Tweet
Paper says US envoy not to help Armenian opposition stage revolution
Hayots Ashkarh, Yerevan
12 May 05
Excerpt from unattributed report by Armenian newspaper Hayots Ashkarh
on 12 May headlined "Ambassador Evans's mistake"
It is funny to see that the press of the Armenian Pan-National
Movement has recently started a jihad against US ambassador to Armenia
John Evans.
Remarkably, they do not mean the policy of the USA, but they
especially criticize the ambassador who has not lived up to the hopes
of the radical opposition. For this reason, they are trying to
convince the public that the Department of State does not have trust
in the ambassador: he is "pro-government", he does not have contacts
with the opposition, has established dictatorship in the embassy and
so on.
Let us try to understand why they have kicked up all the fuss? What is
ambassador Evan's business in general? Instead of preparing
revolutions he maintains equal relations with the authorities and the
opposition and does not interfere in the domestic affairs of the
country. But can such an ambassador exist? It does not matter that
Clause 41 of the Vienna Convention advises all diplomats "to respect
the laws of the country where they reside and not to interfere in its
domestic affairs". It does not matter that relations between the USA
and Armenia are on a good level.
[Passage omitted: our opposition leaders have quickly changed their
strategy and started to be more pro-Western]
But does ambassador Evans not see their [opposition's] love? Why does
he not help the guys to stage a revolution? Perhaps, he sees that our
opposition resembles a kaleidoscope that changes as you turn it
round. It was the picture of Russia recently, and now it is the USA,
and in a second it may show China, Iran or something else. But the
pieces of coloured glass, of which the pictures are made, remain the
same, and this is the tragedy.
In brief, John Evans did not turn the US embassy into a revolution
headquarters, he does not want to help our opposition and this is his
main mistake. Evans understands nothing in real liberty and democracy,
absolutely nothing.
Hayots Ashkarh, Yerevan
12 May 05
Excerpt from unattributed report by Armenian newspaper Hayots Ashkarh
on 12 May headlined "Ambassador Evans's mistake"
It is funny to see that the press of the Armenian Pan-National
Movement has recently started a jihad against US ambassador to Armenia
John Evans.
Remarkably, they do not mean the policy of the USA, but they
especially criticize the ambassador who has not lived up to the hopes
of the radical opposition. For this reason, they are trying to
convince the public that the Department of State does not have trust
in the ambassador: he is "pro-government", he does not have contacts
with the opposition, has established dictatorship in the embassy and
so on.
Let us try to understand why they have kicked up all the fuss? What is
ambassador Evan's business in general? Instead of preparing
revolutions he maintains equal relations with the authorities and the
opposition and does not interfere in the domestic affairs of the
country. But can such an ambassador exist? It does not matter that
Clause 41 of the Vienna Convention advises all diplomats "to respect
the laws of the country where they reside and not to interfere in its
domestic affairs". It does not matter that relations between the USA
and Armenia are on a good level.
[Passage omitted: our opposition leaders have quickly changed their
strategy and started to be more pro-Western]
But does ambassador Evans not see their [opposition's] love? Why does
he not help the guys to stage a revolution? Perhaps, he sees that our
opposition resembles a kaleidoscope that changes as you turn it
round. It was the picture of Russia recently, and now it is the USA,
and in a second it may show China, Iran or something else. But the
pieces of coloured glass, of which the pictures are made, remain the
same, and this is the tragedy.
In brief, John Evans did not turn the US embassy into a revolution
headquarters, he does not want to help our opposition and this is his
main mistake. Evans understands nothing in real liberty and democracy,
absolutely nothing.