Tweet
DONKEY OR ELEPHANT, DIFFERENCE IS NOT BIG
Hakob Badalyan
Lragir, Armenia
Nov 9 2006
The Armenian government is delighted about the defeat of the
Republicans in the election to the U.S. Congress. The pro-Hay Dat
conglomerate of this circle is encouraged by the statistics of the
Hay Dat offices suggesting that there are more pro-Armenians among the
Democrats than the "oil-smelling" Republicans. The Republican layer of
the Armenian government is also in high spirits. It may be thinking
that the American Republicans, depressed by the defeat, will seek
comfort in the idea of the victory of the Republican idea somewhere
else and will use the first opportunity. And the first opportunity
will be the Armenian parliamentary election. These approaches might
be stemming from the tendency to think that the U.S. Congress election
will influence the U.S policy on Armenia.
Therefore, the Armenian government is part by part explaining and
making the victory of the Democrats favorable for it.
However, disappointment is awaiting the Armenian government both in
terms of Hay Dat and the U.S. Policy on Armenia. And U.S. Charge
d'Affaires Anthony Godfrey hinted that the U.S. foreign policy is
the power of the executive, and the executive power has not changed.
Undoubtedly, and the charge d'affaires does not hide that the American
voters, nevertheless, expect a change in the foreign policy.
For us, however, it is important to know what is our role and
importance in the framework of the U.S. policy so that changes in
the foreign policy of this country affect the U.S. - Armenian relation.
Judging by the present U.S. - Armenian relation, Armenia has an
absolutely strategic importance for the United States. The evidence
to this is that in tactical matters the United States often yields
to Russia. The examples are the deals that the Armenian government
signs with Russia giving the country's important infrastructures and
factories to this country. The reaction of the United States to this
process is highly reserved.
Most people might think that over the past few years the Republicans
have been conducting an obviously pro-Azerbaijani policy both regarding
Karabakh and generally the Caucasus, advising Armenia to learn from
Azerbaijan. They considered that the reason was the oil interest
of most leaders of the Republican administration. It should not be
overlooked, however, that the pro-Azerbaijani stance of the Republican
administration, such as the elimination of Resolution 907 or greater
military assistance to Azerbaijan, was permanently counterbalanced
at the Congress by the Republican majority.
However, besides this, over its rather short but effective history the
U.S. has made it clear for everyone that in terms of geopolitical
strategy it almost never undergoes changes. This country has a
clear-cut strategy, and in different stages of its implementation
the dominance of the Democrats or Republicans becomes necessary, not
more. In other words, figuratively, in the United States the policy
determines the government, not the government decides the policy.
Besides the fact that the U.S. Congress mainly deals with the internal
problems of the country there is another important thing.
The Democrats have always been known for their focus on the internal
problems of the country. In this respect, the Democratic majority will
tackle the internal problems rather to win over the American voters
in 2008. As to foreign policies, despite the obvious dissatisfaction
with the steps that are taken, the Democrats will not try to change the
situation. The Democrats will need the current failure, or in others
words, problems to use against the Republicans in the presidential
election in 2008.
And if the change of the foreign political strategy is almost excluded
because it is not expedient, the U.S. policy on Armenia will not
change and therefore its being favorable or unfavorable depends on
whether Armenia can build an effective political and economic system.
Hakob Badalyan
Lragir, Armenia
Nov 9 2006
The Armenian government is delighted about the defeat of the
Republicans in the election to the U.S. Congress. The pro-Hay Dat
conglomerate of this circle is encouraged by the statistics of the
Hay Dat offices suggesting that there are more pro-Armenians among the
Democrats than the "oil-smelling" Republicans. The Republican layer of
the Armenian government is also in high spirits. It may be thinking
that the American Republicans, depressed by the defeat, will seek
comfort in the idea of the victory of the Republican idea somewhere
else and will use the first opportunity. And the first opportunity
will be the Armenian parliamentary election. These approaches might
be stemming from the tendency to think that the U.S. Congress election
will influence the U.S policy on Armenia.
Therefore, the Armenian government is part by part explaining and
making the victory of the Democrats favorable for it.
However, disappointment is awaiting the Armenian government both in
terms of Hay Dat and the U.S. Policy on Armenia. And U.S. Charge
d'Affaires Anthony Godfrey hinted that the U.S. foreign policy is
the power of the executive, and the executive power has not changed.
Undoubtedly, and the charge d'affaires does not hide that the American
voters, nevertheless, expect a change in the foreign policy.
For us, however, it is important to know what is our role and
importance in the framework of the U.S. policy so that changes in
the foreign policy of this country affect the U.S. - Armenian relation.
Judging by the present U.S. - Armenian relation, Armenia has an
absolutely strategic importance for the United States. The evidence
to this is that in tactical matters the United States often yields
to Russia. The examples are the deals that the Armenian government
signs with Russia giving the country's important infrastructures and
factories to this country. The reaction of the United States to this
process is highly reserved.
Most people might think that over the past few years the Republicans
have been conducting an obviously pro-Azerbaijani policy both regarding
Karabakh and generally the Caucasus, advising Armenia to learn from
Azerbaijan. They considered that the reason was the oil interest
of most leaders of the Republican administration. It should not be
overlooked, however, that the pro-Azerbaijani stance of the Republican
administration, such as the elimination of Resolution 907 or greater
military assistance to Azerbaijan, was permanently counterbalanced
at the Congress by the Republican majority.
However, besides this, over its rather short but effective history the
U.S. has made it clear for everyone that in terms of geopolitical
strategy it almost never undergoes changes. This country has a
clear-cut strategy, and in different stages of its implementation
the dominance of the Democrats or Republicans becomes necessary, not
more. In other words, figuratively, in the United States the policy
determines the government, not the government decides the policy.
Besides the fact that the U.S. Congress mainly deals with the internal
problems of the country there is another important thing.
The Democrats have always been known for their focus on the internal
problems of the country. In this respect, the Democratic majority will
tackle the internal problems rather to win over the American voters
in 2008. As to foreign policies, despite the obvious dissatisfaction
with the steps that are taken, the Democrats will not try to change the
situation. The Democrats will need the current failure, or in others
words, problems to use against the Republicans in the presidential
election in 2008.
And if the change of the foreign political strategy is almost excluded
because it is not expedient, the U.S. policy on Armenia will not
change and therefore its being favorable or unfavorable depends on
whether Armenia can build an effective political and economic system.