[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 5 (Tuesday, February 3, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H219-H221]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        DEVELOPMENTS IN ARMENIA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rogan). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 7, 1997, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) 
is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to my colleagues and 
the Armenian people, as well as the American people, about the 
situation in the Republics of Armenia and the Nagorno Karabagh.
  I had actually planned to come to the floor of the House to discuss 
my trip to the region of Armenia during the January break and the peace 
process in Nagorno Karabagh and the American role in that process, and 
I hope to do that during this time. But events today in Armenia require 
that I first provide an update on important developments in the past 
few hours.
  Earlier today, Armenia's power, Mr. Levon Ter-Petrosyan submitted his 
resignation. According to wire service reports, barely five hours ago, 
President Ter-Petrosyan announced, ``That I have faced demands to 
resign. Considering that in this situation exercising the President's 
constitutional powers may cause a serious destabilization of the 
situation, I accept this demand and announce my resignation.''
  Given president Ter-Petrosyan's academic background, it is not 
surprising his resignation speech, broadcast on

[[Page H220]]

Armenian television, adopted a philosophical tone. But I believe he 
reflected the broad pro-democracy consensus of his country when he 
stated, ``I call on you to display restraint, keep the order in the 
country, and run legal, civilized elections of the new president. That 
will be a manifestation of the maturity of the state we have formed for 
the last eight years, and a deposit of maintaining the image abroad. I 
wish the new president success for the good and welfare of the Armenian 
people. I am very grateful to you for your trust and support. If I did 
something good, I do not expect any gratitude. I ask your indulgence 
for all my errors and the things that I did not do.''
  While details about the political situation are still emerging, it is 
my understanding that a new election will be held within 40 days. What 
we can say at this early hour is this: Today's developments prove that 
Armenia has firmly established itself as a functioning democracy, where 
the rule of law is observed and obeyed.
  In the midst of political turmoil, president Ter-Petrosyan's decision 
to step down was done in a peaceful way, in the spirit of a civil 
government with a clear constitutional framework. In many other 
emerging Democrats, such a political crisis may well have led to 
violence and instability.
  Considering the potentially volatile nature of the situation with 
Nagorno Karabagh and the ongoing threat of aggression from the 
neighboring Republic of Azerbaijan, today's developments demonstrate 
the impressive maturity that the Armenian democratic political system 
has already achieved in little more than half a decade.
  Mr. Speaker, President Ter-Petrosyan has served as President of 
Armenia since the country first gained its independence when the Soviet 
Union collapsed in 1991. Indeed, he was one of the most important 
leaders in the struggle by the Armenian people to achieve their 
independence from Moscow.
  He also was instrumental in one of the galvanizing issues for the 
Armenian for the Armenian nation, the independence of Nagorno Karabagh, 
known to the Armenians as Artsakh, the Armenian ethnic enclave which 
Stalin's map-makers gave to Azerbaijan, but which is historically 
Armenian territory.
  Born in Syria, Mr. Ter-Petrosyan moved to Yerevan, the Armenian 
capital, as a one-year-old in 1946. He spent much of his life as an 
academic, writing six books on Armenian history, and was arrested by 
the Soviet authorities in 1966 for his involvement in the dissident 
movement. He first came to power in 1991 and was reelected in 1996.
  I had the privilege, Mr. Speaker, of meeting with President Ter-
Petrosyan on several occasions, both here in Washington and on my two 
visits to Armenia.
  President Ter-Petrosyan first came to this building, the U.S. 
Capitol, in 1990, when Armenia was still theoretically part of the 
Soviet Union, at least in the minds of the communist leaders in Moscow. 
But it was clear at that time that we were in the presence of one of 
the new generation of post-Soviet leaders, people who until recently 
have been outsiders, marginalized, even imprisoned, but were now 
prepared to assume the burdens of leadership in a new era of democracy, 
market economies and respect for human rights.
  This quiet and serious scholar impressed many of us with his sincere 
dedication to the pursuit of truth and his obvious love for his country 
and people. I believe it was Senator Kennedy who at that time described 
him as the George Washington of Armenia.
  Whatever the outcome of the current political situation, several 
things should be clear: First, Armenia is a stable, constitutional 
democracy, and the transition of power is being handled and will 
continued to be handled in an orderly and peaceful way.
  Second, President Levon Ter-Petrosyan will, I believe, in the long 
run, earn the respect of supporters and opponents alike for leading his 
country through the often very difficult and confusing early years of 
democracy emerging from decades of dictatorship and foreign domination.
  His country has stayed on the democratic path, despite the stress and 
economic hardships brought about by the illegal blockades brought about 
by the illegal blockades maintained by Armenia's neighbors, Azerbaijan 
and Turkey.
  During my visit to the region last month, it was apparent that 
differences on how to address this situation of Nagorno Karabagh were 
causing deep divisions among the various political factions within 
Armenia.

                              {time}  1830

  Yet despite the differences over strategy, the basic goal is clear: 
The Armenians of Karabagh fought off aggression to protect their 
homeland. All Armenians, in Karabagh and the Republic of Armenia and 
Armenian Americans, will not stand idly by to watch the people of 
Karabagh lose their hard-fought independence. They will not accept any 
settlement that compromises the security and self-determination of 
Karabagh.
  Which brings me, Mr. Speaker, to the issue that I had planned to talk 
about before today's dramatic political developments happened. On both 
of my visits to Nagorno Karabagh, I had the privilege of addressing the 
Karabagh Parliament, and I believe I am the only Member of Congress to 
do so, although I know several of my colleagues in this body have 
visited Karabagh. I met with the various civilian and military leaders 
of Karabagh. On my recent trip, I had the opportunity to go to the 
front lines in the tense standoff between the Karabagh and Azerbaijani 
forces.
  The conflict has become a diplomatic priority for the United States. 
A special U.S. negotiator for the region has been appointed, and the 
United States is a cochair, along with France and Russia, of the so-
called Minsk Group, the Conference of the OSCE, commonly known as the 
Helsinki Commission, charged with resolving the Karabagh conflict.
  Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to say, I am not pleased with the way these 
negotiations are going, and I believe that our own U.S. foreign policy 
is pushing Armenia and Karabagh into accepting proposals that are 
unacceptable. My primary concerns have always been to promote a lasting 
peace, guarantee the right of self-determination and maintain a long-
term U.S. engagement with all the nations of the Caucasus region. I 
have been particularly concerned that the Minsk Group process does not 
result in a settlement being imposed upon the people of Karabagh.
  In light of my second visit to the region, in which I had the 
opportunity to inspect frontline areas, as well as to meet the civilian 
and military officials in Stepanakert, it is now clear to me that the 
top priority of the negotiations must be better enforcement of the 
cease-fire. This point was brought home to me in a very powerful way 
during a front-lines tour when the military officials I was traveling 
with were fired upon by Azeri forces. The members of my party indicated 
to me that the incident was fairly commonplace.
  It is abundantly evident that the cease-fire is shaky, at best. I 
believe the Minsk Group negotiations must address the following 
objectives: Establish a separation of the Karabagh and Azeri forces by 
at least 1 kilometer; and, that an international observer force be put 
in place to monitor the separation of the parties.
  The peace process should also set as a priority direct negotiations 
without preconditions between all sides. As is abundantly clear to 
anyone who has visited or simply read about this conflict, it pits 
forces from Karabagh against force from Azerbaijan. While the good 
offices of the United States, France and Russia can be helpful in 
facilitating the negotiations, only direct talks between the two 
warring parties will finally resolve the conflict and establish the 
confidence-building measures that will help build a lasting peace.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, the issue of security guarantees for the people 
of Karabagh must be addressed. It is my opinion that a phased approach 
for withdrawal from certain territories while leaving the crucial 
issues of status unresolved, as the Minsk Group and including the 
United States has proposed, will continue to cause the Karabagh 
Armenians to feel insecure. The people of Karabagh are not about to 
negotiate the very factors that enhance their bargaining positions, the 
occupied areas, without ironclad provisions governing their status and 
a

[[Page H221]]

clearly stated mandate for safeguarding the security of a future status 
arrangement. Direct negotiations between the parties would improve the 
chances of achieving an agreement that leaves the people of Karabagh 
with a sense that their security needs will be addressed.
  Mr. Speaker, as the cochairman of the Congressional Caucus on 
Armenian Issues, I have been pleased to work with colleagues from both 
sides of the aisle to help the people of Armenia and Karabagh. Late 
last year, just before adjournment, members of the Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations succeeded in approving for the first 
time direct U.S. humanitarian aid to Karabagh. I am concerned, however, 
that not all of the relatively modest amount of $12.5 million will even 
get to the people in Karabagh who need assistance and I will continue 
to monitor closely the provisions of said aid to Karabagh as I am sure 
will many of my colleagues, including the Speaker, who is here this 
evening.
  As of yesterday, we are beginning the fiscal year 1999 budget 
process, and I am sure that the pro-Armenia forces of this Congress 
will again work together to show our support for the people of Armenia 
and Karabagh, and we will continue to urge our State Department to 
pursue policies in the Caucasus region that will promote peace and 
stability, while recognizing the precious value of self-determination 
for the people of Karabagh.
  I just want to say once again, Mr. Speaker, that this evening we 
heard about the President's resignation. It is a momentous occasion, 
but it was done with an incredible amount of dignity and respect for 
the democratic process, and I think it bodes very well for the future 
of Armenia, as well as relations between Armenia and our country.

                          ____________________