ABOUT ARMENIAN FOREIGN POLICY
Lragir.am
24/12/09
During the whole year, the government propaganda has annoyed the
society with its dedications to foreign policy initiative. If at least
the half of this initiative was real, now Armenia would not threat
Turkey to take up relevant steps in case the latter does not ratify
the protocols, but a situation when it would just be inexpedient for
Turkey not to ratify the protocols would have been formed. But all the
dedications to the Armenian foreign policy initiative are completely
based on pure imagination which stems from the logic of the
authorities.
In reality, the part of the society which was interested in the TV
dedications to the initiative policy have been trying to understand
during the whole year how that initiative is expressed. The fact that
Serge Sargsyan invited Gul to Yerevan and proposed starting the
Armenian and Turkish relations may be considered an initiative, but it
is very little to be considered foreign policy initiative. The foreign
policy initiative had to have at least a second example of
initiatives. But such one does not seem to exist. The invitation was
the first and the only initiative of Armenia in the context of
establishment of Armenia-Turkey relations.
The fact that the Armenian president left for different countries and
many presidents visited Armenia does not mean initiative. Official
visits are parts of the presidential agenda. The topic of those visits
is more important. The point is not about arrangements regarding the
enhancement of trade circulation or `bringing economic links to the
level of political links’. The point is about tangible, decisive
arrangements which at least contain some potential for a new
situation. This may be called initiative.
But during the visits of the Armenian president or foreign minister,
no such a tendency was noticed with any country, both in bilateral or
wider formats. Armenia was just taken by initiatives stemming from
completely other sources which once proceeded in favor of Armenia and
once quite independently from it. The impression is that river is
moving and Armenia is moving along the riverbank and when there is
necessity it is thrown in the water and after it is taken out of it
and Armenia goes on moving along the riverbank. And in this course,
Armenia just tries to understand whether it needs to dry because it
may be again pulled into the water.
The Armenian foreign policy perhaps is in this condition and the level
of assessing the foreign policy is based on counting Armenia’s name
mentioning by foreign media. The measurement of the success of the
foreign policy became the international newsmaker level of Armenia.
Indeed, quite a deep measurement. From the point of assessing the
foreign policy, initiative has an evident expression and result,
unlike the foreign policy itself.
JAMES HAKOBYAN