The Defence Ministry also said that the initiative, which came exclusively from the Armenian side, had been agreed with Damascus and that cooperation with Russia implied exclusively logistics. However, our Foreign Ministry emphasised that the mission was exclusively humanitarian and that this did not envision any other type of activities.
How justified is all this politically and is there any sense in this? Unfortunately, holding public discussions has on these matters has failed; never mind political [discussions] (for the exception of individual political statements with manipulations of different depth in some of them), despite the fact that there were obvious risks. High-ranking representatives of the Defence Ministry publicly offered assurances that risks had been assessed, that Armenia's partners had been given explanations about the essence of the mission to make sure that we "are not understood incorrectly."
However, we proved to be understood "incorrectly" – very much so.
Armenia's mission in Syria 'understood incorrectly'
It was first and foremost Russians that "understood us incorrectly" and this is why and how this happened. If it was declared that this was our initiative, why on earth did [Russian Defence Minister Sergei] Shoigu express gratitude to us for Armenia's being "the first to respond to Russia's call to render help to the Syrian people"? Why did we provide Russia with an opportunity to "appropriate" our initiative (no matter whether this [initiative] was right or wrong) and why was it declared after the fact that the initiative was exclusively ours, exclusively Armenian? After all, its beneficiaries are the Armenians, who are still staying in Syria, and the mission will be functioning under the Armenian flag.
This was almost immediately followed by [our being] "incorrectly understood" by Americans and a rather sharp statement by the US Department of State, which can be divided into three parts. The first part is exclusively about their attitude towards the Armenian mission as such.
"We recognise the desire of other nations to respond to the humanitarian situation in Syria, and we share the concerns about protecting religious minorities in the Middle East," the statement by US Department of State said. The statement was disseminated for the mass media by the US Embassy in Armenia.
Afterwards, the American foreign agency touched on two contexts: The geopolitical environment, which the Armenian mission had to function in, and the assessment of the overall situation and its cause-and-effect links that followed:
"However, we do not support any engagement with Syrian military forces, whether that engagement is to provide assistance to civilians or is military in nature. Nor do we support any cooperation between Armenia and Russia for this mission.
"Russia has partnered with the Assad regime to slaughter civilians and trigger a humanitarian catastrophe. Russia continues to protect the Assad regime and its atrocities on a global stage," the US foreign agency said. (Quotations from Radio Azatutyun)
It is also worthwhile to recall the statement by [US National Security Adviser John] Bolton, which he made during his visit to Armenia, saying that Washington showed understanding of Armenia's desire to render help to the Armenians living in Syria. However, it was also concerned about "the red lines" [believing that] this should have nothing to do with combat operations in Syria, be it direct or indirect. Let us also recall that this was the period, when there was high likelihood that backed by Russian airpower, Assad could launch an attack to establish control over Idlib Province.
Armenians to be repatriated from Middle East
So, what did we gain as a result?
Let us begin with the Armenians in Syria. To be honest, we have to admit that historically, Armenians have nothing to do in the Middle East and their repatriation should become a strategic priority for the Republic of Armenia. Immediate evacuation of Armenians from Syria and their return to their motherland would be the best humanitarian mission. This is not only in their interests, but also in the state interests of the Republic of Armenia. For reference, Armenia remains outside international programmes of assistance, which are aimed to provide shelter to Syrian refugees. Apart from this, there arises a big question, both rhetorical and hypothetical: Would the Russian side provide planes [to allow] repatriation of Armenians to Armenia with such great enthusiasm?…
As regards Russians, as always, we were again confronted with a double game, in which Russians are expressing gratitude to us with their "right hand" and waging a new wave of propaganda war against the Armenian authorities with their "left hand". They are now making calls for the "need in recognising Crimea", which is quite a habitual act, something like "centuries-old friendship [between Armenia and Russia]".
As regards Americans, they chose not to openly condemn. However, they reproached [us] for the "centuries-old friendship" and the reasons for the disaster Armenians are suffering in Syria, which dominated our society through the approaches imposed by Russian TV stations, are prevailing in our society. And as the Jewish joke goes, "[this] leaves a gall in the mind".
Incidentally, as regards Jews, civil war erupted in Ethiopia in 1984-1985 and, of course, ethnic and religious minorities proved to be in the cross-hairs. Israel carried out Operation Moses, which was a true humanitarian mission and 14,000 Jews were repatriated in a centralised manner [as published]. Of them,1,500 were orphaned children. In those years, Armenia was not yet independent. It was not a state. And an influential Armenian community of Addis Ababa was left to its fate. Hardly anyone knows where they are now… However, Armenia is now a free and independent state and it is high time we pursued a meaningful policy, which would be appropriate for the status. In cases of the kind, the term "Armenocentrism" will make sense. However, this time, too, things will probably work out "as usual" and this is extremely bad. It is extremely bad that things do not work out, when we want to do some good deeds and that we are "understood incorrectly". Why is that? It seems that we are not only incapable of forming and shaping our state interest at the right time, but we also fail to merely explain what we after all want from ourselves or the world, We cannot commit this to paper and then just read this so that the community, be it Armenian or international, can understand something from what we did and we do not have to make explanations after we are already" understood incorrectly". In an independent state, this is called information support, communication, public relations. … It is the 21st century, … and so forth.
