OK: Do you think that integration in international structures is more important for the Armenian government than appeasing the Diaspora? Also, if there was recognition of the Genocide, what would the Diaspora do afterwards?

AK: Regarding the first question, no, they’re as important. International organizations have more structured ways of integrating Armenia into larger processes be that good or bad, that’s beside the point. In the case of the Diaspora, you have money coming in, even though it’s channeled through the government. They’re equal and they achieve different things. I don’t think it’s a matter or prioritizing between the two.

As for the role of the Diaspora after Genocide recognition, it would most probably transform into what the Jewish and other lobbying groups in the United States do. It would be aimed at supporting the government in terms of policy and aid. That transformation is already happening so it wouldn’t have so much of an impact on the lobbying groups.

Identity wise, there would be a kind of sense of relief. People in Armenia are able to transcend the victim mentality whereas in the Diaspora you don’t have that yet. They’re still under that [psychological] pressure. Would identity change? Perhaps but I think that might even strengthen a connection with Armenia and Armenians. Of course, don’t forget that if the Genocide were recognized then the next step would be lobbying for reparations.

There would always be something to lobby for — either land or financial reparations. In any case, it would be a turning point for the Diaspora in terms of identity.

The full interview is here.

U.S. senators failed to persuade the nominee for U.S. ambassador to Armenia to describe the deaths of 1.5 million Armenians last century as “genocide.”

“I have not received any kind of written instruction about this,” Ambassador-designate Richard E. Hoagland said Wednesday. “I simply have studied the president’s policy. I’ve studied the background papers on the policy. And my responsibility is to support the president.”

The Bush administration does not question that Turkish troops in the dying days of the Ottoman Empire killed or drove from their homes 1.5 million Armenians starting in 1915. In a presidential message on the 91st anniversary April 24, President George W. Bush called it “a terrible chapter of history” that “remains a source of pain for people in Armenia and for all those who believe in freedom, tolerance and the dignity and value of every human life.” As in previous such messages, he omitted using the word “genocide” to describe what happened.

[…]

Bush is ordering home the current ambassador in Yerevan, John Evans, two years into the normal three-year diplomatic term. In announcing his recall last month, the White House gave no reason and praised Evans for his service. Last Sunday was his second anniversary in the Armenian capital. In February 2005, Evans told Armenian-Americans, “The Armenian genocide was the first genocide of the 20th century.”

Sixty members of the House of Representatives sent a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice protesting that Evans was being punished for his reference to “genocide.” In a separate letter, Democratic Senators Edward Kennedy and John Kerry of Massachusetts demanded an explanation from Rice for Evans’ recall.

[…]

“I fully agree that the events that occurred in 1915 and following were of historic proportions, as I said, well-documented, horrific, horrifying,” said Hoagland, who is currently the ambassador to Tajikistan. He quoted Senator Paul Sarbanes, a Maryland Democrat, who read a statement about the situation, that “hundreds of valleys (were) devastated, no family untouched. It was historic. It was a tragedy, everyone fully agrees with that, sir.”

The full report is here.