly: Congress, PACE to hold Armenia hearings; Rice downbeat, then upbeat on Karabakh
First published in April 19, 2008 Armenian Reporter.
Washington Briefing
by Emil Sanamyan
Armenian politics discussed in Washington…
Representatives of the U.S. and Armenian governments, as well as the Armenian opposition were to testify in a specially convened congressional hearing on April 17 titled “Armenia after the elections.” (A report from the hearing will appear in the next issue of the Armenian Reporter.)
The Commission for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which includes members of both the Senate and the House of Representatives and is also known as the Helsinki Commission, will hear testimony from Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matt Bryza, Armenian presidential aide Vigen Sargsian, and College of William & Mary professor and former Armenian Foreign Ministry official Arman Grigorian, testifying on behalf of ex-President Levon Ter-Petrossian.
Earlier this year, the commission co-chaired by Rep. Alcee Hastings (D.-Fla.) and Sen. Ben Cardin (D.-Md.) held a hearing on Georgia’s elections in a similar format. On March 3, following deadly clashes between police and rioters in Yerevan, both Rep. Hastings and Sen. Cardin issued statements calling for restraint and dialogue as a way out of the crisis.
On April 14, the Washington office of the Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) held a discussion on Armenia and Georgia. RFE/RL contributor Richard Giragossian argued that “the post-election crisis or confrontation [in Armenia] is by no means over.... The underlying dissent and frustration and dissatisfaction among the Armenian public has little avenue for expression, especially in terms of [media] outlets.”
Georgetown University’s Cory Welt painted a somewhat more upbeat picture of developments in neighboring Georgia, suggesting that if “in November [2007] the question was whether Georgia is sliding towards authoritarianism, now it’s whether it is sliding towards democracy.”
…and in Strasbourg
Discussions of Armenia’s post-election crisis took up much of the April 14 plenary session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) convened in Strasbourg, France.
In his report, British Member of Parliament (and former deputy prime minister) John Prescott, who led the PACE delegation to observe Armenia’s February 19 presidential elections, reiterated its key finding that the poll was “basically in line with Council of Europe standards,” and he sounded critical of the Armenian opposition’s tactics.
The report elicited criticisms from Swedish and Hungarian members, who focused on incidents of fraud during vote counting and post-election violence, respectively. In their turn, members of French and Turkish parliaments, who also served as observers, generally endorsed Mr. Prescott’s conclusions.
The most vociferous criticism of the election came from members of the Azerbaijani delegation, who demanded that the PACE be tougher on Armenia. In a rebuttal, Mr. Prescott dismissed Azerbaijani arguments as “absolute rubbish.”
Members of the Armenian delegation Armen Rustamian (of the coalition-member Armenian
Revolutionary Federation) and Raffi Hovannisian (of the opposition Heritage party) presented their views.
PACE was set to continue its discussion on April 17, when it was also expected to propose a set of recommendations to Armenia with regard to its political situation.
Secretary of State takes upbeat line on Karabakh peace
“I am very much of the view that the Nagorno-Karabakh issue is one that could be resolved, and actually, with just a little bit of will, could be resolved relatively quickly,” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on April 15, appearing to contradict her own assessment a month ago.
In congressional testimony on March 12, Dr. Rice acknowledged, “in the immediate future I don’t know that Nagorno-Karabakh can get solved.”
But in response to a question from the American Turkish Council (ATC) conference audience this week, Dr. Rice said that the Karabakh peace agreement “is just going to take taking a couple of difficult decisions and getting an agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia on Nagorno-Karabakh.”
The question came following Dr. Rice’s address at the ATC’s 27th annual conference, held in Washington, in which she touted the importance of U.S.-Turkish relations, compared Kemal Atatürk to Thomas Jefferson, and sought to avoid commenting on the dominant issue of the day in Turkey: the secular-military establishment’s effort to ban the ruling party through a constitutional court ruling.
Dr. Rice promised continued U.S. assistance to Turkey’s fight against Kurdish rebel forces and encouraged the lifting of Turkish penal code provisions that “criminalizes insulting ‘Turkishness.’”
ATC, which is funded primarily by major U.S. weapon systems manufacturers with contracts in Turkey, is a central element of the Turkish lobby in the United States. It is chaired by retired Gen. Brent Scowcroft, national security advisor to former President Bush and onetime superior of Condoleezza Rice. Turkish government delegates at the three-day conference included state minister Kursat Tuzmen and defense minister Vecdi Gonul. (For more information, see www.the-atc.org.)
Coming up…
The Armenian International Policy Research Group (AIPRG) will hold its annual conference on May 17–18 at the World Bank in Washington. The conference, supported by the Armenian government and sponsored by the World Bank, United Nations Development Program, and U.S. Agency for International Development, will focus in Armenia’s economic competitiveness in the global market. Connect at http://www.aiprg.net.
—Alexa Millinger contributed to this week’s Briefing.
Washington Briefing
by Emil Sanamyan
Armenian politics discussed in Washington…
Representatives of the U.S. and Armenian governments, as well as the Armenian opposition were to testify in a specially convened congressional hearing on April 17 titled “Armenia after the elections.” (A report from the hearing will appear in the next issue of the Armenian Reporter.)
The Commission for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which includes members of both the Senate and the House of Representatives and is also known as the Helsinki Commission, will hear testimony from Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matt Bryza, Armenian presidential aide Vigen Sargsian, and College of William & Mary professor and former Armenian Foreign Ministry official Arman Grigorian, testifying on behalf of ex-President Levon Ter-Petrossian.
Earlier this year, the commission co-chaired by Rep. Alcee Hastings (D.-Fla.) and Sen. Ben Cardin (D.-Md.) held a hearing on Georgia’s elections in a similar format. On March 3, following deadly clashes between police and rioters in Yerevan, both Rep. Hastings and Sen. Cardin issued statements calling for restraint and dialogue as a way out of the crisis.
On April 14, the Washington office of the Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) held a discussion on Armenia and Georgia. RFE/RL contributor Richard Giragossian argued that “the post-election crisis or confrontation [in Armenia] is by no means over.... The underlying dissent and frustration and dissatisfaction among the Armenian public has little avenue for expression, especially in terms of [media] outlets.”
Georgetown University’s Cory Welt painted a somewhat more upbeat picture of developments in neighboring Georgia, suggesting that if “in November [2007] the question was whether Georgia is sliding towards authoritarianism, now it’s whether it is sliding towards democracy.”
…and in Strasbourg
Discussions of Armenia’s post-election crisis took up much of the April 14 plenary session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) convened in Strasbourg, France.
In his report, British Member of Parliament (and former deputy prime minister) John Prescott, who led the PACE delegation to observe Armenia’s February 19 presidential elections, reiterated its key finding that the poll was “basically in line with Council of Europe standards,” and he sounded critical of the Armenian opposition’s tactics.
The report elicited criticisms from Swedish and Hungarian members, who focused on incidents of fraud during vote counting and post-election violence, respectively. In their turn, members of French and Turkish parliaments, who also served as observers, generally endorsed Mr. Prescott’s conclusions.
The most vociferous criticism of the election came from members of the Azerbaijani delegation, who demanded that the PACE be tougher on Armenia. In a rebuttal, Mr. Prescott dismissed Azerbaijani arguments as “absolute rubbish.”
Members of the Armenian delegation Armen Rustamian (of the coalition-member Armenian
Revolutionary Federation) and Raffi Hovannisian (of the opposition Heritage party) presented their views.
PACE was set to continue its discussion on April 17, when it was also expected to propose a set of recommendations to Armenia with regard to its political situation.
Secretary of State takes upbeat line on Karabakh peace
“I am very much of the view that the Nagorno-Karabakh issue is one that could be resolved, and actually, with just a little bit of will, could be resolved relatively quickly,” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on April 15, appearing to contradict her own assessment a month ago.
In congressional testimony on March 12, Dr. Rice acknowledged, “in the immediate future I don’t know that Nagorno-Karabakh can get solved.”
But in response to a question from the American Turkish Council (ATC) conference audience this week, Dr. Rice said that the Karabakh peace agreement “is just going to take taking a couple of difficult decisions and getting an agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia on Nagorno-Karabakh.”
The question came following Dr. Rice’s address at the ATC’s 27th annual conference, held in Washington, in which she touted the importance of U.S.-Turkish relations, compared Kemal Atatürk to Thomas Jefferson, and sought to avoid commenting on the dominant issue of the day in Turkey: the secular-military establishment’s effort to ban the ruling party through a constitutional court ruling.
Dr. Rice promised continued U.S. assistance to Turkey’s fight against Kurdish rebel forces and encouraged the lifting of Turkish penal code provisions that “criminalizes insulting ‘Turkishness.’”
ATC, which is funded primarily by major U.S. weapon systems manufacturers with contracts in Turkey, is a central element of the Turkish lobby in the United States. It is chaired by retired Gen. Brent Scowcroft, national security advisor to former President Bush and onetime superior of Condoleezza Rice. Turkish government delegates at the three-day conference included state minister Kursat Tuzmen and defense minister Vecdi Gonul. (For more information, see www.the-atc.org.)
Coming up…
The Armenian International Policy Research Group (AIPRG) will hold its annual conference on May 17–18 at the World Bank in Washington. The conference, supported by the Armenian government and sponsored by the World Bank, United Nations Development Program, and U.S. Agency for International Development, will focus in Armenia’s economic competitiveness in the global market. Connect at http://www.aiprg.net.
—Alexa Millinger contributed to this week’s Briefing.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Genocide resolution at "crunch point," U.S.' Iraq policy
This was originally published in August 4, 2007 Armenian Reporter.
From Washington, in brief
by Emil Sanamyan
Genocide resolution seen approaching “crunch point”
With elections in Turkey wrapping up, the House Resolution on the Armenian Genocide (H. Res. 106) will approach a “crunch point quite soon,” according to Alan Makovsky, a senior staff member on the House Foreign Relations Committee. But he anticipated no action until the August recess was over.
Mr. Makovsky said this in his personal capacity in response to a question from former Congressman and long-time Turkish lobbyist Stephen Solarz during a July 23 discussion at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), an audio of which is available on its web site.
Prior to his congressional appointment, Mr. Makovsky headed WINEP’s Turkey program and in that capacity he publicly opposed the 2000 House Genocide resolution, according to reports in the Turkish media at the time.
Both Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democratic Majority leader Steny Hoyer have had a “long-time personal commitment on this issue,” Mr. Makovsky noted, and “if they had their way [H. Res. 106] would pass.” At the same time, the Bush Administration has been intensively lobbying against the measure. The senior congressional official recalled that two types of arguments have been made against the resolution. The first argument is “strategic,” in terms of potential consequences for U.S.-Turkish relations, and, the second one is that of timing linked to elections in Turkey.
“We [the U.S.] don’t want to become a factor in the elections,” Mr. Makovsky said, and “that point resonated with a lot of people [in Congress].” Now that the Turkish electoral process is about to wrap up (the general election was held on July 22 and a parliamentary vote for president is expected in the next several weeks), that second argument is about to become irrelevant.
Also participating in the WINEP discussion, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matt Bryza thanked Mr. Makovsky for referring to the Administration’s work in opposing the resolution and promised that it “will continue that approach.” Mr. Bryza reiterated the State Department’s position that it “do[es] not deny anything one way or another” but believes that “those horrible events” should be addressed through dialogue between Armenians and Turks. “How do you do that, I don’t know,” he said but added that that is the approach favored by the Administration.
Referring to “somewhat ominous” comments by Mr. Makovsky that “things are going move” on the resolution, Mr. Bryza argued that “we really need something from the Turkish government that… moves towards normalization of relations with Armenia, it is time for that to happen.”
As of this week, 224 of 435 members of Congress have officially endorsed H. Res. 106. Mr. Makovsky said that the fact that more than half of the House members back the measure was “psychologically significant, but in itself does not mean anything operationally.”
Still, former U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Morton Abramowitz said that the resolution was very likely to pass in the House after Congress’ August recess, the Turkish Daily News reported on July 26.
A vote on the resolution depends on a decision by the Democratic leadership of the House of Representatives.
Be watching…
Our readers in the Washington area take note that this Sunday, August 5 at 8 p.m. the local PBS affiliate WETA channel 26 will be re-airing Andrew Goldberg’s film The Armenian Genocide. This documentary first aired on PBS nationally last year, when it received critical acclaim both in the United States and abroad. For more information connect at www.weta.com.
Reputed plans for U.S.-Turkish “secret operation” against Kurds leaked
Speaking at the Washington Institute for the Near East Policy on July 23, U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matt Bryza hinted that in the immediate future the U.S. is likely to take action against anti-Turkey Kurdish groups in northern Iraq. Mr. Bryza agreed with Turkey’s claims that the U.S. has not done enough to clamp down on forces in Iraqi Kurdistan, usually identified as the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), who Ankara has accused of fueling a growing anti-government insurgency within Turkey.
Both the military and the government in Turkey have threatened to invade Iraqi Kurdistan unless the U.S. takes measures of its own. “The attitude has shifted here in
Washington,” Mr. Bryza revealed. “We have to produce concrete results and I’m confident we are going to soon… in the next few weeks or months.”
In his July 30 Washington Post column Bob Novak offered details of one potential such action. According to Novak’s sources, during the previous week Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman gave select members of Congress a confidential briefing on plans, in Novak’s words, “for a covert operation of U.S. Special Forces to help the Turks neutralize the PKK. They would behead the guerilla organization by helping Turkey get rid of PKK leaders that they have targeted for years.”
But, according to the Post columnist, the idea was not well received by at least some in Congress. Its opponents believe that any such U.S. action would undermine progress made in Iraqi Kurdistan, the only stable part of the country. Predictably, U.S. and Turkish officials declined to comment on Novak’s claim.
Most commentators suggested that the leak intended to scuttle any such operation. The
Administration-friendly Washington Times, in its editorial on July 31 blasted the unidentified congressional sources that leaked the contents of Mr. Edelman’s briefing. The Times concluded: “now that it has been made public, the operation has been severely compromised – if it hasn’t been forced off the table altogether.”
But mindful of the Administration’s penchant for secrecy and tendency not to share information with Congress, Blake Hounshell, web editor for the Foreign Policy magazine, wondered on his blog if Mr. Edelman’s briefing to Congress was made with an intention for its details to be leaked. “So perhaps the plan was simply being floated in order to buy more time with the Turks, and Congress was used in order to kill it,” Mr.
Hounshell speculated.
Whatever the case may be, senior Turkish officials continue to threaten to invade Iraqi Kurdistan, although Prime Minister Recep Tayyib Erdogan acknowledged earlier this summer (see this page in Jue 16 Reporter) that the Kurdish resistance is based mostly in Turkey rather than in Iraq. Turkey’s real concern appears to be with the existence of a defacto Kurdish state on its border.
A referendum on the status of the Kurdish-populated and oil-rich city of Kirkuk, expected to result in its unification with Iraqi Kurdistan and opposed by Turkey, may yet lead to a fresh escalation in tensions if it takes place as is currently planned before the end of this year.
Think tank study argues for Iraq partition
Frustration over continuing sectarian violence in U.S.-occupied Iraq has sent Washington policy-makers scrambling for policy ideas that could provide for a long-term stability in Iraq. In recent years, a view that Iraq can no longer function as a centralized state has increasingly gained ground.
Last month, a prominent national security scholar and an experienced conflict-management practitioner issued “The Case for Soft Partition of Iraq,” a policy paper in which its authors Michael O’Hanlon and Edward Joseph argue that such an approach “would involve the Iraqis, with the assistance of the international community, dividing their country into three main regions. Each would assume primary responsibility for its own security and governance, as Iraqi Kurdistan already does.”
The paper was published by the Brookings Institution – one of the more respected and less partisan think tanks in Washington – and received considerable attention both in Congress and in the media.
Nonetheless, the plan has also been criticized because it would entail continued U.S. occupation of Iraq at the current levels for at least another two years, as well as major population relocation within Iraq, certain to cause additional humanitarian crises.
U.S. policy initiatives are frequently vetted through think tank studies, although only few of them become blueprints for government action. A policy paper prepared last year by the pro-Administration American Enterprise Institute, which argued for a “surge” in U.S. troop presence in Iraq as a way to contain the sectarian violence in the country, was one such example. The “surge” policy has been in effect from early this year and has received mixed reviews so far.
This September, the U.S. military commander in charge of the plan is expected to report on whether the approach is working and based on the outcome of that report whether it should be modified or abandoned in favor of troop withdrawal. Mr. O’Hanlon, of the partition study has been supportive of the Iraq invasion as well as the most recent “surge” policy, and may expect to have the Administration’s ear.
U.S. to begin major arms infusion into Middle East
Secretaries of State and Defense Condoleezza Rice and Robert Gates this week traveled to the Middle East, bringing along an aid package that includes many billions of dollars worth of U.S. military hardware for its Arab allies like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and smaller Persian Gulf states, as well as Israel. “The United States is determined to assure our allies that we are going to be reliable in helping them to meet their security needs,” Ms. Rice was reported as saying on July 31 by news agencies.
Israel, which is already the biggest recipient of U.S. military assistance to the tune of $2.4 billion a year, is expected to receive $30 billion over ten years (a 25 percent increase from the current level). Arab states are due to jointly get an additional $33 billion over the same period, with aid to Egypt doubled from $1.3 billion a year. The aid, including naval vessels and missile defense systems, is intended to check the perceived increase in Iran’s regional power following the devastation of Iraq and amid Tehran’s continued progress over its nuclear program, in spite of U.S.-championed international sanctions.
The U.S. Congress would need to approve the aid. That, despite some reservations over aiding countries like Saudi Arabia, seems likely since the plan has Israel’s support. As part of its efforts to contain Iran, U.S. also poured arms into Lebanon in the effort to limit the influence of Iran-backed Hezbollah there. The U.S. is also supporting one of the two main factions in Palestine; aiding Azerbaijan through the multi-year $100 million Caspian security program and funding opposition groups within Iran itself.
Iran’s reaction came from its Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najar. “[The U.S.] are engaging in psychological warfare in the region in an effort to save the American military industry,” he was quoted as saying by news agencies. “U.S. plans are designed to create a security belt around Israel,” Mr. Najar said. “We have no problem with neighboring or Muslim countries, and should any of these countries acquire weapons. This would only make the Islamic world more powerful,” he suggested.
From Washington, in brief
by Emil Sanamyan
Genocide resolution seen approaching “crunch point”
With elections in Turkey wrapping up, the House Resolution on the Armenian Genocide (H. Res. 106) will approach a “crunch point quite soon,” according to Alan Makovsky, a senior staff member on the House Foreign Relations Committee. But he anticipated no action until the August recess was over.
Mr. Makovsky said this in his personal capacity in response to a question from former Congressman and long-time Turkish lobbyist Stephen Solarz during a July 23 discussion at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), an audio of which is available on its web site.
Prior to his congressional appointment, Mr. Makovsky headed WINEP’s Turkey program and in that capacity he publicly opposed the 2000 House Genocide resolution, according to reports in the Turkish media at the time.
Both Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democratic Majority leader Steny Hoyer have had a “long-time personal commitment on this issue,” Mr. Makovsky noted, and “if they had their way [H. Res. 106] would pass.” At the same time, the Bush Administration has been intensively lobbying against the measure. The senior congressional official recalled that two types of arguments have been made against the resolution. The first argument is “strategic,” in terms of potential consequences for U.S.-Turkish relations, and, the second one is that of timing linked to elections in Turkey.
“We [the U.S.] don’t want to become a factor in the elections,” Mr. Makovsky said, and “that point resonated with a lot of people [in Congress].” Now that the Turkish electoral process is about to wrap up (the general election was held on July 22 and a parliamentary vote for president is expected in the next several weeks), that second argument is about to become irrelevant.
Also participating in the WINEP discussion, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matt Bryza thanked Mr. Makovsky for referring to the Administration’s work in opposing the resolution and promised that it “will continue that approach.” Mr. Bryza reiterated the State Department’s position that it “do[es] not deny anything one way or another” but believes that “those horrible events” should be addressed through dialogue between Armenians and Turks. “How do you do that, I don’t know,” he said but added that that is the approach favored by the Administration.
Referring to “somewhat ominous” comments by Mr. Makovsky that “things are going move” on the resolution, Mr. Bryza argued that “we really need something from the Turkish government that… moves towards normalization of relations with Armenia, it is time for that to happen.”
As of this week, 224 of 435 members of Congress have officially endorsed H. Res. 106. Mr. Makovsky said that the fact that more than half of the House members back the measure was “psychologically significant, but in itself does not mean anything operationally.”
Still, former U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Morton Abramowitz said that the resolution was very likely to pass in the House after Congress’ August recess, the Turkish Daily News reported on July 26.
A vote on the resolution depends on a decision by the Democratic leadership of the House of Representatives.
Be watching…
Our readers in the Washington area take note that this Sunday, August 5 at 8 p.m. the local PBS affiliate WETA channel 26 will be re-airing Andrew Goldberg’s film The Armenian Genocide. This documentary first aired on PBS nationally last year, when it received critical acclaim both in the United States and abroad. For more information connect at www.weta.com.
Reputed plans for U.S.-Turkish “secret operation” against Kurds leaked
Speaking at the Washington Institute for the Near East Policy on July 23, U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matt Bryza hinted that in the immediate future the U.S. is likely to take action against anti-Turkey Kurdish groups in northern Iraq. Mr. Bryza agreed with Turkey’s claims that the U.S. has not done enough to clamp down on forces in Iraqi Kurdistan, usually identified as the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), who Ankara has accused of fueling a growing anti-government insurgency within Turkey.
Both the military and the government in Turkey have threatened to invade Iraqi Kurdistan unless the U.S. takes measures of its own. “The attitude has shifted here in
Washington,” Mr. Bryza revealed. “We have to produce concrete results and I’m confident we are going to soon… in the next few weeks or months.”
In his July 30 Washington Post column Bob Novak offered details of one potential such action. According to Novak’s sources, during the previous week Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman gave select members of Congress a confidential briefing on plans, in Novak’s words, “for a covert operation of U.S. Special Forces to help the Turks neutralize the PKK. They would behead the guerilla organization by helping Turkey get rid of PKK leaders that they have targeted for years.”
But, according to the Post columnist, the idea was not well received by at least some in Congress. Its opponents believe that any such U.S. action would undermine progress made in Iraqi Kurdistan, the only stable part of the country. Predictably, U.S. and Turkish officials declined to comment on Novak’s claim.
Most commentators suggested that the leak intended to scuttle any such operation. The
Administration-friendly Washington Times, in its editorial on July 31 blasted the unidentified congressional sources that leaked the contents of Mr. Edelman’s briefing. The Times concluded: “now that it has been made public, the operation has been severely compromised – if it hasn’t been forced off the table altogether.”
But mindful of the Administration’s penchant for secrecy and tendency not to share information with Congress, Blake Hounshell, web editor for the Foreign Policy magazine, wondered on his blog if Mr. Edelman’s briefing to Congress was made with an intention for its details to be leaked. “So perhaps the plan was simply being floated in order to buy more time with the Turks, and Congress was used in order to kill it,” Mr.
Hounshell speculated.
Whatever the case may be, senior Turkish officials continue to threaten to invade Iraqi Kurdistan, although Prime Minister Recep Tayyib Erdogan acknowledged earlier this summer (see this page in Jue 16 Reporter) that the Kurdish resistance is based mostly in Turkey rather than in Iraq. Turkey’s real concern appears to be with the existence of a defacto Kurdish state on its border.
A referendum on the status of the Kurdish-populated and oil-rich city of Kirkuk, expected to result in its unification with Iraqi Kurdistan and opposed by Turkey, may yet lead to a fresh escalation in tensions if it takes place as is currently planned before the end of this year.
Think tank study argues for Iraq partition
Frustration over continuing sectarian violence in U.S.-occupied Iraq has sent Washington policy-makers scrambling for policy ideas that could provide for a long-term stability in Iraq. In recent years, a view that Iraq can no longer function as a centralized state has increasingly gained ground.
Last month, a prominent national security scholar and an experienced conflict-management practitioner issued “The Case for Soft Partition of Iraq,” a policy paper in which its authors Michael O’Hanlon and Edward Joseph argue that such an approach “would involve the Iraqis, with the assistance of the international community, dividing their country into three main regions. Each would assume primary responsibility for its own security and governance, as Iraqi Kurdistan already does.”
The paper was published by the Brookings Institution – one of the more respected and less partisan think tanks in Washington – and received considerable attention both in Congress and in the media.
Nonetheless, the plan has also been criticized because it would entail continued U.S. occupation of Iraq at the current levels for at least another two years, as well as major population relocation within Iraq, certain to cause additional humanitarian crises.
U.S. policy initiatives are frequently vetted through think tank studies, although only few of them become blueprints for government action. A policy paper prepared last year by the pro-Administration American Enterprise Institute, which argued for a “surge” in U.S. troop presence in Iraq as a way to contain the sectarian violence in the country, was one such example. The “surge” policy has been in effect from early this year and has received mixed reviews so far.
This September, the U.S. military commander in charge of the plan is expected to report on whether the approach is working and based on the outcome of that report whether it should be modified or abandoned in favor of troop withdrawal. Mr. O’Hanlon, of the partition study has been supportive of the Iraq invasion as well as the most recent “surge” policy, and may expect to have the Administration’s ear.
U.S. to begin major arms infusion into Middle East
Secretaries of State and Defense Condoleezza Rice and Robert Gates this week traveled to the Middle East, bringing along an aid package that includes many billions of dollars worth of U.S. military hardware for its Arab allies like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and smaller Persian Gulf states, as well as Israel. “The United States is determined to assure our allies that we are going to be reliable in helping them to meet their security needs,” Ms. Rice was reported as saying on July 31 by news agencies.
Israel, which is already the biggest recipient of U.S. military assistance to the tune of $2.4 billion a year, is expected to receive $30 billion over ten years (a 25 percent increase from the current level). Arab states are due to jointly get an additional $33 billion over the same period, with aid to Egypt doubled from $1.3 billion a year. The aid, including naval vessels and missile defense systems, is intended to check the perceived increase in Iran’s regional power following the devastation of Iraq and amid Tehran’s continued progress over its nuclear program, in spite of U.S.-championed international sanctions.
The U.S. Congress would need to approve the aid. That, despite some reservations over aiding countries like Saudi Arabia, seems likely since the plan has Israel’s support. As part of its efforts to contain Iran, U.S. also poured arms into Lebanon in the effort to limit the influence of Iran-backed Hezbollah there. The U.S. is also supporting one of the two main factions in Palestine; aiding Azerbaijan through the multi-year $100 million Caspian security program and funding opposition groups within Iran itself.
Iran’s reaction came from its Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najar. “[The U.S.] are engaging in psychological warfare in the region in an effort to save the American military industry,” he was quoted as saying by news agencies. “U.S. plans are designed to create a security belt around Israel,” Mr. Najar said. “We have no problem with neighboring or Muslim countries, and should any of these countries acquire weapons. This would only make the Islamic world more powerful,” he suggested.
Monday, April 16, 2007
FWIB: Rice-Gates letter, Azeri FM in DC
Published in March 24, Armenian Reporter
From Washington, in Brief
by Emil Sanamyan
* Bush Administration relays Turkey’s threats in a letter and testimonies to Congress
A joint letter sent to the Congressional leadership on March 7 and signed by Secretaries of State and Defense Condoleezza Rice and Robert Gates expressed the administration’s opposition to the passage of the proposed resolution affirming the Armenia Genocide. The House Resolution 106 (H. Res. 106) is currently backed by 182 congressmen.
In identical letters addressed to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Republican Minority leader John Boehner (R-OH), and made public last week, the secretaries argued that passage would “harm … U.S. efforts to promote reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia and to advance recognition by Turkey of the tragic events that occurred to ethnic Armenians under the Ottoman Empire. It would also significantly endanger U.S. national security interests…”
Ross Vartian of the U.S.-Armenia Public Affairs Committee described this position as “capitulation to Turkish threats. The United States should instead reject such threats, call upon Turkey to face history, and re-affirm Armenian and American history.… We are confident that the Speaker Pelosi will schedule a vote on H. Res. 106 despite Turkish threats and the Bush Administration’s objections.”
“The Bush Administration is today loudly and aggressively seeking, on behalf of the Turkish government, to prevent members of the U.S. Congress from exercising their constitutional right to cast their votes on the Armenian Genocide Resolution,” said Aram Hamparian of the Armenian National Committee of America. “In this unfortunate situation, it is left to us, as Armenian-Americans, to defend America’s core values.”
The Armenian Assembly of America repeated in a March 21 press release that it has “a fundamental policy disagreement with the administration” but would not qualify its position.
During March 21 House Foreign Operations Subcommittee hearing, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the principal sponsor of H. Res. 106, grilled Secretary Rice about the administration’s reluctance to talk straight about the Genocide. Schiff asked if Rice, as an academic, had any doubts that the Ottoman Armenian experience constituted Genocide. Rice, as Secretary of State, dodged the question, saying that the issue is for Armenians and Turks, not the U.S., to deal with.
According to those in the room, the hearing ended with a bit of a ruckus created by activists from the pro-peace group CODEPINK (www.codepink4peace.org ), who shouted against the war in Iraq, and that “Rice lies about the Armenian Holocaust!”
* * *
Little has changed since a similar letter was sent by the Clinton Administration to former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) in October 2000, the last time Congress came close to voting on a measure affirming the Genocide. At the time, Secretaries of State and Defense Madeleine Albright and William Cohen also focused on Turkey’s threats to cut off cooperation with the U.S. against Iraq and terrorist threats as reason for Congress “not to go forward.”
In these intervening seven years, the only appreciable difference in the U.S. position is greater rhetorical “sensitivity” to the event of the Genocide itself. The Yerevan-based Mediamax news agency noted that the State Department began to stress this “non-denial” of the Genocide after forcing its Ambassador in Armenia John Evans to retract his by now well-known statements of two years ago.
But affirmation’s opponents in and outside the administration continue to legitimize Turkey’s arguments against the congressional resolution that essentially amount to threats of retaliation against the U.S., Armenia, and Turkish Armenians.
* * *
On March 15, Assistant Secretary of State Dan Fried, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Dan Fata and Special Envoy to Turkey Gen. (ret.) Joe Ralston aired the administration’s opposition before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe.
(Incidentally Ralston is also a vice chair of a Washington-based consultancy, the Cohen Group (www.cohengroup.net), chaired by none other than ex-Secretary Cohen. Another vice chair is former Undersecretary of State and former Ambassador to Turkey Mark Grossman. The Cohen Group has a longstanding business alliance with the law and lobby group DLA Piper, which is currently in talks with the Turkish government about representing its interests in Washington.)
Fried introduced somewhat of a novelty into his testimony, referring to the Armenian Genocide as “ethnic cleansing” – a new term in the administration’s vocabulary that has just about exhausted alternatives as it seeks to avoid the term “genocide,” which is opposed by the Turkish government. A colleague also noted a stark difference between Secretary Fried’s prepared remarks, as posted on the Subcommittee website, and the remarks as they were actually delivered.
The prepared testimony claimed that according to unnamed Turkish Armenians, the resolution’s passage would “threaten their personal security.” But in his testimony as delivered, Fried claimed much more innocuously that the resolution “would stifle the dialogue [Turkish Armenians] seek and would … threaten the progress they have made in Turkey.”
A spokesperson for the State Department said that the change was merely editorial.
There were other oddities in Fried’s speech. Strained to find examples of Turkish-Armenian “dialogue” that could be “undermined” by the resolution, the State Department pointed to the fact that Armenia’s Deputy Foreign Minister was invited to Hrant Dink’s funeral and that USAID funded a conference on the potential benefits of border-opening, held in Yerevan last January. (The Reporter carried two stories on the conference, in its Jan. 20 and Feb. 10, 2007 editions.)
The hearing, broadly titled “U.S.-Turkish Relations and the Challenges Ahead,” was co-chaired by two long-time opponents of affirmation Representatives Robert Wexler (D-FL) and Dan Burton (R-IN).
None of the 23 House Foreign Affairs Committee members that have co-sponsored H. Res. 106 were available to speak in favor of the resolution, but several congressional offices said they have or will submit written questions to Secretary Fried.
* * *
Meanwhile, on March 14, the Associated Press referred to an unidentified Democratic congressional aide as saying that Speaker “Pelosi, who controls the House agenda, has no plan to bring the proposal before the House soon.” It added, however, that “final plans have not been approved.”
The AP also referred to a congressional staff aide who related that “it is understood that [Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom] Lantos, whose committee would deal with the resolution, was awaiting word from Pelosi.”
* Azeri official complains of Armenian diaspora on U.S. visit
Azerbaijan’s Foreign Minister Elmar Mamedyarov was in New York and Washington this week to call on the United Nations, the Organization of American States, and the U.S. government.
Speaking at Johns Hopkins University on March 21, he touted Azerbaijan’s growing “role in the region and the world” based on moneys generated from peaking hydrocarbon production. The event was moderated by Svante Cornell, the honorary doctor of Azerbaijan’s National Academy of Sciences, and the research director of the DC-based university’s Central Asia and Caucasus Institute.
Speaking of Azerbaijan’s decade-long efforts to achieve unilateral Armenian compromises over Karabakh, Mamedyarov said that this has been his overarching priority. He conceded that the parties are currently not close to an agreement.
“There are a few elements which [are] unfortunately playing a negative role – one of which is the Armenian diaspora,” Mamedyarov said without listing others. The remarks echoed those by his President Ilham Aliyev who has, incredibly, identified the diaspora as Azerbaijan’s main opponent in the conflict. The recent high-level Azeri-Turkish forum held in Baku (see the Reporter’s Mar. 17 edition) focused on ways to deal with the “powerful Armenian lobby.”
Asked by the Reporter to provide an estimate on the amount of money Azerbaijan is spending on countering the Armenian diaspora, Mamedyarov would not give a figure, but suggested that Azerbaijan’s efforts to “promote” itself will grow. Mamedyarov went on to encourage Armenians in the U.S. to be “more responsible” and not [sic!] help Armenian causes financially.
Later in the discussion one of Azerbaijan’s paid lobbyists in the audience, Bob Lawrence (www.bl-a.com/clients.htm), complained that Azerbaijan’s spending was small compared to that of Armenian-American advocacy groups. Lawrence, however, is possibly the least paid lobbyist on Azerbaijan’s employ at this time.
From Washington, in Brief
by Emil Sanamyan
* Bush Administration relays Turkey’s threats in a letter and testimonies to Congress
A joint letter sent to the Congressional leadership on March 7 and signed by Secretaries of State and Defense Condoleezza Rice and Robert Gates expressed the administration’s opposition to the passage of the proposed resolution affirming the Armenia Genocide. The House Resolution 106 (H. Res. 106) is currently backed by 182 congressmen.
In identical letters addressed to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Republican Minority leader John Boehner (R-OH), and made public last week, the secretaries argued that passage would “harm … U.S. efforts to promote reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia and to advance recognition by Turkey of the tragic events that occurred to ethnic Armenians under the Ottoman Empire. It would also significantly endanger U.S. national security interests…”
Ross Vartian of the U.S.-Armenia Public Affairs Committee described this position as “capitulation to Turkish threats. The United States should instead reject such threats, call upon Turkey to face history, and re-affirm Armenian and American history.… We are confident that the Speaker Pelosi will schedule a vote on H. Res. 106 despite Turkish threats and the Bush Administration’s objections.”
“The Bush Administration is today loudly and aggressively seeking, on behalf of the Turkish government, to prevent members of the U.S. Congress from exercising their constitutional right to cast their votes on the Armenian Genocide Resolution,” said Aram Hamparian of the Armenian National Committee of America. “In this unfortunate situation, it is left to us, as Armenian-Americans, to defend America’s core values.”
The Armenian Assembly of America repeated in a March 21 press release that it has “a fundamental policy disagreement with the administration” but would not qualify its position.
During March 21 House Foreign Operations Subcommittee hearing, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the principal sponsor of H. Res. 106, grilled Secretary Rice about the administration’s reluctance to talk straight about the Genocide. Schiff asked if Rice, as an academic, had any doubts that the Ottoman Armenian experience constituted Genocide. Rice, as Secretary of State, dodged the question, saying that the issue is for Armenians and Turks, not the U.S., to deal with.
According to those in the room, the hearing ended with a bit of a ruckus created by activists from the pro-peace group CODEPINK (www.codepink4peace.org ), who shouted against the war in Iraq, and that “Rice lies about the Armenian Holocaust!”
* * *
Little has changed since a similar letter was sent by the Clinton Administration to former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) in October 2000, the last time Congress came close to voting on a measure affirming the Genocide. At the time, Secretaries of State and Defense Madeleine Albright and William Cohen also focused on Turkey’s threats to cut off cooperation with the U.S. against Iraq and terrorist threats as reason for Congress “not to go forward.”
In these intervening seven years, the only appreciable difference in the U.S. position is greater rhetorical “sensitivity” to the event of the Genocide itself. The Yerevan-based Mediamax news agency noted that the State Department began to stress this “non-denial” of the Genocide after forcing its Ambassador in Armenia John Evans to retract his by now well-known statements of two years ago.
But affirmation’s opponents in and outside the administration continue to legitimize Turkey’s arguments against the congressional resolution that essentially amount to threats of retaliation against the U.S., Armenia, and Turkish Armenians.
* * *
On March 15, Assistant Secretary of State Dan Fried, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Dan Fata and Special Envoy to Turkey Gen. (ret.) Joe Ralston aired the administration’s opposition before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe.
(Incidentally Ralston is also a vice chair of a Washington-based consultancy, the Cohen Group (www.cohengroup.net), chaired by none other than ex-Secretary Cohen. Another vice chair is former Undersecretary of State and former Ambassador to Turkey Mark Grossman. The Cohen Group has a longstanding business alliance with the law and lobby group DLA Piper, which is currently in talks with the Turkish government about representing its interests in Washington.)
Fried introduced somewhat of a novelty into his testimony, referring to the Armenian Genocide as “ethnic cleansing” – a new term in the administration’s vocabulary that has just about exhausted alternatives as it seeks to avoid the term “genocide,” which is opposed by the Turkish government. A colleague also noted a stark difference between Secretary Fried’s prepared remarks, as posted on the Subcommittee website, and the remarks as they were actually delivered.
The prepared testimony claimed that according to unnamed Turkish Armenians, the resolution’s passage would “threaten their personal security.” But in his testimony as delivered, Fried claimed much more innocuously that the resolution “would stifle the dialogue [Turkish Armenians] seek and would … threaten the progress they have made in Turkey.”
A spokesperson for the State Department said that the change was merely editorial.
There were other oddities in Fried’s speech. Strained to find examples of Turkish-Armenian “dialogue” that could be “undermined” by the resolution, the State Department pointed to the fact that Armenia’s Deputy Foreign Minister was invited to Hrant Dink’s funeral and that USAID funded a conference on the potential benefits of border-opening, held in Yerevan last January. (The Reporter carried two stories on the conference, in its Jan. 20 and Feb. 10, 2007 editions.)
The hearing, broadly titled “U.S.-Turkish Relations and the Challenges Ahead,” was co-chaired by two long-time opponents of affirmation Representatives Robert Wexler (D-FL) and Dan Burton (R-IN).
None of the 23 House Foreign Affairs Committee members that have co-sponsored H. Res. 106 were available to speak in favor of the resolution, but several congressional offices said they have or will submit written questions to Secretary Fried.
* * *
Meanwhile, on March 14, the Associated Press referred to an unidentified Democratic congressional aide as saying that Speaker “Pelosi, who controls the House agenda, has no plan to bring the proposal before the House soon.” It added, however, that “final plans have not been approved.”
The AP also referred to a congressional staff aide who related that “it is understood that [Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom] Lantos, whose committee would deal with the resolution, was awaiting word from Pelosi.”
* Azeri official complains of Armenian diaspora on U.S. visit
Azerbaijan’s Foreign Minister Elmar Mamedyarov was in New York and Washington this week to call on the United Nations, the Organization of American States, and the U.S. government.
Speaking at Johns Hopkins University on March 21, he touted Azerbaijan’s growing “role in the region and the world” based on moneys generated from peaking hydrocarbon production. The event was moderated by Svante Cornell, the honorary doctor of Azerbaijan’s National Academy of Sciences, and the research director of the DC-based university’s Central Asia and Caucasus Institute.
Speaking of Azerbaijan’s decade-long efforts to achieve unilateral Armenian compromises over Karabakh, Mamedyarov said that this has been his overarching priority. He conceded that the parties are currently not close to an agreement.
“There are a few elements which [are] unfortunately playing a negative role – one of which is the Armenian diaspora,” Mamedyarov said without listing others. The remarks echoed those by his President Ilham Aliyev who has, incredibly, identified the diaspora as Azerbaijan’s main opponent in the conflict. The recent high-level Azeri-Turkish forum held in Baku (see the Reporter’s Mar. 17 edition) focused on ways to deal with the “powerful Armenian lobby.”
Asked by the Reporter to provide an estimate on the amount of money Azerbaijan is spending on countering the Armenian diaspora, Mamedyarov would not give a figure, but suggested that Azerbaijan’s efforts to “promote” itself will grow. Mamedyarov went on to encourage Armenians in the U.S. to be “more responsible” and not [sic!] help Armenian causes financially.
Later in the discussion one of Azerbaijan’s paid lobbyists in the audience, Bob Lawrence (www.bl-a.com/clients.htm), complained that Azerbaijan’s spending was small compared to that of Armenian-American advocacy groups. Lawrence, however, is possibly the least paid lobbyist on Azerbaijan’s employ at this time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
