Tweet
WHOSE FAVOUR ISTHE ARMENIAN AND TURKISH RELATION?
Hakob Badalyan
LRAGIR.AM
11:42:06 - 07/04/2009
"I would like to focus my attention not on my stance, but on the stance
of the Armenian and Turkish nations. If they are able to go on, the
rest of the world should help them in this regard." These are the U.S.
president Barak Obama's words, which he said at the join press
conference with Abdullah Gyul. Sure, from his words a lot of
people will conclude, that Obama is not going to recognize the
Armenian genocide, if he stated that his stance is not important,
but the progress in the Armenian and Turkish nations' relations. In
Armenia expert opinions are already voiced which are broadcasted by
the TV which state that Obama hinted that he would not recognize the
Armenian genocide, but this step is made for the sake of the Armenian
nation, in order not to ruin the promotion in the Armenian and Turkish
relations, this is the reason of his speech in Turkey. In other words,
with his words Obama was turning to the Armenian people saying almost
the following: "Armenians, sure, I promised to recognize the genocide,
but I'm not doing it right now, because you need more the Armenian
and Turkish relations." Interestingly, what the U.S. needs in this
question. In other words, what does the U.S. gain recognizing or not
recognizing the Armenian genocide?
It is interesting to know in order to understand whether Obama cares
only for the Armenian interests by not recognizing the genocide,
or may be a little for the U.S. interests too. On the whole, Obama's
attitude proves his being a skilful and smart figure. When a promise
to recognize the genocide should have to be given, he gave it, and
now he reasons his non-recognition of it. Churchill would probably
like Obama, because the U.S. president shows that he corresponds to
the Churchill's famous idea of a political figure, which said that
a political figure should say something and after should be able to
explain why it did not happen. Obama seems to act right in this way
in connection with the genocide. Of course, the Armenians will blame
him saying that he went back on his promise, that they belived him but
Obama deceived them, and he does not differ from the other U.S. "liar"
presidents. But, you can be sure, that Obama will say that he is
ready to be qualified as a "liar" for the sake of the Armenian nation.
But it is early to conclude that Obama's speech in Turkey means that
he is not going to recognize the Armenian genocide. The point is that
subordinating his stance in this connection, he may send a message
not to the Armenian people but to the Turkish people and government
saying that it is not so important whether he will recognize it or not,
so there is no need to spare energy and nerves trying to prevent the
recognition, because nothing essential is going to be.
Really, what is going to be changed if Obama refers to the Armenian
genocide as genocide on April 24? There, of course, will be an
all-Armenian euphoria, and Obama will be rendered an Armenian cult, but
everything is going to finish there, in fact, because no word of the
U.S. president has legislative power, especially from international
rights point of view. So, Obama may very well pronounce the word
"genocide" and gift another moral victory to the Armenian nation,
and when the genocide resolution is rejected by the Congress, he will
say to the perplexed Armenians: "Why are looking at me like that? I
promised I would recognize it, and I did it. But our Congress is not
your National Assembly, where the president may make press any button
he wants. Sorry, but there is a clear division of power here." So,
due to the American smart policy, both the sheep and the wolves will
be satisfied.
And what will happen to the Armenian and Turkish relations and how
will it be? This is already a difficult question, and Serge Sargsyan
may have tried to find the answer right to this question during the
phone conversation with Dmitri Medvedev, on the very day when Obama
pronounced his speech in Turkey. But someone else is needed to tell
that to Medvedev what is going to be with the Armenian and Turkish
relations. An in general, someone is needed to say on account of what
these relations are settled -on account of the good will of Turkey
or political trade. It comes out as if the whole world is making a
favour for Armenia and, as it is well-known, the most difficult thing
is to compensate it.
Hakob Badalyan
LRAGIR.AM
11:42:06 - 07/04/2009
"I would like to focus my attention not on my stance, but on the stance
of the Armenian and Turkish nations. If they are able to go on, the
rest of the world should help them in this regard." These are the U.S.
president Barak Obama's words, which he said at the join press
conference with Abdullah Gyul. Sure, from his words a lot of
people will conclude, that Obama is not going to recognize the
Armenian genocide, if he stated that his stance is not important,
but the progress in the Armenian and Turkish nations' relations. In
Armenia expert opinions are already voiced which are broadcasted by
the TV which state that Obama hinted that he would not recognize the
Armenian genocide, but this step is made for the sake of the Armenian
nation, in order not to ruin the promotion in the Armenian and Turkish
relations, this is the reason of his speech in Turkey. In other words,
with his words Obama was turning to the Armenian people saying almost
the following: "Armenians, sure, I promised to recognize the genocide,
but I'm not doing it right now, because you need more the Armenian
and Turkish relations." Interestingly, what the U.S. needs in this
question. In other words, what does the U.S. gain recognizing or not
recognizing the Armenian genocide?
It is interesting to know in order to understand whether Obama cares
only for the Armenian interests by not recognizing the genocide,
or may be a little for the U.S. interests too. On the whole, Obama's
attitude proves his being a skilful and smart figure. When a promise
to recognize the genocide should have to be given, he gave it, and
now he reasons his non-recognition of it. Churchill would probably
like Obama, because the U.S. president shows that he corresponds to
the Churchill's famous idea of a political figure, which said that
a political figure should say something and after should be able to
explain why it did not happen. Obama seems to act right in this way
in connection with the genocide. Of course, the Armenians will blame
him saying that he went back on his promise, that they belived him but
Obama deceived them, and he does not differ from the other U.S. "liar"
presidents. But, you can be sure, that Obama will say that he is
ready to be qualified as a "liar" for the sake of the Armenian nation.
But it is early to conclude that Obama's speech in Turkey means that
he is not going to recognize the Armenian genocide. The point is that
subordinating his stance in this connection, he may send a message
not to the Armenian people but to the Turkish people and government
saying that it is not so important whether he will recognize it or not,
so there is no need to spare energy and nerves trying to prevent the
recognition, because nothing essential is going to be.
Really, what is going to be changed if Obama refers to the Armenian
genocide as genocide on April 24? There, of course, will be an
all-Armenian euphoria, and Obama will be rendered an Armenian cult, but
everything is going to finish there, in fact, because no word of the
U.S. president has legislative power, especially from international
rights point of view. So, Obama may very well pronounce the word
"genocide" and gift another moral victory to the Armenian nation,
and when the genocide resolution is rejected by the Congress, he will
say to the perplexed Armenians: "Why are looking at me like that? I
promised I would recognize it, and I did it. But our Congress is not
your National Assembly, where the president may make press any button
he wants. Sorry, but there is a clear division of power here." So,
due to the American smart policy, both the sheep and the wolves will
be satisfied.
And what will happen to the Armenian and Turkish relations and how
will it be? This is already a difficult question, and Serge Sargsyan
may have tried to find the answer right to this question during the
phone conversation with Dmitri Medvedev, on the very day when Obama
pronounced his speech in Turkey. But someone else is needed to tell
that to Medvedev what is going to be with the Armenian and Turkish
relations. An in general, someone is needed to say on account of what
these relations are settled -on account of the good will of Turkey
or political trade. It comes out as if the whole world is making a
favour for Armenia and, as it is well-known, the most difficult thing
is to compensate it.