Tweet
FRANCE MANEUVERS AND GIVES ARMENIA SOME TIME TO PREPARE
Hakob Badalyan
Lragir.am, Armenia
Oct 25 2006
A strange similarity can be noticed in the actions of the foreign
legacies in Armenia. The ambassadors do not make that significant
steps over the years of their work than when they prepare to leave.
The reason perhaps is that since they are diplomats, representatives
of other countries, their actions are restricted by the "imperative
mandate" and they beware evaluations and comments, meanwhile as they
are about to leave, they are more free, at least with regard to the
given country. The evidence to this is that the ambassadors of two
great states to Armenia the United States and France left with a noise
although they worked quite tacitly. We should not forget that after
John Evans had left, the U.S. embassy announced about extending facts
on corruption to the Armenian government. Meanwhile, they had insisted
on the contrary before Evans left. Henry Cuny outdid Evans with his
"post-diplomatic ease". His five years in Armenia were so unnoticed
that some people were even surprised to hear that Cuny was ambassador
to Armenia for five years. And it is possible that for this reason
he decided to leave slamming the door behind him. And the slam was so
hard because it concerned the recent delight of the Armenian foreign
policy: the law passed by the French parliament and its influence on
the Turkish and Armenian relations. Ambassador Cuny literally stated
that our relations with Turkey is our business. This was but an overt
answer to the Armenian diplomacy with Commander Vardan Oskanyan and
"Commander-in-Chief" Robert Kocharyan, who used their entire arsenal
to present to the public from early morning till late at night what
a diplomatic victory Armenia celebrated by the decision of the French
parliament. Meanwhile, Cuny hints that it was not the goal of France
to interfere with the Turkish-Armenian relation and solve a problem
for Armenia but France solved its own problems, and the ambassador
naturally did not speak about these problems because unlike Armenia
in France they usually keep and solve their problems inside their
own circle.
I wish Cuny had stated that the relation with Turkey is our business.
He also advised to listen not only to the opinion of people who hurry
to thank France but also the young people who, besides gratefulness,
say that their future, if they want to live in Armenia, depends on
the dialogue with the neighbors rather than confrontation. In other
words, the ambassador of France conveyed to the Armenians that before
the delight and celebration of a decision made by another country
it is first of all necessary to realize the effect of this decision
on the future of their own country. Of course, Cuny cannot imagine
that moral victories are of more value in Armenia because these do
not require special intellect and efforts, all they take is some PR.
Moreover, he cannot imagine that the people who deal with the foreign
policies and who should have calculated and analyzed for the people
what practical use the bill adopted by the French parliament would have
for the future of the country are in reality busy analyzing their own
future, not the future of the country and people. And they concluded
from their analysis that the decision of the French parliament is
what they need to stir emotions and turn into a means of praising
themselves. And while anyone in Armenia who would speak against this
public psychosis propagated by the government would immediately be
characterized as a betrayor, a false Armenian or a foreign agent,
it is impossible to say the same about the French ambassador. He
cannot be a betrayor, a false Armenian and especially a foreign
agent. Consequently, he did not have any motivation stemming from the
logic of the Armenian government to announce what he announced only
five days before leaving Armenia. In other words, the motivation is
quite different, and the ploughmen of the Armenian foreign policies
should at least now make an effort to analyze and get the meaning of
Cuny's words.
It appears that by hinting that the bill on the genocide has nothing
to do with the Turkish-Armenian relation and the future of Armenia
Cuny definitely opposed to the parliamentarians of his own country,
who asserted that they adopted the bill out of moral standards and
support to the Armenian people. This may be true, and it may even
appear that like in Armenia in France too the right had does not know
what the left hand is doing. But again this is what the logic of the
Armenian elite suggests. In reality, it is highly probable that Cuny
is preparing the failure of the bill on the genocide in the Senate or
at the Palais d'Elisees, where Jacques Chirac may simply decline to
sign the law. We should not forget that Chirac will retire soon and
he may agree to accept the blow, namely the dissatisfaction of the
Armenian voters in France. In other words, it is more expedient that
the French Senate adopts the law not to arouse dissatisfaction among
the Armenian voters, meanwhile Chirac is the most convenient way of
preventing the triumph of this bill. France did what it needed to do
and now it does not need to go forward. The bill will prove useful
in their relations with Turkey, therefore it is not necessary to
adopt it right now. It may appear that only several days ago Chirac
spoke about the friendship of Armenia and France in Yerevan and he
would never agree not to sign the law. Meanwhile, Cuny's words, who
is announcing, in fact, that the bill is against the interests of
Armenia, may serve this purpose. Hence, already an effort is made to
justify the possible move by Chirac, presenting it in the light of
the pursuit of the Armenian interest. Therefore, though it may seem
that the Armenian government should be offended by Cuny revelations,
it had better thank him for outlining so early the possible moves
of the French policy. The point is that the French ambassador simply
tried to help the Armenian government to take its time and work out
an action plan not to be given a surprise when the Senate rejects or
Chiract declines to sign the bill to include this move immediately
into the national liberation propaganda and present it as another
diplomatic victory of Armenia.
Hakob Badalyan
Lragir.am, Armenia
Oct 25 2006
A strange similarity can be noticed in the actions of the foreign
legacies in Armenia. The ambassadors do not make that significant
steps over the years of their work than when they prepare to leave.
The reason perhaps is that since they are diplomats, representatives
of other countries, their actions are restricted by the "imperative
mandate" and they beware evaluations and comments, meanwhile as they
are about to leave, they are more free, at least with regard to the
given country. The evidence to this is that the ambassadors of two
great states to Armenia the United States and France left with a noise
although they worked quite tacitly. We should not forget that after
John Evans had left, the U.S. embassy announced about extending facts
on corruption to the Armenian government. Meanwhile, they had insisted
on the contrary before Evans left. Henry Cuny outdid Evans with his
"post-diplomatic ease". His five years in Armenia were so unnoticed
that some people were even surprised to hear that Cuny was ambassador
to Armenia for five years. And it is possible that for this reason
he decided to leave slamming the door behind him. And the slam was so
hard because it concerned the recent delight of the Armenian foreign
policy: the law passed by the French parliament and its influence on
the Turkish and Armenian relations. Ambassador Cuny literally stated
that our relations with Turkey is our business. This was but an overt
answer to the Armenian diplomacy with Commander Vardan Oskanyan and
"Commander-in-Chief" Robert Kocharyan, who used their entire arsenal
to present to the public from early morning till late at night what
a diplomatic victory Armenia celebrated by the decision of the French
parliament. Meanwhile, Cuny hints that it was not the goal of France
to interfere with the Turkish-Armenian relation and solve a problem
for Armenia but France solved its own problems, and the ambassador
naturally did not speak about these problems because unlike Armenia
in France they usually keep and solve their problems inside their
own circle.
I wish Cuny had stated that the relation with Turkey is our business.
He also advised to listen not only to the opinion of people who hurry
to thank France but also the young people who, besides gratefulness,
say that their future, if they want to live in Armenia, depends on
the dialogue with the neighbors rather than confrontation. In other
words, the ambassador of France conveyed to the Armenians that before
the delight and celebration of a decision made by another country
it is first of all necessary to realize the effect of this decision
on the future of their own country. Of course, Cuny cannot imagine
that moral victories are of more value in Armenia because these do
not require special intellect and efforts, all they take is some PR.
Moreover, he cannot imagine that the people who deal with the foreign
policies and who should have calculated and analyzed for the people
what practical use the bill adopted by the French parliament would have
for the future of the country are in reality busy analyzing their own
future, not the future of the country and people. And they concluded
from their analysis that the decision of the French parliament is
what they need to stir emotions and turn into a means of praising
themselves. And while anyone in Armenia who would speak against this
public psychosis propagated by the government would immediately be
characterized as a betrayor, a false Armenian or a foreign agent,
it is impossible to say the same about the French ambassador. He
cannot be a betrayor, a false Armenian and especially a foreign
agent. Consequently, he did not have any motivation stemming from the
logic of the Armenian government to announce what he announced only
five days before leaving Armenia. In other words, the motivation is
quite different, and the ploughmen of the Armenian foreign policies
should at least now make an effort to analyze and get the meaning of
Cuny's words.
It appears that by hinting that the bill on the genocide has nothing
to do with the Turkish-Armenian relation and the future of Armenia
Cuny definitely opposed to the parliamentarians of his own country,
who asserted that they adopted the bill out of moral standards and
support to the Armenian people. This may be true, and it may even
appear that like in Armenia in France too the right had does not know
what the left hand is doing. But again this is what the logic of the
Armenian elite suggests. In reality, it is highly probable that Cuny
is preparing the failure of the bill on the genocide in the Senate or
at the Palais d'Elisees, where Jacques Chirac may simply decline to
sign the law. We should not forget that Chirac will retire soon and
he may agree to accept the blow, namely the dissatisfaction of the
Armenian voters in France. In other words, it is more expedient that
the French Senate adopts the law not to arouse dissatisfaction among
the Armenian voters, meanwhile Chirac is the most convenient way of
preventing the triumph of this bill. France did what it needed to do
and now it does not need to go forward. The bill will prove useful
in their relations with Turkey, therefore it is not necessary to
adopt it right now. It may appear that only several days ago Chirac
spoke about the friendship of Armenia and France in Yerevan and he
would never agree not to sign the law. Meanwhile, Cuny's words, who
is announcing, in fact, that the bill is against the interests of
Armenia, may serve this purpose. Hence, already an effort is made to
justify the possible move by Chirac, presenting it in the light of
the pursuit of the Armenian interest. Therefore, though it may seem
that the Armenian government should be offended by Cuny revelations,
it had better thank him for outlining so early the possible moves
of the French policy. The point is that the French ambassador simply
tried to help the Armenian government to take its time and work out
an action plan not to be given a surprise when the Senate rejects or
Chiract declines to sign the bill to include this move immediately
into the national liberation propaganda and present it as another
diplomatic victory of Armenia.