The American diplomat expressed admiration for Armenia, highlighting its “dynamic” economy, which “stands out in the region” for its growth rate. He confidently stated that “political events in Armenia reflect the democratic ambitions of the Armenian people, and we are pleased to see the significant steps taken by the government, some with our support, to make the rule of law fundamental and to fight corruption, allowing people to express their positions democratically.” Additionally, he announced the signing of an agreement between the U.S. and Armenia on information exchange in the customs sphere.
O’Brien’s words seemed intended to soothe and flatter the Armenian audience. Whether he succeeded in this aim is another question. However, outside this Armenian audience, O’Brien’s statements raise several questions.
American diplomats always pay great attention to issues of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. Leaving aside whether Armenian law enforcement always acts within the law and according to strict Western democratic standards when dealing with demonstrators, we must question whom O’Brien referred to by “democratic ambitions.” Is he referring to the revanchists, those openly called Russian puppets in Armenia and supported by figures like Vladimir Solovyov and Margarita Simonyan? This raises the possibility that Washington might be ready to “abandon” Nikol Pashinyan due to his constant political maneuvering. But who would Washington support in this case? Archbishop Bagrat? The “Karabakh clan”? Professional terrorists?
Moreover, O’Brien expressed admiration for Armenia’s economic growth. Yes, if we look at import and export figures, there is significant growth. However, this growth is due to Armenia circumventing sanctions imposed on Russia. The surge in imports to Armenia from the EU and the U.S. and Armenian exports (re-exports) to Russia coincides with the start of the war in Ukraine and the imposition of stringent sanctions on Russia.
It is possible that Mr. O’Brien missed the advertisements from the Armenian postal service, Haypost, offering Russians the opportunity to order “sanctioned” goods through Armenia. However, he should be aware of the sanction circumvention. So, what “growth rates” is the Assistant Secretary of State talking about? Did he overlook the sanction circumvention? Even if he wanted to please the local audience, did he ignore too much? The responsibility for words greatly differs between a journalist, a congressman, and an Assistant Secretary of State.
And as the “cherry on top”: Washington and Yerevan are concluding an agreement on cooperation in the field of customs information exchange. Does the U.S. genuinely expect Armenia to share information about sanction circumvention? Will the U.S. take reliable measures to ensure that Armenia does not use this agreement to cover up the circumvention of sanctions? Or will they again prefer to do everything to please the Armenian audience, forgetting about the importance of the issue?
If so, then O’Brien and his superiors shouldn’t be surprised when “complications” begin to arise in other countries.
Nurani
Translated from minval.az
