Tweet
MILLION IN LOBBYIST BASKET
Hakob Badalyan
Lragir.am
23 Aug 06
It was hard to imagine that appointing ambassador to Armenia would
become such a complicated issue for the U.S. government. The impression
is that the United States has two underlying and seemingly unsolvable
issues: stability in Iraq and appointment of a new ambassador to
Armenia. The Armenian lobby in the United States will certainly correct
us that these problems are not interrelated. In other words, the
Armenian lobby is not related to the problem of Iraq and the Armenian
lobby is related to the appointment of the new ambassador. In other
words, the Armenian lobby is to blame for the trouble of Hoagland. The
cause of the trouble is known to everyone.
Hoagland is asked to make a clear statement on the genocide, whereas
he resists bravely, we could even say in a manly manner, if there were
not for the well-known circumstance. However, the private life of the
new ambassador or the candidate is not our problem, our problem is the
situation that occurred in Armenia with regard to the appointment of
the new ambassador of the United States. It would not be a problem
for us but the United States is a too important country, therefore
the question of the ambassador of this country to our country is
highly important. And in this connection, it is amazing that so
far the Armenian lobby in America did not demand that the previous
ambassadors utter the word Genocide, or did not demand with as much
ardor as from Hoagland. Meanwhile, none of the former ambassadors has
used this word. The determination of the Armenian organizations in
connection with the new U.S. ambassador is at least strange. It is
possible that formerly the Armenian lobby was not strong enough to
suspend the naming of the new ambassador. However, another question
occurs how the Armenian lobby became stronger.
It is perhaps worthwhile to mention a relevant nuance, which is rather,
even extremely important. Do the Armenian lobbyist organizations work
in accord with the Armenian government? Logically, it should be so,
since the Armenia - U.S. relations are concerned, because ambassadors
have a rather big role in interstate relations. If the Armenian lobby
did not act in accord with the Armenian government, this is already
a problem of national security.
Even if the Armenian organizations are concerned, it is
nevertheless unusual that some organizations may interfere with the
Armenian-American relations and suspend the appointment of ambassadors
mediating these relations. In other words, an underlying question
occurs if the suspension of appointment of Hoagland is favorable for
official Yerevan.
On the other hand, it is highly probable that the problem is not
Hoagland but Evans, the present U.S. ambassador to Armenia. Most
probably, official Yerevan is interested in prolonging the office of
the old ambassador rather than appointment of a new ambassador. And
it becomes clear on following the activities of John Evans. He,
the ambassador of the United States, the flagman of democracy has
never made a clear statement on violence, corruption, the criminal
government, restriction of freedom of speech, etc. in Armenia.
Instead, the ambassador is known for his close relations with the
Armenian high-ranking officials, who are thought by the majority of
the Armenian society to be the parent or offspring of this criminal
system. In this case, it is clear that his recall is not favorable
for official Yerevan. But since they understand here that nothing is
eternal in the world, they simply prefer delaying his recall as long
as possible.
It is a subconscious, an instinctive compulsion rather than a conscious
step. After all, what is the difference, a month earlier or a month
later? It is also notable that the efforts of the Armenian lobby and
official Yerevan are effective especially in instinctive matters or
only in instinctive matters. Meanwhile, conscious compulsions are
usually preferable for the state. If these were dominant, the elite
in Armenia and the Armenian organizations in America would realize
that the appointment of an ambassador to Armenia would not change
the U.S. policy on the issue of the genocide. And generally, it is
high time to understand that it is impossible to measure everyone by
one's own bushel. The United States is not the kind of country which
sacrifices the national interest for several million dollars. And if
the Armenians realized this, they might have saved the millions they
spend for the needs of some senators and used them for the needs of
the Homeland, because sooner or later the United States will appoint
an ambassador, and the word Genocide will not sound at all.
It is also possible, however, that the Armenian lobby in America
prefers spending millions on Senators. At any rate, they will lose
them if they send them to the Homeland. They will be lost if they are
spent on Senators, but at least they will know where the money is lost.
Hakob Badalyan
Lragir.am
23 Aug 06
It was hard to imagine that appointing ambassador to Armenia would
become such a complicated issue for the U.S. government. The impression
is that the United States has two underlying and seemingly unsolvable
issues: stability in Iraq and appointment of a new ambassador to
Armenia. The Armenian lobby in the United States will certainly correct
us that these problems are not interrelated. In other words, the
Armenian lobby is not related to the problem of Iraq and the Armenian
lobby is related to the appointment of the new ambassador. In other
words, the Armenian lobby is to blame for the trouble of Hoagland. The
cause of the trouble is known to everyone.
Hoagland is asked to make a clear statement on the genocide, whereas
he resists bravely, we could even say in a manly manner, if there were
not for the well-known circumstance. However, the private life of the
new ambassador or the candidate is not our problem, our problem is the
situation that occurred in Armenia with regard to the appointment of
the new ambassador of the United States. It would not be a problem
for us but the United States is a too important country, therefore
the question of the ambassador of this country to our country is
highly important. And in this connection, it is amazing that so
far the Armenian lobby in America did not demand that the previous
ambassadors utter the word Genocide, or did not demand with as much
ardor as from Hoagland. Meanwhile, none of the former ambassadors has
used this word. The determination of the Armenian organizations in
connection with the new U.S. ambassador is at least strange. It is
possible that formerly the Armenian lobby was not strong enough to
suspend the naming of the new ambassador. However, another question
occurs how the Armenian lobby became stronger.
It is perhaps worthwhile to mention a relevant nuance, which is rather,
even extremely important. Do the Armenian lobbyist organizations work
in accord with the Armenian government? Logically, it should be so,
since the Armenia - U.S. relations are concerned, because ambassadors
have a rather big role in interstate relations. If the Armenian lobby
did not act in accord with the Armenian government, this is already
a problem of national security.
Even if the Armenian organizations are concerned, it is
nevertheless unusual that some organizations may interfere with the
Armenian-American relations and suspend the appointment of ambassadors
mediating these relations. In other words, an underlying question
occurs if the suspension of appointment of Hoagland is favorable for
official Yerevan.
On the other hand, it is highly probable that the problem is not
Hoagland but Evans, the present U.S. ambassador to Armenia. Most
probably, official Yerevan is interested in prolonging the office of
the old ambassador rather than appointment of a new ambassador. And
it becomes clear on following the activities of John Evans. He,
the ambassador of the United States, the flagman of democracy has
never made a clear statement on violence, corruption, the criminal
government, restriction of freedom of speech, etc. in Armenia.
Instead, the ambassador is known for his close relations with the
Armenian high-ranking officials, who are thought by the majority of
the Armenian society to be the parent or offspring of this criminal
system. In this case, it is clear that his recall is not favorable
for official Yerevan. But since they understand here that nothing is
eternal in the world, they simply prefer delaying his recall as long
as possible.
It is a subconscious, an instinctive compulsion rather than a conscious
step. After all, what is the difference, a month earlier or a month
later? It is also notable that the efforts of the Armenian lobby and
official Yerevan are effective especially in instinctive matters or
only in instinctive matters. Meanwhile, conscious compulsions are
usually preferable for the state. If these were dominant, the elite
in Armenia and the Armenian organizations in America would realize
that the appointment of an ambassador to Armenia would not change
the U.S. policy on the issue of the genocide. And generally, it is
high time to understand that it is impossible to measure everyone by
one's own bushel. The United States is not the kind of country which
sacrifices the national interest for several million dollars. And if
the Armenians realized this, they might have saved the millions they
spend for the needs of some senators and used them for the needs of
the Homeland, because sooner or later the United States will appoint
an ambassador, and the word Genocide will not sound at all.
It is also possible, however, that the Armenian lobby in America
prefers spending millions on Senators. At any rate, they will lose
them if they send them to the Homeland. They will be lost if they are
spent on Senators, but at least they will know where the money is lost.