Tweet
TRUE PATRIOTISM
Aram Abrahamian
Aravot.am
29 Aug 06
Richard Hogland's appointment as the U.S. Ambassador to Armenia caused
a great attention both in Armenia and Diaspora and in the U.S. Armenian
lobbyists, as well. Thanks to John Evans who has pronounced the word
Â"genocideÂ", irrespective of the fact he has done it accidentally or
in favor of patriotism. But it isn't secret that the recognition of
genocide by the U.S. depends on Evans or Hogland as much as holding
fair elections in Armenia depends on Victor Soghomonian. Especially in
a country like the U.S. is, the Ambassador expresses the opinion of
its government, the latter reflects designed, formulated conception
of national interests. Otherwise we can conclude that if Mr. Evans
remained in his post, U. S. would change its policy in the problem
of genocide.
I think our sensuality approach to the political issues. Not only
the opinion of ambassador but the president's too can be decisive in
the U.S. For instance, the current president of that country isn't
a giant of wisdom but it doesn 't have any influence on the common
U.S. citizens, designed mechanisms operate there as there are in the
foreign policy. That same person /Bill Clinton for example/ is inclined
to recognize the Armenian genocide before and after his posting. But
when he feels the post of president he refuses. It's another approval
that the person isn't decisive at all in the policy of that country.
In my opinion Evans' true pro-Armenian policy would be expressed when
he didn 't ignore the results of referendum in 2005. Because having
democratic, developing state is the most important thing for us. Only
in that case our country can develop and become a factor in this
region. Becoming a factor our national problems will be easy to solve.
--Boundary_(ID_mvCk9StnQWypeYp+7f1ZBA)--
Aram Abrahamian
Aravot.am
29 Aug 06
Richard Hogland's appointment as the U.S. Ambassador to Armenia caused
a great attention both in Armenia and Diaspora and in the U.S. Armenian
lobbyists, as well. Thanks to John Evans who has pronounced the word
Â"genocideÂ", irrespective of the fact he has done it accidentally or
in favor of patriotism. But it isn't secret that the recognition of
genocide by the U.S. depends on Evans or Hogland as much as holding
fair elections in Armenia depends on Victor Soghomonian. Especially in
a country like the U.S. is, the Ambassador expresses the opinion of
its government, the latter reflects designed, formulated conception
of national interests. Otherwise we can conclude that if Mr. Evans
remained in his post, U. S. would change its policy in the problem
of genocide.
I think our sensuality approach to the political issues. Not only
the opinion of ambassador but the president's too can be decisive in
the U.S. For instance, the current president of that country isn't
a giant of wisdom but it doesn 't have any influence on the common
U.S. citizens, designed mechanisms operate there as there are in the
foreign policy. That same person /Bill Clinton for example/ is inclined
to recognize the Armenian genocide before and after his posting. But
when he feels the post of president he refuses. It's another approval
that the person isn't decisive at all in the policy of that country.
In my opinion Evans' true pro-Armenian policy would be expressed when
he didn 't ignore the results of referendum in 2005. Because having
democratic, developing state is the most important thing for us. Only
in that case our country can develop and become a factor in this
region. Becoming a factor our national problems will be easy to solve.
--Boundary_(ID_mvCk9StnQWypeYp+7f1ZBA)--