OPINION: Mikael Minasyan in Vatican: options and predictions

On 7 March the Government of Armenia adopted a decision  to open an Embassy in Vatican in line with a relevant decree of the Armenian President, and to appoint the president’s son-in-law, Mikael Minasyan, Armenia’s ambassador to Vatican. The diplomatic relations of Armenia and Vatican were established  on May 23 1992. Before Minasyan, Vigen Chitechyan , Armenia’s ambassador to Italy, was occupying this position as an ambassador with concurrent accreditation. But from now on, different ambassadors will represent Armenia’s interests in Vatican and Italy. The given decision at the period when Raffi Hovannisian’s “greetings  revolution” is taking place  in the republic,  is undoubtedly the reason for certain thoughts  which will inevitably result in two main options…

To understand the logic which Serzh Sargsyan was guided with when appointing Minasyan to the position of Armenia’s ambassador to Vatican, let’s study background of the latter. Minasyan started working like his father-in-law’s assistant when Sargsyan was Armenia’s prime minister. In 2008 when Sargsyan became the president of Armenia, Minasyan became the first deputy head of the president’s administration. In November 2011, on the threshold of the parliamentary election in 2012, the president’s son-in-law suddenly left his position and was appointed deputy chairman of the electoral headquarters of the Republican Party of Armenia. Then he was appointed deputy chairman of Serzh Sargsyan’s headquarters on the threshold of the presidential election on 18 February 2013. Before appointment to the position of Armenia’s ambassador to Vatican, in fact the president’s son-in-law did not occupy state positions. Actually, one of the key missions of Minasyan during all these years was organizing of propaganda and PR – the sphere that adopted a laissez-faire attitude over the past years and was chiefly directed for local usage. This was also about the coverage of such painful for the Armenians issues like international recognition of the Armenian genocide and the Karabakh conflict.

Using patronage of the pro-presidential forces and his own financial potential, Minasyan purchased a number of big TV channels which used to organize public opinion polls that were evidence of unprecedented high rating of the authorities. The new information resources, mainly in the form of e:mass media have recently started growing in Armenia like mushrooms. Incidentally, propaganda of Armenia’s and the NKR’s interests used to occupy a modest though not so little place in their activity. However, this is not regarding the information about the life of Armenian and foreign film starts, about murders and suicides, rape and religious sects, homosexuals and other such factors. Today, serious analytical idea in Armenia is expelled by the everyday information. There is a viewpoint that such an information policy is professionally conducted purposefully for protection of a narrow group interests, taking into consideration the new realities and modern information technologies. Almost every month we see in the information area another “military expert” which did not serve in the army, or a “psychologist” that has no experience, an “analyst” which has never analyzed the policy and has got no relevant education, and a PR – technologist  which does not know what is PR. However, all these people which give press-conferences and repeat expressions which they learned by heart, have been forming public opinion in Armenia and about Armenia in abroad. So, the Armenian propaganda has been rather successfully fulfilling the mission placed on it on formation of the public discussion which the authorities need.  The Armenian society was becoming more and more apolitical and was chiefly trusting in the information area which was weakened with “tasty” information that does not form ideas. As a result, Armenian lawyers go on not trusting in jurisprudence, functionaries – in priority of law, members of the parliament – that they are linked with electorate in a certain way, etc.

For this reason, the February presidential election have demonstrated failure of Minasyan’s media-empire, which was not adequate to the reality of the day.  And the “official” 37% of Raffi Hovannisian and 58% of Serzh Sargsyan and the “greetings revolution” that has covered Armenia, have become not the best evidences of effectiveness of this model. According to one of the options, the reason of Minasyan’s appointment was inability to affect public opinion over the presidential campaign, although the data of the Central electoral committee are the result of such an activity. So, according to the first option, the given appointment should be understood like a political deportation of a man which should be removed from direct participation in the post-election processes for some period of time. Especially, the man which is taken by the people like an all-powerful.

The second option seems to be more realistic, according to which having appointed his son-on-law to the position of Armenia’s ambassador to Vatican, Serzh Sargsyan put the start to Minasyan’s career in the international policy. However, one may suppose that Sargsyan with a second term in office, has started preparing the operation “successor”. In 2018 the incumbent president of Armenia in the best traditions of the post-soviet Armenia should name his successor, and this name will sound in the  ears of the people more effectively if it is accompanies with prefix “foreign minister”. One should not rule out that diplomatic activity in Vatican may be very much successful for the political future of the 35 years old Minasyan. Although it sounds funny, but different projects financed by Heydar Aliyev’s foundation and personally  by Mehriban Aliyeva have already started  giving new results in Vatican. And dissemination of new ideas in Europe in the Vatican’s still balanced position on Karabakh settlement may put Serzh Sargsyan in front serious problems. In Armenia they wrongly think that the Karabakh conflict is still being resolved at the line of contact between the armies of Azerbaijan and the NKR, often forgetting about formation of the new unseen lines. And the incumbent president of Armenia may entrust only to Minasyan  the formation of these lines. So, if the president’s son-in-law manages to neutralize the efforts of the Azerbaijani lobby on the Karabakh issue in Vartican, this will become am important basis for his future personal development and building of a serious political career.

ArmInfo

Related articles

Editor's choice
News
Landmines present to the European Union both a contradiction and a dilemma

Landmines present to the European Union both a contradiction and a dilemma

Finland’s decision to buy one million landmines creates a serious contradiction in the policy of the European Union, and is symbolic of a bigger dilemma facing European countries as they get used to the need to acquire “hard” power to face an increasing threat from Russia. Finland is seeking to acquire one million anti-personnel mines at a cost of 100 million euros. Finland, together with Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia last year abandoned the Ottawa agreement, the international framework that bans the use of anti-personnel mines, which the EU had been instrumental in establishing and supporting. All five countries cite the threat from Moscow as the reason. Colonel Riku Mikkonen of the Army Command told Finland’s national news agency STT that officials are now gathering information from suppliers regarding the deal, the AFP news agency reports. Helsinki would like domestic manufacturers to supply the mines, with contracts signed by the end of 2027 and production up and running by 2028. “It would be useful in many ways if Finnish companies produced the anti-personnel mines in Finland,” Mikkonen said. About half a dozen Finnish firms qualify, he told STT. “However, at this stage, buying the mines from abroad is not totally ruled out,” he added. LANDMINES PROVIDE THE EU WITH BOTH A CONTRADICTION, AND A DILEMMA Eliminating landmine contamination worldwide is one of the EU’s main soft power postures, and it basks in its record as the biggest funder of anti-landmine action in the world. But the fact that 5 of its 27 member states  have now left the Ottawa Treaty dents the EU moral high ground. It is a contradiction that is too big and important to be ignored. It also presents the European Union with a deeper dilemma. The threat from Russia is changing what the EU has stood for decades, namely a force for good able to mobilise its considerable soft power for the greater good of humanity. How the Union will implement this change will define its future. In the meantime landmines have not become any less lethal, benign, or unimportant. They remain in many parts of the world a major threat to life, an impediment to prosperity, and a potential trigger to further conflict. The 22 EU members states that still adhere to the Ottawa treaty must regroup, and be more assertive in their quest against anti-personnel land mines. All the reasons why they supported the Ottawa treaty in the first place still exist. The message must be clear: NO TO LANDMINES!
Editor's choice
News
Pashinyan says that he wants peace treaty with Azerbaijan by 2031

Pashinyan says that he wants peace treaty with Azerbaijan by 2031

Armenia should sign and ratify a peace treaty with Azerbaijan before 2031, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said. He described the objective as the top priority for his administration. Earlier, the Armenian prime minister also spoke about a possible land-swap with Azerbaijan Armenia and Azerbaijan should agree to establish a clear, conventional border without enclaves or exclaves, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said. Armenia controls three Azeri enclaves inside its borders while Baku controls one Armenian enclave – those could be subject to a land swap, Pashinyan announced.

Popular

Editor's choice
Interview
Thursday Interview: Murad Muradov

Thursday Interview: Murad Muradov

Today, commonspace.eu starts a new regular weekly series. THURSDAY INTERVIEW, conducted by Lauri Nikulainen, will host  persons who are thinkers, opinion shapers, and implementors in their countries and spheres. We start the series with an interview with Murad Muradov, a leading person in Azerbaijan's think tank community. He is also the first co-chair of the Action Committee for a new Armenian-Azerbaijani Dialogue. Last September he made history by being the first Azerbaijani civil society activist to visit Armenia after the 44 day war, and the start of the peace process. Speaking about this visit Murad Muradov said: "My experience was largely positive. My negative expectations luckily didn’t play out. The discussions were respectful, the panel format bringing together experts from Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey was particularly valuable during the NATO Rose-Roth Seminar in Yerevan, and media coverage, while varied in tone, remained largely constructive. Some media outlets though attempted to represent me as more of a government mouthpiece than an independent expert, which was totally misleading.  Overall, I see these initiatives as important steps in rebuilding trust and normalising professional engagement. The fact that soon a larger Azerbaijani civil society visits to Armenia followed, reinforces the sense that this process is moving in the right direction." (click the image to read the interview in full)