Announcement

**Gavur** · 05-09-2007, 03:43 PM

ANCA: State Dept. Files Reveal New Details of Evans Recall

From: Elizabeth/ANCA <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 23:39:25 -0700 (PDT)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Armenian National Committee of America
1711 N Street NW
Washington, DC 20036
Tel. (202) 775-1918
Fax. (202) 775-5648
Email [email protected]
Internet www.anca.org

PRESS RELEASE
May 8, 2007
Contact: Elizabeth S. Chouldjian
Tel: (202) 775-1918

STATE DEPARTMENT FILES REVEAL NEW DETAILS OF EVANS RECALL

-- Senior Official Demanded Early Return of Evans Leading to
Vacancy in Key Ambassadorial Post

WASHINGTON, DC - Internal State Department documents, released this
week to the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) under the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), reveal that a senior State
Department official forced the return to the U.S. of former
Ambassador to Armenia, John Marshall Evans, prior to U.S. Senate's
approval of his replacement, effectively ensuring that this key
foreign post would remain vacant.

The key document released by the Department was an August 8, 2006
"Sensitive-Eyes Only for Amb. Evans" memo from Assistant Secretary
of State Daniel Fried to Ambassador Evans. In the note, the
Assistant Secretary acknowledged Ambassador Evans' willingness to
remain in Yerevan until the Senate had confirmed Richard Hoagland,
the career Foreign Service officer who had been nominated by
President Bush to fill the Yerevan ambassadorial post after the
Evans firing.

The relevant section of the cable reads as follows:

"John [Evans], Thank you for your offer to remain in Yerevan in
light of the SFRC (Senate Foreign Relations Committee) postponement
of its consideration of xxxx's [Richard Hoagland's] nomination. I
appreciate that you are willing to serve the President as needed.
However, I think it is best to continue with your previous plan,
and for you to depart post by the end of the first week in
September."

Putting a sharp point on his direction, Assistant Secretary Fried
closed the note by writing: "Please consider this cable your
authorization to depart the mission."

The Department's decision, as communicated in the August 8, 2006
Dan Fried memo, was taken amid intense opposition by Armenian
Americans and growing scrutiny by members of the U.S. Senate over
Hoagland's denial of the Armenian Genocide. The Fried memo was
sent after the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's August 1st
postponement of its confirmation vote, and prior to the panel's
September 7th consideration of the Hoagland nomination. Forcing
Ambassador Evans' physical return to the U.S. prior to this vote
afforded State Department lobbyists the "talking point" that
opposing the Hoagland nomination would mean leaving an
ambassadorial vacancy in Yerevan.

The Hoagland nomination, facing bipartisan opposition, was
ultimately blocked by Senate Foreign Relations Committee member Bob
Menendez (D-NJ). The New Jersey legislator placed a hold on his
confirmation by the Senate, arguing that a U.S. ambassador who
denies the Armenian Genocide cannot be an effective U.S.
representative in Armenia.

Also released by the State Department was a detailed document
tightly scripting the retractions issued in the name of Ambassador
Evans following his February 2005 public comments to Armenian
American audiences in which he properly characterized Ottoman
Turkey's campaign to exterminate its Armenian population as a
genocide. In a February 26, 2005 memo to Ambassador Evans, drafted
by then Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Laura Kennedy and
approved by Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Beth
Jones, titled "Instructions to Ambassador Evans Regarding Personal
Statement" - the State Department dictated the exact language to be
used in the correction issued in Evans' name.

Among these were specific "points to use with the Government of
Armenia," including the following guidance, that contrary to Amb.
Evans' public statements:

". . .the State Department's Legal Adviser did not offer an
official position that the events of 1915 were 'genocide by
definition.'"

Copies of these FOIA files are available upon request.

**Gavur** · 05-15-2007, 11:46 AM

Evans: Missing ingredient in the TARC formula was the truth

Nevertheless, �a
truth did emerge�

piece 20 centimes rare - Google Search

http://www.armenianreporteronline.com/generating/pdf/may12-2007/A0512.pdf

What follows is the text of the address
by former ambassador John M. Evans
at an Armenian Assembly award
ceremony held at the Hyatt Regency
in Cambridge, Mass., on May 3.

It is an enormous honor for me to
receive the Morgenthau award this
evening. I don�t believe I deserve it.
I don�t believe I deserve any thanks
for what I did. But let me say a
couple of words about the Morgenthaus.
Like the Darwins in Britain,
the Morgenthaus in America have
been eminent for over a century.
It�s a great honor to have Mr. Henry
Morgenthau III here with us tonight.
Thank you for being here.
Ambassador Henry Morgenthau
was indeed a giant of American diplomacy,
and indeed of American
history. And he is a personal hero
of mine and of many of ours. I am
so thrilled to have this early edition
of his book.
What I have done to receive this
honor tonight is nothing as compared
to what Ambassador Morgenthau
did in his time, to help the
victims of Genocide. Had I not read
his account, his story there in that
book, I would not have understood,
from a diplomat�s point of view, the
reality of what happened in 1915.
That�s the first point.
The second point: had I not read
Samantha Power�s book, A Problem
from Hell, which is right here, I
would not have understood America�s
response to genocide over these
many decades.
And third, had I not become familiar
with the legal analysis that
was created through the efforts
of the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation
Commission, I might not
have seen a way forward, to do
what I did.
And what I did was very simple.
It was not simply blurting out the
word �genocide� though, and you
have to read my book, hopefully
forthcoming, to understand the
voyage � the intellectual voyage,
the voyage of discovery � that took
me, with those three important
stops and several others: Ambassador
Morgenthau�s book, [Samantha]
Power�s book, and the TARC
study. Those are important milestones
for me.
Ambassador Morgenthau represented
our country in another
age � when the United States was
just beginning to mount the world
stage. Today, we are the major
player. But that part of the stage,
on which Morgenthau acted, with
different props and different labels,
has become the central stage in
world affairs. Just think about it.
How many of the problems we are
dealing with today � I have in mind
Mesopotamia, which we now call
Iraq, Cyprus, parts of the Balkans,
Israel and Palestine, much of the
Middle East, in fact � how much of
that is left over from the collapse
of the Ottoman Empire? Many of
those problems show up clearly on
the map: the division of Cyprus,
the artificiality of post-Ottoman
borders, and of course the European
powers had their role in all of
that, as they selfishly carved up the
remains of the empire, at Versailles.
But one of the problems left by the
Ottomans is almost untraceable on
today�s maps, unless one can detect
that the land border between the
Republic of Turkey and Armenia is
closed.
The problem that Ambassador
Morgenthau confronted in his time
has a very long reach into the present.
Ambassador Morgenthau�s
other grandson, Robert Morgenthau,
the district attorney of New
York, was today in the New York
Times reported to have witnessed
the disruption of a book reading on
the Upper East Side of Manhattan.
It�s clear that Turks and Armenians
badly need to come to terms with the
legacy of their shared history. But
this cannot happen without a candid
discussion of that history, without
political taboos and barriers.
Turkey and Armenia need to
find a way forward, a way from the
hatred and violence, and toward a
future of cooperation, commerce,
more and better democracy, more
and better human rights.
The legal analysis that was produced
under the auspices of the much
maligned Turkish Armenian Reconciliation
[Commission], backed by
the Armenian Assembly of America,
points the way forward, I believe, to
a better place for Armenians and
Turks. The missing ingredient, perhaps,
in the TARC formula, was the
truth: it talked about reconciliation,
but did not mention, at least in its
title, the truth, however unattainable
that concept may seem at times.
But interestingly enough, despite
that, a truth did emerge, from the legal
analysis that was commissioned
through the International Center
for Transitional Justice in New York.
That study concluded, and I am going
to quote it to you, although many of
you know it, that: �although no legal,
financial or territorial claim arising
out of the events (it means events
in 1915, J.E.) could successfully be
made against any individual or state
under the Convention, nonetheless,
the events, viewed collectively, can
be said to include all the elements of
the crime of genocide as described
in the Convention, and the legal
scholars, as well as historians, politicians,
journalists and other people
would be justified in continuing to
so describe them.� Now, that sounds
legalistic, but it was a huge breakthrough.
Now, I see there are cameras
working, but I do want to share
with you something that I � I had a
conversation earlier this week with
somebody who was intimately involved
with the preparation of that
legal study. He assured me � this
will be in my book � assured me
that the result that was arrived at
by this group was not preordained
by politics, but the result arose
from the law, from the study of
the law, from the analysis that was
done. So, I think this is a tremendous
breakthrough that has not
been adequately appreciated.
And 53 Nobel laureates recently,
as most of you know, based their
appeal to Ankara and Yerevan on
that analysis. The philosophy that
inspired the TARC study will be
very close to the center of my book.
I also want to make a plea for looking
hard at the restatement that
the Turkish foreign minister has
recently made of the old proposal
for a commission of historians.
Now, I understand perfectly well
why that original proposal made
by the Turkish prime minister in
2005 was rejected. Because there
-- as [Samantha] Power so rightly
said tonight, there is no question
about whether this was or wasn�t a
genocide. But what might be useful
-- would be to try to get some agreed
narratives for future generations to
rely on in both countries.
The new ingredient that the Turkish
foreign minister put out there
was the using or inviting thirdcountry
historians to sit in. Now,
I don�t know what Judge Sterns
who is here with us tonight would
say but when one puts together an
arbitral commission of usually 3
judges, one side picks one, one side
picks the other and then they agree
on the third. It�s very important to
have that third party involved and
although I don�t we should jump at
it, I don�t think that revised proposal
should be dismissed out of
hand. Agreed narratives have been
useful, for example, in the case of
Germany and France, with all their
many historical misunderstandings
and problems, and also in the
case of Germany and Poland. So, I
think in the distant future it may
be useful to try to get historians to
work on this together.
In closing, let me just say again
� thank you. No one needs to thank
me, but I thank you. I am deeply
moved by this honor, I am deeply
inspired by the memory of Ambassador
Morgenthau, and inasmuch
as I feel unworthy of this honor, the
only thing I can do is my very best
to live up to it. And I will do that.
Thank you very much.

Announcement

Forum Rules (Everyone Must Read!!!)

John Evans

John Evans

Comment

Comment