Gap: Armenia Lacks A Public Diplomacy Strategy

[Siamanto]

GAP: ARMENIA LACKS A PUBLIC DIPLOMACY STRATEGY

By Jirair Haratunian, Past Board of Directors Chairman of the Armenian
Assembly of America

In an earlier commentary I had characterized as "less than
significant" the passage of the Azerbaijani sponsored U.N. Assembly
resolution asserting its territorial integrity and demanding the
withdrawal of Armenian forces from Nagorno Karabakh and its
surrounding areas. From a legal-political view it was no victory for
Azerbaijan. However, the other side of the coin revealed a serious
weakness in Armenia's diplomatic strategy. The question it posed is
why did only seven nations oppose the resolution when the United
States, Russia, and France voted against the resolution? The three
nations who had been chosen by the Organization for Security and
Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) to head a negotiating body to resolve
the Nagorno Karabakh voted NO, and only four other delegations,
including Armenia joined them.

I believe the principal reason is that Armenia does not have an
adequate public diplomacy strategy and program. Yerevan has not been
able to deflate Baku's strident publicity demanding international
affirmation of its territorial integrity. Armenia's counter arguments
based on the right of self-determination have lacked the same force.
Azerbaijan has demanded that nations publicly endorse its territorial
integrity assertion, and most nation's have done so. Even
Washington's explanation of why the United States voted against the
resolution included a strong endorsement of Azerbaijan's territorial
integrity.

Armenia's National Assembly this week appears to have recognized the
seriousness of the problem. It adopted a resolution calling on the
government to launch a pro-active campaign to promote the legitimacy
of Nagorno Karabakh's secession from Azerbaijan. It also accused Baku
of attempting to torpedo the conciliation efforts of the OSCE's Minsk
Group co-chairmen. However, no where in the resolution did the
National Assembly call on the organized Armenian Diaspora to join this
effort.

The worldwide commemoration of the 93rd Anniversary of the Armenian
Genocide demonstrated the size and depth of commitment of the Armenian
communities to the genocide issue. It has forced Turkey into a
posture of defensiveness that combines impotent denials of history
with bullying tactics aimed at countries considering recognition of
the Genocide. These tactics plus difficulties to expunge Article 301
>From their constitution that punishes those who offend "Turkishness,"
embarrass their friends and complicates Ankara's quest to join the
European Union.

The organized Diaspora could and should have been enlisted to lobby
their respective governments to oppose the Azerbaijan-sponsored UN
resolution on Nagorno Karabakh. With active and politically potent
communities in Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, Argentina,
Brazil, Uruguay, and a host of other nations, why did these nations
abstain? Most of them might have opposed the resolution if the issue
had been effectively advocated. With the United States, Russia, and
France opposing the resolution, getting the support of many others was
entirely possible.

There is another UN resolution on the horizon, also involving
Karabakh. It is sponsored by the coalition of the former Soviet
republics of Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova, called "GUAM."
Ethnic entities in three of these nations liberated themselves in the
days following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The GUAM
resolution condemns the assertion of independence by these mini-states
who are engaged in what are called "frozen conflicts." The GUAM
resolution asserts the supremacy of the principle of territorial
integrity over self-determination in international law.

The GUAM resolution is a challenge and an opportunity for a
collaborative effort between Armenia, Karabakh, and political
activists in the Armenian Diaspora. While the pressure of time might
impede a fully successful effort to defeat the resolution, it is a
start. It can be the first step in a public diplomacy endeavor for
Armenia.

Public diplomacy is an active effort by many countries. It offers
relevant information, historic documentation, and news reportage to
international decision makers. It enlists scholars, legal and foreign
affairs experts in advocacy efforts. It targets legislatures,
government agencies, universities, mainstream and specialized media.
And in the Armenia effort, it can urge citizens of Armenian heritage
to actively promote host government support and assistance to Armenia
and the Karabakh independence cause.

The Armenian National Assembly has taken a first step. The new
governments of Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh, need to move forward from
there.

http://armenianow.com/?action=viewArticle&AID=3014&CID=2933&IID=1185&lng=eng

[Armanen]

Re: Gap: Armenia Lacks A Public Diplomacy Strategy

For once I find myself agreeing with the aaa.

[Siamanto]

Re: Gap: Armenia Lacks A Public Diplomacy Strategy

EurasiaNet, NY
May 2 2008


ARMENIA: TIME FOR A CHANGE ON KARABAKH?
Gayane Abrahamyan 5/02/08


Amid calls from President Serzh Sarkisian for a more "pro-active"
policy, Armenia's parliament has adopted a statement that some
observers say toughens the country's position on the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict.

The statement, adopted on April 29, calls for Armenian President Serzh
Sarkisian and Foreign Minister Eduard Nalbandian to create policies
that will enable Yerevan to assume the initiative in "settling the
Nagorno-Karabakh problem," and to provide the legal basis for Armenia
to act as the official guarantor of the breakaway region's
security. Negotiations with Azerbaijan on Karabakh's status are termed
the only acceptable way to resolve the territorial conflict.

In recent months, the two countries have experienced a rise in
rhetorical jostling over everything from the format of negotiations to
alleged cease-fire violations and Azerbaijan's $2 billion military
build-up. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. At the
same time, several instances of intensive fighting along the contact
line separating Armenian and Azerbaijani forces have occurred in
recent weeks. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

Within the context of rising tension, the parliamentary statement
appeared designed to send Baku a signal that Yerevan won't be bullied,
and it won't remain inactive in the face of expanding lobbying efforts
by Azerbaijan. During a speech to parliament, the statement's author,
Parliamentary Speaker Tigran Torosian, declared that "[t]he Armenian
side has for a long time overlooked the fact that full and truthful
information about the origin and development of the conflict must be
presented to the international community."

"It seems to Azerbaijan that it can solve the Nagorno-Karabakh problem
by means of war," continued Torosian. "Azerbaijan even began to
blackmail different international organizations, as well as against
the Minsk Group co-chairmen [who oversee negotiations] and,
unfortunately, we have to admit that it has had its certain
influence."

Foreign Minister Nalbandian will hold his first meeting with
Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov in Strasbourg on May
6. The encounter has been billed merely as a get-acquainted session,
although Nalbandian has told Armenian media that he hopes that the
meeting could lead to a resumption of talks between the two countries.

For now, Azerbaijan has dismissed the Nagorno-Karabakh statement as
nothing new. "We call on Armenia to be constructive," Azerbaijani
foreign ministry spokesperson Khazar Ibrahim was quoted as saying by
the APA news agency. "Such types of statements have not influenced the
negotiation process positively."

In recent months, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and other top
Azeri official have tweaked Armenian leaders and experts with a series
of provocative statements, such as advancing a claim that Yerevan is
"an old Azerbaijani town" that needs to be returned to Azerbaijan. On
occasion, the claim has extended to all of the Republic of Armenia.

"We react to [the claim] ironically, but it may have serious
consequences," commented independent analyst Levon
Melik-Shahnazarian. He termed Armenia's April 29 statement on Karabakh
"the first step" towards responding to these allegations.

One influential political force in Yerevan criticized the statement
for not going far enough. MPs belonging to the Heritage Party, the
only opposition force in parliament, voted against adopting the
statement. Party leader Raffi Hovannisian, who supports recognition of
Karabakh's independence, called the document "toothless" and
"unprincipled." His preference is for government recognition of
Karabakh's independence.


Editor's Note: Gayane Abrahamyan is a writer for the ArmeniaNow.com
weekly in Yerevan.

http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav050208c.shtml