What Americans did is not only unserious, but also worrisome for Armenia

At the February 19, 2005 meeting, John Evans used the word "genocide" to describe the Armenian massacres and deportations in the Ottoman Empire. "I will today call it the Armenian Genocide... I think we, the US government, owe you, our fellow citizens, a more frank and honest way of discussing this problem. Today, as someone who has studied it, there's no doubt in my mind [as to] what happened. I think it is unbecoming of us, as Americans, to play word games here. I believe in calling things by their name," he said. Ambassador Evans also disclosed that he had consulted with a legal advisor at the State Department who had confirmed that the events of 1915 were "genocide by definition". Referring to the Armenian Genocide as "the first genocide of the 20th century" he added: " We made many mistakes after WWI."

At the gathering, John Evans also insisted that "although the US follows a policy of territorial integrity of nations, everybody realizes that Karabakh can't be given back to Azerbaijan. That would be a disastrous step." Commenting on a statement by Ramiz Melikov, head of the Press Service at the Defense Ministry of Azerbaijan, who had said that there would be no Armenia left in 25 years, Evans said, "This was an outrageous, bellicose statement, and it brought all the bad memories of Armenians back."

But just a few days later, back in Yerevan, John Evans corrected himself by stating, "Although I told my audience that the United States policy on the Armenian tragedy has not changed, I used the term 'genocide' speaking in what I characterized as my personal capacity. This was inappropriate." Referring to the Nagorno Karabakh conflict, Ambassador Evans noted, "The US government supports the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and holds that the future status of Nagorno Karabakh is a matter of negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan." Those who are seriously following the negotiation process understand that Evans has not made a discovery. The ex-Ambassador simply said a thing that is not permitted to say aloud.

Ever since 1992 the US policy on Nagorno Karabakh has been as follows: Washington recognizes the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan but does not predict the outcome of the negotiations. To put it more simply, this means that the issue of the status of Nagorno Karabakh is left for the conflicting parties to decide. However, in reality, since 1988 the US policy has undergone several abrupt changes.

The Human Rights Report of the US Department of State, which caused a number of comments in government circles of Armenia and Azerbaijan and mass media, not only fails to reflect the real state of affairs, but also contradicts to the spirit of the US policy.

The suggestions on the bargaining table, the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs presented in April 2006, is the approach of delayed referendum. Considering this document clandestine is senseless, since due to a number of interviews of the US Co-Chair of the Minsk Group Matthew Bryza itïž’s not a secret for experts, at least. That is to say that Americans want the Armenian forces to withdraw from the five territories adjacent to Nagorno Karabakh, and maybe even Kelbajar. For its part, Azerbaijan should agree to determine the status of Nagorno Karabakh though referendum, but in 10-15 years. This is the core of the document on the bargaining table.

Immediately after replacing Steven Mann, Matthew Bryza declared in an interview that that the withdrawal of Armenian troops from the occupied territories is an important component of the main principles of settlement. ïž“However, urging the Armenians to withdraw from these territories, which will reduce the tension, we shall not hit the target. If Armenians are sure they will receive something instead, they will do that. The experts are correct: if Armenians troops are withdrawn, it will reduce the tension. However, they must receive something in exchange. That is why the leaders of the countries must take a hard decision. The most difficult is to time the withdrawal with the determination of the status of Nagorno Karabakh.ïž”

Everyone remembers Key West, when the parties, in the words of another American Co-Chair Kerry Kavano, ïž“were unbelievably close to settlement.ïž” The main architect of the Key West was the US. The document based on exchange of territories, envisaged annexation of Nagorno Karabakh with Lachin corridor to Armenia. Certainly, Armenia was to go to compromises. This and many other facts evidence that the content and spirit of the US State Department report contradicts the policy on the Karabakh conflict settlement the US has assumed. If Washington really changes its policy and accepts that ïž“Armenia continues to occupy the Azerbaijani territory of Nagorno-Karabakh and seven surrounding Azerbaijani territories," then the question arises: to what extent the United States is proper to be an unbiased mediator? Letïž’s pay attention that member of the Minsk Group Turkey, which is often blamed for its obvious pro-Azerbaijani position, seems to be more unbiased on this background.

If the United States really considers Nagorno Karabakh (let aside the adjacent territories) as a territory occupied by Armenia, then Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act had to be directed against Armenia. While it is known that from 1992 through 2001 the US Government was rendering no assistance to Azerbaijan, since the latter imposed and upholds the blockade of Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh. If Nagorno Karabakh is an occupied territory for the Americans, then why did they provide $35 million in aid to Nagorno Karabakh between 1998-2006? Moreover, a number of American officials have noted that the US is the only state besides Armenia to provide aid to Karabakh.

If Armenia continues the occupation of Nagorno Karabakh, then what is the logic of providing over $1.5 billion aid during the past 15 years? Or why was Armenia included in the Millennium Challenge Programme?

If we take the four resolutions the UN adopted in 1993, it is clearly written there that the territories adjacent to Nagorno Karabakh have been occupied by Karabakhi forces. Moreover, when in May 1992 the Karabakhi forces liberated the Lachin corridor, the UN did not adopt any resolution. It was obvious for the international community that war was logical, and while there was no direct land communication between Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh, the Armenians of Karabakh were destined to be annihilated. Only after the Karabakhi forces seized the control of Kelbajar, and five other territories, the UN started adopting resolutions one after the other. The international community started to comprehend that the Karabakh war was exceeding the frames of their imagination.

At last, when the Soviet Union still existed, the US Senate adopted two resolutions on Nagorno Karabakh. In the second resolution adopted November 19, 1989 it was urging the USSR leadership to find a fair solution to the conflict which would reflect the will of the regionïž’s population. In particular, it was mentioned in the resolution that 80% of the population of the Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Region of was Armenians. The very next day the USSR Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Foreign Relations Committee of the Supreme Council condemned the resolution on Nagorno Karabakh adopted by the US Senate. According to Deputy Foreign Minister A. Bessmertnikh, ïž“it was a crude and self-proclaimed mediationïž” and ïž“such decision of the Senate panel caused the sharp resistance of Soviet citizens, and this irritation can be understood.ïž”

In the resolution of 19 July, 1989 the Senate called on Mikhail Gorbachev to discuss with the representatives of Nagorno Karabakh the demand of February 20, 1988 to reunite the Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Region with Armenia.

The Human Rights Report of the US Department of State the wording on Armenia, its change, and the restoration of the initial wording can be considered unserious. On the other hand, with such ïž“unseriousïž” steps the US probably sends a message to Armenia. We can only suppose why this form of expression of dissatisfaction was chosen. But one thing is obvious: with such changing statements the Americans shake the image the commons citizens have about them in Armenia. -www.armradio.am