Vahe H Apelian
 |
| Antony Blinken and Ararat Mirzoyan |
It’s fair that I state over again that I am blogger. What I blog is what I would have said, a hookah in my hand and board of backgammon in front of me, seating in a restaurant overlooking the Mediterranean Sea and articulating over the world affairs to friends with me But, there is no Mediterranean Sea where I live, nor backgammon or hookah are as available as they were and most likely still are in Lebanon, and friends were all over. Instead, where I live, there is the Facebook and social media.
Therefore, please look at the matter with such a perspective as this time, in this blog, I will reflect on what makes an effective Secretary of State of the U.S. or a Foreign minister as is the case for Armenia.
In both cases, it does not have to do much on some highly inordinately specialized skills that the Secretary of State or the FM minister should possess, in order to qualify and assume the mantle of that important position. Naturally, I am not referring to basic criteria, such as good knowledge, good verbal and interpersonal relation skills. These are understood to be mundane for any public job.
In case of the United States, the criteria that makes a Secretary of State effective is that the person has the backing of the most powerful man in the free world, the president of the United States. All those who deal with the Secretary of State would know that what the person says is what the president of the United States wants to implement as a policy. I am not inventing the wheel here. I am simply articulating on what the eminent NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman said, when it came for the United States to have an effective Secretary of State, who is sort of America’s foreign minister.
Here is what Thomas Friedman wrote:
“I covered a secretary of state, one of the best, James A. Baker III, for four years, and one of the things I learned during those years was that what made Baker an effective diplomat was not only his own skills as a negotiator, a prerequisite for the job, but the fact that his boss, President George H.W. Bush, always had Baker’s back. When foreign leaders spoke with Baker, they knew that they were speaking to President Bush, and they knew that President Bush would defend Baker from domestic rivals and the machinations of foreign governments.
That backing is the most important requirement for a secretary of state to be effective. Frankly, Obama could appoint his dear mother-in-law as secretary of state, and if he let the world know she was his envoy, she would be more effective than any ex-ambassador who had no relationship with the president.”
The U.S. is an advanced democratic society. Like any democratic country, the U.S. is also not one single voice. But the relations of the opposition, or the minority and the majority or the government, is not as chaotic as it is in Armenia as the latter hones its three decades long democracy at home. Consequently, the Secretary of the State needs not have bi-partisan support at home, let alone the support of the American public as a whole to be effective. But he remains effective as long as he or she enjoys the backing of the president who backs the Secretary of the State “from domestic rivals and the machinations of foreign governments.”
It is not the same with Armenia, which is a third-rate country, if that. Armenia’s military and political prowess is insignificant on the world scene. Obviously, it does not command the influence the U.S. does. Even if the prime minister Nikol Pashinyan backs his FM minister Ararat Mirzoyan, as he does, the effectiveness of the FM Mirzoyan does not derive from the PMs backing only, but from the from the lock, stock and barrel backing of the public of the country – Armenia - he represents.
Armenia has a cadre of refined diplomats who represent Armenia as ambassadors, FM and what not. But when persons of prominence in Armenia, such as high placed politically motivated clergy accuse the FM of unilaterally conceding, instead of backing him to stand firm and resolute, they help weaken the FM’s or Armenian delegates’ position across the negotiation table, be it a round table. It would be asinine to think that the Azeris are not gauging the internal cohesion of Armenia and taking advantage of the lack in hardening the Azeri demands, during the negotiations.
Yeghishe Charents was right when in a coded message he wrote his famous line: “Oh, Armenian people, your only salvation lies in the power of your unity” - «Ով հայ ժողովուրդ, քո միխն փրկութիւնը քո միասնական ուժի մէջ է» - Եղիշէ Չարենց.
Charents was a poet. His vision of the poetic unity he advocated has no place in the political life of a nation. Nor do I subscribe to such romantic notion. What he advocated has no place in the political life of Armenia. But what has place or should have place in the Armenian political life is the compartmentalization of political issues. Churchill faced serious opposition led by Lord Halifax who advocated negotiation with the Nazis, yet joined the Churchill cabinet. Failure of the Armenian FM is the failure of the nation as a whole, although, there will be individuals who will be beneficiaries, but not the Armenian public, even the constituents of the segment of the Armenian public who attempted to undermine the PM and thwarted the FM,s initiatives. They may very well end up regretting the realization of what they advocated. I doubt there will be anything benefitial for them as a public.
Armenia is at a cross road. "When you come to a fork, take it", said the wise Yogi Berra. But, take the right fork, I will add.
