The most remarkable idea which RF first deputy Prime Minister Sergey Ivanov expressed during his last visit to Armenia was that he and Armenia’s Prime Minister, Serge Sargsyan, are good old friends. In general, it’s an accepted gesture that diplomats use in international relations. They always say that they have very good relations with their colleagues from other countries. The very next day, in the speech by Putin where he advised the US not to force its value system on the rest of the world, the Russian President and Bush started to exchange compliments by saying that their friendship is connected with the purest ties. Are the good relations of the presidents of countries an essential factor for the interrelation of countries? As there is little possibility that the good relations of our president with some other country really do matter, to put our country on the same level with another one, we decided to only theoretically discuss this issue with RA Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, candidate of science of historic studies, Armen Bayburdyan. “In international relations, as well as in political intercourse, personal relations really do matter. It’s quite simple that during state work or official relations people create certain friendships. However, the first locomotive of those relations are the interests of the country represented by the given person. Those interests “lead” him.” Armen Bayburdyan, who has much experience in diplomacy, says that as a result of the communication among statesmen of different countries, certain friendly relations are formed. The closer and tighter those relations are, the better for that person and the country he or she represents. “The provision of personal relations also has its limits. Those relations need limits so that state interests don’t collide. Therefore we cannot say for sure that personal relations are the ultimate goal.” An example of that is the communication of Armenian and Turkish representatives working in the diplomatic corps. “Practically, communications are very close, but only to a certain extent.” As a diplomat, Bayburdyan has worked in the United States and India. “I’d like to mention that for example in India it’s very important to what extent the diplomat knows the history, religion, and philosophy of India. I believe that those diplomats who are really informed and wish to know new things about the foreign country definitely have more privileges than those who consider communicating with that country as just part of their work. The positive attitude to that country is also very important.” As Bayburdyan mentioned that during personal relations the diplomat cannot go beyond the interests of his country, we asked whether former US Ambassador, John Evans, hadn’t exceeded those interests when announcing the word “Genocide”. “Evans, just like any other diplomat, was first of all protecting the rights of his country. But he also expressed his personal attitude, which contradicted the state policy of the US. But we shouldn’t forget that besides the executive, there is also the legislative power in the States. And soon we will see what it will come to. Evans decided to express his opinion rather than hide it by being silent as other diplomats do.”
Recently, the famous Russian journalist Vladimir Pozner asked the audience whether they like the appearance of the president of Iran, especially his old jacket, which he always wears. In the same way, the US media is discussing whether the legs of the US State Secretary, Condoleezza Rice, are beautiful or not. When presenting the appearance of the Armenian President, Kocharyan, the Russian media uses the word “aristocrat”, obviously mixing the history of the Armenian nation with the Greek one. According to Bayburdyan, as people can show their antipathy when looking at the unshaved beard of the Iranian president and can carefully watch the legs of the US State Secretary, there must exist a clear code of conduct, in which the president’s preferences are not included. And this code of conduct had been formed centuries ago and had been developing during the Renaissance period. “During the Renaissance, the diplomats had to conform to so many requirements of external appearance that none of the current ones would ever think of. During that period not only were the diplomats required to perfectly know international relations, history and philosophy or music (must have been able to play a musical instrument) but also be aware of biology, genealogy, theology, geography, mathematics and physics. Today there are few people who know theology. At that time it was mandatory.”