Tweet
RUDOLF PERINA: WHAT IS HIS MISSION?
Armen Tsatouryan
Hayots Ashkharh Daily - Armenia
29 June 07
After the resignation of Ambassador John Evans, the US Administration
has sent the second Chargй d'Affaires to Armenia, this time making
its choice in favor of the candidacy of Rudolf Preina, an experienced
diplomat having the rank of Ambassador.
The diplomat arriving in Yerevan July 10 has held a number of
responsible posts: he was the United States Ambassador to Yugoslavia
and Moldova and in 2001-2004 acted as the American Co-Chair of
the OSCE Minsk Group, an organization carrying out the mission
of mediator in the Karabakh settlement talks. As shown by such a
brief listing of the offices held, Rudolf Perina is specialized in
"extinguishing fires", and wherever there are unsettled conflicts,
the State Department sends him there.
All this could, certainly, be considered natural if the experienced
Ambassador who even used to be the Senior Deputy Under-Secretary of
State on Europe and Canada were not sent to Armenia merely in the
status of Chargй d'Affaires. This testifies to the fact that the
State Department still wants to keep on agenda the issue of sending
Richard Hoagland as the US Ambassador to Armenia.
We believe the United States wants to show that it hasn't put up
with the idea that its country's lobbyist structures are trying to
impede the process of the appointing diplomatic representatives and,
besides, it benefits from the absence of an Ambassador Extraordinary
and Plenipotentiary in Yerevan in terms of showing a certain "attitude"
to our country.
Anyway, why is it Rudolf Perina that is being sent to Armenia at this
moment? Perhaps, the American diplomat has some mission here. There is
one fundamental issue inside our country the United States is currently
interested in: the "synchronization" of internal political processes
with the agreements already achieved and still to be achieved with
regard to the Karabakh peace process.
Such practice is the best method chosen by Matthew Bryza for ensuring
the "internal political aspect" with the purpose achieving the outcome
of the negotiation process. The external manifestation of such tactics
constitutes the periodic "outbursts of optimism" which are not usually
equivalent to the situation existing in the negotiation process.
This shows that the United States is trying to narrow and reduce the
issues not agreed upon between Armenia and Azerbaijan with the help
of small, however, persistent steps. The goal is to make "quantity
change into quality". If it manages to do so, that will be good,
if not, at least peace in the region will be maintained.
It is natural that Matthew Bryza's tactics of gradually extinguishing
the hotbed demands the solution to just one problem inside
Armenia. That is, to prevent the 2007-2008 elections and the shift
of power resulting thereof from bringing about the revision of the
agreements already achieved during the talks.
It is clear that the best method for the implementation of such
tactics is to ensure the succession of the policy conducted by the
ruling authorities. That is, currently the United States is not only
trying to repeat the Georgian and the other experiments, but it also
is acting from diametrically opposite positions. It needs to have
a permanent partner, at least till the moment when the agreements
achieved are committed to paper.
And who can ensure the compliance of Armenia's internal political
processes with the tactics of the OSCE current Co-Chair if not the
experienced Rodolf Perina, his predecessor in the Karabakh settlement
talks.
It turns out that the United States is beginning to apply a "double
blockade" tactics "in and around Armenia"; and the change of the
internal political status quo in a manner not leading to the revision
of the country's external obligations lies upon the bases of such
tactics.
That's to say, what the United States currently needs in Armenia is
predictable and responsible successors of the ruling authority and
not unreserved democrats or vice versa.
--Boundary_(ID_XIsHRzNpg/ApZKe7k2ppbA)--
Armen Tsatouryan
Hayots Ashkharh Daily - Armenia
29 June 07
After the resignation of Ambassador John Evans, the US Administration
has sent the second Chargй d'Affaires to Armenia, this time making
its choice in favor of the candidacy of Rudolf Preina, an experienced
diplomat having the rank of Ambassador.
The diplomat arriving in Yerevan July 10 has held a number of
responsible posts: he was the United States Ambassador to Yugoslavia
and Moldova and in 2001-2004 acted as the American Co-Chair of
the OSCE Minsk Group, an organization carrying out the mission
of mediator in the Karabakh settlement talks. As shown by such a
brief listing of the offices held, Rudolf Perina is specialized in
"extinguishing fires", and wherever there are unsettled conflicts,
the State Department sends him there.
All this could, certainly, be considered natural if the experienced
Ambassador who even used to be the Senior Deputy Under-Secretary of
State on Europe and Canada were not sent to Armenia merely in the
status of Chargй d'Affaires. This testifies to the fact that the
State Department still wants to keep on agenda the issue of sending
Richard Hoagland as the US Ambassador to Armenia.
We believe the United States wants to show that it hasn't put up
with the idea that its country's lobbyist structures are trying to
impede the process of the appointing diplomatic representatives and,
besides, it benefits from the absence of an Ambassador Extraordinary
and Plenipotentiary in Yerevan in terms of showing a certain "attitude"
to our country.
Anyway, why is it Rudolf Perina that is being sent to Armenia at this
moment? Perhaps, the American diplomat has some mission here. There is
one fundamental issue inside our country the United States is currently
interested in: the "synchronization" of internal political processes
with the agreements already achieved and still to be achieved with
regard to the Karabakh peace process.
Such practice is the best method chosen by Matthew Bryza for ensuring
the "internal political aspect" with the purpose achieving the outcome
of the negotiation process. The external manifestation of such tactics
constitutes the periodic "outbursts of optimism" which are not usually
equivalent to the situation existing in the negotiation process.
This shows that the United States is trying to narrow and reduce the
issues not agreed upon between Armenia and Azerbaijan with the help
of small, however, persistent steps. The goal is to make "quantity
change into quality". If it manages to do so, that will be good,
if not, at least peace in the region will be maintained.
It is natural that Matthew Bryza's tactics of gradually extinguishing
the hotbed demands the solution to just one problem inside
Armenia. That is, to prevent the 2007-2008 elections and the shift
of power resulting thereof from bringing about the revision of the
agreements already achieved during the talks.
It is clear that the best method for the implementation of such
tactics is to ensure the succession of the policy conducted by the
ruling authorities. That is, currently the United States is not only
trying to repeat the Georgian and the other experiments, but it also
is acting from diametrically opposite positions. It needs to have
a permanent partner, at least till the moment when the agreements
achieved are committed to paper.
And who can ensure the compliance of Armenia's internal political
processes with the tactics of the OSCE current Co-Chair if not the
experienced Rodolf Perina, his predecessor in the Karabakh settlement
talks.
It turns out that the United States is beginning to apply a "double
blockade" tactics "in and around Armenia"; and the change of the
internal political status quo in a manner not leading to the revision
of the country's external obligations lies upon the bases of such
tactics.
That's to say, what the United States currently needs in Armenia is
predictable and responsible successors of the ruling authority and
not unreserved democrats or vice versa.
--Boundary_(ID_XIsHRzNpg/ApZKe7k2ppbA)--