Unlike our neighbors we don’t have natural wealth. Instead we have powerful Diaspora. Our counterparts are our gold fund and reliable potential. Such phrases may be heard both in daily conversations and statements of statesmen. On the other hand, the importance of the Diaspora is often brought up by campaign machines of Turkey and Azerbaijan by evidently overestimating the means of our counterparts. This is a natural conflict of interests of our neighbors. But we don’t have the right to be mistaken about our counterparts, who ended up living abroad. We don’t have the right to either overestimate or underestimate the Diaspora and the Armenian living in the Diaspora in the current and future processes. Armenia-Diaspora relationships were just born. Those existed during Soviet years as well. But there is a certain taboo for the Armenians who live abroad. They have real difficulties in occupying state posts. After the independence of Armenia the Foreign Affairs Ministry was tasked to expand the link with the Diaspora. This was very difficult especially as the Ministry had to deal with foreign citizens. So they started to recruit “staffers.” I don’t mean here the role of Raffi Hovhannisian or Vardan Oskanyan. This is a separate theme. We all know what happened and what is happening in the foreign affairs ministry. Armenia, for example, had a representative in the Council of Europe (Strasburg) for ten years. That person was far from diplomacy, a French citizen, who even today doesn’t speak Armenian well. This time our counterpart, who visited Vienna from the US, represented us in the OSCE. The tricky thing is that the Foreign Affairs Ministry conducts a very covert policy in the selection of officials from the Diaspora. In this case, I first of all mean the institute of consuls, which seems like a completely closed theme for the society. What kind of structure is that? Unlike the diplomatic representatives, where the local citizens don’t have the right to work, consuls are appointed by the citizens of the given foreign states. For example, our consul in France is a French citizen. Another French citizen may become a consul of Armenia in some third country. The nationality doesn’t matter. The consul doesn’t represent the interest of the country he/she represents; neither does he/she have a diplomatic degree or immunity. But the consul conduces to the improvement of cultural and economic relations between the countries. The geography of the consuls of Armenia brings up certain interesting facts in remote foreign countries. As of December 2008 we had consuls of honor in 18 countries of different continents, 12 of whom were our counterparts. How does the Foreign Affairs Ministry determine who needs to be appointed in certain countries? I am having a hard time saying what the interests of Armenia might be in Benin or Ivory Coast but we have consuls in these remote African countries. One of these consuls is a resident of Paris. It is also very hard to understand the necessity of two consuls in Lisbon and Porto although Portugal is a good country. Consuls are mostly businessmen, who stand in line to acquire that diplomatic title. How can we understand the fact that we have only 4 consuls in Russia, where the Armenian Diaspora is larger than the one living in the afore-mentioned 18 states? We always have problems with our citizens, who get stabbed frequently. Shortly said, this is a complicated arithmetic. Our diplomatic corps works by such criteria, which doesn’t have its analog in any other country. For example, the Ambassador may be deprived of its title because of his political views, which is a violation of international conventions and laws. We may appoint an amateur Ambassador to some large region and send an experienced Ambassador to retirement. We may send seldom people to diplomatic work to important regions. During the Soviet years there was an anecdote about one of the ministers of communication, which related to the fact that he’d see a phone first time in his office. Years later, they may speak about the fact that some Ambassadors of Armenia, would enter an embassy first time in their lives. But this won’t be an anecdote. I think that it’s time to regulate the institute of the Ambassador on the basis of the law, which we don’t have. That is fully the monopoly of the president. And it’s known that even if the presidents avoid mistakes they have very smart advisers and consultants. In general, we can say that the Armenian diplomacy resembles the writing “thousands of nights.” And one of the best tales of that writing will be recited when in coming days Charles Aznavour is appointed Ambassador of Armenian to Switzerland. When I heard that the latter refused the suggestion I thought that it should have been that way. A person like him cannot ever get accustomed to the service lifestyle stuck in the middle of four walls. I paged a few of Charles’ amateur poems and writings, which I like. “Apply to my heart. I am very different as my tribe is different. Only the wandering artist shines, I feel good only on stage.” This is how he sang his song “wanderer.” Later Aznavour said that he agreed to accept the suggestion. Too bad! To be quite frank, there were moments when my sympathy to Charles was a little hesitant. It is famous that our government is fond of making friends with the residents of Parnas, that is with famous artists and probably by imitating the “Wedding general” of Chekhov like to demonstrate them to the customers. This is perhaps conditioned by their complex of low self-esteem. And when an innocent person was beaten in the same restaurant just like in the XV century, where the famous singer Aznavour was having dinner with the president stayed silent. I thought he would never visit Armenia again. But when he visited again I thought he sacrificed his feelings to patriotism by thinking that presidents don’t stay forever but the nation does. Perhaps time has a trait of appeasing. Regardless of whose ideas it was to offer Aznavour to become Ambassador and regardless of the possibility of the kind motives this person may have, the main incentives and wishes will fail. And the consequences will remain on the conscience of the author. 1. The appointment of Aznavour will have a certain propagandistic noise abroad, especially in the diplomatic circles and will fade as quickly as it started. In the aspect of Armenia it will temporarily distract the attention of the people from main issues (one of the calculations of the author). 2. Aznavour cannot play any role in the peaceful resolution of the NKR conflict or regulation of Armenian-Turkish relations. Vice versa his official status will even more curtail the radius of his actions and reputation than what he could do in the status of an artist. By the way, so far Charles has not made any statement or announcement in this regard. This speaks about his apolitical standpoint. 3. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs doesn’t learn from its omissions. 15 years ago Aznavour was appointed Armenia’s permanent representative in UNESCO, the office of which is located in the heart of Paris. And what did this give to our country? Perhaps the Azeris stopped ruining and destroying our historic monuments and the Georgian friends stopped collapsing Armenian churches. Or did Armenia receive many scientific and cultural grants? Nothing happened – zero result. At the beginning an office was rented with a hired secretary. Later they cut this down as well because of saving purposes. Only the diplomatic passport of Charles and the vehicle with diplomatic plate numbers remained from this initiative. 4. If the government of Armenia is so sure of Charles’ diplomatic capacity and mission wouldn’t it be better to appoint him an Ambassador in some more important country for Armenia, such as Georgia, where he could really resolve issues taking into account the fact that his parents are from Akhaltska? What have we lost in Switzerland, with which our relations are purely symbolic? 5. Charles’ appointment as an Ambassador will not bring any development to Armenian-French relations. The French are conservative people. By becoming an Ambassador Charles may even slightly lose his reputation and charm in France. At any rate the change of the status will hardly work on his behalf. 6. Even the good pupil at school knows that the foreign policy is the continuation of internal politics. And only the one, who is local, can well know the internal politics of the country. Charles doesn’t know Armenia and will not know. 7. Aznavour cannot sit in Geneva and head the embassy. For that reason as I mentioned he must be well aware of Armenia, speak Armenian and be aware of the art of diplomacy. Perhaps he relies on his impresario Levon Sayan (Sanosyan himself), who has been the honorary consul of Armenia in Lozano, Switzerland for years now. It turns out that a Sayan-Aznavour tandem is going to be created. Isn’t it beautiful? 8. The history of diplomacy knows cases when the representatives of art, writing served their nations – Dante, Petrakos, Tyutchev, Griboyedov, etc. But they acted in different periods of history and different conditions. Today we abide in the 21st century. Charles will need at least 10 years to be introduced to the diplomatic documents and conventions of the world. He will need that much of time for studying the international relations. That person is 85 years old. All the expectations that Charles will take the Armenian diplomacy from the deadlock are not justified. I write all this with sorrow as I have been Charles’ fan; I liked not only his songs but also poetry, which will definitely enter into France’s history. That is why I wouldn’t like him to get disappointed of the fact of entering into the diplomacy. I also doubt that this is another banana skin set under the president’s feet.
