Tweet
COMMENTARY: IS ARMENIA LOSING ITS DIPLOMATIC EDGE?
Edmond Y. Azadian
http://www.mirrorspectator.com/?p=3568
Jun 3, 2010 in Opinion
Several recent developments on the world political scene indicate
Armenia's diplomacy has suffered some serious losses, tipping the
scale in favor of Turkey and Azerbaijan. A few members in the Armenian
parliament have ascribed these setbacks to the Foreign Ministry's
rather passive posture, which in fact may constitute senseless
self-flagellation, because those setbacks are mostly the functions
of Armenia's weak position in the global political arena. Had Armenia
possessed oil and mineral resources like Azerbaijan, an Aliyev-style
dynastic hold on power would be tolerated. Also, had Armenia been
situated in a strategic land mass like Turkey, any occupation, like
the Cyprus case, would only cause semantic discussions and verbal
gymnastics, overlooking all the trespasses of international law and
UN resolutions.
Armenia, having none of the above attributes, remains subject to all
kinds of diplomatic abuses.
It would be very presumptuous to make any tangible recommendations
to counter those diplomatic setbacks, but at least we would be on
the right track, if we can at least diagnose the situation and have
a clear view of the depth of our foreign policy failures.
It does not give us any advantage to subject the responsible parties
to a tongue-lashing, like some of Armenia's representatives are doing,
every time Armenia's enemies administer a diplomatic blow. Turkey has
become a major player on the world scene and it has been using that
status on every possible occasion to corner Armenia and to cause a
diplomatic defeat. Turkey is one of the 15 UN Security Council members,
and at one time also one of its rotating presidents.
In that capacity, Ankara has threatened Armenia with placing the
Karabagh issue on the Security Council's agenda, since the General
Assembly resolutions are non-binding.
Turkey's Security Council membership has also cautioned and
intimidated the Obama administration, which is seeking tougher UN
sanctions against Iran's nuclear program, where Turkey's vote becomes
significant. Whether Turkey eventually votes for or against those
sanctions, or abstains, is a secondary question, since the White
House has already made the down payment to Turkey by avoiding the
use of the term genocide. Armenia's interests could be short-sold,
with relative impunity, by any major power.
Turkey's representative also holds the position of the president at the
Council of Europe and rather than adhering to the European positions,
he has been acting like a Turk. Indeed Mr. Mevlut Chavushoglu's
recent visit to Armenia as president of the Council of Europe caused a
diplomatic row when he refused to pay a visit to the Martyr's Monument
in Yerevan.
When asked why he failed to visit the monument, Chavushoglu gave an
answer like a Turkish bazaar peddler, that his predecessors have
also not visited the monument. When journalists refuted his lie,
he resorted to his arrogance by stating that it was his personal
decision not to show up at the monument.
This is only the symbolic aspect of the tremendous damage that he
can cause in that European body.
Many people in Armenia believe that by joining the European Union,
Turkey will behave like a European nation. Chavushoglu's behavior
can project a clear picture of what an eventual Turkish presence in
Europe will mean for Armenia.
In these series of diplomatic setbacks, the slap from the European
Parliament was not an insignificant one; this time by an Azerbaijani
friend, the Bulgarian member of the European Parliament, Yevgeny
Kirilov. This latter member of European Parliament was assigned to
deliver report number 2216 on behalf of the European Parliament,
which calls for "immediate withdrawal of the Armenian forces from
the occupied Azeri territories." An incensed Foreign Minister Eduard
Nalbandian lashed out at the report during a joint press conference
with the visiting Argentinean Foreign Minister Jorge Tayana stating,
"The segment on the Karabagh conflict in the report does not correspond
to Madrid Principles, nor the Aquila declaration, nor the Moscow
Proclamation. The European Union made its position clear in the
Athens declaration of December 2009, which fully corresponds to
Armenia's views."
Many parliamentarians expressed also their opinions and a letter
of protest was lodged by Hovig Abrahamian, speaker of Armenia's
parliament. Some members mentioned that the report is non-binding,
others dismissed it as a document drafted only in the presence of
20 members of the European Union. But most dwell on Mr. Kirilov's
background as the beneficiary of Azeri lobbying groups, who also
has fought against the passage of an Armenian Genocide resolution
in the Bulgarian parliament. All these arguments do not diminish the
significance of a historic document in the archives of the European
Union, to be used today by the Azeri government and in the future by
historians presenting Armenia under an unfavorable light.
Last but not least, another blow came from the Islamic conference held
in Kazakhstan's capital, Dushanbe. Indeed the foreign ministers of
Islamic countries participating in the organization's 37th conference,
have passed a resolution labeling Armenia as an "aggressor" and have
requested to solve the Karabagh conflict respecting Azerbaijan's
territorial integrity. The resolution has even gone further, ignoring
completely Azerbaijan's barbaric destruction of Jugha Khachkars,
and has blamed Armenia for desecrating Islamic monuments. In the
end, the Islamic countries have pledged to extend economic support
to Azerbaijan, perhaps because all the oil revenues of that "poor"
country can hardly meet the needs of the Aliyev dynasty.
It is ironic that Kazakhstan could encourage, let alone condone, such
a hostile document against Armenia, while it had pledged neutrality as
the current president of the Organization for Security and Cooperation
in Europe (OSCE). Besides Kazakhstan, Lebanon, Syria and Iran are
members of the Islamic conference and supposedly friends of Armenia.
It would be interesting to check how have these countries voted during
the said resolution.
A case in point is a recent incident in Lebanon, as well as the rest
of the Arab world, where Turkey's peace initiative and deepening
economic ties have been stifling the respective Armenian communities.
Recently an Armenian song, making a reference to the Genocide, was
banned from the Lebanese public TV channel. We wonder what the Armenian
members of the Lebanese parliament were doing when the gag-order was
issued by the government.
All these developments reflect negatively on Armenia's foreign policy
and one wonders where Armenia's friends are to lend their solidarity.
Another development right here in America, which has no bearing on
Armenia's foreign policy is Woodrow Wilson Institute's decision to
honor Turkey's Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, aGenocide denier.
This is an insult to President Wilson's memory and legacy and at the
same time presents a challenge to our lobbying groups in the US. David
Boyajian's in-depth article and justified anger must be enough for
all Armenians to face this challenge and stop the insanity.
We are at a stage where Armenian's political isolation and our
insufficient resources in the diaspora are placing us in a siege as
a nation.
Is there an outcome?
From: A. Papazian
Edmond Y. Azadian
http://www.mirrorspectator.com/?p=3568
Jun 3, 2010 in Opinion
Several recent developments on the world political scene indicate
Armenia's diplomacy has suffered some serious losses, tipping the
scale in favor of Turkey and Azerbaijan. A few members in the Armenian
parliament have ascribed these setbacks to the Foreign Ministry's
rather passive posture, which in fact may constitute senseless
self-flagellation, because those setbacks are mostly the functions
of Armenia's weak position in the global political arena. Had Armenia
possessed oil and mineral resources like Azerbaijan, an Aliyev-style
dynastic hold on power would be tolerated. Also, had Armenia been
situated in a strategic land mass like Turkey, any occupation, like
the Cyprus case, would only cause semantic discussions and verbal
gymnastics, overlooking all the trespasses of international law and
UN resolutions.
Armenia, having none of the above attributes, remains subject to all
kinds of diplomatic abuses.
It would be very presumptuous to make any tangible recommendations
to counter those diplomatic setbacks, but at least we would be on
the right track, if we can at least diagnose the situation and have
a clear view of the depth of our foreign policy failures.
It does not give us any advantage to subject the responsible parties
to a tongue-lashing, like some of Armenia's representatives are doing,
every time Armenia's enemies administer a diplomatic blow. Turkey has
become a major player on the world scene and it has been using that
status on every possible occasion to corner Armenia and to cause a
diplomatic defeat. Turkey is one of the 15 UN Security Council members,
and at one time also one of its rotating presidents.
In that capacity, Ankara has threatened Armenia with placing the
Karabagh issue on the Security Council's agenda, since the General
Assembly resolutions are non-binding.
Turkey's Security Council membership has also cautioned and
intimidated the Obama administration, which is seeking tougher UN
sanctions against Iran's nuclear program, where Turkey's vote becomes
significant. Whether Turkey eventually votes for or against those
sanctions, or abstains, is a secondary question, since the White
House has already made the down payment to Turkey by avoiding the
use of the term genocide. Armenia's interests could be short-sold,
with relative impunity, by any major power.
Turkey's representative also holds the position of the president at the
Council of Europe and rather than adhering to the European positions,
he has been acting like a Turk. Indeed Mr. Mevlut Chavushoglu's
recent visit to Armenia as president of the Council of Europe caused a
diplomatic row when he refused to pay a visit to the Martyr's Monument
in Yerevan.
When asked why he failed to visit the monument, Chavushoglu gave an
answer like a Turkish bazaar peddler, that his predecessors have
also not visited the monument. When journalists refuted his lie,
he resorted to his arrogance by stating that it was his personal
decision not to show up at the monument.
This is only the symbolic aspect of the tremendous damage that he
can cause in that European body.
Many people in Armenia believe that by joining the European Union,
Turkey will behave like a European nation. Chavushoglu's behavior
can project a clear picture of what an eventual Turkish presence in
Europe will mean for Armenia.
In these series of diplomatic setbacks, the slap from the European
Parliament was not an insignificant one; this time by an Azerbaijani
friend, the Bulgarian member of the European Parliament, Yevgeny
Kirilov. This latter member of European Parliament was assigned to
deliver report number 2216 on behalf of the European Parliament,
which calls for "immediate withdrawal of the Armenian forces from
the occupied Azeri territories." An incensed Foreign Minister Eduard
Nalbandian lashed out at the report during a joint press conference
with the visiting Argentinean Foreign Minister Jorge Tayana stating,
"The segment on the Karabagh conflict in the report does not correspond
to Madrid Principles, nor the Aquila declaration, nor the Moscow
Proclamation. The European Union made its position clear in the
Athens declaration of December 2009, which fully corresponds to
Armenia's views."
Many parliamentarians expressed also their opinions and a letter
of protest was lodged by Hovig Abrahamian, speaker of Armenia's
parliament. Some members mentioned that the report is non-binding,
others dismissed it as a document drafted only in the presence of
20 members of the European Union. But most dwell on Mr. Kirilov's
background as the beneficiary of Azeri lobbying groups, who also
has fought against the passage of an Armenian Genocide resolution
in the Bulgarian parliament. All these arguments do not diminish the
significance of a historic document in the archives of the European
Union, to be used today by the Azeri government and in the future by
historians presenting Armenia under an unfavorable light.
Last but not least, another blow came from the Islamic conference held
in Kazakhstan's capital, Dushanbe. Indeed the foreign ministers of
Islamic countries participating in the organization's 37th conference,
have passed a resolution labeling Armenia as an "aggressor" and have
requested to solve the Karabagh conflict respecting Azerbaijan's
territorial integrity. The resolution has even gone further, ignoring
completely Azerbaijan's barbaric destruction of Jugha Khachkars,
and has blamed Armenia for desecrating Islamic monuments. In the
end, the Islamic countries have pledged to extend economic support
to Azerbaijan, perhaps because all the oil revenues of that "poor"
country can hardly meet the needs of the Aliyev dynasty.
It is ironic that Kazakhstan could encourage, let alone condone, such
a hostile document against Armenia, while it had pledged neutrality as
the current president of the Organization for Security and Cooperation
in Europe (OSCE). Besides Kazakhstan, Lebanon, Syria and Iran are
members of the Islamic conference and supposedly friends of Armenia.
It would be interesting to check how have these countries voted during
the said resolution.
A case in point is a recent incident in Lebanon, as well as the rest
of the Arab world, where Turkey's peace initiative and deepening
economic ties have been stifling the respective Armenian communities.
Recently an Armenian song, making a reference to the Genocide, was
banned from the Lebanese public TV channel. We wonder what the Armenian
members of the Lebanese parliament were doing when the gag-order was
issued by the government.
All these developments reflect negatively on Armenia's foreign policy
and one wonders where Armenia's friends are to lend their solidarity.
Another development right here in America, which has no bearing on
Armenia's foreign policy is Woodrow Wilson Institute's decision to
honor Turkey's Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, aGenocide denier.
This is an insult to President Wilson's memory and legacy and at the
same time presents a challenge to our lobbying groups in the US. David
Boyajian's in-depth article and justified anger must be enough for
all Armenians to face this challenge and stop the insanity.
We are at a stage where Armenian's political isolation and our
insufficient resources in the diaspora are placing us in a siege as
a nation.
Is there an outcome?
From: A. Papazian