Tweet
Eurasia Review
Aug 5 2012
The Infuence Of Ethnic Lobbying On US Foreign Policy
By: JTW
August 6, 2012
By Rafiga Gurbanzade
Lobbying is generally defined as the process of seeking to influence a
government and its institutions to execute policies that serve
interests of a group of individuals. The Woodstock Theological Center
defines lobbying as a `deliberate attempt to influence political
decision through various forms of advocacy directed at policymakers on
behalf of another person, organization or group' (58). The earliest
instances of lobbying date back to ancient Greece and Rome, where
lobbyists sought to influence senators and plebs for or against
specific issues (Zetter, 6). Special interests protected by lobbying
may vary from businesses and politicians to foreign governments and
ethnic groups. Ethnic lobbying may advocate interests of a distinct
group in the host country or may seek to influence foreign policy of
the host country towards the country of origin or third countries.
In the United States, the roots of ethnicity-based competition for
political influence date back to the early 20th century. By 1965, the
elimination of criteria for domination of any one ethnic group in the
U.S. immigration legislation paradoxically added political strength to
ethnic advocacy groups (Jacobson, 66). Currently, ethnic interest
groups spend millions of dollars annually to influence U.S. foreign
policy and to `block the influence of rival ethnic lobbies' (Ambrosio,
207). Driven by ethno-cultural differences, foreign conflicts and
antagonistic interests of the rival parties, ethnic lobbies manage to
mobilize strength of their constituent communities and to profoundly
impact the U.S. legislative and executive decision-making processes.
United States
The ways of influencing U.S. foreign policy can be classified into two
distinct, yet highly interconnected, categories. The first category
involves, mobilization and maintenance of grassroots lobbying by way
of diaspora, that is, the American citizens of a distinct ethnic
descent. The second category is a direct foreign government
intervention through registered lobbyists regulated by the Foreign
Agents Registration Act (FARA) of 1938. According to Samuel
Huntington, both categories equally promote `interests of people
outside the United States.' Huntington also noted that serious
problems could arise when `the cultural communities transform into
diasporas and take control over at least one state' (Pachon, 4).
Claiming certain liberties under the First Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution, some concentrated grassroots organizations or lobbyists
of a `vocal minority' manage to bypass the national interest and to
distort legislation or policymaking on the scale of the national
impact (Schultz, 437).
One of the main objectives of ethnic lobbyists is to obtain U.S.
support for the country of ethnicity's origin over their rivals,
notwithstanding the lack of the U.S. national interests in the region.
Currently, around one hundred foreign governments depend on lobbyists
for promoting their policies in the U.S. (Newhouse). Moreover, the
number of interest group communities significantly increased in recent
years. As stated in the Encyclopedia of Associations, in 2010 there
were 24,000 registered organizations in the U.S., constituting a 64
per cent growth of lobbyist groups since 1980 (Smith, Roberts & Wielen
Ryan, 352). According to the Foreign Affairs magazine among the
strongest lobbies in the U.S. are those advocating the interests of
Armenia, China, Greece, India, Ireland, Israel, Taiwan, and Ukraine.
Moreover, one of the many downsides of the lobby penetration in the
U.S. legislature is that `the subculture of law firms that [assist in
these works] reflects a steady decline and privatization of diplomacy
` with an increasing impact on how the United States conducts its own
foreign policy' (Newhouse).
Ethnic lobbying is considered to be an effective way of influencing
U.S. foreign aid and defense policy decisions. As ethics of ethnic
lobbying has become a subject of public criticism and scholarly
debates, majority of studies focused on the Jewish-American lobbying
groups that pioneered ethnic lobbying. The consensus among scholars is
generally divided into those who speak of the triumph of
Jewish-American lobbying in formulating U.S. policy towards Israel and
those who speak of the failure of Jewish lobbying due to the lack of
control over the executive branch (Thomas, 230).
Among the various Jewish-American lobbying groups, the most known one
is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). AIPAC's major
achievement is the securing of a substantial U.S. economic and
military assistance to Israel. For the past decade, Israel has been
the largest per capita U.S. aid recipient (Ripley & Lindsay, 93-94).
As stated in the Congressional Research Service, U.S. Foreign Aid to
Israel, starting from 2007, the U.S. expanded the military aid by $150
million each year (Sharp). According to the Amendment to H.R. 4310,
section 12, it is in the U.S. interest and it is the sense of Congress
that the U.S. `provides Israel such support as to increase development
of joint missile defense systems that defend the urgent threat posed
to Israel and United States forces in the region'.
The two other powerful ethnic lobbies in the U.S. are those of Greek-
and Armenian-Americans. Both groups seek to influence U.S. foreign
policy in support of Greece and Armenia, respectively, and are united
by their antagonistic agenda against the rival Turkey. Just over the
last year, the two lobbies managed to introduce 10 Congressional
resolutions critical of Turkey in one way or another. During the 2011
hearings on House Resolution 306 that accused Turkey of religious
discrimination, Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) expressed his
frustration that, while Turkey had a better record of religious
tolerance than most majority-Muslim countries, his fellow lawmakers
were exercising a `terrible double standard' by singling out Turkey to
please constituents of Greek and Armenian heritage (AFP).
Greek-Americans established their first lobbying group, American
Hellenic Institute (AHI), in 1974. The formation of AHI and the
mobilization of Greek-Americans, who currently number an estimated 1.5
million nationwide, were inspired by the Greek-Turkish standoff over
Cyprus (Cameron, 90). Driven by the anti-Turkish policy agenda, AHI
successfully convinced Congress to place an arms embargo against
Turkey from 1975 to 1978, in violation of the Foreign Military Sales
Act. In addition, being actively involved in congressional committees
and obtaining support from grassroots groups, AHI successfully secured
military aid to Greece by 70 per cent higher than to Turkey, and
cancelled economic aid to Turkey in 1995, thus impeding the
U.S.`Turkish trade in the northern sector of Cyprus (Cameron, 90;
McCormick). By 2001, the number of AHI members accumulated up to
25,000 with 20,000 additional members functioning in an auxiliary
organization (Cameron, 90). Greek-American lobby also supports
Greece's ongoing obstruction to Macedonia's NATO admission over the
naming dispute. The obstruction is despite the fact that Macedonia
provided critical support and has been a key staging ground to U.S.
and NATO operations in former Yugoslavia.
Armenian-American lobby in the U.S. builds upon a sizeable community
that numbers over half a million in California alone. The largest
grassroots organization, Armenian National Committee of America
(ANCA), is a U. S. affiliate of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation
(ARF), a left-wing nationalist party that dominated Armenian politics
since 1890 (CREW). The other Armenian-American lobbying group is the
Armenian Assembly of America (AAA). Like the Jewish-American special
interest, ANCA and AAA secured U.S. economic assistance to Armenia,
making it the second largest per capita recipient of U.S. aid after
Israel (Mainville). The total amount of U.S. assistance to Armenia
since 1992 topped $2 billion (Nichol).
Apart from aid issues, both ANCA and AAA focus efforts around a strong
anti-Turkish and anti-Azerbaijani agenda, such as the blocking of U.S.
financial and military aid to Turkey and Azerbaijan, pressing
resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between Armenia and
Azerbaijan in favor of the former, and seeking legislative recognition
of the alleged Armenian genocide (Cameron, 91). In 2010-11, under
pressure from ANCA and facing reelection, Senators Barbara Boxer
(D-CA) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ) effectively blocked the nomination
of Matthew Bryza, a career U.S. diplomat, as the Ambassador to
Azerbaijan. ANCA representatives did not hide their concern over the
ethnic Turkish background of Bryza's wife (De Waal). Even after the
recess appointment by President Obama and a year of service, Bryza's
confirmation met obstruction from Senator Menendez, effectively ending
the diplomat's career.
ANCA advocates were also successful in securing full U.S. economic and
political support for Armenia amidst its ongoing occupation of
Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding seven regions of Azerbaijan since the
early 1990s (CIA). While the United Nations Security Council adopted 4
resolutions calling for immediate and unconditional withdrawal of
Armenian forces in 1993, Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) authored Section
907 of Freedom Support Act, which prohibited any U.S. aid to
Azerbaijani government until it `ceases the illegal blockades of
Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh' (Ambrosio, 156).
One of the factors by which the Armenian-American lobby's agenda
contradicts U.S. strategic interests is that, while Turkey is a NATO
member and Azerbaijan is a more attractive economic and strategic
partner (Ambrosio, 207), Armenia hosts the only remaining Russian
military base in the South Caucasus and maintains close cooperation
with Iran (Lucas). According to Wikileaks, in 2008 Armenian government
supplied Iran with rockets and machine guns that were later used to
kill at least one U.S. serviceman in Iraq (Lake).
The strength of the Armenian and Greek interest groups is the result
of the weakness of the Turkish and Azerbaijani lobbies in the past
(Ambrosio, 153). As noted in the Turkey at the Crossroads: Ottoman
Legacies and Great Middle East, `Turkey has historically met the joint
opposition of the powerful Armenian- and Greek- American lobbies, and
suffered from the absence of an effective pro-Turkish lobby'(Jung &
Piccoli, 169). In recent years, Turkey and Turkish-Americans, who
number over half a million, have intensified efforts to counter the
two opposing lobbies using similar techniques. As stated in the
Turkish Coalition of America (TCA) reports, in 2012, the Congressional
Turkish Caucus has grown to more than 150 lawmakers, already
surpassing the Armenian Caucus. Additionally, according to the Turk of
America Magazine, Turkish-Americans have joined the top contributors
to political causes on the Hill over the last years.
Historically, the U.S. has been rich in variety of ethnic groups,
cultures, religions and backgrounds. The challenge to the U.S. is not
caused by the abounding and diverse fabric of its nation, but by the
individual interest groups that serve political causes other than
those of in the interests of America. As stated by the former
Secretary of Defense, James Schlesinger in 2001, `the United States
has less of a foreign policy in a traditional sense of a great power
than we have the stapling together of a series of goals put forth by
domestic constituency groups' (Albert, 41). Consequently, as result of
ethnic lobbying, U.S. foreign policy loses its cohesiveness, weakening
America's position as a global leader.
Rafiga Gurbanzade is a student at the Department of Criminology, Law &
Society University of California, Irvine
References
Ambrosio, Thomas. Ethnic Identity Groups and U.S. Foreign Policy.
Westport, CT: Praeger, 2002. Print.
Ambrosio, Thomas. Irredentism: Ethnic Conflict and International
Politics. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2001. Print.
`Azerbaijan.' The Central Intelligence Agency. 10 Jul. 2012. Web. 18
Jul. 2012. .
`Congressional Caucus on U.S.-Turkey Relation and Turkish Americans
Reaches 150 Members.' Turk of America. 28 Jun. 2012. Web. 18 Jul.
2012. .
De Waal, Thomas. `Insejm in the Senate.' The National Interest. 19
Oct. 2012. Web. 18 Jul. 2012. .
`CREW Files Complaint Against Armenian National Committee of America `
Western Region.' Citizenship for Responsibility and Ethics in
Washington. 18 Feb. 2009. Web. 23 Jul. 2012. .
Jacobson, David. Rights across Borders: Immigration and the Decline of
Citizenship. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1996. Print.
Jung, Dietrich, and Wolfango Piccoli. Turkey at the Crossroads:
Ottoman Legacies and a Greater Middle East. London: Zed, 2001. Print.
Lake, Eli. `WikiLeaks: Armenia sent Iran arms used to kill U.S. troops.' The
Washington Times. 29 Nov. 2010. Web. 18 Jul. 2012. .
Lucas, Edward. The New Cold War: Putin's Russia and the Threat to the
West. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. Print.
Mainville, Michael. `Second-Largest Recipients of U.S. Aid, Armenians
Fight To Get Ahead.' The Sun. 9 Aug. 2005. Web. 18 Jul. 2012. .
Nichol, Jim. `Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Political Developments and
Implications for U.S. Interests.' Congressional Research Service. 15
Jun. 2012. Web. 18 Jul. 2012. .
`Organizing in Politics.' Turkish Coalition of America. Web. 18 Jul. 2012.
.
Pachon, Harry. Latinos and U.S. Foreign Policy: Representing the
`homeland'? Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000. Print.
Ripley, Randall B., and James M. Lindsay. Congress Resurgent: Foreign
and Defense Policy on Capitol Hill. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan,
1993. Print.
Sharp, Jeremy M. `U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel.' Congressional Research
Service. 12 Mar. 2012. Web. 18 Jul. 2012. .
Smith, Steven S., Jason M. Roberts, and Wielen Ryan J. Vander. The
American Congress. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2006. Print.
Schultz, David A. Encyclopedia of the United States Constitution. New
York, NY: Facts On File, 2009. Print.
The Ethics of Lobbying: Organized Interests, Political Power, and the
Common Good. The Woodstock Theological Center. Washington, D.C.:
Georgetown UP, 2002. Print. Web. Jul. 18. 2012.
The Role of American Political Culture in the Development of the
U.S.-Israel `Special Relationship' and the Lost Opportunities for
Achieving Middle East Peace. Austin: University of Texas, 2007. Print.
Thomas, Clive S. Research Guide to U.S. and International Interest
Groups. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004. Print.
`Turkish and Turkic American Grassroots Organizations¨Express Concern
on Racist Regime of Legislation.' Assembly of Turkish American
Association. 25 Jun. 2012. Web. 18 Jul. 2012. .
United States. Cong. Senate. 112th Congress, 1st Session. S. 608, To
eliminate automatic pay adjustments for Members of Congress, and for
other purpose [introduced in the U.S. Senate; 25 January 2011]. 112th
Cong., 1st sess. Congressional Bills, GPO Access. Web. 18 July 2012. .
`US panel presses Turkey on religious rights.' Association of
Fundraising Professionals. 20 Jun. 2012. Web. 18 Jul. 2012.
Zetter, Lionel. Lobbying: The Art of Political Persuasion.
Petersfield, Hampshire: Harriman House, 2008. Print.
http://www.eurasiareview.com/06082012-the-infuence-of-ethnic-lobbying-on-us-foreign-policy/
Aug 5 2012
The Infuence Of Ethnic Lobbying On US Foreign Policy
By: JTW
August 6, 2012
By Rafiga Gurbanzade
Lobbying is generally defined as the process of seeking to influence a
government and its institutions to execute policies that serve
interests of a group of individuals. The Woodstock Theological Center
defines lobbying as a `deliberate attempt to influence political
decision through various forms of advocacy directed at policymakers on
behalf of another person, organization or group' (58). The earliest
instances of lobbying date back to ancient Greece and Rome, where
lobbyists sought to influence senators and plebs for or against
specific issues (Zetter, 6). Special interests protected by lobbying
may vary from businesses and politicians to foreign governments and
ethnic groups. Ethnic lobbying may advocate interests of a distinct
group in the host country or may seek to influence foreign policy of
the host country towards the country of origin or third countries.
In the United States, the roots of ethnicity-based competition for
political influence date back to the early 20th century. By 1965, the
elimination of criteria for domination of any one ethnic group in the
U.S. immigration legislation paradoxically added political strength to
ethnic advocacy groups (Jacobson, 66). Currently, ethnic interest
groups spend millions of dollars annually to influence U.S. foreign
policy and to `block the influence of rival ethnic lobbies' (Ambrosio,
207). Driven by ethno-cultural differences, foreign conflicts and
antagonistic interests of the rival parties, ethnic lobbies manage to
mobilize strength of their constituent communities and to profoundly
impact the U.S. legislative and executive decision-making processes.
United States
The ways of influencing U.S. foreign policy can be classified into two
distinct, yet highly interconnected, categories. The first category
involves, mobilization and maintenance of grassroots lobbying by way
of diaspora, that is, the American citizens of a distinct ethnic
descent. The second category is a direct foreign government
intervention through registered lobbyists regulated by the Foreign
Agents Registration Act (FARA) of 1938. According to Samuel
Huntington, both categories equally promote `interests of people
outside the United States.' Huntington also noted that serious
problems could arise when `the cultural communities transform into
diasporas and take control over at least one state' (Pachon, 4).
Claiming certain liberties under the First Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution, some concentrated grassroots organizations or lobbyists
of a `vocal minority' manage to bypass the national interest and to
distort legislation or policymaking on the scale of the national
impact (Schultz, 437).
One of the main objectives of ethnic lobbyists is to obtain U.S.
support for the country of ethnicity's origin over their rivals,
notwithstanding the lack of the U.S. national interests in the region.
Currently, around one hundred foreign governments depend on lobbyists
for promoting their policies in the U.S. (Newhouse). Moreover, the
number of interest group communities significantly increased in recent
years. As stated in the Encyclopedia of Associations, in 2010 there
were 24,000 registered organizations in the U.S., constituting a 64
per cent growth of lobbyist groups since 1980 (Smith, Roberts & Wielen
Ryan, 352). According to the Foreign Affairs magazine among the
strongest lobbies in the U.S. are those advocating the interests of
Armenia, China, Greece, India, Ireland, Israel, Taiwan, and Ukraine.
Moreover, one of the many downsides of the lobby penetration in the
U.S. legislature is that `the subculture of law firms that [assist in
these works] reflects a steady decline and privatization of diplomacy
` with an increasing impact on how the United States conducts its own
foreign policy' (Newhouse).
Ethnic lobbying is considered to be an effective way of influencing
U.S. foreign aid and defense policy decisions. As ethics of ethnic
lobbying has become a subject of public criticism and scholarly
debates, majority of studies focused on the Jewish-American lobbying
groups that pioneered ethnic lobbying. The consensus among scholars is
generally divided into those who speak of the triumph of
Jewish-American lobbying in formulating U.S. policy towards Israel and
those who speak of the failure of Jewish lobbying due to the lack of
control over the executive branch (Thomas, 230).
Among the various Jewish-American lobbying groups, the most known one
is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). AIPAC's major
achievement is the securing of a substantial U.S. economic and
military assistance to Israel. For the past decade, Israel has been
the largest per capita U.S. aid recipient (Ripley & Lindsay, 93-94).
As stated in the Congressional Research Service, U.S. Foreign Aid to
Israel, starting from 2007, the U.S. expanded the military aid by $150
million each year (Sharp). According to the Amendment to H.R. 4310,
section 12, it is in the U.S. interest and it is the sense of Congress
that the U.S. `provides Israel such support as to increase development
of joint missile defense systems that defend the urgent threat posed
to Israel and United States forces in the region'.
The two other powerful ethnic lobbies in the U.S. are those of Greek-
and Armenian-Americans. Both groups seek to influence U.S. foreign
policy in support of Greece and Armenia, respectively, and are united
by their antagonistic agenda against the rival Turkey. Just over the
last year, the two lobbies managed to introduce 10 Congressional
resolutions critical of Turkey in one way or another. During the 2011
hearings on House Resolution 306 that accused Turkey of religious
discrimination, Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) expressed his
frustration that, while Turkey had a better record of religious
tolerance than most majority-Muslim countries, his fellow lawmakers
were exercising a `terrible double standard' by singling out Turkey to
please constituents of Greek and Armenian heritage (AFP).
Greek-Americans established their first lobbying group, American
Hellenic Institute (AHI), in 1974. The formation of AHI and the
mobilization of Greek-Americans, who currently number an estimated 1.5
million nationwide, were inspired by the Greek-Turkish standoff over
Cyprus (Cameron, 90). Driven by the anti-Turkish policy agenda, AHI
successfully convinced Congress to place an arms embargo against
Turkey from 1975 to 1978, in violation of the Foreign Military Sales
Act. In addition, being actively involved in congressional committees
and obtaining support from grassroots groups, AHI successfully secured
military aid to Greece by 70 per cent higher than to Turkey, and
cancelled economic aid to Turkey in 1995, thus impeding the
U.S.`Turkish trade in the northern sector of Cyprus (Cameron, 90;
McCormick). By 2001, the number of AHI members accumulated up to
25,000 with 20,000 additional members functioning in an auxiliary
organization (Cameron, 90). Greek-American lobby also supports
Greece's ongoing obstruction to Macedonia's NATO admission over the
naming dispute. The obstruction is despite the fact that Macedonia
provided critical support and has been a key staging ground to U.S.
and NATO operations in former Yugoslavia.
Armenian-American lobby in the U.S. builds upon a sizeable community
that numbers over half a million in California alone. The largest
grassroots organization, Armenian National Committee of America
(ANCA), is a U. S. affiliate of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation
(ARF), a left-wing nationalist party that dominated Armenian politics
since 1890 (CREW). The other Armenian-American lobbying group is the
Armenian Assembly of America (AAA). Like the Jewish-American special
interest, ANCA and AAA secured U.S. economic assistance to Armenia,
making it the second largest per capita recipient of U.S. aid after
Israel (Mainville). The total amount of U.S. assistance to Armenia
since 1992 topped $2 billion (Nichol).
Apart from aid issues, both ANCA and AAA focus efforts around a strong
anti-Turkish and anti-Azerbaijani agenda, such as the blocking of U.S.
financial and military aid to Turkey and Azerbaijan, pressing
resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between Armenia and
Azerbaijan in favor of the former, and seeking legislative recognition
of the alleged Armenian genocide (Cameron, 91). In 2010-11, under
pressure from ANCA and facing reelection, Senators Barbara Boxer
(D-CA) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ) effectively blocked the nomination
of Matthew Bryza, a career U.S. diplomat, as the Ambassador to
Azerbaijan. ANCA representatives did not hide their concern over the
ethnic Turkish background of Bryza's wife (De Waal). Even after the
recess appointment by President Obama and a year of service, Bryza's
confirmation met obstruction from Senator Menendez, effectively ending
the diplomat's career.
ANCA advocates were also successful in securing full U.S. economic and
political support for Armenia amidst its ongoing occupation of
Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding seven regions of Azerbaijan since the
early 1990s (CIA). While the United Nations Security Council adopted 4
resolutions calling for immediate and unconditional withdrawal of
Armenian forces in 1993, Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) authored Section
907 of Freedom Support Act, which prohibited any U.S. aid to
Azerbaijani government until it `ceases the illegal blockades of
Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh' (Ambrosio, 156).
One of the factors by which the Armenian-American lobby's agenda
contradicts U.S. strategic interests is that, while Turkey is a NATO
member and Azerbaijan is a more attractive economic and strategic
partner (Ambrosio, 207), Armenia hosts the only remaining Russian
military base in the South Caucasus and maintains close cooperation
with Iran (Lucas). According to Wikileaks, in 2008 Armenian government
supplied Iran with rockets and machine guns that were later used to
kill at least one U.S. serviceman in Iraq (Lake).
The strength of the Armenian and Greek interest groups is the result
of the weakness of the Turkish and Azerbaijani lobbies in the past
(Ambrosio, 153). As noted in the Turkey at the Crossroads: Ottoman
Legacies and Great Middle East, `Turkey has historically met the joint
opposition of the powerful Armenian- and Greek- American lobbies, and
suffered from the absence of an effective pro-Turkish lobby'(Jung &
Piccoli, 169). In recent years, Turkey and Turkish-Americans, who
number over half a million, have intensified efforts to counter the
two opposing lobbies using similar techniques. As stated in the
Turkish Coalition of America (TCA) reports, in 2012, the Congressional
Turkish Caucus has grown to more than 150 lawmakers, already
surpassing the Armenian Caucus. Additionally, according to the Turk of
America Magazine, Turkish-Americans have joined the top contributors
to political causes on the Hill over the last years.
Historically, the U.S. has been rich in variety of ethnic groups,
cultures, religions and backgrounds. The challenge to the U.S. is not
caused by the abounding and diverse fabric of its nation, but by the
individual interest groups that serve political causes other than
those of in the interests of America. As stated by the former
Secretary of Defense, James Schlesinger in 2001, `the United States
has less of a foreign policy in a traditional sense of a great power
than we have the stapling together of a series of goals put forth by
domestic constituency groups' (Albert, 41). Consequently, as result of
ethnic lobbying, U.S. foreign policy loses its cohesiveness, weakening
America's position as a global leader.
Rafiga Gurbanzade is a student at the Department of Criminology, Law &
Society University of California, Irvine
References
Ambrosio, Thomas. Ethnic Identity Groups and U.S. Foreign Policy.
Westport, CT: Praeger, 2002. Print.
Ambrosio, Thomas. Irredentism: Ethnic Conflict and International
Politics. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2001. Print.
`Azerbaijan.' The Central Intelligence Agency. 10 Jul. 2012. Web. 18
Jul. 2012. .
`Congressional Caucus on U.S.-Turkey Relation and Turkish Americans
Reaches 150 Members.' Turk of America. 28 Jun. 2012. Web. 18 Jul.
2012. .
De Waal, Thomas. `Insejm in the Senate.' The National Interest. 19
Oct. 2012. Web. 18 Jul. 2012. .
`CREW Files Complaint Against Armenian National Committee of America `
Western Region.' Citizenship for Responsibility and Ethics in
Washington. 18 Feb. 2009. Web. 23 Jul. 2012. .
Jacobson, David. Rights across Borders: Immigration and the Decline of
Citizenship. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1996. Print.
Jung, Dietrich, and Wolfango Piccoli. Turkey at the Crossroads:
Ottoman Legacies and a Greater Middle East. London: Zed, 2001. Print.
Lake, Eli. `WikiLeaks: Armenia sent Iran arms used to kill U.S. troops.' The
Washington Times. 29 Nov. 2010. Web. 18 Jul. 2012. .
Lucas, Edward. The New Cold War: Putin's Russia and the Threat to the
West. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. Print.
Mainville, Michael. `Second-Largest Recipients of U.S. Aid, Armenians
Fight To Get Ahead.' The Sun. 9 Aug. 2005. Web. 18 Jul. 2012. .
Nichol, Jim. `Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Political Developments and
Implications for U.S. Interests.' Congressional Research Service. 15
Jun. 2012. Web. 18 Jul. 2012. .
`Organizing in Politics.' Turkish Coalition of America. Web. 18 Jul. 2012.
.
Pachon, Harry. Latinos and U.S. Foreign Policy: Representing the
`homeland'? Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000. Print.
Ripley, Randall B., and James M. Lindsay. Congress Resurgent: Foreign
and Defense Policy on Capitol Hill. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan,
1993. Print.
Sharp, Jeremy M. `U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel.' Congressional Research
Service. 12 Mar. 2012. Web. 18 Jul. 2012. .
Smith, Steven S., Jason M. Roberts, and Wielen Ryan J. Vander. The
American Congress. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2006. Print.
Schultz, David A. Encyclopedia of the United States Constitution. New
York, NY: Facts On File, 2009. Print.
The Ethics of Lobbying: Organized Interests, Political Power, and the
Common Good. The Woodstock Theological Center. Washington, D.C.:
Georgetown UP, 2002. Print. Web. Jul. 18. 2012.
The Role of American Political Culture in the Development of the
U.S.-Israel `Special Relationship' and the Lost Opportunities for
Achieving Middle East Peace. Austin: University of Texas, 2007. Print.
Thomas, Clive S. Research Guide to U.S. and International Interest
Groups. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004. Print.
`Turkish and Turkic American Grassroots Organizations¨Express Concern
on Racist Regime of Legislation.' Assembly of Turkish American
Association. 25 Jun. 2012. Web. 18 Jul. 2012. .
United States. Cong. Senate. 112th Congress, 1st Session. S. 608, To
eliminate automatic pay adjustments for Members of Congress, and for
other purpose [introduced in the U.S. Senate; 25 January 2011]. 112th
Cong., 1st sess. Congressional Bills, GPO Access. Web. 18 July 2012. .
`US panel presses Turkey on religious rights.' Association of
Fundraising Professionals. 20 Jun. 2012. Web. 18 Jul. 2012.
Zetter, Lionel. Lobbying: The Art of Political Persuasion.
Petersfield, Hampshire: Harriman House, 2008. Print.
http://www.eurasiareview.com/06082012-the-infuence-of-ethnic-lobbying-on-us-foreign-policy/