Tweet
THE AGE OF BLUFFING
Hakob Badalyan
http://www.lragir.am/src/index.php?id=co mments&pid=14981
13:44:29 - 25/08/2009
Perhaps it is not a secret to anyone that the behavior of the
Armenian government in the past few months has been mostly or only
based on bluff, imitation, propaganda. Even the pro-government
political experts and analysts understand what they present for
the honest intentions or wishes of the government. In this sense,
a funny situation has occurred in the process of normalization of
the Armenian and Turkish relations, which was initiated by Armenia,
according to the official information. The Armenian government tries to
convince the society through its political experts and analysts that
Turkey is in a difficult situation and the only way out is to improve
relations with Armenia or at least open the border. Surprisingly,
Turkey is not waiting impatiently for Serge Sargsyan to arrive but
Armenia is anxiously discussing to go or not to go.
And Armenia, according to the same political experts and analysts,
has already reached its goal, and the world saw that we have good
faith for the relations with Turkey and generally the world has
started speaking about us. As if before Serge Sargsyan's invitation
the world accused Armenia of the absence of this faith, or many people
thought that a few reports and articles on the relations of Armenia
and Turkey indicate the attention of the world. But of course, this
is not the problem. If this was the goal of Armenia, we will assume
that Armenia has reached it. But how can one make such superficial
judgments about the Armenian and Turkish relations, especially if we
involve the world as well? Is demonstrating something to the world
an attainment for Armenia when every episode of the relations with
Turkey has strategic importance to Armenia, economically, politically,
historically or culturally?
Can we say that it was an attempt that was made, failed but was
worth making? No attempt in diplomacy disappears, it leaves a mark on
further attempts and process, no matter you want it or not. Meanwhile,
Armenia's attempt if it was Armenia's in reality, has brought about
nothing except for "good name". Meanwhile, for Turkey, even if it
has brought about only "good name", it is already an achievement
since Turkey needed it, meanwhile Armenia does not seem to need it
when the internal reality is not concerned, of course. It is another
problem that Serge Sargsyan needed reputation. But in that case his
personal need should not be identified with the public need of Armenia.
Besides, the problem is that after the Armenian-Turkish attempt the
April 22 announcement remained to Turkey, Obama's non-use of the word
genocide on April 24 remained with Turkey, as well as the fact that
the process of Karabakh was connected, at least in parallel, with
the Armenian and Turkish process, enabling Turkey to make statements
about the process, aspire to assistance, and even Armenia announced
for several times that the improvement of the Armenian and Turkish
relations may foster the settlement of the Karabakh conflict. All
this remained to Turkey. As to what remained to Armenia, let the
political experts and analysts of the government say, besides "good
name", of course, because they have already spoken and continue to
speak because nothing else is left to Armenia but something is left
to Serge Sargsyan - Matthew Bryza stated clearly that Serge Sargsyan
is the president they need.
By the way, if the same had been announced about an oppositionist,
the same pro-government school of political experts and analysts
would allege them as foreign spies and Masonic lodges. But this is
not surprise. Simply such are the rules of thinking based on bluffing,
which are becoming more and more rooted in the Republic of Armenia.
Hakob Badalyan
http://www.lragir.am/src/index.php?id=co mments&pid=14981
13:44:29 - 25/08/2009
Perhaps it is not a secret to anyone that the behavior of the
Armenian government in the past few months has been mostly or only
based on bluff, imitation, propaganda. Even the pro-government
political experts and analysts understand what they present for
the honest intentions or wishes of the government. In this sense,
a funny situation has occurred in the process of normalization of
the Armenian and Turkish relations, which was initiated by Armenia,
according to the official information. The Armenian government tries to
convince the society through its political experts and analysts that
Turkey is in a difficult situation and the only way out is to improve
relations with Armenia or at least open the border. Surprisingly,
Turkey is not waiting impatiently for Serge Sargsyan to arrive but
Armenia is anxiously discussing to go or not to go.
And Armenia, according to the same political experts and analysts,
has already reached its goal, and the world saw that we have good
faith for the relations with Turkey and generally the world has
started speaking about us. As if before Serge Sargsyan's invitation
the world accused Armenia of the absence of this faith, or many people
thought that a few reports and articles on the relations of Armenia
and Turkey indicate the attention of the world. But of course, this
is not the problem. If this was the goal of Armenia, we will assume
that Armenia has reached it. But how can one make such superficial
judgments about the Armenian and Turkish relations, especially if we
involve the world as well? Is demonstrating something to the world
an attainment for Armenia when every episode of the relations with
Turkey has strategic importance to Armenia, economically, politically,
historically or culturally?
Can we say that it was an attempt that was made, failed but was
worth making? No attempt in diplomacy disappears, it leaves a mark on
further attempts and process, no matter you want it or not. Meanwhile,
Armenia's attempt if it was Armenia's in reality, has brought about
nothing except for "good name". Meanwhile, for Turkey, even if it
has brought about only "good name", it is already an achievement
since Turkey needed it, meanwhile Armenia does not seem to need it
when the internal reality is not concerned, of course. It is another
problem that Serge Sargsyan needed reputation. But in that case his
personal need should not be identified with the public need of Armenia.
Besides, the problem is that after the Armenian-Turkish attempt the
April 22 announcement remained to Turkey, Obama's non-use of the word
genocide on April 24 remained with Turkey, as well as the fact that
the process of Karabakh was connected, at least in parallel, with
the Armenian and Turkish process, enabling Turkey to make statements
about the process, aspire to assistance, and even Armenia announced
for several times that the improvement of the Armenian and Turkish
relations may foster the settlement of the Karabakh conflict. All
this remained to Turkey. As to what remained to Armenia, let the
political experts and analysts of the government say, besides "good
name", of course, because they have already spoken and continue to
speak because nothing else is left to Armenia but something is left
to Serge Sargsyan - Matthew Bryza stated clearly that Serge Sargsyan
is the president they need.
By the way, if the same had been announced about an oppositionist,
the same pro-government school of political experts and analysts
would allege them as foreign spies and Masonic lodges. But this is
not surprise. Simply such are the rules of thinking based on bluffing,
which are becoming more and more rooted in the Republic of Armenia.