Lragir, Armenia
Dec 15 2006
THE HABITS AND THE NEW U.S. AMBASSADOR
The story of appointment of a new U.S. Ambassador to Armenia is
notable because in our country this question is viewed in the light
of the recognition of the Armenian Genocide, and an exaggerated myth
about the Armenian lobby of America is being made up that allegedly
it has become so powerful that it can change the intentions of the
U.S. administration. Of course, this is reassuring news, because in a
few years it is possible that the Armenian lobby of American will
have become so powerful that it will make the administration
recognize not only Karabakh as the second Armenian state, but also
recognize California as an Armenian state, especially that
Schwarzenegger would not mind.
This trajectory of the national goal is so smooth and fluent that one
even feels remorse to think that in reality the problem is not the
Armenian lobby but the American policy of delaying the appointment of
a new ambassador. And there can be several reasons for conducting
this kind of policy. Perhaps, the American administration has decided
to reeducate the Armenian government which has got used to American
ambassadors during the years of office of John Evans. The point is
that the ancient Armenian civilization based on the absence of
statehood can persuade any diplomat within a few days that there are
more attractive things in the world than a state. Besides, it takes
next to nothing from the representatives of this civilization to
explain to newcomers that it is the worst of indecency to enter
someone else’s cloister with one’s own rules.
However, perhaps it is possible to find one or two diplomats in the
United States who would remain faithful to the idea of state all
through their office in Armenia. Consequently, the problem is perhaps
the attitude towards Armenia. Not appointing an ambassador does not
mean that this country is not important for the United States. The
point is that by delaying the appointment of ambassador in this
important pre-election period the United States is carrying out the
same diplomatic policy as in the case of the Millennium Challenge
program; if everything is compliant with the rules of democracy, the
United States will give money; in this case, the United States will
appoint a new ambassador. Apparently, the same logic works, and it is
made clear to the Armenian government that the United States may be
rather hard on illegality, up to not having an ambassador to a
country which fails to conduct a fair election. Matthew Bryza’s
statement several months ago in Yerevan showed that the United States
is unlikely to appoint an ambassador to Armenia until the election,
or at least for a long time. With regard to the recall of Evans he
uttered warm words about Anthony Godfry, the U.S Charge d’Affaires,
a.i., describing him as one of the brilliant diplomats of the United
States. In other words, Bryza hinted that they can trust the affairs
to Godfry.
In this case, it is interesting why Bush named Hoagland if he was not
likely to appoint him. Perhaps, the reason was the intention to test
the reaction of the Armenian government. And judging by the reaction
of the Armenian state propaganda machine towards the rejection of
Hoagland, official Yerevan is only happy that the United States has
no ambassador to Armenia. The pre-election period is tense, the
schedule is tight, and there would be no time to get used and make
used to the new ambassador, and problems might occur suddenly. In
this case, Godfry is preferable, especially that he has worked with
Evans for many years.
HAKOB BADALYAN