Tweet
Secret Of Recognition By The West
HAKOB BADALYAN
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments26252.html
Published: 10:40:48 - 19/05/2012
Ambassador of the United States to Armenia, John Heffern told Radio
Free Europe / Radio Liberty that the latest parliamentary elections
have reported essential progress for Armenia. Heffern noted at the
same time that the bribery and the use of the administrative resources
is still a problem and they will try to help Armenia to overcome it.
The ambassador noted that thanks to the work with the government, the
opposition and other subjects involved in the electoral process, they
are trying to do everything to have progress in this sphere.
The position of the U.S. ambassador will disappoint a lot of people.
Those who know about electoral fraud that happened during the election
process will surely be dissatisfied with the ambassador's statement.
At the same time, it is not necessary to think that the U.S. diplomat
does not know the details of the elections and cannot imagine what
happened in Armenia before and after the elections.
But it would be too ingenuous to explain this position by the
usefulness of the illegitimacy of the Armenian authorities for the
U.S. in order to squeeze concessions in foreign affairs. Meanwhile it
has been a decade in Armenia the opposition explains the loyal
attitude of the West towards rigged elections in Armenia by this.
This loyalty of the West has been felt since 1995. During these 20
years the West could have certainly received from the Armenian
government what it wanted. If there is something that has hindered the
West for 20 years, it will go on hindering the West for another twenty
years. The West can hardly be so naïve not to imagine that it is
meaningless to resort to the same tactical starting points to assess
the elections.
There is a different issue here. Certainly, in building relations with
Armenia, the West is led by its geopolitical interests. So does any
normal country, be it in the West or in the East, or anywhere else.
Usually, normal countries are in the West, thus it is natural that
they are led by their interest in building relations with Armenia.
The question is whether these interests match the state and public
interest of Armenia. In this case, most interests match since the
ideas of a constitutional state and rule of law underlie these
interests. Meanwhile, for Armenia, this is perhaps the only way to
ensure competiveness and security in the country.
The issue is that for Armenia and first of all for the Armenian
society it is not worth narrowing the perception of the interests of
Western states proceeding from domestic issues, hence also narrowing
the possibility of Armenia to maneuver. In serving their interests,
the Western countries take into account the platform in Armenia -
public psychology, thinking and ideas. Consequently, they need to be
wide possible, at least in terms of the Western interest, so that
Armenia can have some influence on the process of serving and
formation of foreign interest.
Otherwise, by narrowing the framework of being interesting to the
world, we deprive ourselves of at least the psychological potential of
being or doing, while this is the first condition for being and doing.
Hence, limiting the West's attitude to our elections in declaration of
narrow expectations, the political forces limit the so-called creative
basis of the public potential in Armenia.
After all, the attitude of the people and the society is important to
the recognition of the election return. When the society recognizes
the result, also by indifference, it is secondary whether the West
will recognize or not. Foreign countries understand this as they are
aware of what the political subjects and key actors are.
The West's attitude is perhaps formed by taking into account and
juxtaposing all these things with the criminal-oligarchic web. The
opposition forces which appeared there willingly or unwillingly
consider the optimal way of their participation to be gradual
destruction of the web and not cutting it. Not only domestic realities
but also the fact that this system is backed by influential Russia
plays an important role.
The political elite and the expert community perhaps understand that
tough evaluations will affect their further possibility of employment,
sending themselves, not the system, into a deadlock.
HAKOB BADALYAN
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments26252.html
Published: 10:40:48 - 19/05/2012
Ambassador of the United States to Armenia, John Heffern told Radio
Free Europe / Radio Liberty that the latest parliamentary elections
have reported essential progress for Armenia. Heffern noted at the
same time that the bribery and the use of the administrative resources
is still a problem and they will try to help Armenia to overcome it.
The ambassador noted that thanks to the work with the government, the
opposition and other subjects involved in the electoral process, they
are trying to do everything to have progress in this sphere.
The position of the U.S. ambassador will disappoint a lot of people.
Those who know about electoral fraud that happened during the election
process will surely be dissatisfied with the ambassador's statement.
At the same time, it is not necessary to think that the U.S. diplomat
does not know the details of the elections and cannot imagine what
happened in Armenia before and after the elections.
But it would be too ingenuous to explain this position by the
usefulness of the illegitimacy of the Armenian authorities for the
U.S. in order to squeeze concessions in foreign affairs. Meanwhile it
has been a decade in Armenia the opposition explains the loyal
attitude of the West towards rigged elections in Armenia by this.
This loyalty of the West has been felt since 1995. During these 20
years the West could have certainly received from the Armenian
government what it wanted. If there is something that has hindered the
West for 20 years, it will go on hindering the West for another twenty
years. The West can hardly be so naïve not to imagine that it is
meaningless to resort to the same tactical starting points to assess
the elections.
There is a different issue here. Certainly, in building relations with
Armenia, the West is led by its geopolitical interests. So does any
normal country, be it in the West or in the East, or anywhere else.
Usually, normal countries are in the West, thus it is natural that
they are led by their interest in building relations with Armenia.
The question is whether these interests match the state and public
interest of Armenia. In this case, most interests match since the
ideas of a constitutional state and rule of law underlie these
interests. Meanwhile, for Armenia, this is perhaps the only way to
ensure competiveness and security in the country.
The issue is that for Armenia and first of all for the Armenian
society it is not worth narrowing the perception of the interests of
Western states proceeding from domestic issues, hence also narrowing
the possibility of Armenia to maneuver. In serving their interests,
the Western countries take into account the platform in Armenia -
public psychology, thinking and ideas. Consequently, they need to be
wide possible, at least in terms of the Western interest, so that
Armenia can have some influence on the process of serving and
formation of foreign interest.
Otherwise, by narrowing the framework of being interesting to the
world, we deprive ourselves of at least the psychological potential of
being or doing, while this is the first condition for being and doing.
Hence, limiting the West's attitude to our elections in declaration of
narrow expectations, the political forces limit the so-called creative
basis of the public potential in Armenia.
After all, the attitude of the people and the society is important to
the recognition of the election return. When the society recognizes
the result, also by indifference, it is secondary whether the West
will recognize or not. Foreign countries understand this as they are
aware of what the political subjects and key actors are.
The West's attitude is perhaps formed by taking into account and
juxtaposing all these things with the criminal-oligarchic web. The
opposition forces which appeared there willingly or unwillingly
consider the optimal way of their participation to be gradual
destruction of the web and not cutting it. Not only domestic realities
but also the fact that this system is backed by influential Russia
plays an important role.
The political elite and the expert community perhaps understand that
tough evaluations will affect their further possibility of employment,
sending themselves, not the system, into a deadlock.