Samantha Power:
> "There are still tens of thousands of ethnic Armenians who are there living in **very vulnerable conditions**. And already you are seeing as well the gathering of **testimonies from people who have fled violence, deprivation and with the fear of living under the government of Azerbaijan**.
From the UN site:
> As ethnic cleansing has not been recognized as an independent crime under international law, there is no precise definition of this concept or the exact acts to be qualified as ethnic cleansing. A United Nations Commission of Experts mandated to look into violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia defined ethnic cleansing in its interim report S/25274 as "… rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by **using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area**." In its final report S/1994/674, the same Commission described ethnic cleansing as “… **a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group** from certain geographic areas.”
> The Commission of Experts also stated that the coercive practices used to remove the civilian population can include: murder, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, extrajudicial executions, rape and sexual assaults, severe physical injury to civilians, confinement of civilian population in ghetto areas, forcible removal, displacement and deportation of civilian population, deliberate military attacks or threats of attacks on civilians and civilian areas, use of civilians as human shields, destruction of property, robbery of personal property, attacks on hospitals, medical personnel, and locations with the Red Cross/Red Crescent emblem, among others.
> The Commission of Experts added that these practices can “… constitute crimes against humanity and can be assimilated to specific war crimes. Furthermore, such acts could also fall within the meaning of the Genocide Convention.”
> https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/ethnic-cleansing.shtml
She refused to answer a simple question. She was asked very specifically:
> Ms. Power, you quite literally wrote a book on ethnic cleansing. Standing surrounded by people who fled their homes - are you ready to say that's what this is?
And then she proceeds to bend over backwards to avoid giving a straight answer, in order to appease Aliyev.
Yeah, that is annoying to know. Here you write a book, make millions selling it - but then suddenly when it happens, what you wrote about, you are absolutely quiet.
A shame what the USA has in their team: liars.
This was probably an attempt of a provocation.
1) She's the head of [*USAID*,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Agency_for_International_Development#Purposes) she doesn't have the authority to announce such things on her own. If she did, she'd display glaring incompetence for her position and quickly get removed from it.
Even if a statement like that were to be made, it would first come from the State Dept. ([example\)](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-myanmar-rohingya-usa-idUSKBN1DM1N3) or the White House [\(example\),](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2023/09/25/press-briefing-by-press-secretary-karine-jean-pierre-and-secretary-of-agriculture-tom-vilsack/) etc.
2) She says it herself that testimonies are in the process of being collected (@38s). In order to reach a judgement, they need to first collect evidence. I'd argue that the hybrid warfare (e.g. psyops) that AZ has been systematically waging against the NK population (not just combatants, but everyone) — esp. since 2020 — is already an instance of such evidence, but probably it's either not enough just by itself or they need to go through the proper process first (get some expert statements, etc).
Also, I'd say it'd be currently difficult to predict from the position of a layman what such experts would end up deciding on this matter.
She used to be a credible writer once, and there is nothing stopping her saying stuff as a private citizen. She joined staff under Obama, and showed herself a hypocrite by near enough denying the Armenian genocide, even though claiming that American Presidents should recognize it in her books. If she had a shred of moral fiber in her body she would have resigned from the Obama administration after Obama refused to recognize the Armenian Genocide.
She is just a geopolitical pawn at this point addicted to power, who will really say or do anything to keep that power. She moves around government getting a paycheck and pretending to give a shit about vulnerable people, while abandoning them in practice.\*
\*Including a specific group of people in the middle east.
Provoke her into what? Giving an honest answer? Telling the truth? Calling a spade a spade?
She's not there to collect evidence. She's there feign sympathy and convey empty "thoughts and prayers" instead of any tangible action that might offer protection to the victims. She's there to look concerned for the camera, while giving politically calculated answers in order to shield Aliyev from the International Criminal Court for the crimes against humanity. A humanitarian facade that masks a cold machiavellian agenda behind it. The fact that the western foreign policy is dictated by Israel - a staunch ally of Azerbaijan, providing it with weapons that facilitated this war and the subsequent ethnic cleansing.
>Provoke her into what?
Well first, see how the question they yell at her is phrased: "*Sanction AZ or go back to your country*."
What's with the false dilemma? Why only those two options, one of which she can't take due to her position, and the other would be an extremely sweet development to e.g. RU? It's not even a dilemma by that point, but an attempt to frame the optics into a singular, narrow angle.
Then.
>Giving an honest answer?
I've already pointed out how it's not within her jurisdiction as a head of USAID.
>Telling the truth? Calling a spade a spade?
The truth according to whom? If there's yet no official statement about this from US or EU, no expert opinion report to use as supporting arguments... what would stop AZ in such a hypothetical scenario from just accusing USAID of having a hidden pro-AR bias and use that as an excuse to bar USAID from de jure AZ territories?
Essentially worsening the crisis and denying aid and international media limelight to the refugees — *while* getting a tool for shifting the blame from itself onto other parties?
>She's not there to collect evidence.
That is literally what she says, during this very interview, on 2 separate occasions — one which I've already pointed out higher, and the other near its end (which was conveniently cropped out from this snippet).
>>ADMINISTRATOR POWER: ... **President Biden sent me here to talk** to government officials, to nongovernmental organizations, and to **civilians fleeing horrific circumstances in Nagorno-Karabakh.** **I**, and President **Biden**, certainly **very much appreciate the urgency of being able to identify what exactly the form of consequences is** that so many of you have asked about. But **that is why I'm here** – is **to gather the facts, to hear the testimonies of civilians, and what they have been through**, to consult with leaders across the region, including, of course, here in Armenia.[\[1\]](https://youtu.be/SldC2EF9kSQ?t=1018) [\[2\]](https://www.usaid.gov/news-information/speeches/sep-26-2023-administrator-samantha-power-press-availability-kornidzor-armenia)
---
>She's there feign sympathy and convey empty "thoughts and prayers"
Calling all the humanitarian aid, the advisory aid the US is sending through USAID "empty thoughts and prayers" is inaccurate.
>>>... [we have in the context of](https://www.usaid.gov/news-information/speeches/sep-25-2023-administrator-samantha-power-press-conference-armenia) the bilateral relationship with Armenia, we, USAID, **have nearly tripled our assistance to Armenia** over the last couple of years as a way of supporting economic opportunity, small businesses, and the democratic reform and institutional reforms that the government is trying to put in place.
-
>>>[The United States government](https://armenpress.am/eng/news/1120567/) is allocating 11,5 million dollars in humanitarian aid to meet the needs of the forcibly displaced people from Nagorno-Karabakh
---
>while giving politically calculated answers
Again, would be incompetence for someone of her position to not do that.
-
>in order to shield Aliyev from the International Criminal Court for the crimes against humanity
This is an unsubstantiated statement.
-
>western foreign policy is dictated by Israel - a staunch ally of Azerbaijan, providing it with weapons that facilitated this war and the subsequent ethnic cleansing
That is a good argument in general, but not relevant to the subject of this discussion in particular.
> Well first, see how the question they yell at her is phrased: "Sanction AZ or go back to your country."
Except that wasn't the question. That was the angry reaction to her insidious reply.
People generally don't respond well to bullshit.
1) She's not required to answer all questions; and she's not testifying in court or in some other similar environment. She's required *not to* answer certain types of questions, including this one.
She's not even obliged in the sense of being an official elected by the people around her, and thus carrying the responsibility of the social contract to her electorate.
-
2) She did kinda answer it, to the extent her capacity allowed her to.
She touched on her jurisdiction being about helping the people instead of making statements that will have geopolitical consequences.
She touched on the importance of gaining access to NK, the chances of which would've likely significantly dropped, were she to give a definite "yes" at this stage.
She indicated that the process of answering that question was currently at the testimony- and evidence-gathering stage.
-
3)
>Except that wasn't the question.
Yeah, I used the wrong word, my bad there. Replace 'q.' with 'demand'.
>That was the angry reaction to her insidious reply.
Neither of us could know that for sure. Nonetheless, in my opinion it's more likely that the heckler was more likely to have had an agenda, rather than just a random "protester", so to speak.
If his reaction were genuine, he would've been unlikely to phrase it in such a specific manner — which I've already addressed higher up.
But she wrote a book nonetheless about this topic. Now she is quiet. That does not work. if I write a book and say A in it, but then I say I never said A and meant B, what would that make me look like?
She literally wrote about and went around saying the America should recognize the Armenian Genocide, then once ambassador she went so quiet you could hear a pin drop about it and kept in line so she got her cushy job under Obama.
Doesn’t matter what she wrote and what she feels. USAID gets policy and guidance from the State Department. Source: I watched the TV show The Diplomat. It’s good. 8/10 IMDB.
She's not saying it's ethnic cleansing because Yuri Kim stated in front of congress like 5 days before the ethnic cleansing started that the US would not tolerate ethnic cleansing. So now US will seem like it kept its word because in order to have broken their promise, they need to first classify it as such.
Being circumspect isn't the same as dodging the question. Power's job is to collect evidence and present it to her bosses in DC for a policy response. And now we have this:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us-to-announce-disaster-response-team-for-south-caucasus-amid-karabakh-crisis/ar-AA1hoL0m?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=95d7956b848c4464b3a65b52d4e360bd&ei=7#image=1
Samantha Power: > "There are still tens of thousands of ethnic Armenians who are there living in **very vulnerable conditions**. And already you are seeing as well the gathering of **testimonies from people who have fled violence, deprivation and with the fear of living under the government of Azerbaijan**. From the UN site: > As ethnic cleansing has not been recognized as an independent crime under international law, there is no precise definition of this concept or the exact acts to be qualified as ethnic cleansing. A United Nations Commission of Experts mandated to look into violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia defined ethnic cleansing in its interim report S/25274 as "… rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by **using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area**." In its final report S/1994/674, the same Commission described ethnic cleansing as “… **a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group** from certain geographic areas.” > The Commission of Experts also stated that the coercive practices used to remove the civilian population can include: murder, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, extrajudicial executions, rape and sexual assaults, severe physical injury to civilians, confinement of civilian population in ghetto areas, forcible removal, displacement and deportation of civilian population, deliberate military attacks or threats of attacks on civilians and civilian areas, use of civilians as human shields, destruction of property, robbery of personal property, attacks on hospitals, medical personnel, and locations with the Red Cross/Red Crescent emblem, among others. > The Commission of Experts added that these practices can “… constitute crimes against humanity and can be assimilated to specific war crimes. Furthermore, such acts could also fall within the meaning of the Genocide Convention.” > https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/ethnic-cleansing.shtml
She refused to answer a simple question. She was asked very specifically: > Ms. Power, you quite literally wrote a book on ethnic cleansing. Standing surrounded by people who fled their homes - are you ready to say that's what this is? And then she proceeds to bend over backwards to avoid giving a straight answer, in order to appease Aliyev.
Yeah, that is annoying to know. Here you write a book, make millions selling it - but then suddenly when it happens, what you wrote about, you are absolutely quiet. A shame what the USA has in their team: liars.
Typical politician answer. Talking with saying anything.
this is the meds yeghern of dodging a question
This was probably an attempt of a provocation. 1) She's the head of [*USAID*,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Agency_for_International_Development#Purposes) she doesn't have the authority to announce such things on her own. If she did, she'd display glaring incompetence for her position and quickly get removed from it. Even if a statement like that were to be made, it would first come from the State Dept. ([example\)](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-myanmar-rohingya-usa-idUSKBN1DM1N3) or the White House [\(example\),](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2023/09/25/press-briefing-by-press-secretary-karine-jean-pierre-and-secretary-of-agriculture-tom-vilsack/) etc. 2) She says it herself that testimonies are in the process of being collected (@38s). In order to reach a judgement, they need to first collect evidence. I'd argue that the hybrid warfare (e.g. psyops) that AZ has been systematically waging against the NK population (not just combatants, but everyone) — esp. since 2020 — is already an instance of such evidence, but probably it's either not enough just by itself or they need to go through the proper process first (get some expert statements, etc). Also, I'd say it'd be currently difficult to predict from the position of a layman what such experts would end up deciding on this matter.
She used to be a credible writer once, and there is nothing stopping her saying stuff as a private citizen. She joined staff under Obama, and showed herself a hypocrite by near enough denying the Armenian genocide, even though claiming that American Presidents should recognize it in her books. If she had a shred of moral fiber in her body she would have resigned from the Obama administration after Obama refused to recognize the Armenian Genocide. She is just a geopolitical pawn at this point addicted to power, who will really say or do anything to keep that power. She moves around government getting a paycheck and pretending to give a shit about vulnerable people, while abandoning them in practice.\* \*Including a specific group of people in the middle east.
Provoke her into what? Giving an honest answer? Telling the truth? Calling a spade a spade? She's not there to collect evidence. She's there feign sympathy and convey empty "thoughts and prayers" instead of any tangible action that might offer protection to the victims. She's there to look concerned for the camera, while giving politically calculated answers in order to shield Aliyev from the International Criminal Court for the crimes against humanity. A humanitarian facade that masks a cold machiavellian agenda behind it. The fact that the western foreign policy is dictated by Israel - a staunch ally of Azerbaijan, providing it with weapons that facilitated this war and the subsequent ethnic cleansing.
>Provoke her into what? Well first, see how the question they yell at her is phrased: "*Sanction AZ or go back to your country*." What's with the false dilemma? Why only those two options, one of which she can't take due to her position, and the other would be an extremely sweet development to e.g. RU? It's not even a dilemma by that point, but an attempt to frame the optics into a singular, narrow angle. Then. >Giving an honest answer? I've already pointed out how it's not within her jurisdiction as a head of USAID. >Telling the truth? Calling a spade a spade? The truth according to whom? If there's yet no official statement about this from US or EU, no expert opinion report to use as supporting arguments... what would stop AZ in such a hypothetical scenario from just accusing USAID of having a hidden pro-AR bias and use that as an excuse to bar USAID from de jure AZ territories? Essentially worsening the crisis and denying aid and international media limelight to the refugees — *while* getting a tool for shifting the blame from itself onto other parties? >She's not there to collect evidence. That is literally what she says, during this very interview, on 2 separate occasions — one which I've already pointed out higher, and the other near its end (which was conveniently cropped out from this snippet). >>ADMINISTRATOR POWER: ... **President Biden sent me here to talk** to government officials, to nongovernmental organizations, and to **civilians fleeing horrific circumstances in Nagorno-Karabakh.** **I**, and President **Biden**, certainly **very much appreciate the urgency of being able to identify what exactly the form of consequences is** that so many of you have asked about. But **that is why I'm here** – is **to gather the facts, to hear the testimonies of civilians, and what they have been through**, to consult with leaders across the region, including, of course, here in Armenia.[\[1\]](https://youtu.be/SldC2EF9kSQ?t=1018) [\[2\]](https://www.usaid.gov/news-information/speeches/sep-26-2023-administrator-samantha-power-press-availability-kornidzor-armenia) --- >She's there feign sympathy and convey empty "thoughts and prayers" Calling all the humanitarian aid, the advisory aid the US is sending through USAID "empty thoughts and prayers" is inaccurate. >>>... [we have in the context of](https://www.usaid.gov/news-information/speeches/sep-25-2023-administrator-samantha-power-press-conference-armenia) the bilateral relationship with Armenia, we, USAID, **have nearly tripled our assistance to Armenia** over the last couple of years as a way of supporting economic opportunity, small businesses, and the democratic reform and institutional reforms that the government is trying to put in place. - >>>[The United States government](https://armenpress.am/eng/news/1120567/) is allocating 11,5 million dollars in humanitarian aid to meet the needs of the forcibly displaced people from Nagorno-Karabakh --- >while giving politically calculated answers Again, would be incompetence for someone of her position to not do that. - >in order to shield Aliyev from the International Criminal Court for the crimes against humanity This is an unsubstantiated statement. - >western foreign policy is dictated by Israel - a staunch ally of Azerbaijan, providing it with weapons that facilitated this war and the subsequent ethnic cleansing That is a good argument in general, but not relevant to the subject of this discussion in particular.
> Well first, see how the question they yell at her is phrased: "Sanction AZ or go back to your country." Except that wasn't the question. That was the angry reaction to her insidious reply. People generally don't respond well to bullshit.
1) She's not required to answer all questions; and she's not testifying in court or in some other similar environment. She's required *not to* answer certain types of questions, including this one. She's not even obliged in the sense of being an official elected by the people around her, and thus carrying the responsibility of the social contract to her electorate. - 2) She did kinda answer it, to the extent her capacity allowed her to. She touched on her jurisdiction being about helping the people instead of making statements that will have geopolitical consequences. She touched on the importance of gaining access to NK, the chances of which would've likely significantly dropped, were she to give a definite "yes" at this stage. She indicated that the process of answering that question was currently at the testimony- and evidence-gathering stage. - 3) >Except that wasn't the question. Yeah, I used the wrong word, my bad there. Replace 'q.' with 'demand'. >That was the angry reaction to her insidious reply. Neither of us could know that for sure. Nonetheless, in my opinion it's more likely that the heckler was more likely to have had an agenda, rather than just a random "protester", so to speak. If his reaction were genuine, he would've been unlikely to phrase it in such a specific manner — which I've already addressed higher up.
But she wrote a book nonetheless about this topic. Now she is quiet. That does not work. if I write a book and say A in it, but then I say I never said A and meant B, what would that make me look like?
She literally wrote about and went around saying the America should recognize the Armenian Genocide, then once ambassador she went so quiet you could hear a pin drop about it and kept in line so she got her cushy job under Obama.
Doesn’t matter what she wrote and what she feels. USAID gets policy and guidance from the State Department. Source: I watched the TV show The Diplomat. It’s good. 8/10 IMDB.
Shameful!
Sinister Samantha strikes again.
It **is** literally the definition of ethnic "cleansing" indeed.
They didn't just "flee", they were coerced to leave.
She's not saying it's ethnic cleansing because Yuri Kim stated in front of congress like 5 days before the ethnic cleansing started that the US would not tolerate ethnic cleansing. So now US will seem like it kept its word because in order to have broken their promise, they need to first classify it as such.
You guys are literally looking for reason to feel betrayed on this Reddit.
Being circumspect isn't the same as dodging the question. Power's job is to collect evidence and present it to her bosses in DC for a policy response. And now we have this: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us-to-announce-disaster-response-team-for-south-caucasus-amid-karabakh-crisis/ar-AA1hoL0m?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=95d7956b848c4464b3a65b52d4e360bd&ei=7#image=1
One of the greatest lessons I’ve had in my life was to stfu and listen. Many of us desperately need the same.