Tweet
KHACHATOURIAN: WASHINGTON POST BLINDED BY LOVE AFFAIR WITH BRYZA
By: Ara Khachatourian
Armenian Weekly
Fri, Dec 23 2011
The Washington Post's editorial page editor, Fred Hiatt, took a page
out of the Aliyev propaganda manual in his Sunday piece ("When special
interests block national interest," the Washington Post, Dec. 18)
about U.S. Ambassador to Azerbaijan Matthew Bryza and how the Armenian
lobby ("special interests") is blocking Bryza's appointment despite
his alleged qualifications for the job.
Fred Hiatt, Editorial Page editor at the Washington Post In its
framing of the Karabagh conflict, Baku has opted to compare the
national wealth of Armenia and Azerbaijan as an indication that Baku
is a force to be reckoned with, often whitewashing the entrenched
Western oil interests that have been lurking in Azerbaijan since its
independence 20 year ago.
Calling Armenia "oil-poor," Hiatt blames it and the Armenian lobby
for its current land-locked reality, failing to mention that Turkey
and Azerbaijan shut their borders with Armenia in 1993 in protest of
the Karabagh War, and continue to hold the resolution of the Karabagh
conflict as a precondition for any "good neighborly" relations.
"And one reason peacemaking has failed is the dogmatism of
some diaspora groups that can enjoy, from afar, the luxury (and
fundraising magic) of sustained grievance. A fervent, at times even
counterproductively so, diaspora is not unique-ask Cuba, Israel,
or Latvia-but it has been particularly debilitating for minuscule,
resource-poor Armenia," Hiatt points out in his ill-thought out piece
to promote Bryza.
The author also singles out the Armenian National Committee of America
(ANCA) for mounting a campaign against Bryza, who he deems highly
qualified for the job. He cites a barrage of support Bryza has received
from former State Department officials and numerous think-tanks,
some of which are notorious in their support of neo-conservative
agendas-which ultimately benefit the deep pockets of corporations
with interests in countries like Azerbaijan.
The argument that Azerbaijan is rich and Armenia is poor, and thus the
Armenian lobby should shut up and let Bryza's nomination go through,
is so circuitous in its logic that one wonders why Hiatt has taken
such a keen interest in promoting an ambassador whose actions and
statements call his qualifications into question.
This is not the first time the Washington Post has blindly defended
Bryza. Under Hiatt's leadership, the paper's editorials have reeked of
one-sided support for Bryza-and condemnation for those opposing him,
especially the ANCA. Hiatt seems to harbor disdain if not outright
hatred for the group.
Hiatt treats the arguments against Bryza, as expressed by Senators
Barbara Boxer and Robert Menendez last year during his Senate
nomination hearings, as not making sense and essentially blames
the two Senators for holding Bryza's fate hostage to what he calls
"special interests groups" that are, in his mind, doing a disservice
to Armenia by opposing Bryza's nomination.
Hiatt conveniently brushes over some of the important concerns of
the aforementioned Senators and those rightfully highlighted by the
folks at the ANCA during Bryza's nomination process. For example,
the Senators extensively questioned Bryza on his failure to act
promptly and effectively when Azeri forces began destroying Armenian
monuments in Djulfa. As ambassador, Bryza was barred from visiting
Djulfa by Azeri authorities and, frankly, never really attempted to
make another visit there. Nor did he question the validity of this
action during his so-called exemplary service as U.S. ambassador.
Furthermore, Hiatt conveniently discounts Bryza's entrenchment
in Azeri political circles and his often blatant advocacy for the
government that, even according to the State Department, continues to
torture and stifle opposition forces and silence free expression by
dissenting circles. The Washington Post editorial page editor couched
the ANCA's concerns over Bryza's Turkish wife's connections with the
Aliyev regime as ethnically motivated.
Hiatt also neglects to mention that Bryza's wife, Zeyno Baran,
has served on the editorial board of the Azeri government-funded
"Azerbaijan Focus," a journal published by the "Center for Strategic
Studies under the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan." She
was joined on that board by Azerbaijan's foreign minister, Elmar
Mammadyarov, and Turkey's foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, among
other high-level Turkish/Azeri officials.
Hiatt asserts that Bryza is a beacon of democracy and peace building,
yet his tepid response to Baku's continued war-mongering demonstrates
that he does not want to ruffle his friends' feathers, and further
contributes to Baku's combative approach to the peace talks. In fact,
during his year-long tenure as ambassador, Bryza has been known to
cherry-pick incidents and comment on them, before the bodies tasked to
address those issues have had an opportunity to assess the veracity
of events. By doing so, he has done more to advance official Baku's
propaganda than protect U.S. interests in the country.
"The biggest losers in all this won't be Americans or Azerbaijanis
(who, by the way, enjoy about twice the per capita income of
Armenians), but Armenians-poor, isolated, and once again victims
of a power play that has nothing to do with their wellbeing," Hiatt
concludes.
Hiatt's concern for Armenia's economic wellbeing is touching. But to
equate Bryza's nomination with the end of Armenia's economic woes is
shortsighted at best, and a cheap and uneducated conclusion for an
editor of such a venerable publication.
Ara Khachatourian is the English editor of Asbarez.
From: A. Papazian
By: Ara Khachatourian
Armenian Weekly
Fri, Dec 23 2011
The Washington Post's editorial page editor, Fred Hiatt, took a page
out of the Aliyev propaganda manual in his Sunday piece ("When special
interests block national interest," the Washington Post, Dec. 18)
about U.S. Ambassador to Azerbaijan Matthew Bryza and how the Armenian
lobby ("special interests") is blocking Bryza's appointment despite
his alleged qualifications for the job.
Fred Hiatt, Editorial Page editor at the Washington Post In its
framing of the Karabagh conflict, Baku has opted to compare the
national wealth of Armenia and Azerbaijan as an indication that Baku
is a force to be reckoned with, often whitewashing the entrenched
Western oil interests that have been lurking in Azerbaijan since its
independence 20 year ago.
Calling Armenia "oil-poor," Hiatt blames it and the Armenian lobby
for its current land-locked reality, failing to mention that Turkey
and Azerbaijan shut their borders with Armenia in 1993 in protest of
the Karabagh War, and continue to hold the resolution of the Karabagh
conflict as a precondition for any "good neighborly" relations.
"And one reason peacemaking has failed is the dogmatism of
some diaspora groups that can enjoy, from afar, the luxury (and
fundraising magic) of sustained grievance. A fervent, at times even
counterproductively so, diaspora is not unique-ask Cuba, Israel,
or Latvia-but it has been particularly debilitating for minuscule,
resource-poor Armenia," Hiatt points out in his ill-thought out piece
to promote Bryza.
The author also singles out the Armenian National Committee of America
(ANCA) for mounting a campaign against Bryza, who he deems highly
qualified for the job. He cites a barrage of support Bryza has received
from former State Department officials and numerous think-tanks,
some of which are notorious in their support of neo-conservative
agendas-which ultimately benefit the deep pockets of corporations
with interests in countries like Azerbaijan.
The argument that Azerbaijan is rich and Armenia is poor, and thus the
Armenian lobby should shut up and let Bryza's nomination go through,
is so circuitous in its logic that one wonders why Hiatt has taken
such a keen interest in promoting an ambassador whose actions and
statements call his qualifications into question.
This is not the first time the Washington Post has blindly defended
Bryza. Under Hiatt's leadership, the paper's editorials have reeked of
one-sided support for Bryza-and condemnation for those opposing him,
especially the ANCA. Hiatt seems to harbor disdain if not outright
hatred for the group.
Hiatt treats the arguments against Bryza, as expressed by Senators
Barbara Boxer and Robert Menendez last year during his Senate
nomination hearings, as not making sense and essentially blames
the two Senators for holding Bryza's fate hostage to what he calls
"special interests groups" that are, in his mind, doing a disservice
to Armenia by opposing Bryza's nomination.
Hiatt conveniently brushes over some of the important concerns of
the aforementioned Senators and those rightfully highlighted by the
folks at the ANCA during Bryza's nomination process. For example,
the Senators extensively questioned Bryza on his failure to act
promptly and effectively when Azeri forces began destroying Armenian
monuments in Djulfa. As ambassador, Bryza was barred from visiting
Djulfa by Azeri authorities and, frankly, never really attempted to
make another visit there. Nor did he question the validity of this
action during his so-called exemplary service as U.S. ambassador.
Furthermore, Hiatt conveniently discounts Bryza's entrenchment
in Azeri political circles and his often blatant advocacy for the
government that, even according to the State Department, continues to
torture and stifle opposition forces and silence free expression by
dissenting circles. The Washington Post editorial page editor couched
the ANCA's concerns over Bryza's Turkish wife's connections with the
Aliyev regime as ethnically motivated.
Hiatt also neglects to mention that Bryza's wife, Zeyno Baran,
has served on the editorial board of the Azeri government-funded
"Azerbaijan Focus," a journal published by the "Center for Strategic
Studies under the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan." She
was joined on that board by Azerbaijan's foreign minister, Elmar
Mammadyarov, and Turkey's foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, among
other high-level Turkish/Azeri officials.
Hiatt asserts that Bryza is a beacon of democracy and peace building,
yet his tepid response to Baku's continued war-mongering demonstrates
that he does not want to ruffle his friends' feathers, and further
contributes to Baku's combative approach to the peace talks. In fact,
during his year-long tenure as ambassador, Bryza has been known to
cherry-pick incidents and comment on them, before the bodies tasked to
address those issues have had an opportunity to assess the veracity
of events. By doing so, he has done more to advance official Baku's
propaganda than protect U.S. interests in the country.
"The biggest losers in all this won't be Americans or Azerbaijanis
(who, by the way, enjoy about twice the per capita income of
Armenians), but Armenians-poor, isolated, and once again victims
of a power play that has nothing to do with their wellbeing," Hiatt
concludes.
Hiatt's concern for Armenia's economic wellbeing is touching. But to
equate Bryza's nomination with the end of Armenia's economic woes is
shortsighted at best, and a cheap and uneducated conclusion for an
editor of such a venerable publication.
Ara Khachatourian is the English editor of Asbarez.
From: A. Papazian