Tweet
WILL ARMENIA AND UNITED STATES REACH AN AGREEMENT?
Hakob Badalyan
Lragir, Armenia
Dec 18 2007
The story of appointment of the U.S. ambassador to Armenia had an
interesting development. Most citizens of Armenia may know about the
story of Richard Hoagland, and those who do not, are not interested
in politics, and as Bender would say, they are not members of the
world league for sexual reforms. Consequently, it is meaningless to
retell Hoagland's story to these people. However, the story itself
is highly educational for understanding why the United States
clang to Hoagland's nomination if it is so important for it to
have an ambassador to Armenia, as the U.S. Charge d'Affaires Joseph
Pennington told reporters on one of these days. The point is that it
was known even before his nomination that Armenia and the Armenians
would be against Hoagland, both because he was said not to be gay,
which is a sensitive issue in Armenia, and because Hoagland would
have a stance on the Genocide which he had. It would hardly be a
secret for the White House. It was also difficult to think that the
confrontation between the White House which kept nominating Hoagland,
and the Congress which kept declining his nomination was a caprice.
The United States is not the nation where important issues fall victim
to caprice. It is all the more difficult to imagine that the Armenian
lobby could force the White House to retreat. The United States is
not the nation that yields to any lobby on important issues.
Ostensibly, the White House did not wish to nominate an ambassador
to Armenia, and instead of voicing it and giving explanations
a mechanism was created which produced the impression that in
reality the appointment of ambassador is delayed by the Armenian
dissatisfaction. However, the question occurs why the United States
did not have a wish, or why it was not declared directly, and they
picked up the indirect way. The point is that they announce not
to appoint or recall an ambassador when strong controversies and
adversity occur. The United States and Armenia at least did not
appear to have such controversies, therefore, the United States had
no reason for such announcements. Meanwhile, when the appointment of
ambassador is delayed by reasons of protocol, the diplomatic practice
supposes issues on which no agreement was reached, and which require
a solution on which the appointment of ambassador depends.
It is not accidental that the United Stated recalled their ambassador
before the parliamentary election, and will not appoint ambassador to
Armenia until the presidential election. In other words, obviously
the United States is passing the election process in Armenia in
a conscious and planned way without an ambassador. In addition,
it appoints charges d'affaires, a.i. who replaced each other over a
short period of time: Godfrey, Perina, Pennington. The impression is
that either the United States is waiting for something, or is hinting
at something. We can make only suppositions, the truth of which will
become known in the course of time, waiting to see when the United
States will appoint an ambassador to Armenia, whom it will appoint,
or whether it will continue to appoint charges d'affaires long after
the election. It depends on not only the quality of the presidential
election of Armenia but also the regional developments and the stance
of Armenia on those developments. It is always possible to agree on
the quality, like it has been before, the problem is the stance of
Armenia on both internal and external issues.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Hakob Badalyan
Lragir, Armenia
Dec 18 2007
The story of appointment of the U.S. ambassador to Armenia had an
interesting development. Most citizens of Armenia may know about the
story of Richard Hoagland, and those who do not, are not interested
in politics, and as Bender would say, they are not members of the
world league for sexual reforms. Consequently, it is meaningless to
retell Hoagland's story to these people. However, the story itself
is highly educational for understanding why the United States
clang to Hoagland's nomination if it is so important for it to
have an ambassador to Armenia, as the U.S. Charge d'Affaires Joseph
Pennington told reporters on one of these days. The point is that it
was known even before his nomination that Armenia and the Armenians
would be against Hoagland, both because he was said not to be gay,
which is a sensitive issue in Armenia, and because Hoagland would
have a stance on the Genocide which he had. It would hardly be a
secret for the White House. It was also difficult to think that the
confrontation between the White House which kept nominating Hoagland,
and the Congress which kept declining his nomination was a caprice.
The United States is not the nation where important issues fall victim
to caprice. It is all the more difficult to imagine that the Armenian
lobby could force the White House to retreat. The United States is
not the nation that yields to any lobby on important issues.
Ostensibly, the White House did not wish to nominate an ambassador
to Armenia, and instead of voicing it and giving explanations
a mechanism was created which produced the impression that in
reality the appointment of ambassador is delayed by the Armenian
dissatisfaction. However, the question occurs why the United States
did not have a wish, or why it was not declared directly, and they
picked up the indirect way. The point is that they announce not
to appoint or recall an ambassador when strong controversies and
adversity occur. The United States and Armenia at least did not
appear to have such controversies, therefore, the United States had
no reason for such announcements. Meanwhile, when the appointment of
ambassador is delayed by reasons of protocol, the diplomatic practice
supposes issues on which no agreement was reached, and which require
a solution on which the appointment of ambassador depends.
It is not accidental that the United Stated recalled their ambassador
before the parliamentary election, and will not appoint ambassador to
Armenia until the presidential election. In other words, obviously
the United States is passing the election process in Armenia in
a conscious and planned way without an ambassador. In addition,
it appoints charges d'affaires, a.i. who replaced each other over a
short period of time: Godfrey, Perina, Pennington. The impression is
that either the United States is waiting for something, or is hinting
at something. We can make only suppositions, the truth of which will
become known in the course of time, waiting to see when the United
States will appoint an ambassador to Armenia, whom it will appoint,
or whether it will continue to appoint charges d'affaires long after
the election. It depends on not only the quality of the presidential
election of Armenia but also the regional developments and the stance
of Armenia on those developments. It is always possible to agree on
the quality, like it has been before, the problem is the stance of
Armenia on both internal and external issues.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress