Tweet
U.S. Interests Relating To Armenia
Igor Muradyan, Political Analyst
Comments - 28 July 2014, 16:33
The attitude of the current U.S. administration to Armenia and the
Armenian people has formed in a different way. Apparently, the Obama
administration was personally offended by the position of the Armenian
Diaspora, first of all the Armenian community of the United States on
his hypocritical behavior and frustration of the hopes of the
community for the recognition of the genocide of 1915. The
ex-secretary H. Clinton also experiences analogical motives whose
policy on Turkey and the Near East looks controversial, inconsistent
and bewildered.
Currently the administration is ready to demonstrate to Armenia and
the Armenian community of the United States its unfriendly attitude,
as well as shed responsibility for the failure of Armenian-Turkish
normalization on Armenia. In any case, accusations against the
Armenian community from the side of the U.S. administration remain
actual, which indicates Barack Obama's complexes.
Little has changed in the U.S. foreign policy with the arrival of John
Kennedy in the State Department. Only the developments in Ukraine made
the United States understand systemic changes in its foreign policy,
which gives Armenia hope for restoring its sovereignty. Nevertheless,
it is hard for the United States to combine its attitude to the
Armenian community with its attitude to the political government of
Armenia which has fulfilled all the commitments over the
Turkish-Armenian normalization and transformation in Armenia.
The United States has appeared in a rather complicated situation over
Armenia due to the controversy of the existing situation. The United
States does not have any reason to blame Armenia for the failure of
negotiations and normalization with Turkey. Armenia is going through a
massive "personnel cleansing", fight with corrupt circles. Armenia is
strengthening cooperation with NATO and the United States over defense
and security.
In fact, the Armenian government fulfils the terms and conditions of
relations with the United States over preparations for "honest"
elections and is removing from political life the oligarchic groups
which are related to Russian interests in one way or another.
Armenia's policy has already been reflected in the political
literature and named "a new course" (Russian politicians and experts
are so wary about this process that they prefer not to cover it
properly and not to use such wording as "a new course").
At the same time, the Americans are following Armenia as it continues
to develop its relations with Russia, including in CSTO, which appears
to them as "unfair play" under extremely high pressure in
international political relations.
The United States continues the policy of waiting over Karabakh which
is related to the lack of any prospects for settlement beyond the
methods of "use of force". The United States has failed to achieve any
success over the Turkish-Armenian normalization. Furthermore, the
relations in the region over the triangle Turkey-Armenia-Azerbaijan
have become tenser and more threatening. Therefore, the United States
would not like to pedal and accelerate this topic in the nearest
future.
Not one high-ranking representative of the U.S. administration has
indicated the growing risk of military actions between Azerbaijan and
Armenia but apparently the United States is doing some work with
Turkey and Russia to contain these risks. Azerbaijan has also received
signals from the United States regarding impossibility of resumption
of war.
At the same time, the United States, as well as Russia have done
nothing to prevent Azerbaijan's "sluggish" aggression on the line of
contact in the province of Karabakh. Most probably, the Americans and
Russians see the "war of snipers" as a vent for Azerbaijan to let
excess pressure out.
At the same time, this situation has become a means of pressure on
Armenia which, ready for cooperation with Russia and the West, must be
under certain external pressure. There is logic that the "war of
snipers" is an argument for pressure on Azerbaijan as well because it
is clear to everyone who the initiator of such resistance is.
The U.S. administration is constantly using such clichés as
unacceptability of the status quo of the Karabakh issue but such
statements are just wording while the United States remains interested
in maintaining the status quo in the South Caucasus.
The United States is increasingly interested in containment of Russian
influence in the South Caucasus and they are irritated by Russia's
activity over Karabakh. Failures of the Russian policy over the
Karabakh issue are welcome by the United States, and they do not see
reasons for real activity over the settlement of the Karabakh issue.
Besides, one should not cross out the circumstance that the Karabakh
issue is a factor of containment of Turkish influence in the region.
This circumstance may not have been taken into account or was seen as
tertiary but the importance of the factor of containment of Turkey to
the U.S. policy on the South Caucasus will tend to grow.
According to Turkish experts working in Carnegie Centers, the U.S.
influence on Turkey may be defined as a sequence of containment and
initiative actions but it is impossible to mark it as "manual
control". In regard to such interpretation of U.S.-Turkish relations
it is impossible to see the U.S. policy on the South Caucasus as a
more or less established, adjusted and smooth process.
The United States has to maneuver among the interests of different
states in and outside the region, proposing different variants of
coexistence and act as a containing force at critical times only or as
an initiative force in terms of controllable conflicts. The game
situation in the region is escalating but the United States is not
interested in increasing the number of players, and Russia is on their
side which does not hurry to let Turkey into the South Caucasus as an
equal player and partner.
Recent failures of the Russian-Turkish relations were not related to
the problems of Armenia and Azerbaijan. These states may ignore the
interests of their partners, developing bilateral relations.
According to information relating to the activities and focus of the
United States over Samtskhe-Javakheti, considering the visits of
American diplomats to the region, operation of local NGOs, findings of
interactions of Armenian NGOs with State Department and Congress
officials in Washington, one may draw the conclusion that the United
States is trying to use the "Javakhk-Armenian factor" to cope with
Turkish expansion in Georgia and the South Caucasus.
The Americans and the British paid too much attention to the Armenian
population of Javakhk to not affect Russia's interests and, according
to some experts, a serious political provocation is being prepared in
this province which will be not only the result of the Russian policy
but the unjustified policy of Armenia over this area populated by
Armenians.
- See more at: http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/comments/view/32779#sthash.4XG3REQH.dpuf
From: Baghdasarian
Igor Muradyan, Political Analyst
Comments - 28 July 2014, 16:33
The attitude of the current U.S. administration to Armenia and the
Armenian people has formed in a different way. Apparently, the Obama
administration was personally offended by the position of the Armenian
Diaspora, first of all the Armenian community of the United States on
his hypocritical behavior and frustration of the hopes of the
community for the recognition of the genocide of 1915. The
ex-secretary H. Clinton also experiences analogical motives whose
policy on Turkey and the Near East looks controversial, inconsistent
and bewildered.
Currently the administration is ready to demonstrate to Armenia and
the Armenian community of the United States its unfriendly attitude,
as well as shed responsibility for the failure of Armenian-Turkish
normalization on Armenia. In any case, accusations against the
Armenian community from the side of the U.S. administration remain
actual, which indicates Barack Obama's complexes.
Little has changed in the U.S. foreign policy with the arrival of John
Kennedy in the State Department. Only the developments in Ukraine made
the United States understand systemic changes in its foreign policy,
which gives Armenia hope for restoring its sovereignty. Nevertheless,
it is hard for the United States to combine its attitude to the
Armenian community with its attitude to the political government of
Armenia which has fulfilled all the commitments over the
Turkish-Armenian normalization and transformation in Armenia.
The United States has appeared in a rather complicated situation over
Armenia due to the controversy of the existing situation. The United
States does not have any reason to blame Armenia for the failure of
negotiations and normalization with Turkey. Armenia is going through a
massive "personnel cleansing", fight with corrupt circles. Armenia is
strengthening cooperation with NATO and the United States over defense
and security.
In fact, the Armenian government fulfils the terms and conditions of
relations with the United States over preparations for "honest"
elections and is removing from political life the oligarchic groups
which are related to Russian interests in one way or another.
Armenia's policy has already been reflected in the political
literature and named "a new course" (Russian politicians and experts
are so wary about this process that they prefer not to cover it
properly and not to use such wording as "a new course").
At the same time, the Americans are following Armenia as it continues
to develop its relations with Russia, including in CSTO, which appears
to them as "unfair play" under extremely high pressure in
international political relations.
The United States continues the policy of waiting over Karabakh which
is related to the lack of any prospects for settlement beyond the
methods of "use of force". The United States has failed to achieve any
success over the Turkish-Armenian normalization. Furthermore, the
relations in the region over the triangle Turkey-Armenia-Azerbaijan
have become tenser and more threatening. Therefore, the United States
would not like to pedal and accelerate this topic in the nearest
future.
Not one high-ranking representative of the U.S. administration has
indicated the growing risk of military actions between Azerbaijan and
Armenia but apparently the United States is doing some work with
Turkey and Russia to contain these risks. Azerbaijan has also received
signals from the United States regarding impossibility of resumption
of war.
At the same time, the United States, as well as Russia have done
nothing to prevent Azerbaijan's "sluggish" aggression on the line of
contact in the province of Karabakh. Most probably, the Americans and
Russians see the "war of snipers" as a vent for Azerbaijan to let
excess pressure out.
At the same time, this situation has become a means of pressure on
Armenia which, ready for cooperation with Russia and the West, must be
under certain external pressure. There is logic that the "war of
snipers" is an argument for pressure on Azerbaijan as well because it
is clear to everyone who the initiator of such resistance is.
The U.S. administration is constantly using such clichés as
unacceptability of the status quo of the Karabakh issue but such
statements are just wording while the United States remains interested
in maintaining the status quo in the South Caucasus.
The United States is increasingly interested in containment of Russian
influence in the South Caucasus and they are irritated by Russia's
activity over Karabakh. Failures of the Russian policy over the
Karabakh issue are welcome by the United States, and they do not see
reasons for real activity over the settlement of the Karabakh issue.
Besides, one should not cross out the circumstance that the Karabakh
issue is a factor of containment of Turkish influence in the region.
This circumstance may not have been taken into account or was seen as
tertiary but the importance of the factor of containment of Turkey to
the U.S. policy on the South Caucasus will tend to grow.
According to Turkish experts working in Carnegie Centers, the U.S.
influence on Turkey may be defined as a sequence of containment and
initiative actions but it is impossible to mark it as "manual
control". In regard to such interpretation of U.S.-Turkish relations
it is impossible to see the U.S. policy on the South Caucasus as a
more or less established, adjusted and smooth process.
The United States has to maneuver among the interests of different
states in and outside the region, proposing different variants of
coexistence and act as a containing force at critical times only or as
an initiative force in terms of controllable conflicts. The game
situation in the region is escalating but the United States is not
interested in increasing the number of players, and Russia is on their
side which does not hurry to let Turkey into the South Caucasus as an
equal player and partner.
Recent failures of the Russian-Turkish relations were not related to
the problems of Armenia and Azerbaijan. These states may ignore the
interests of their partners, developing bilateral relations.
According to information relating to the activities and focus of the
United States over Samtskhe-Javakheti, considering the visits of
American diplomats to the region, operation of local NGOs, findings of
interactions of Armenian NGOs with State Department and Congress
officials in Washington, one may draw the conclusion that the United
States is trying to use the "Javakhk-Armenian factor" to cope with
Turkish expansion in Georgia and the South Caucasus.
The Americans and the British paid too much attention to the Armenian
population of Javakhk to not affect Russia's interests and, according
to some experts, a serious political provocation is being prepared in
this province which will be not only the result of the Russian policy
but the unjustified policy of Armenia over this area populated by
Armenians.
- See more at: http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/comments/view/32779#sthash.4XG3REQH.dpuf
From: Baghdasarian