Tweet
AMERICAN ARMENIANS ARE NOT GOING TO SUPPORT ANY OF U.S. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES
Mediamax News Agency
Oct 18 2012
Armenia
Interview of Armenian National Committee of America's Executive
Director Aram Hamparian to Mediamax
- Presidential elections will be held in USA in a couple of weeks.
Whom will American Armenians support?
- If you do not see results you cannot see any special loyalty from
the part of the Armenian community. In Congress we have both many
Democrat and Republican friends and we support them very eagerly.
Though, in this presidential race neither candidate has either
demonstrated significant support for issues of special concern to
Armenians or reaches down in any special way to Armenians. Our support
to them is proportional to their support of us. If they have not
prioritized Armenian issues, then certainly we are not prioritizing
supporting their campaign.
- One of the main issues of the Armenian community in the USA is the
issue of the Armenian Genocide. On the one hand, we have Barack Obama,
whose position is clear and who prefers to use the term "Mets Yeghern"
instead of Genocide. On the other hand, there is Republican candidate
Mitt Romney, who has never touched upon this issue. So, who is more
preferable for the Armenian community in these conditions?
- Firstly, our disappointment with Obama is particularly sharp,
because he raised expectations so high. In his records and statements
he described the Bush administration's policy as immoral, he attacked
the firing of Ambassador John Evans, he promised to recognize the
Armenian Genocide and said that America deserved the President who
would recognize it. So, our disappointment is again proportional to
his records. He promised one thing but delivered the exact opposite.
Secondly, Romney has not spoken on the issue as a candidate and I
think that this reflects the level of priorities. The reality is that
if we look at the record, they are not distinguishing themselves as
candidates and as a result there are no great differences between
them as a president. The sad reality is that we have had different
leadership in the White House over the years, they were from different
parties, gave different pledges and promises, but at the end they all
delivered the same things. And it means that this work should be done
on our part. We have got a majority at the US Congress ready to vote
for a Genocide Resolution, we have 42 US states that recognized the
Armenian Genocide. "New York Times, "Boston Globe" and "Associated
Press" have dramatically improved their approaches towards Genocide
as a historical fact. In the entertainment world you have books like
"Sandcastle Girls", which is a bestseller nowadays; you have the film
"Ararat", the band "System of a Down", etc. The American culture
recognizes, embraces and condemns this crime with the one exception -
the White House. But the White House is part of the American civil
society that should respond to American citizens, but in reality it
is responding and giving in to threats from a foreign government. The
American state, movie producers, media, executives and all the civil
society can easily say "no" to Turkish threats and bribes to American
environment.
- We will celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide
in three years. What do you expect from this date?
- Our general approach remains permanent - to put America on the
right side of the Armenian Genocide issue. America should stand for a
truthful, just, comprehensive resolution on the Armenian Genocide. We
think that American support is a key in Turkish denial of this crime.
We started this process long time ago and we are going to continue
it to the end until our success.
Certainly, the 100th anniversary will draw a lot of attention, but
it does not alter the fundamental strategy, which is how we can end
Turkish denial of the truth, how we can end Turkish obstruction of
justice and how we can secure the Armenian nation. There are three
important components - end the denial of truth, stop the obstruction
of justice and guarantee the security, which Armenian people deserve.
We don't want truth only and simply for the truth. It is not enough
to say "yes, it was Genocide" and even Turkey's apology is not enough.
The truth is important because it leads to justice. Justice is
important because it leads to security.
The resolution on Genocide issue, firstly, would help ensure that
Turkey will never do such actions again and, secondly, it will restore
Armenian elements of viability, which were stolen. I mean water
resources, agriculture resources, transportation routes, security,
defensible borders, etc.
- We all remember that 4 years ago, when the normalization process
began and the Protocols appeared, the Armenian Diaspora was sharply
against them. We all remember large protest actions during Armenian
President's Pan-Armenian tour. Many people said then that Armenia
and Diaspora have split. How would you assess the collaboration and
cooperation between the two sides today?
- The Protocols process was reckless and irresponsible on the part
of the Armenian government. I think it was clear to almost everybody
that this process was wrong. Almost everybody understood it then and
everybody understands it now. All benefits have gone to the Turkish
side and Turkish friends in Washington. They secured a concession on
the border, which Turkey did not deserve. They secured a concession
on the Genocide issue through the historic commission. They deferred
international recognition efforts by saying a dialogue was underway and
there was no need to recognize it. They saved President Obama from the
need to recognize the Genocide in the face of the obvious facts on his
own records; they gave him a way out. The beneficiaries of this process
are Turkey and Turkish allies. The Armenian side has received nothing.
I don't think that anybody today would defend the Protocols. The
only good thing in this process is that it showed the common sense of
the Armenian people. The irresponsible policy of the government was
recognized and rejected by demonstrations and protests. They stood
up against it and I am proud of that.
I think that the whole process hopefully will teach the current and
future leaders of Armenia to abstain from reckless and irresponsible
actions.
- Let's make it clear. Is the Diaspora against these concrete protocols
or against the normalization of relations with Turkey before Ankara's
recognition of the Genocide?
- There are two elements. Everybody is for a dialogue, but the
question is how you define a dialogue. I would say that the terms
of the dialogue should be truthful, just - that is a comprehensive
resolution of the Armenian Genocide. That is the obvious fact. The
Armenian-Turkish relationships are defined not only by Genocide,
but predominantly by Genocide. It is a fundamental issue between two
nations. One nation nearly destroyed the other. One nation stole much
of the other's assets. One nation killed a majority of the other's
population. That's why it is inescapable not to talk about it. It is
like talking about America's relationships with Navajos or Cherokees
(American native tribes). This is also fundamental reality. They were
here first, they were displaced, killed and mistreated. To ignore
these facts is a fantasy and it does not serve America or those
tribes. The same is true in Armenian-Turkish relations.
Second, let's reverse the issue of concessions. In the past Armenia
made a concession upfront on the border, on the historical commission,
on Genocide recognition and gave the President of the United States an
excuse in return for the future possibility of opening the border. I
think that was a stupid deal. In the future all the Turkish concessions
should be upfront concessions. Turkey should admit the Genocide,
Turkey should no longer teach its citizens that organizers of this
crime are heroes. Turkey should restore Armenian place names.
Turkey should do these things upfront and after it we will talk about
the things what Armenia should do.
-The other important issue is the US foreign AID (military and economic
assistance) to Armenia and Karabakh. How do you assess the volumes
of this aid and, what do you think, is the balance between Armenia
and Azerbaijan kept?
- The Congress has always led the effort for aid for Armenia and
Nagorno Karabakh. Almost every year since Armenia's independence the
Congress has asked for more than the Administration approved. The
Congress is a part that really drives that process. The aid for
Nagorno Karabakh was adopted by Congress already in opposition of
the Administration in 1990s. We appreciate American generosity but
we understand that this process is pushed and driven by the Congress,
not by the Administration.
We are very aggressive on economic and military aid package to Armenia
and direct aid to Karabakh. As you know, Congressman Adam Schiff in the
House proposed to increase the aid to Karabakh from $2 to $5 million,
which is excellent. But there are many steps yet. So we push very
aggressively on these issues.
But we consider that in a long-term perspective the future is not
aid but trade. That's why we think that the US and Armenia need to
negotiate on some important trade agreements. I mean a trade and
investment framework agreement. It would set a permanent platform
for two countries to discuss trade issues all the year. Right now
they meet once a year and mostly discuss aid issues.
For example, we want to see a new double tax treaty, because the
treaty which exists now is very old. It can be very helpful for
business ties. Eventually we would like to see a free trade agreement.
There is some interest from Yerevan but unfortunately very little
interest from Washington, and we are very disappointed by that.
- Tell us about your cooperation with other powerful lobbyist groups
in Washington, particularly with the Jewish one.
- We have a lot of coalitions in America, including religious, ethnic
and human rights groups. We are close to the Greek, the Cypriot,
the Kurdish and the Syrian communities on issues dealing with Turkey,
religious rights and the Armenian Genocide.
There are some genocide groups. For instance, we actively cooperate
with them on issues dealing with Darfur, Sudan, Ruanda. There is a
whole range of ethnic groups from Africa.
In terms of the Jewish community, at the local level we have excellent
relations, but sadly some of large Washington-based organizations do
not take lead from their community, but take it from overseas. Sadly,
Israel has not had a good policy on the Armenian Genocide issue. This
issue should be treated like a moral issue, which is above politics.
But instead, they treated it as a political issue, which has been a
commodity in Turkish-Israeli relationships, that's why some day it
is up, and some day it is down. Genocide is a moral issue and its
condemnation should be unconditional. I think the Jewish-American
community really appreciates it but not the Israeli government.
- Do you really believe that one day the United States will recognize
the Armenian Genocide?
- Yes, of course. America is a place where eventually we bring our
policies up to the level of our values. It just takes a long time
and hard work.
Let me give you one example. Smoking is very harmful for us and
everyone knows that. But there were very few laws against smoking in
America still 10 years ago. Why? Because the tobacco industry was
very strong. Their lawyers were very tough, legislators were very
strong and their lobby was very powerful.
But the fight against it has started. There appeared slogans and ideas,
for example, "companies should not lie" or "people should not die
because of smoking". It took years work by citizens to overcome all
the power of tobacco industry. But they did it. It just takes time
and efforts and does not happen for free. The same thing is true for
the Armenian Genocide and for a lot of other issues.
Another great example is Apartheid. America has supported South
Africa for decades, it was a terrible policy, but eventually when
enough people protested against it, it became impossible.
Getting back to the issue of the Armenian Genocide, I am sure that
we are going on the right direction.
- What is your opinion about the "Safarov's case" and the US reaction
to it?
- In my view, there are three levels in this issue. The first is the
immediate reaction which was quick and appropriate. The President,
the Department of State, a lot of Congress members and many other
nations condemned Aliyev. But two other things have not happened
yet. One is that it needs to result in concrete action. The first
concrete action we would seek is the end of all the military aid and
arms sales to Aliyev. America is not a major source of these things,
but anyway the symbolism is also very powerful.
In the broad sense, this case showed that the terms of the Karabakh
process should be changed. We always underline it and we understand
that it is unacceptable that Karabakh was placed under Azerbaijani
rule, but this event showed the world why it is unacceptable.
Aram Araratyan talked to Aram Hamparian.
From: A. Papazian
Mediamax News Agency
Oct 18 2012
Armenia
Interview of Armenian National Committee of America's Executive
Director Aram Hamparian to Mediamax
- Presidential elections will be held in USA in a couple of weeks.
Whom will American Armenians support?
- If you do not see results you cannot see any special loyalty from
the part of the Armenian community. In Congress we have both many
Democrat and Republican friends and we support them very eagerly.
Though, in this presidential race neither candidate has either
demonstrated significant support for issues of special concern to
Armenians or reaches down in any special way to Armenians. Our support
to them is proportional to their support of us. If they have not
prioritized Armenian issues, then certainly we are not prioritizing
supporting their campaign.
- One of the main issues of the Armenian community in the USA is the
issue of the Armenian Genocide. On the one hand, we have Barack Obama,
whose position is clear and who prefers to use the term "Mets Yeghern"
instead of Genocide. On the other hand, there is Republican candidate
Mitt Romney, who has never touched upon this issue. So, who is more
preferable for the Armenian community in these conditions?
- Firstly, our disappointment with Obama is particularly sharp,
because he raised expectations so high. In his records and statements
he described the Bush administration's policy as immoral, he attacked
the firing of Ambassador John Evans, he promised to recognize the
Armenian Genocide and said that America deserved the President who
would recognize it. So, our disappointment is again proportional to
his records. He promised one thing but delivered the exact opposite.
Secondly, Romney has not spoken on the issue as a candidate and I
think that this reflects the level of priorities. The reality is that
if we look at the record, they are not distinguishing themselves as
candidates and as a result there are no great differences between
them as a president. The sad reality is that we have had different
leadership in the White House over the years, they were from different
parties, gave different pledges and promises, but at the end they all
delivered the same things. And it means that this work should be done
on our part. We have got a majority at the US Congress ready to vote
for a Genocide Resolution, we have 42 US states that recognized the
Armenian Genocide. "New York Times, "Boston Globe" and "Associated
Press" have dramatically improved their approaches towards Genocide
as a historical fact. In the entertainment world you have books like
"Sandcastle Girls", which is a bestseller nowadays; you have the film
"Ararat", the band "System of a Down", etc. The American culture
recognizes, embraces and condemns this crime with the one exception -
the White House. But the White House is part of the American civil
society that should respond to American citizens, but in reality it
is responding and giving in to threats from a foreign government. The
American state, movie producers, media, executives and all the civil
society can easily say "no" to Turkish threats and bribes to American
environment.
- We will celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide
in three years. What do you expect from this date?
- Our general approach remains permanent - to put America on the
right side of the Armenian Genocide issue. America should stand for a
truthful, just, comprehensive resolution on the Armenian Genocide. We
think that American support is a key in Turkish denial of this crime.
We started this process long time ago and we are going to continue
it to the end until our success.
Certainly, the 100th anniversary will draw a lot of attention, but
it does not alter the fundamental strategy, which is how we can end
Turkish denial of the truth, how we can end Turkish obstruction of
justice and how we can secure the Armenian nation. There are three
important components - end the denial of truth, stop the obstruction
of justice and guarantee the security, which Armenian people deserve.
We don't want truth only and simply for the truth. It is not enough
to say "yes, it was Genocide" and even Turkey's apology is not enough.
The truth is important because it leads to justice. Justice is
important because it leads to security.
The resolution on Genocide issue, firstly, would help ensure that
Turkey will never do such actions again and, secondly, it will restore
Armenian elements of viability, which were stolen. I mean water
resources, agriculture resources, transportation routes, security,
defensible borders, etc.
- We all remember that 4 years ago, when the normalization process
began and the Protocols appeared, the Armenian Diaspora was sharply
against them. We all remember large protest actions during Armenian
President's Pan-Armenian tour. Many people said then that Armenia
and Diaspora have split. How would you assess the collaboration and
cooperation between the two sides today?
- The Protocols process was reckless and irresponsible on the part
of the Armenian government. I think it was clear to almost everybody
that this process was wrong. Almost everybody understood it then and
everybody understands it now. All benefits have gone to the Turkish
side and Turkish friends in Washington. They secured a concession on
the border, which Turkey did not deserve. They secured a concession
on the Genocide issue through the historic commission. They deferred
international recognition efforts by saying a dialogue was underway and
there was no need to recognize it. They saved President Obama from the
need to recognize the Genocide in the face of the obvious facts on his
own records; they gave him a way out. The beneficiaries of this process
are Turkey and Turkish allies. The Armenian side has received nothing.
I don't think that anybody today would defend the Protocols. The
only good thing in this process is that it showed the common sense of
the Armenian people. The irresponsible policy of the government was
recognized and rejected by demonstrations and protests. They stood
up against it and I am proud of that.
I think that the whole process hopefully will teach the current and
future leaders of Armenia to abstain from reckless and irresponsible
actions.
- Let's make it clear. Is the Diaspora against these concrete protocols
or against the normalization of relations with Turkey before Ankara's
recognition of the Genocide?
- There are two elements. Everybody is for a dialogue, but the
question is how you define a dialogue. I would say that the terms
of the dialogue should be truthful, just - that is a comprehensive
resolution of the Armenian Genocide. That is the obvious fact. The
Armenian-Turkish relationships are defined not only by Genocide,
but predominantly by Genocide. It is a fundamental issue between two
nations. One nation nearly destroyed the other. One nation stole much
of the other's assets. One nation killed a majority of the other's
population. That's why it is inescapable not to talk about it. It is
like talking about America's relationships with Navajos or Cherokees
(American native tribes). This is also fundamental reality. They were
here first, they were displaced, killed and mistreated. To ignore
these facts is a fantasy and it does not serve America or those
tribes. The same is true in Armenian-Turkish relations.
Second, let's reverse the issue of concessions. In the past Armenia
made a concession upfront on the border, on the historical commission,
on Genocide recognition and gave the President of the United States an
excuse in return for the future possibility of opening the border. I
think that was a stupid deal. In the future all the Turkish concessions
should be upfront concessions. Turkey should admit the Genocide,
Turkey should no longer teach its citizens that organizers of this
crime are heroes. Turkey should restore Armenian place names.
Turkey should do these things upfront and after it we will talk about
the things what Armenia should do.
-The other important issue is the US foreign AID (military and economic
assistance) to Armenia and Karabakh. How do you assess the volumes
of this aid and, what do you think, is the balance between Armenia
and Azerbaijan kept?
- The Congress has always led the effort for aid for Armenia and
Nagorno Karabakh. Almost every year since Armenia's independence the
Congress has asked for more than the Administration approved. The
Congress is a part that really drives that process. The aid for
Nagorno Karabakh was adopted by Congress already in opposition of
the Administration in 1990s. We appreciate American generosity but
we understand that this process is pushed and driven by the Congress,
not by the Administration.
We are very aggressive on economic and military aid package to Armenia
and direct aid to Karabakh. As you know, Congressman Adam Schiff in the
House proposed to increase the aid to Karabakh from $2 to $5 million,
which is excellent. But there are many steps yet. So we push very
aggressively on these issues.
But we consider that in a long-term perspective the future is not
aid but trade. That's why we think that the US and Armenia need to
negotiate on some important trade agreements. I mean a trade and
investment framework agreement. It would set a permanent platform
for two countries to discuss trade issues all the year. Right now
they meet once a year and mostly discuss aid issues.
For example, we want to see a new double tax treaty, because the
treaty which exists now is very old. It can be very helpful for
business ties. Eventually we would like to see a free trade agreement.
There is some interest from Yerevan but unfortunately very little
interest from Washington, and we are very disappointed by that.
- Tell us about your cooperation with other powerful lobbyist groups
in Washington, particularly with the Jewish one.
- We have a lot of coalitions in America, including religious, ethnic
and human rights groups. We are close to the Greek, the Cypriot,
the Kurdish and the Syrian communities on issues dealing with Turkey,
religious rights and the Armenian Genocide.
There are some genocide groups. For instance, we actively cooperate
with them on issues dealing with Darfur, Sudan, Ruanda. There is a
whole range of ethnic groups from Africa.
In terms of the Jewish community, at the local level we have excellent
relations, but sadly some of large Washington-based organizations do
not take lead from their community, but take it from overseas. Sadly,
Israel has not had a good policy on the Armenian Genocide issue. This
issue should be treated like a moral issue, which is above politics.
But instead, they treated it as a political issue, which has been a
commodity in Turkish-Israeli relationships, that's why some day it
is up, and some day it is down. Genocide is a moral issue and its
condemnation should be unconditional. I think the Jewish-American
community really appreciates it but not the Israeli government.
- Do you really believe that one day the United States will recognize
the Armenian Genocide?
- Yes, of course. America is a place where eventually we bring our
policies up to the level of our values. It just takes a long time
and hard work.
Let me give you one example. Smoking is very harmful for us and
everyone knows that. But there were very few laws against smoking in
America still 10 years ago. Why? Because the tobacco industry was
very strong. Their lawyers were very tough, legislators were very
strong and their lobby was very powerful.
But the fight against it has started. There appeared slogans and ideas,
for example, "companies should not lie" or "people should not die
because of smoking". It took years work by citizens to overcome all
the power of tobacco industry. But they did it. It just takes time
and efforts and does not happen for free. The same thing is true for
the Armenian Genocide and for a lot of other issues.
Another great example is Apartheid. America has supported South
Africa for decades, it was a terrible policy, but eventually when
enough people protested against it, it became impossible.
Getting back to the issue of the Armenian Genocide, I am sure that
we are going on the right direction.
- What is your opinion about the "Safarov's case" and the US reaction
to it?
- In my view, there are three levels in this issue. The first is the
immediate reaction which was quick and appropriate. The President,
the Department of State, a lot of Congress members and many other
nations condemned Aliyev. But two other things have not happened
yet. One is that it needs to result in concrete action. The first
concrete action we would seek is the end of all the military aid and
arms sales to Aliyev. America is not a major source of these things,
but anyway the symbolism is also very powerful.
In the broad sense, this case showed that the terms of the Karabakh
process should be changed. We always underline it and we understand
that it is unacceptable that Karabakh was placed under Azerbaijani
rule, but this event showed the world why it is unacceptable.
Aram Araratyan talked to Aram Hamparian.
From: A. Papazian