To recap: as was indicated during the announcement stage of the visit, the American guest will hold talks in Yerevan with officials and businessmen, emphasize support for reforms in Armenia, promote efforts for its resilience, and also meet with Armenians resettled from Karabakh, to whom she promises long-term humanitarian aid, including psychosocial support.
Upon arriving in Yerevan, Ms. Power immediately headed to a local “fast food” establishment that receives financial support from USAID. All would have been fine, but the place is called “Taste of Artsakh.” And as Yerevan media now sweetly report, “Karabakh women introduced her to the recipe for Armenian bread,” after which Power prepared a “traditional Artsakh dish.”
So, did Madam Power, who is supposedly not new to diplomacy, and the employees of the Yerevan office of USAID really not understand that the name “Taste of Artsakh” is not about regional cuisine but about territorial claims against Azerbaijan? Especially in a situation where a peace treaty between Baku and Yerevan has not yet been signed, and territorial claims are still enshrined in Armenia’s constitution? Is USAID so unaware of regional realities? Or is the promised “psychosocial support” from Madam Power actually support for revanchist sentiments?
As for the advice to “not focus too much on the name of the fast food place,” allow us to ask: would a seemingly innocent German sausage-and-beer joint somewhere in Argentina receive financial support from USAID if it were called “Third Reich”? Especially if it were opened by “refugees from Germany”? Even if it were proven that the owners of this sausage-and-beer joint are not listed as war criminals?
Moreover, it is clear that Samantha Power’s visit should be viewed “in context.” Since Pashinyan started loudly complaining about Moscow, Washington and its allies have eagerly dived into what they themselves perceive as “luring Armenia away from Moscow to the West.” Especially since this process, which initially seemed promising, now resembles “Groundhog Day.” Pashinyan seems to continue expressing grievances against Moscow but takes no real steps, helps Russia circumvent sanctions, and moreover, the Armenian ambassador to Russia recently toured certain regions of Russia and openly expressed support for Russian aggression.
We will deliberately leave aside questions about whether USAID understands the real extent of Yerevan’s dependence on Moscow, whether they realize that Russia has been financially supporting Armenia since the collapse of the USSR, and whether the US is ready to take on this mission. But there is no doubt about one thing: Washington’s “hugs” with Yerevan, which go beyond decency, understandably anger Baku. Today, Azerbaijan-US relations are undergoing a serious “test of strength.” On one hand, there are three decades of cooperation, backed by a solid economic foundation, geopolitics, mutual interest in this cooperation, and so on. On the other hand, there is a too-obvious “pro-Armenian tilt.” In short, it seems that during her visit, Ms. Power had to garner applause from the Armenian audience, support pro-Western sentiments in Yerevan, and not provoke a major scandal in Azerbaijan. The release appears to have been smoothed out: many words about “Armenia’s resilience” (evidently in case of serious Russian pressure), support for reforms (nothing more than internal politics), and not a word about military or defense cooperation.
But was it wise to assign this mission to this DISrespected lady, who once received the “Aurora” prize from the hands of Kremlin oligarch and professional provocateur Ruben Vardanyan? Who is unlikely to be unaware of the implications of visiting the “Taste of Artsakh” tavern? And most importantly, how will American diplomacy now cleanse itself of this “aroma”?
