Tweet
INTERNATIONAL ASPECT OF "BUDAPEST MEANNESS"
Igor Muradyan
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments27330.html
Published: 11:45:01 - 07/09/2012
The tough and decisive reaction of the U.S. to Budapest's "meanness"
can be explained by the wish of the administration to direct the
moods of the Armenian voters ahead of the presidential elections. In
addition, it is not so important for B. Obama and H. Clinton to
have the Armenian votes but to rule out any criticism of their
behavior regarding recognition of the Armenian genocide described as
hypocritical and "forgetful".
But the U.S. pursued a large scope of aims and tasks. Under different
administrations the U.S. has never missed any chance to show its
leading partners in Europe and the European Union in general the
incompleteness and handicap of that organization, discrepancy of
declared principles with real politics and positions.
>From time to time, we can see jealousy in the work of the Armenian
diplomats towards the concept of "system of values" which the
Europeans try to usurp presenting it as a product of exceptionally
European life. On the contrary, Americans try to show that the American
intellectual, political and social culture is the source of the Western
"system of values".
Such fundamental pretensions to the analyses of the "Budapest"
situation cannot be considered as abstruse reasoning. The U.S.
politics has failed more than once in regard to different European
states, for example, Germany related to the past developments, or
even Vatican with its different problems of ethical and political
character. This is but a method of pressure and management of Europe
and there is nothing new about it.
It is hard to say whether the U.S. was informed about the upcoming
meanness in Budapest but it is not even important. In terms of
its political resources this incident is quite universal and easily
projectable because of which it was so rapidly taken into the reserve
of the American foreign policy. This time the Americans literally
pushed the Europeans into a nasty environment, demonstrating the
failure of the European Union as a democratic and legal "field" and
"pillar" for the world politics.
At the same time, the U.S. carries out certain common tasks which
were tried out in the past decade in Turkey on Azerbaijan. In other
words, the U.S. is quite interested in maximum blocking and isolation
of Azerbaijan in international politics, not only in Russia's and
Iran's direction but also in regard to the Western community. But
the first goal to be pursued is to keep a distance between Turkey and
Azerbaijan. This handy scenario has been worked out and analyzed and
a simple reader of political articles can understand it.
The U.S. has set clearly the functions and tasks of the South Caucasus
countries (including not only the three countries), and Azerbaijan
is assigned to certain functions that should not be obstructed by
its foreign political goals and ambitions. Azerbaijan should feel
sufficiently dependent on the U.S. and the U.S., not Turkey, is
considered the guarantor of its independence, welfare and existence.
For example, in regard to Georgia or Armenia, the U.S. is interested
in the discourse of international relations in the Western direction.
Azerbaijan is the only state of the South Caucasus which has such
a close and conditioned ally like Turkey, and so this factor should
be possibly eliminated. The political disgrace of Azerbaijan is one
of the tasks of not only the U.S. but also its close partners Great
Britain, Israel and even the European community in general the purpose
of which is to make Azerbaijan obey their interests.
In this connection, the European states and the European Union
have found themselves in an ambiguous situation. On the one hand,
"surrendering" Hungary would mean to admit their political and legal
bankruptcy but Azerbaijan can be rendered an international outsider and
forced to obey the interests of Europe. In this situation, the real
position of the European Union was not expressed by the structures
of the Union or France but Great Britain which did not react at all.
In this situation, Armenia's agreement to cancel this problem would be
an unforgivable position. A very productive situation is in place and
there is no need to fear politicization or exaggeration of different
initiatives. Armenia has an important function of ensuring the balance
of power in the South Caucasus, as well as in the "containment"
of regional expansion of Turkey. This is enough for a small country.
Armenia is supported and sustained by the great powers due to which
serious contradictions have occurred, therefore the strategy of this
game is interesting.
But the political leadership of Armenia should not allow itself to
be deceived by the bearers of selfish and self-centered personal and
group interests in the political establishment, which is a bugbear.
There will come a time when the political leadership of Armenia
will be very sorry that it did not want to take full advantage of
this situation. The decision has already been made, and, apparently
the follow-up will be determined proceeding from the process but the
process itself can be easily diminished and deceived by promises of
"positive image". This is a barefaced lie and this politicking cannot
go on.
Igor Muradyan
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments27330.html
Published: 11:45:01 - 07/09/2012
The tough and decisive reaction of the U.S. to Budapest's "meanness"
can be explained by the wish of the administration to direct the
moods of the Armenian voters ahead of the presidential elections. In
addition, it is not so important for B. Obama and H. Clinton to
have the Armenian votes but to rule out any criticism of their
behavior regarding recognition of the Armenian genocide described as
hypocritical and "forgetful".
But the U.S. pursued a large scope of aims and tasks. Under different
administrations the U.S. has never missed any chance to show its
leading partners in Europe and the European Union in general the
incompleteness and handicap of that organization, discrepancy of
declared principles with real politics and positions.
>From time to time, we can see jealousy in the work of the Armenian
diplomats towards the concept of "system of values" which the
Europeans try to usurp presenting it as a product of exceptionally
European life. On the contrary, Americans try to show that the American
intellectual, political and social culture is the source of the Western
"system of values".
Such fundamental pretensions to the analyses of the "Budapest"
situation cannot be considered as abstruse reasoning. The U.S.
politics has failed more than once in regard to different European
states, for example, Germany related to the past developments, or
even Vatican with its different problems of ethical and political
character. This is but a method of pressure and management of Europe
and there is nothing new about it.
It is hard to say whether the U.S. was informed about the upcoming
meanness in Budapest but it is not even important. In terms of
its political resources this incident is quite universal and easily
projectable because of which it was so rapidly taken into the reserve
of the American foreign policy. This time the Americans literally
pushed the Europeans into a nasty environment, demonstrating the
failure of the European Union as a democratic and legal "field" and
"pillar" for the world politics.
At the same time, the U.S. carries out certain common tasks which
were tried out in the past decade in Turkey on Azerbaijan. In other
words, the U.S. is quite interested in maximum blocking and isolation
of Azerbaijan in international politics, not only in Russia's and
Iran's direction but also in regard to the Western community. But
the first goal to be pursued is to keep a distance between Turkey and
Azerbaijan. This handy scenario has been worked out and analyzed and
a simple reader of political articles can understand it.
The U.S. has set clearly the functions and tasks of the South Caucasus
countries (including not only the three countries), and Azerbaijan
is assigned to certain functions that should not be obstructed by
its foreign political goals and ambitions. Azerbaijan should feel
sufficiently dependent on the U.S. and the U.S., not Turkey, is
considered the guarantor of its independence, welfare and existence.
For example, in regard to Georgia or Armenia, the U.S. is interested
in the discourse of international relations in the Western direction.
Azerbaijan is the only state of the South Caucasus which has such
a close and conditioned ally like Turkey, and so this factor should
be possibly eliminated. The political disgrace of Azerbaijan is one
of the tasks of not only the U.S. but also its close partners Great
Britain, Israel and even the European community in general the purpose
of which is to make Azerbaijan obey their interests.
In this connection, the European states and the European Union
have found themselves in an ambiguous situation. On the one hand,
"surrendering" Hungary would mean to admit their political and legal
bankruptcy but Azerbaijan can be rendered an international outsider and
forced to obey the interests of Europe. In this situation, the real
position of the European Union was not expressed by the structures
of the Union or France but Great Britain which did not react at all.
In this situation, Armenia's agreement to cancel this problem would be
an unforgivable position. A very productive situation is in place and
there is no need to fear politicization or exaggeration of different
initiatives. Armenia has an important function of ensuring the balance
of power in the South Caucasus, as well as in the "containment"
of regional expansion of Turkey. This is enough for a small country.
Armenia is supported and sustained by the great powers due to which
serious contradictions have occurred, therefore the strategy of this
game is interesting.
But the political leadership of Armenia should not allow itself to
be deceived by the bearers of selfish and self-centered personal and
group interests in the political establishment, which is a bugbear.
There will come a time when the political leadership of Armenia
will be very sorry that it did not want to take full advantage of
this situation. The decision has already been made, and, apparently
the follow-up will be determined proceeding from the process but the
process itself can be easily diminished and deceived by promises of
"positive image". This is a barefaced lie and this politicking cannot
go on.