Author: Mamian George

ARMENIAN GENOCIDE: THE LOBBYING BEHIND THE CONGRESSIONAL RESOLUTION
Guy Taylor

World Politics Review
Oct 30 2007

WASHINGTON — Much of the controversy surrounding a congressional
committee’s approval of a resolution condemning as genocide the
massacre of Armenians during the collapse of the Ottoman Empire
has focused on the action’s geopolitical ramifications. But a key
question remains unanswered: How did the world’s most powerful body
of lawmakers come to feel compelled to register a position on an
event that happened almost a century ago?

By some accounts, the answer is simple: lobbying. Others, however,
contend that the power of the Armenian lobby in the United States has
been exaggerated and that the genocide resolution has gotten traction
in Congress on moral grounds alone.

While Armenian genocide resolutions have been considered at the
committee level in Congress for decades, the passage of the latest
one by a 27-21 vote Oct. 10 made international headlines when House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) vowed to push it to a full House
vote. Congressional support for the measure appears to have waned
during the weeks since, however, as Turkey, angered by the resolution,
threatens to launch military operations in Northern Iraq against
Kurdish Workers Party militants.

Is the Armenian lobby in the United States so powerful that it
convinced a group of elected U.S. officials to embrace its policy
despite the immediately negative impact it could have on U.S. interests
in the Middle East?

Many astute Washington observers claim that, animated by the genocide
issue for decades, the Armenian lobby has developed into one of the
most formidable foreign lobbies in the United States. For example,
Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter’s national security advisor, in a
Foreign Affairs article about foreign lobbying of the U.S. government,
rated "the Israeli-American, Cuban-American, and Armenian-American
lobbies as the most effective in their assertiveness."

However, influential Armenian-Americans assert that Congress has
taken up the issue because of morality, not lobbying. "There’s a myth
that the Armenian lobby is so strong," says Michael O’Hurley-Pitts,
a prominent Armenian-American author who serves as the spokesman for
the Eastern Diocese of the Armenian Church of America. "If that were
true this resolution would have been passed decades ago."

"The resolution condemns the Ottoman Empire’s genocide of the
Armenians. It’s troubling for me to understand why modern Turkey
fights so hard to defend what should not be theirs to defend,"
he said. "If U.S. foreign policy efforts require us to abandon our
morals and values as a just nation, then we as Americans must review
the foundation upon which our foreign policy is built."

How Powerful is the Armenian Lobby?

Measured purely in dollars spent, the Armenian lobby is relatively
small in the grand scheme of foreign policy lobbying, says Massie
Ritsch, a spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics, whose
Web site, , tracks the spending of lobbying groups
in Washington.

"It’s possible that every day a thousand Armenians show up on Capitol
Hill and knock on the doors of Congress," says Ritsch. "But it doesn’t
show up in the reports."

Over the past nine years, the Armenian Assembly of America, the group
leading the political charge for the genocide resolution, has spent
between $140,000 and $260,000 per year on lobbying, with $180,000
spent last year and $160,000 spent so far in 2007.

"It looks like they spent almost as much in the first six months
of 2007 as they spent in all of last year," Ritsch noted. However,
even with the jump in spending, the Armenian lobby does not measure
up to Washington’s largest influence players.

For instance, according to Open Secrets data, the American Israeli
Public Affairs Committee, "the country’s most powerful pro-Israel
political group . . . spend[s] more than $1 million annually on
lobbying." Open Secrets also indicates that money spent by pro-Armenian
political groups, such as Political Action Committees (PACs), is
less than that spent by pro-Turkey PACs, which would ostensibly be
fighting to block the passage of the genocide resolution.

How, then, have Armenian groups been successful in bringing the
resolution to the fore? Ritsch ventures that "the recognition of the
genocide is of far greater interest and concern to Armenians than not
having it recognized is to the average Turkish-American. I think it’s
one of these issues where one side is really motivated and the other
side really doesn’t care as much."

He surmises that "a whole lot of grassroots lobbying in the districts
of the members who’ve been pushing for this" is behind the genocide
resolution.

Armenian Churches vs. Turkish Mosques

Ritsch’s read on the issue dovetails with the perspective of
Turkish-American analysts and lobbyists, who say the Armenian-American
community is more organized and politically minded than their own.

"From an organizational perspective, there are about 500 Armenian
organizations and about 50 Turkish organizations," says Gunai
Evinch, a prominent Turkish-American Lawyer in Washington and vice
president of the leading Turkish lobby organization, the Assembly of
Turkish-American Associations. "The Turkish organizations are primarily
dedicated to cultural events, whereas the Armenian organizations do
not shy away at all from political activities."

The Armenian church," argues Evinch, "is a major point of congregation
for . . . Armenian life, both spiritual and political.

The church’s leaders are in a way the political leaders; there has
never been a distinction."

"In the Turkish-American community on the other hand, with a strong
tradition of secular democracy, we do not see politics played in
mosques," he said. "We don’t have a meeting place to go to every week
to congregate and to plan and strategize on a political issue. We
don’t have the force of God being used to bring us together to do
political work against a particular ethnic group."

Evinch claims that tax records of the revenue and donations of all
Armenian local and national organizations, including academic groups
and the Armenian Church in the United States, would show that "the
Armenian side has about a $40 million annual budget for advocating
Armenian-American interests . . . compared to the Turkish side,
which has about $400,000 dollars for all of the issues."

Over the years, he says, Congress has been "bombarded with resolutions
and gotten to know the thesis of the Armenian side and decided that
[passing the resolution] was a moral thing to do despite the affect
on U.S.-Turkey relations and interests in the region."

Furthermore, Evinch contends that the recent House Foreign Affairs
Committee vote was heavily influenced in particular by Armenian voters
and money in California, Massachusetts and New York. Of the estimated
385,488 people of Armenian ancestry the 2000 U.S. Census counted as
living in the United States, some 257,686 reside in those three states,
with 204,641 in California alone, according to Euroamericans.net,
a Web site that keeps such statistics.

"Of the 27 votes in favor of the resolution in the Foreign Affairs
Committee, 10 were from California and eight were from New York,"
said Evinch. "There is just no way that those congressmen or women
are going to be voting against this bill, particularly if they’re
going to be re-elected."

‘Truth On Our Side’

Asked about the role of the church as it relates to the genocide
resolution, O’Hurley-Pitts, of the Eastern Diocese of the Armenian
Church of America, offered this response: "It’s absolutely against the
law for the church to raise money for political causes. The church does
raise money for religious, humanitarian and other efforts, but at no
time has the church ever raised money to support legislations before
the United States House of Representatives. I would take issue with
anybody who would suggest that the church is engaged in fundraising
for political activities."

O’Hurley-Pitts acknowledged that Catholicos Karekin II, the head of
the Armenian Apostolic Church — who is presently visiting the United
States — "has repeatedly supported the passage of an Armenian genocide
recognition throughout the world."

But "he does not support political activity," said O’Hurley-Pitts,
adding that "the reason he supports genocide recognition is because
without recognition there can be no condemnation, and without
condemnation there can be no prevention."

According to O’Hurley-Pitts, there are actually 1.5 million Armenians
in the United States, and "it doesn’t take an act of Congress for
Armenians to see the gaping holes in their family trees."

Bryan Ardouny, executive director of the Armenian Assembly of America,
describes the community as a "very close-knit, educated and passionate
constituency."

"In terms of organization, certainly you have various churches
throughout the United States," he says. "It’s not that the church
is by any means an arm of the Armenian lobby, but . . . part of the
consciousness of all Armenians."

Money for lobbying, says Ardouny, comes "from individual support,
from individuals who care obviously about what we’re doing, who care
about the U.S.-Armenian relationship, that want to see Armenia make
the strides it’s making in terms of its democratic reforms and its
independence."

He adds that "the ongoing denial campaign of the Turkish government"
helps to bring the Armenian community together.

The real reason for the genocide resolution’s passage by the Foreign
Affairs Committee, says Ardouny, is that "we have the truth on
our side."

There is no debate in Washington over the validity of the resolutions
claim, he argues. House members worried about supporting it "have
talked about a timing issue, but the Turkish denial position has no
defenders on Capitol Hill."

Another factor, he says, is the current recognition that genocide is
occurring in Darfur: "With genocide still unfolding in Darfur, the
consciousness in America has certainly been raised to that issue. If
you can’t affirm the Armenian genocide how are you going to address
future and current genocide?"

In July 2004, the House and Senate passed a resolution declaring that
the atrocities then unfolding in Sudan were genocide and urging the
Bush administration to refer to them as such.

Flip-Flopping Lawmakers

But American "consciousness" of genocide has certainly not reduced
the controversy surrounding the Armenian resolution, the intensity
of which is evidenced by the shifting positions of U.S. House members
on the Foreign Affairs Committee.

The most prominent example may be that of California Democrat Rep.

Jane Harman. Harman, who notes that her "own family was decimated
by the Holocaust," initially cosponsored the latest version of the
resolution.

In early October, however, as the resolution came up for a committee
vote, she suddenly flipped her position. In a subsequent Los Angeles
Times op-ed, she offered this explanation for her change of heart:

After a visit in February to Turkey, where I met with Prime Minister
Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Armenian Orthodox patriarch and colleagues
of murdered Turkish Armenian journalist Hrant Dink, I became convinced
that passing this resolution again at this time would isolate and
embarrass a courageous and moderate Islamic government in perhaps
the most volatile region in the world.

While Harman’s actions drew media attention — not to mention the
attention of young Armenian activists, who reportedly confronted her
at an early October political rally in California with shouts of
"genocide denier, hypocrite and liar" — less attention has been
given to the actions of another, more influential House member,
who has long gone back and forth on the issue.

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos, also a California
Democrat, cosponsored and publicly supported one of the first
Armenian genocide resolutions back in 1984. But Lantos, who like
Harman is Jewish, and is the only Holocaust survivor ever elected to
U.S. Congress, changed his stance during the 1990s. When the issue
was brought to a vote again in 2000, he said he opposed it because
it would be "counterproductive" for Turkish-Armenian, Turkish-Greek,
and Turkish-U.S. relations.

When the resolution came up again in 2005, Lantos again changed his
position, and began supporting it. Then the Foreign Affairs Committee’s
ranking Democrat, he said he wanted to punish Turkey for refusing to
allow U.S. forces to invade Iraq through Turkey two years earlier. "Our
Turkish friends need to understand that support from the United States
for matters that are important to them is predicated upon their support
for things that are important to the United States," Lantos said at
the time, suggesting he saw the issue in terms of a quid pro quo.

Lantos remained in favor of the resolution this time around,
a development that "shocked and angered" Turkish diplomats in
Washington, according to the Turkish Daily News. A week after the vote,
the pro-Turkey, English-language publication ran with the headline,
"Turkey Loses Jewish Alliance," and asserted that Jewish-American
lawmakers such as Lantos had been "unimpressed" by Turkey’s efforts to
lobby against the resolution. Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan’s
foreign policy adviser reportedly criticized Lantos’ vote, saying,
"we have seen that his understanding of history is changing with time."

Evinch, of the Assembly of Turkish-American Associations, says the
quid-pro-quo reasoning behind Lantos’ support for the resolution
shows just how bluntly political the Armenia issue has become.

"When [Lantos] said that, I could see then that the level of debate
around this issue was rapidly descending to a sort of hard politics
that had nothing to do with the substance of the Armenian claim,"
said Evinch. "I look at Lantos as a wise person and not a person that
would stoop to those levels, who would support a resolution as a quid
pro quo to get back at Turkey."

The Role of Jewish and Pro-Israel Groups

Other analysts say Turkey’s foreign policy in recent years has
contributed to the unease among would-be Turkey supporters in the
U.S. government, including many in the Jewish community who had
previously supported Turkey as a beacon of Islamic moderation in the
Middle East. Most notable has been the Turkish government’s increased
diplomatic and economic relations with Middle East actors hostile to
the United States and Israel.

In February 2006, Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal was received in Ankara by
members of Turkish President Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party,
putting Turkey alongside Russia as the world’s only non-Arab country
to open its doors to the Palestinian party. A Voice of America report
at the time noted that "Western diplomats said the visit would likely
harm Turkey’s strong ties with the Jewish state."

Turkey has also increased ties with Syria, whose president, Bashar
al-Assad, was in Ankara in mid-October voicing his support for the
Turkish Parliament’s passage of the measure to allow a Turkish military
incursion into northern Iraq.

Soner Cagaptay, a senior fellow and the director of the Turkish
Research Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy,
says "the Hamas visit and other things such as the enhancement of
dialogue between Iran, Turkey and Syria, have worked together to trip
some people who have been watching with nervousness over Turkey’s
commitment to the West and how that commitment may be coming undone."

But, Cagaptay added: "I wouldn’t say that American Jews have lost
heart in Turkey, they still see it as an extremely valuable ally in
the region."

Evinch shares a similar view, taking issue with assertions, such as
the one made by the Turkish Daily News, that the Jewish community’s
support for Turkey is waning.

"In the Jewish-American community, there is a liberal part and a
conservative part," said Evinch. "The Liberal part has become more and
more sensitive to the Armenian perspective of World War I history,
while the conservative part, which is thinking more about what is
good for Israel, has been less receptive to the Armenian thesis."

Jewish-American advocacy groups in Washington and nationally appear
to be carefully managing their public stance on the resolution.

The Anti-Defamation League, a New York-based Jewish organization,
has publicly opposed any congressional resolution condemning the
Armenian genocide. While ADL leaders wrote in an August statement
that what Armenians went through at the end of World War I was
"indeed tantamount to genocide," they went on to say "we continue
to firmly believe that a Congressional resolution on such matters
is a counterproductive diversion and will not foster reconciliation
between Turks and Armenians and may put at risk the Turkish Jewish
community and the important multilateral relationship between Turkey,
Israel and the United States."

Meanwhile, a spokeswoman for the American Israeli Public Affairs
Committee, the leading pro-Israel advocacy and lobbying group in
Washington, told World Politics Review that AIPAC has "not taken a
position" on the genocide resolution. Asked why, she said: "It’s not
within the issues we focus on. That particular issue is outside of
our purview."

Some Armenian-Americans have expressed frustration that Jewish groups
have not taken a more aggressive stance in favor of the Armenian
resolution. "It’s certainly been a frustration point in the Armenian
community here," said one prominent Armenian-American activist,
who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Other members of the Armenian community emphasize the support the
genocide resolution has received from an array of interest groups.

Ardouny, for instance, said the ADL took "a positive step forward"
in publicly acknowledging that Armenian suffering was tantamount
to genocide.

The Armenian Assembly of America has compiled a list of 53 "third-party
organizations in support" of the genocide resolution.

The list includes a variety of ethnic and national advocacy
organizations, such as the Arab American Institute and the
Belarusan-American Association.

However, even with such support, concerns about a genocide resolution’s
consequences for U.S.-Turkey relations seem to be, for the time being
at least, paramount in the minds of members of Congress. A number of
Democrats last week pulled their support of the resolution, and in
statements to the press Pelosi allowed for the possibility that the
resolution will not come to a full House vote.

Guy Taylor is World Politics Review senior editor.

e.aspx?id=1281

Haaretz
October 29, 2007

Defining breach of trust
By Shahar Ilan

MK Otniel Schneller (Kadima) tried to convince the Knesset last
Wednesday that his bill to allow searches of MKs for security
investigation purposes is not connected to the Azmi Bishara affair.

"I decided to do this long after that affair, in case someone might
think it is connected to something that happened in the past," said
Schneller. "This is connected with Israel’s security in the future,
not the past." Advertisement

It is difficult to say that he convinced Balad faction leader Jamal
Zahalka. "Of course no one thinks that MK Schneller presented the bill
because of the affair involving MK Azmi Bishara," said
Zahalka. "Absolutely everyone believed him."

Even so, there is no doubt that Schneller took his time. A tidal wave
of "Bishara" laws has already flooded the Knesset in its summer
session. Schneller says that he waited, among other reasons, because
he wanted to understand the Bishara affair properly, and the
ramifications of his hasty departure from Israel. His investigations
found that it would not have been possible to conduct a search of
Bishara’s luggage or his house, and to prove the suspicions against
him, due to the 1951 Knesset Members Immunity, Rights and Duties Law.

Schneller believes that his law is balanced. It allows only the police
commissioner or the head of the Shin Bet to file a petition for a
search warrant against an MK, with the approval of the attorney
general, and only a Supreme Court Justice can approve such a warrant.

"Let’s forgo immunity altogether," said MK Dov Khenin (Hadash), in
response, declaring that this is one of a series of insane laws that
are being passed by MKs and are likely to harm them first.

"The Knesset has lost its self-defense mechanism," continued Khenin,
stressing that this law would affect right-wing MKs, too. The bill, by
the way, passed its preliminary reading with the coalition’s support,
by a majority of 36 to 8.

Bishara laws include bills whose goal is to revoke the economic rights
of MKs convicted of criminal offenses, reduce the scope of MK
immunity, and facilitate the ousting of MKs who act against the State
of Israel as a Jewish state. The bill closest to becoming law is the
one submitted by MK Gilad Erdan (Likud), which will enable a court to
revoke the citizenship of anyone who breaches Israel’s trust. Erdan
has already passed this bill on its first reading, and it seems
unlikely that anyone will stop him on its way to enactment via second
and third readings in the current Knesset session.

Balad MKs are certain that the moment the law is passed, proceedings
will be opened to revoke Bishara’s citizenship. The bill, however, is
not without problems. A person’s citizenship can be revoked without a
conviction, without the presence of the person being judged, and even
without presenting classified evidence. To top it off, the bill does
not define breach of trust. Knesset Interior and Environment Committee
Chair Ophir Pines-Paz (Labor) says he will consider including a
definition of this term in committee discussions, prior to the second
and third readings.

Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann was not whitewashing anything. In
March 2007 he admitted to the Knesset plenum that of the 129 torture
complaints filed against Shin Bet Security Services interrogators in
2005-2006, not one of them was relayed for investigation by the
department for investigating policemen, and therefore no indictments
had been filed, either.

This information was provided by Friedmann in response to a question
by Khenin. Khenin raised the possibility that the reason no complaints
had been investigated was that the complaints were examined by the
Mavtan (Shin Bet official in charge of investigating interrogees’
complaints), who is subordinate to the State Prosecutor’s
Office. Friedmann promised to transfer a sampling of the files for
external examination by the Justice Ministry.

And he kept his word. A team that included Deputy State Attorney Shuki
Lemberger and the Mavtan, attorney Rachel Matar, examined six files
from different years. State Prosecutor Eran Shendar sent a letter to
Friedmann, reporting the results of the examination: "The conclusion
reached by Lemberger and Matar is that nothing was found in even one
of the files to change the final decision."

So is everything okay? Not necessarily. Shendar used very cautious
wording, indicating a strong likelihood that there were things on the
way to the final decision that certainly could be changed.

Indeed, Shendar’s report continues, "Even so, Lemberger and Matar
noted professional aspects of the examination that should be
improved. They likewise recommended the allocation of additional
manpower for examining these files. I intend to convene a meeting
soon, in order to deliberate their recommendations."

This means that failings were found in the manner in which the
complaints were examined; that there is a lack of manpower to check
the complaints; and the failings are so significant that they require
the direct intervention of the State Prosecutor’s Office. Khenin is
satisfied.

"I figure that the state prosecutor is saying there is a real
problem," says Khenin. "This is a step forward on an issue that was
unfortunately not handled properly."

Two and a half weeks ago the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee
decided to recognize the Armenian genocide – that Turkey had
perpetrated genocide against its Armenian population. The harsh
Turkish response to this decision, and the pressure exerted by Turkey,
resulted in the decision to not bring it before Congress for approval,
and this worsened the crisis even more. The Knesset, it turns out, was
a party to the pressure.

A week after the House Committee’s decision, a meeting was held in
Washington as part of the joint security dialogue between the
U.S. Congress and the Knesset, led by Republican Senator John Kyle of
Arizona and MK Yuval Steinitz (Likud). The MKs also met with the
committee, and the representatives asked the Israelis what they
thought of their decision; if they should continue with the process of
recognizing the Armenian holocaust; and about the status of relations
between Turkey and Israel.

Steinitz replied that cooperation between Israel and Turkey is very
good. Regarding choosing between the issue of relations with Turkey
and clarifying historical truth, Steinitz has no doubts as to which
the Americans should favor.

"The massacres happened 90 years ago, during the Ottoman Period, but
today there are only two Muslim countries that are partners in the war
on terror, and who maintain joint efforts with the United States and
Israel: Turkey and Jordan," Steinitz said. "Turkey deserves a
commendation."

Steinitz added that Turkey made a suggestion that seems reasonable: to
establish an international committee of historians, before whom both
parties would open their archives.

Among the delegation of MKs was Meretz-Yahad Chair Yossi Beilin. When
Beilin was deputy foreign minister in 1994, he told the Knesset plenum
that what had happened was genocide; had aroused deep anger in Turkey;
and had become the darling of the Armenians. Beilin also told the
members of Congress that there is no doubt that there was a
genocide. Still, he did not demand that they continue with the
recognition process. Beilin noted that they have to consider the risk
to relations with Turkey, as well as the fact that Israel has been
drawn into this conflict.

The truth is that even before the Congressional committee’s decision,
Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan met with Steinitz during a visit
to Israel, and ask Steinitz’s assistance in opposing the
decision. Steinitz says that he mentioned this, of his own volition,
to several congressmen. He believes that the Israeli position
influenced the shelving of the committee’s decision. The Armenian
holocaust will have to wait for a time when Turkey’s strategic
importance declines.

One of the issues often discussed by the Knesset Constitution, Law and
Justice Committee is the delays in the implementation of the Law
Protecting the Public from Sex Offenders. This is a new law stating
that anyone convicted of a sex-related offense will be sent for a
danger assessment, and if he is deemed a repeat offense risk, a
supervision order will be issued and he will be subject to various
restrictions.

Last week the committee received data on the restrictions imposed on
sex offenders within the framework of this law. These restrictions
included a ban on owning articles of clothing for minors (1 offender),
on contacting minors (54 offenders), on bringing women into his house
(1); on going to a ritual bath (1); and on entering online chat rooms
(2).

Deputy Public Defender Dr. Hagit Lerner, who addressed the committee
last Tuesday, believes that this is a very problematic law. She says
that it violates the rules of the game – that once an offender has
served his sentence he reverts to being a regular citizen. Among other
things, Lerner argues that due to a lack of danger assessors,
"assessments are sometimes on a very low level, and include factual
mistakes." She says that in some cases, the assessors do not explain
to the offenders what their rights are, nor how much their
conversation with the assessor will affect their lives.

Lerner says that the more is invested in supervision, less is invested
in rehabilitation. When the Law Protecting the Public from Sex
Offenders was passed, it contained a section on rehabilitation, but
this was removed, with the assurance that such rehabilitation would be
legislated at the beginning of the current Knesset session. That did
not happen. Lerner contends that, contrary to their public image, the
chances that a sex offender will repeat his crime are lower than for
drug and violence offenders. Lerner would issue supervision orders
only against sex offenders with a high risk assessment.

Two weeks ago, the Knesset passed a law allowing courts to order the
chemical castration of sex offenders. Last week a law was passed
preventing all sex offenders from working with children.

"There is wide-ranging legislation surrounding sex offenders, but no
such laws concerning murderers," says Lerner. "This is hysteric
legislation that indicates social panic."

es/918285.html

St. Louis Post-Dispatch, MO
Oct 28 2007

Former Rep. Gephardt redefines himself

BY DEIRDRE SHESGREEN
St. Louis Post-Dispatch

WASHINGTON — For years, Rep. Dick Gephardt campaigned across the
country in the hopes of one day wielding the House Speaker’s gavel —
to no avail.

When Democrats finally took control of Congress last year, Gephardt
was far from the political spotlight. But he’s still enjoying the
fruits of his party’s success.

The former House Democratic leader and two-time presidential
contender is in demand as a lobbyist and political wise-man, playing
a quiet but key role in some of the hottest issues of the day.

And the once-debt laden congressman is finally making big bucks,
allowing him to honor a pledge to his wife.

”I promised Jane she’d never be cold again,” Gephardt said, noting
the many frigid days she’d endured going door-to-door with him in
Missouri, Iowa, and elsewhere.

They built a new house in Sonoma, Calif. They have a condo in Naples,
Fla. And even as he crisscrosses the globe with his new ventures, ”I
get my weekends off for the first time in 30 years,” Gephardt said.

The 66-year-old former St. Louisan is busy in a wide range of areas.
He’s in the thick of the Democratic presidential primary. He’s been
involved in round-the-clock labor negotiations. And he’s lobbying on
controversial legislation in the House.

”I never really thought of it as retiring — in many ways, I’m
involved in the same issues I used to be involved in,” he said in an
interview from St. Louis, where he was attending a Centene Corp.,
board meeting, one of about a half-dozen posts he’s juggling.

Gephardt’s most recent endeavor has put him at the center of an
international squabble and congressional flap: a resolution that
would label as genocide the mass killings of Armenians in 1915 by the
Ottoman Turks, a measure he once favored.

Now, Gephardt is lobbying against the resolution on behalf of the
Turkish government, which says the measure would damage U.S.-Turkey
relations.

Turkey is paying $100,000 a month for lobbying services to DLA Piper,
the law firm where Gephardt works in Washington as senior counsel.
He’s working on the issue with former Rep. Robert Livingston, R-La.;
the two helped unravel support for the resolution, which now faces an
uncertain fate.

”He’s been very active, talking to everyone,” said Rep. Anna Eshoo,
D-Calif., a sponsor of the genocide measure.

Gephardt said his views of the resolution and its impact on U.S.
relations with Turkey changed profoundly after Sept. 11, 2001. Turkey
has become a critical ally, he said, and “we’ve got to have models
out there of Muslim governments that are moderate and successful.”

He said he’s been pressing hard to come up with an alternative that
works toward some kind of reconciliation process to “get all the
facts on the table and let the chips fall where they may.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was one of the first people
Gephardt lobbied. He brought the Turkish ambassador into her office
for a meeting this spring. He has also talked to House Majority
Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., and Rep. Russ Carnahan, D-Mo., who sits on
the foreign relations panel that considered the resolution earlier
this month.

Carnahan and some other lawmakers said Gephardt did not influence
their views. Carnahan voted against the resolution in committee; he
said his position was shaped by a trip he took to Turkey last summer
where he saw “first-hand what a strong ally Turkey had been to us in
a rough neighborhood.”

Still, Gephardt’s switch on the issue has raised some eyebrows among
Democrats. ”It represents a sea change in terms of position, but
money does that,” Eshoo said.

In addition to his work for DLA Piper, Gephardt opened up a lobby
firm earlier this year with his son, daughter and others. The
Gephardt Group has registered to lobby for three clients, including
the St. Louis-based Peabody Energy Corp., the world’s largest private
sector coal company.

Frederick Palmer, the company’s senior vice president for government
relations, said Peabody approached Gephardt after the 2006 elections,
which swept Democrats into power in Congress. He is helping the firm
work on funding for clean-coal technologies and the ”avoidance of
carbon caps” to cut greenhouse gas emissions, lobby reports say.

When in the House, Gephardt expressed concerns about the 1997 Kyoto
treaty on global warming but eventually came out in support of it.
His new lobbying role could put him at odds with Democrats in
Congress who are spearheading an effort to reduce greenhouse gases.

Palmer said the company hired Gephardt because of his long support
for the coal industry and his expertise on energy issues. But he
conceded that Gephardt brings a lot more than that.

”It’s a value to Peabody to have Dick Gephardt . . . because of his
contacts and because of who he is,” said Palmer. “I can meet with a
lot of people, but I’m Fred Palmer. He’s Dick Gephardt.”

The lobbying work is a just a slice of Gephardt’s post-congressional
career. He’s helped settle a strike by workers for Boeing and is
looking to get involved in with the United Auto Workers and Chrysler
if their recently negotiated contract falls apart.

He’s a consultant for the investment giant Goldman Sachs. He serves
on several corporate boards, including Centene, and played a
peripheral role in the negotiations that resulted in the company’s
plans to build a headquarters in downtown St. Louis. He also returns
to St. Louis once a month or so to attend to business at the public
service institute he launched at Washington University.

And Gephardt is in the mix of the Democratic presidential primary,
planning to head to Iowa in December to campaign for Sen. Hillary
Clinton, D-N.Y.

”He still spends most of his time on airplanes,” said Erik Smith, a
long-time aide to Gephardt. “The difference is when he was a
legislator, he was proposing ideas and working to build some
consensus around them. Now what he’s finding is he can actually roll
up his sleeves and do them.”

For years, Gephardt the pro-union lawmaker talked about finding ways
to give workers equity in the companies that employ them. In 2005,
Gephardt the labor-relations advisor helped broker a deal that did
just that.

The opportunity came when Boeing announced it would have to shutter a
key facility in Wichita, Kan. A Canadian private equity firm, Onex
Corp., was interested in buying the plant, but officials wanted major
concessions from the union. Gephardt helped to hammer out a
ground-breaking deal in which the union agreed to a 10 percent pay
cut, among other concessions, in exchange for equity in the company,
now called Spirit AeroSystems. When the firm went public, each
machinist got $80,000 to $100,000 in stock.

”His style of leadership tends to get people talking to one another
and figuring out how to work together rather than fight,” said R.
Thomas Buffenbarger, president of the International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers.

Gephardt was, almost from the start, a national politician. But he
rarely missed a chance to talk about his St. Louis roots and he came
back regularly — to knock on doors in his south St. Louis
neighborhood, to go to a Cardinals or Rams game, or to huddle over
strategy with his alter ego and political confidant, Joyce Aboussie.

Gephardt’s new life still brings him back to St. Louis, whether for
work, a baseball game, or to check on an elderly family friend.

When Gephardt ran into some of his former Missouri colleagues,
including Carnahan and Rep. William Lacy Clay Jr., D-Mo., on an
airplane recently, he jokingly called them ”working stiffs” and
bragged about how nice it was to only work five days a week.

It was one hint at the pace of Gephardt’s new life. It’s still hectic
but not nearly as grueling.

He has made few public speeches. He’s scarcely seen on TV or quoted
in news articles. And while he’s still in Washington a couple of days
a week, he and Jane spend more time in California or Florida than
they do in the nation’s capital.

Indeed, Gephardt said he had no itch to be back in the political
fight.

”I did it hard for 28 years, and that’s enough,” he said. “I
haven’t had one instant of regret or wishing that I was there. I am
absolutely thrilled to be doing what I’m doing. I just love it.”

OVER 200 BRITISH MPS RECOGNIZE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

PanARMENIAN.Net
25.10.2007 18:13 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Armenian and Assyrian organizations in the UK
met in the House of Commons on 24 October 2007, following the visit
by the Turkish Prime Minister and the sensational change of heart
by MP Kieth Vaz. It was he, as Minister for Europe in 2000, who
formulated the pro-Turkish policy of Armenian Genocide denial which
his successors in the Labor administration have slavishly followed,
independent French journalist Jean Eckian told PanARMENIAN.Net.

Two days ago, after several repeated requests, he signed the Early
Day Motion recognizing the Armenian Genocide, making it the second
most successful EDM on an international issue in Parliament. Now 185
have signed, four times last year’s total. The total number of MPs
who have recognized the Genocide now stands at over 200, including
those who did so in previous years.

This surely emboldened the Prime Minister as it occurred the day
before as he met Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Last
week Jim Murphy, the new Minister for Europe, promised to look afresh
at the whole issue.

The meeting noted that Erdogan’s visit was kept a secret to the last
minute. Numerous inquiries sent to the House of Commons, the Foreign
Office and Turkish Embassy in order to find out any information about
the visit had proved unsuccessful because they had all claimed no
knowledge of the visit.

This proves the reality of his presence in this country as the
Prime Minister of a multi genocidal and undemocratic state. It’s
surprising that Turkey is confident of a free reign in Iraqi Kurdistan
considering that they have got away with the Genocide of the Armenians
and Assyrians and its subsequent denial with the full compliance of
the UK government.

Further Armenian-Assyrian-Kurdish cooperation was envisaged, as well
as a new EDM on the Armenian and Assyrian Genocide. Full Assyrian
participation in the unveiling ceremony of the Monument to Armenian
Genocide victims in Cardiff, on Saturday, 3 November, was assured.

A Press Statement sent by the Kurdish Advisory Panel of
Parliamentarians for National Self-Determination (PNSD), which
emphasized a negotiated settlement of the Kurdish issue as the "only
lasting solution", was read at the meeting.

EP URGES THE TURKISH AND ARMENIAN GOVERNMENTS TO START A PROCESS OF RECONCILIATION

armradio.am
26.10.2007 13:51

The European Parliament adopted the resolution on relations with
Turkey, where the MEPs reiterated the call for the Turkish and Armenian
Government to "start a process of reconciliation for the present and
the past." The resolution was adopted at the plenary session of the
European Parlaiment, where relations with neighbors were discussed.

Among issues of concern are the content of upcoming constitutional
reforms and Turkish military actions in Northern Iraq. On Cyprus the
EP notes that "the withdrawal of Turkish forces would facilitate the
negotiation on a settlement".

EX-AMBASSADOR SPEAKS ON RWANDAN GENOCIDE
BY Sonja Sharp

Daily Californian, CA
Oct 25 2007

Theogene Rudasingwa, formerly the Rwandan ambassador to the U.S.,
spoke last night on the 1994 genocide in his country.

Speaking in Wheeler Hall last night, former Rwandan ambassador to
the U.S. Theogene Rudasingwa described to students how, as a doctor
by training, he was thrust into the role of diplomat by the 100 days
of brutal ethnic violence that swept his country in 1994.

Addressing a crowd of three dozen people in the "Perspectives on
Genocide" DE-Cal, Rudasingwa tried to evoke a panorama of the 100
years of history that led up to those 100 days 1994, when members of
the country’s Hutu majority killed one million ethnic Tutsis.

"The problem of seeing Rwanda in snapshots is that we forget the long
trajectory that led here," Rudasingwa said.

Last night was Rudasingwa’s second appearance as a guest speaker for
the DE-Cal as a part of the course’s Rwanda unit.

The class provides an overview of global genocides from the Armenian
genocide to the Holocaust to the current crisis in Darfur, spending
two weeks each on Cambodia, the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, among
other topics, said DE-Cal facilitator Judy Taing.

Rudasingwa said the events of 1994 were preceded by more than 40 years
of periodic ethnic violence, which had forced his family to flee the
country shortly after he was born.

"Even me, who is from Rwanda, would find it impossible to tell between
a Hutu and a Tutsi," Rudasingwa said.

"They had to go from village to village asking everyone if they were
Hutus or Tutsis. They had drawn lists in every village, and handed
out machetes. By July, the country was empty."

Taing said she invited Rudasingwa after hearing him speak at a
conference last year. The two are currently working to start a
permanent UC Berkeley course about genocide.

Rudasingwa said genocide is not Rwanda’s problem alone, and that
repercussions of the Rwandan genocide remain. While a genocide rages
in the Darfur region of Sudan, he said Hutu militias who have fled
Rwanda are roaming unchecked in the Democratic Republic of Congo
along the shared border.

For Taing, the issue of genocide is a personal one. Both her parents
fled the killings in Cambodia in the early 1980s, eventually arriving
in California as refugees. Though that genocide claimed more than 1.5
million lives-about a quarter of the Cambodian population-in the late
1970s and early ’80s, Taing said few students have heard of it.

"When I first came to Berkeley, I was pretty shocked how there was
no awareness about the Cambodian genocide," Taing said.

Her desire to raise awareness grew after she and her family visited
Cambodia in the summer of 2005. Taing said it was the first time her
mother had returned home since losing half their family to Pol Pot’s
Khmer Rouge.

Silence and fear are what allow genocides to go on, Rudasingwa said.

"The first thing we have to do (to stop genocide) is shout, and shout
at the top of our voices," Rudasingwa said. "The most important tool
in the hands of those who perpetrate genocide is silence."

MUSLIMS RIOT IN AMSTERDAM AND BRUSSELS

The Trumpet, OK
.0
Oct 25 2007

Muslim riots are leading Europeans to be less tolerant of their
Muslim neighbors.

Muslim riots every night since October 14 have ravaged Amsterdam’s
Slotervaart district. The riots are a response to the death of Bilal
Bajaka, a 22-year-old ethnic Moroccan with extremist ties who was shot
dead after repeatedly stabbing two police officers in the breast, face,
neck and back. The riots "aim to drive the police from Slotervaart
and turn the neighborhood into a new no-go area-yet another pocket
of Eurabia on Europe’s soil," the Brussels Journal reports.

These "no go" areas, officially known as "Sensitive Urban Areas,"
or suas, are multiplying across Europe. The Brussels Journal states
that these are areas "where the police no longer dare to venture and
where Islamists hold sway."

Another one of these areas may be developing in Brussels, the capital
of Belgium and the European Union. This past Sunday, Turkish youth
demolished a local Armenian restaurant in Brussels causing the Armenian
owner to flee for his life. Police only watched.

Also in Brussels, a mob of Turkish youth attacked a man standing
outside the American Embassy. The man fled to the nearest police car.

The frightened policewoman refused to let him enter her car, and
the mob savagely beat him. It was not until it appeared that the mob
would kill the man that she let him finally crawl into the vehicle.

Meanwhile, the Turkish quarter of Brussels is as ablaze with red
crescent flags (not Belgian flags) as it is with Muslim riots.

With pressure from the riots mounting on Europeans in both Belgium and
the Netherlands, Dutch politician Ehsan Jami has stated, "We have to
be very clear with Muslim immigrants that we will not negotiate our
[Western] values."

It is not only the Dutch who are ready to stand up for their values.

Seventy-one percent of Germans polled by Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
said that they consider Muslims intolerant and 83 percent associated
them with fanaticism. Muslim riots and a multiplying number of Islamic
"no go" zones will only confirm these sentiments.

Watch for tension to continue building between traditional Europeans
and their Muslim neighbors. For more information on the coming battle
between Europe and Islam, read "Cathedrals vs. Mosques: Tremors of
a Coming Conflict."

EDITORIAL LEFT MANY QUESTIONS UNANSWERED
By Donald Poochigian, a philosophy professor at UND.

Grand Forks Herald , ND
cfm?id=54797&section=Opinion
Oct 24 2007

GRAND FORKS – Please accept my apology for my inadequacies, but the
assertion in a Herald editorial that "Successful American foreign
policy generally passes two tests: It’s both right and in our national
interest," confuses me ("Back off on genocide bill in Congress,"
Page 4A, Oct. 16).

Since Congress never has apologized for the devastation of the
American Indian population for colonization or to the African American
population for slavery, do these fail the "right" or "interest"
test? Perhaps neither is relevant because they are not issues of
"foreign policy." If so, then why did Congress fund construction of
a monument to the Jewish Holocaust by the Nazis? Is this a "foreign
policy" issue? Why not of the Romani (gypsies), equally devastated
by the Nazis?

What also of the official congressional apology for internment of
Japanese Americans in World War II? Is this a "foreign policy" issue?

If a domestic policy issue, what is the Herald’s test(s) for
"successful American [domestic] policy?" What is an issue of "foreign
policy," and what standard(s) apply to domestic policy?

Confusion multiplies because the editorial stipulates that "Successful
American foreign policy generally passes two tests."

Unspecified are the exceptions acknowledged by the word "generally,"
and why the unstated exception does not apply to acknowledgment of
the Armenian genocide by Turkey.

To what extent as well does the editorial board’s standard of being
"both right and in our national interest" apply to its own policy? In
the same Oct. 16 Herald, three articles on Israel appear: "Simmering
tensions; All’s quiet on Israel’s northeastern front, for now"
(Page 3D), "Israel’s Holocaust memorial unveils tree that saved Jew"
(Page 4D), and "Israel plans new benefits for Holocaust survivors"
(Page 5D).

Is this coverage a matter of being "right" or "in our national
interest?" If not, what is the test, and why do the Armenians not
pass it? As an Armenian American born and raised in California by
parents born and raised in California, who has lived in Grand Forks
for more than three decades, this is of interest to me.

Also of interest is how the editorial board knows the motives of
congressional support for acknowledging the Armenian genocide is,
"Because House Democrats want to sabotage the war in Iraq." Evidence
for this assertion is not provided, other than an administration agent
of the "partisan smog in Washington" claiming, "It’s a brilliant ploy
– the Dems get to stab our troops in the back, but lay the blame off
on the Turks." Democrats never expressing such a motive, how does
"Ralph Peters, columnist for the New York Post" know this?

Obviously these issues are of importance to me as an Armenian American,
and the Herald’s considerate clarification of them in a future article
would be helpful for my understanding of my place in the Grand Forks
community.

MORE TURKISH SABER RATTLING
by Craig Chamberlain

The Conservative Voice, NC
15.html
Oct 24 2007

It’s an odd thing to see an Islamist prime minister getting so
much cooperation from a military that sees itself as the guardian
of secular republicanism within the country. Yet that is the case
in Turkey where Erdogan, playing the part of Bin Ladens disciple,
actively subverts Ataturks secular republic. The Turkish military
doesn’t care much for Erdogan or his policies at home. His policies
abroad are another matter.

Using the shattered remnants of the PKK as an excuse, Erdogan continues
to send the Turkish military to the Iraq border and threaten and
invasion. Now to be against that thug Erdogan doesn’t mean one is
for the PKK. The PKK is a communist group that has used terror in
the past against Turks. However, the PKK is a broken group.

Their leader is in prison for life and most of their members are
gone. Even Kurdish support for them is low, Kurdish support for
freedom from Turkey is not.

And why not? As Ralph Peters in USA Today points out, the Kurds were
living there long before the first Turk ever showed up. The Kurds
make up about 20% of Turkeys population and most Kurds don’t want
anything to do with a Turkish state that wants nothing to do with
them. The Turks stripped them of their national identity, forbade
their language and pretended that they didn’t exist.

For all the talk of the PKK, an organization that is in no way capable
of threatening Turkey(this isn’t Al-Qaida, or Hizbollah were talking
about here), this is about threatening a free Kurdish people in
Iraq. The very idea that a Kurd isn’t being terrorized by a Turk,
and Arab, or an Iranian is too much for the Turkish leadership and
is enough to make an Islamist like Erdogan get the cooperation of
his secularist generals.

The Turks would probably get away with it too. The Europeans won’t do
anything, the U.S. would be infuriated especially if it widened the
war in Iraq, and such a move would be very popular with the Turkish
people who pretend that they haven’t done anything wrong. Just as
they pretend the Armenian genocide didn’t take place or that the
Kurds are real (as we all know they’re just mountain Turks.)

It’s possible that this is nothing be Erdogan rattling his scmitar to
solidify even more power in Turkey before he turns the country into
a Salafist nightmare. Or it’s also possible that he actually intends
to invade with the PKK being his causus belli.

If an invasion should happen we should ask ourselves a couple of
questions? Should we continue to support Turkey? It’s been a pretty
one-sided relationship, with the U.S. protecting Turkey from the
USSR during the cold war, supporting Turkish entry into the EU,
and supporting the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. The one time we asked
something from the Turks, to come in across the Turkish Iraq border
in 2003, we were denied. Secondly if they do invade should we help
the Kurdish Peshmerga to give the Turks the kicking they deserve,
not to mention protect Iraq from being plunged back into the type of
violence that was endemic before the surge?

The U.S. must look out for its own interests, and that means keeping
the Turks out of Iraq.

APPOINTMENT OF AMBASSADOR TO ARMENIA SIGNIFICANT

PanARMENIAN.Net
24.10.2007 19:27 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ "The name of new U.S. Ambassador-designate to Armenia
is not known yet but it may be announced soon," U.S. Charge d’Affairs
in Armenia, Ambassador Rudolph Perina told a PanARMENIAN.Net reporter.

"This issue is very important for the U.S. government.

As you know the nomination will be forwarded to the Senate Foreign
Affairs Committee and then, if approved, the Ambassador will
assume office. I am hopeful that Armenia will soon host a new
U.S. Ambassador," he said.