In recent months, the hottest issue in U.S.-Armenian relations has been the nomination of a new U.S. Ambassador to Armenia. The State Department had decided to recall Ambassador John Evans prematurely and proposed Richard Hoagland as his replacement. The U.S. Senate has postponed his confirmation to an indefinite date. According to several sources, Amb. Evans was recalled for using the term “genocide” when referring to the Armenian Genocide in a public statement in 2005, in contrast to President Bush who doesn’t use that word. We talked about these issues to Harut Sassounian, a prominent representative of the Armenian Diaspora in the U.S., and the editor of “The California Courier” newspaper.
– Mr. Sassounian, many people believe like you do that Ambassador Evans is being recalled for acknowledging the Armenian Genocide in one of his speeches. What is the basis for such a supposition?
– There is no doubt whatsoever that Ambassador Evans is being recalled for saying “Armenian Genocide” last year. All those who doubt that, are working against the interests of Armenia. It is both surprising and saddening for me that there are such people who are intentionally doing their best to weaken our resolve to struggle for our national cause. Regarding your question: “how do we know that he is being recalled for saying ‘genocide?'”, we know it from Armenian and American officials, we know it from our own sources. Matthew Bryza recently told the press that Amb. Evans could have had a personal opinion, but should not have expressed it in public. Ambassador-Designate Hoagland, when questioned by Senators, said that an Ambassador does not have the right to have a personal position. He must only reflect the position of the President. Last year, when Amb. Evans uttered the words “Armenian Genocide,” he was subjected to tremendous pressure by his superiors, forcing him to apologize. Then they forced him to issue a second apology. He was then warned that he could be dismissed from his post. High-ranking Turkish officials demanded that
the U.S. government take severe disciplinary actions against him. In June of 2005, when he was selected to receive an award for “Constructive Dissent,” the State Department pressured the awarding organization to withdraw that award.
– During his first presidential campaign, the current U.S. president, George W. Bush promised to recognize the Armenian Genocide. Where is the contradiction between Bush’s policy and Amb. Evans’ announcement?
– It’s true that Bush promised to recognize the Genocide while he was still a presidential candidate. After the election, he has been issuing a statement every April 24, without using the words “Armenian Genocide.” But the meaning of the words he uses in his statements, such as “1,5 million innocent Armenians were the victims of mass murder committed by the Turkish government” is the equivalent of saying “Genocide.” But there is intense pressure both from Turkey and some internal circles on American policy on this issue. The president is giving in and cannot use the word “Genocide”. If we compare candidate Bush’s announcement with his presidential statements where the word “Genocide” does not appear, they are not much different. Besides that, I would like to mention that U.S. officials have avoided answering why the Ambassador is being recalled. When Senators submitted written questions to Hoagland and Condoleezza Rice concerning this issue, they gave evasive answers. We want them to state in writing the official reason for the recall. We would then confront them on a different platform, regarding their denial or lack of recognition of the Genocide.
– John Evans made that statement in February, 2005. Why did it take the State Department a year to recall him?
– His recall is 100% linked to his statement on the Armenian Genocide. As for your question, please note that governments do not make quick decisions, especially when the issue concerns a simple word or a statement. If Evans had actually committed a crime like murder, he would not have been just recalled, but put in jail within 24 hours. But in this case, he has not committed a crime. Believe me, if there were indeed other reasons for recalling me, such as for violating a U.S. law or committing a crime, they would have dismissed him immediately. They would have tried him and put him in jail, as they have done in other cases. But that’s not what happened in this case. The U.S. Government simply unhappy that Ambassador Evans said Genocide. You know, dismissing an Ambassador is not that easy. This is a very serious step. The U.S. government rarely dismisses an Ambassador so easily, especially when the Ambassador has not committed a crime and not violated a law. Just because of a disagreement on an issue, an Ambassador is not dismissed in an hour or a day. They must discuss and approve such decisions at the highest levels of the government.
– Recently, regarding Minsk Group’s U.S. co-chair Matthew Bryza’s recent announcement about the recall of Amb. Evans, that Ambassadors can’t have their own views and must follow the president’s policy, and if their approach differs from that of the president, they must not speak about it publicly, you said that Bryza was just an incompetent diplomat making immature announcements. Consequently, have you and the Armenian American community been subjected to pressure particularly because of your critical views about the recall of Amb. Evans? Have you been accused of interfering in the internal affairs of a foreign country?
– No, there has not been any pressure and there cannot be. I am an independent American journalist. This has nothing to with a foreign government. I am an American citizen. American taxpayers pay the salaries of American officials. These officials are not the bosses of the American people, but their servants. We are their bosses. We are not interfering in the affairs of any foreign country. As U.S. citizens, we are saying that our government is taking a wrong stand, dismissing a man unfairly, and taking an immoral approach regarding the Armenian Genocide issue. As you know, according to international law, Genocide is considered the most basic violation of human rights. That’s what we are fighting for, and not taking a position as Armenians only. First of all, as Americans we are entitled to express our opinions. This is not simply an Armenian issue. This is a moral and a human rights issue and a matter of principle for all decent people. The denial of any genocide, regardless of the nationality of the victims, is a very vile and unacceptable act.
– You had said that your actions would not change the end result; you couldn’t really reinstate Amb. John Evans to his job. In that case, why are you struggling against Hoagland’s confirmation? Shouldn’t you fight against the policy of the U.S. government instead of fighting against Hoagland’s confirmation?
– I have written in my editorials in “The California Courier” that until recently, we didn’t have anything against Hoagland and we were not trying to punish him. Hoagland had no role in Evans’ recall. It is very difficult to reverse the State Department’s decision of recalling Amb. Evans. But that doesn’t mean that the Armenian people and Armenian-Americans should remain silent. We’re not saying that they shouldn’t confirm Hoagland’s nomination. We have been asking them to give us an honest and clear explanation as to why Amb. Evans is being called back and Hoagland, who is going to be Ambassador to Armenia, how will he be able to serve daily as Ambassador in Armenia without acknowledging the Armenian Genocide. We are asking these questions to the American government. In recent days, our approach is somewhat changed because when Hoagland was testifying in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he gave evasive answers concerning the Armenian Genocide. He did not use the term “Armenian Genocide.” When he was asked whether the administration had told him not to say “Genocide,” he replied, “No, no one told me not to use the word ‘Genocide’”. If Hoagland is honest and his response is accurate, then new questions are raised. If he were indeed not told to refrain from saying “genocide,” and he is doing so at his own initiative, he himself then is also at fault, because he is not simply carrying our the instructions of his superiors. Various Senators have said that Hoagland should not be confirmed until he says the word “Genocide”. The Armenian National Committee has announced that Hoagland should not become Ambassador to Armenia if he does not use the term “Armenian Genocide.” On this occasion, we are trying to pressure and change the long-standing policy of the U.S. government on the Armenian Genocide. influence the U.S. policy of denying the Armenian Genocide and change it. I don’t know whether we would be able to do that or not, but it is immoral to remain silent, not to protest, not to struggle against it. Each time that an official of any country makes an anti-Armenian announcement or questions the Genocide, all Armenians and all men and women of goodwill should raise their voices in opposition and say that such a position is unacceptable and immoral. There is no question whatsoever about the veracity of the Armenian Genocide. There is no doubt as to what happened and it should be recognized.
– One last question. There are rumors saying that Richard Hoagland will be coming to Armenia with his boyfriend. Do you know anything about that?
– I do political analysis and don’t get involved in individuals’ private lives.