‘Armenian Times’. In the USA, They Do Not Accept Pashinyan Like ‘One of Their Own’; The Revolution Lacked Geopolitical ‘Dads’

‘Armenian Times’ reports.

Detailed professional analyses of the results of Prime Minister Pashinyan's visit to the USA will certainly follow, but for now, it is worth addressing the domestic reactions to the visit. Opposition propaganda outlets, as usual, painted everything in dark colors and voiced numerous accusations against the authorities. Moreover, there were three main accusations: first, a large amount of money was spent for organizing the visit, although it could have been saved and a more modest visit could have been organized; second, the visit was deemed a failure because there were no meetings with high-ranking US officials, and third, fewer people than expected attended the rally in Los Angeles.

Let’s begin with the money spent on the visit. Leaving aside the fact that this money will, of course, return to Armenia multiplied by ten or a hundred in the form of various investment projects (it is not a coincidence that special importance was given to economic issues and business projects throughout the visit), the question also arises: when we speak of “unprecedented large expenses,” what do we compare it to? There was not much transparency in such matters during Robert Kocharyan and Serzh Sargsyan's terms, not to mention corruption schemes. For example, it wouldn’t be surprising if less money was officially spent from the budget on their official visits (on paper), but some oligarchs funded their much more lavish trips “from their pockets” (say, “why not stop by Baden-Baden on the way back”), and in return, they would receive tax exemptions, resulting in a much larger loss for the state budget.

Now, regarding the “fewer people attending the Los Angeles rally than expected.” Again, we must ask: compared to what? During Robert Kocharyan or Serzh Sargsyan's foreign visits, the local Armenians did gather, but only to organize protests against them and to voice their opinions. And those presidents, who had legitimacy issues in Armenia, preferred to meet with representatives of Armenian communities only in closed halls. And, by the way, they were right to do so; if they had spoken in front of the people, both they and Armenia would have faced embarrassment.

But the “most powerful accusation” is, of course, the lack of meetings at the level of the US president or secretary of state. It is noteworthy that this is discussed especially by those “politicians” and media outlets that have been declaring for a year and a half that the “velvet revolution” in Armenia was an “American project,” a colored revolution, and so on. It is clear, isn’t it, that if it really were the case, Prime Minister Pashinyan's visit to the USA would have had a completely different agenda and program. And just the fact that in the USA, Nikol Pashinyan is not accepted like “one of their own” indicates that what happened in Armenia was exclusively an internal agenda, it had no geopolitical ‘dads’, and today Armenia is guided solely by its own interests.

Overall, the visit demonstrated that Armenia and the Armenian people have sufficient potential to cooperate with great powers without becoming their “project” or “outpost.” The question remains whether we will be able to utilize that potential adequately or not. If there are few internal obstructers, perhaps we will succeed.

For further details, please refer to today’s issue of the newspaper.