What Else Can You Say?
Eduard Nalbandian, the foreign Minister of Armenia, said this yesterday in the Armenian Parliament about the recent State Department annual report on Armenia. He was answering a question about the phrase 'occupied Azerbaijani territories':
"If you mean the territorial integrity [of NKR], meaning the core idea in the report that was there, multiple times it has been declared, before this [report] and after, and you can find it on the web site of the US Embassy in Armenia, that the US approach is based on three principles. They are: ruling out use of force, right to self determination and territorial integrity. And the passage in the [State Department annual report], in my opinion, does not reflect their approach on the conflict resolution for Karabakh."
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the Armenian FM does not think that the annual report from the US State Department reflects the US approach on NKR. I don't know who is he trying to BS. Below are his words in Armenian. Pardon the Engrish of the translation - I tried to remain true the way he was answering the question.
«Եթե Դուք նկատի ունեք տարածքային ամբողջականության մասին, այսինքն՝ շեշտադրումը այդ զեկույցի մեջ, որը կար, ապա բազմիցս հայտարարվել է, դրանից առաջ եւ դրանից հետո եւ այսօր նաեւ Դուք կարող եք գտնել Հայաստանում ԱՄՆ դեսպանության կայքէջում, որ Միացյալ Նահանգների դիրքորոշումը այս հարցում հիմնված է երեք սկզբունքների վրա: Դա է՝ ուժի չկիրառում, ինքնորոշման իրավունք եւ տարածքային ամբողջականություն: Եվ համապատասխան այդ զեկույցի մեջ տեղադրված այդ ձեւակերպումը, չեմ կարծում, թե արտահայտում էր իրենց դիրքորոշումը հենց Ղարաբաղի հարցի կարգավորման վերաբերյալ»:
"If you mean the territorial integrity [of NKR], meaning the core idea in the report that was there, multiple times it has been declared, before this [report] and after, and you can find it on the web site of the US Embassy in Armenia, that the US approach is based on three principles. They are: ruling out use of force, right to self determination and territorial integrity. And the passage in the [State Department annual report], in my opinion, does not reflect their approach on the conflict resolution for Karabakh."
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the Armenian FM does not think that the annual report from the US State Department reflects the US approach on NKR. I don't know who is he trying to BS. Below are his words in Armenian. Pardon the Engrish of the translation - I tried to remain true the way he was answering the question.
«Եթե Դուք նկատի ունեք տարածքային ամբողջականության մասին, այսինքն՝ շեշտադրումը այդ զեկույցի մեջ, որը կար, ապա բազմիցս հայտարարվել է, դրանից առաջ եւ դրանից հետո եւ այսօր նաեւ Դուք կարող եք գտնել Հայաստանում ԱՄՆ դեսպանության կայքէջում, որ Միացյալ Նահանգների դիրքորոշումը այս հարցում հիմնված է երեք սկզբունքների վրա: Դա է՝ ուժի չկիրառում, ինքնորոշման իրավունք եւ տարածքային ամբողջականություն: Եվ համապատասխան այդ զեկույցի մեջ տեղադրված այդ ձեւակերպումը, չեմ կարծում, թե արտահայտում էր իրենց դիրքորոշումը հենց Ղարաբաղի հարցի կարգավորման վերաբերյալ»:
8 comments:
And he calls himself a diplomat? He cant even bullshit properly.
I don't know what his ultimate purpose might be for making that statement. He might be making it because he's got some trick up his sleeve; in which case disregard this comment.
I have to admit, though, that he may be right: What he is saying is that the "emphasis" of the US Embassy's statement regarding the NKR resolution is different from that of the State Department's.
It wouldn't be the first time that different US governmental agencies have contradicted one another, especially in emphasis. But I don't know. The question for me is what is his goal in making that point?
I think it is better to not think so much and just go with the knee-jerk reaction more common on these pages: if one of the govt members said it, then let's let'em have it!! why think if we can chant hima hima himar himar??!?!?
Armen
the unfortunate thing is that he has nothing up his sleeves. He is just a failed diplomat that is, failed bullshiter and liar.
Oskanian was a good liar or at least could create that myth.
Wouldn't it be interesting if Nalbandian would trying something truly, breathtakingly new, attempting to tell the truth (sigh, too much to ask). Lragir has a hilarious take on his statement about the U.S. State Department report (I'll link it just in case it finally works):
http://www.lragir.am/src/index.php?id=politics&pid=13435
[...]
I wonder whether the Americans know that the State Department does not express the official Washington’s stance. If they do not, they should follow attentively Edward Nalbandyan’s speeches and they will be able to perceive completely the structure of their government. Perhaps, they will get to know that the reports of the State Department are just registered concerts: who will order an opinion will be included in the State Department report for a certain sum, sure the State Department is not obliged of giving a cash register ticket. The official Washington may not have paid to the State Department for an opinion this year, which is why the report did not express its stance. The Armenian foreign ministry had better tell a few words on whose stances were there in the report. Just for interest. Those may be Ilham Aliev’s personal opinions. Who knows? Sure we should know everything about it for public not to dispose against the U.S. because of the State Department, just because of a misunderstanding. After all, the U.S. gave us an assistance of 2 billions since the independence. The point is that it is not enough to say that this is not the official stance of the U.S. in order to disperse the public’s doubts. Meanwhile, the Armenian society cannot permit groundless suspects towards a country like the U.S.
You missed the best part: "Եվ համապատասխան այդ զեկույցի մեջ տեղադրված այդ ձեւակերպումը, չեմ կարծում, թե դա արտահայտում էր իրենց դիրքորոշումը հենց Ղարաբաղի հարցի կարգավորման վերաբերյալ:
Նրանք, ովքեր զբաղվում են Ղարաբաղի հարցի կարգավորմամբ, բազմիցս արտահայտել են, եւ ոչ միայն նրանք, այլ նաեւ բազմաթիվ բարձրաստիճան ներկայացուցիչներ Միացյալ Նահանգների:"
His only job is to speak and he can't even do that properly. I don't know what the hell that was, but I know for sure it wasn't Armenian syntax. And this person is our top diplomat. As for the substance of what he said, he's beginning to sound a bit like Baghdad Bob lately.
I still don't think this case is as clear-cut as Lragir makes it sound. As far as getting mixed-messages from the US is concerned, didn't Suck-ass-willy go ahead and attack Russian soldiers because someone (wink-wink, nudge-nudge) led him to believe that the US would come to the aid of Georgia? Didn't the same someone completely reorganize the entire intelligence gathering and reporting mechanism of the US government by creating an Office of Special Plans and completely bypassing the CIA?
Again, I'm not trying to protect Nalbandian: he and 99% of all politicians in general can go snort plutonium dust for all I care.
My point is that the US government could very well be sending the Armenian government mixed messages, intentionally or unintentionally, the way it has before. Ascribing the statement to the stupidity of a politician obscures this possibility and everything that it may or many Not imply.
The only way to truly find out is to find and compare the two documents.
Well, I suppose it's possible that the U.S. doesn't have a clear or coherent policy developed--first time for everything, huh? :))
Post a Comment