[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 46 (Thursday, April 23, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H2313-H2314]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
REPUBLIC OF TURKEY SEEKING U.S. APPROVAL
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 7, 1997, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I do not plan to use very much of the hour
this evening, probably about 15 or 20 minutes.
My topic relates to foreign affairs and U.S. relations with two
countries that I feel very close to. One is Armenia. I happen to
cochair the Armenia Caucus in the House of Representatives. And also
India, another country where I cochair our Members' caucus that we have
with approximately 100 Members, in the case of the India Caucus, and I
think 65 or so in the Armenia Caucus.
I would like to turn first to the situation in Armenia. I should say
really threats, if you will, to the Republic of Armenia, and also the
Republic of Nagorno Karabagh that are coming, once again, from its
neighbors.
I would like to specifically address a very troubling situation
involving the possible transfer of sophisticated U.S. arms to
Azerbaijan, an unstable and undemocratic regime. There have recently
been press reports suggesting that the Republic of Turkey, another
neighbor of Armenia, is seeking U.S. approval to sell F-16 fighter
planes, assembled in Turkey, but based on a U.S. license, to the
Republic of Azerbaijan.
According to the press reports, the idea of arms sale emerged during
talks between government officials from the two countries regarding a
Turkey-Azerbaijan defense agreement.
Mr. Speaker, for the transfer of the F-16's to take place, Turkey
would have to seek permission from the United States and also of NATO.
I have come to the House floor tonight to ask my colleagues to join me
in urging our administration to reject any such proposal and discourage
Turkey's growing role as an arms supplier to such volatile regions as
the Transcaucasus and the Middle East.
In the next few days, I will be seeking signatures for letters to our
President and other key national security officials in opposition to
the Turkish sale of F-16's to Azerbaijan. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it is
inconceivable to me, and I think to most of the American people that
our military, diplomatic, and intelligence agencies would even
contemplate such a proposal.
While all the facts about the F-16 deal are still somewhat in
dispute, these recent reports are the latest indication of a growing
military and political alliance between Turkey and Azerbaijan, a very
troubling development in terms of peace, stability, and democracy in
this strategically important Caucasus region.
Both Turkey and Azerbaijan continue to maintain blockades of their
neighbor, Armenia. These blockades, which are both illegal and immoral,
have made it extremely difficult for much-needed emergency food,
medicine, and energy supplies to reach the people in Armenia, including
supplies sent by the American people.
In addition, Azerbaijan continues to refuse to compromise on
negotiations to achieve a settlement over the Nagorno Karabagh
conflict. Nagorno Karabagh is a region that has been primarily
populated by Armenians for centuries, which has proclaimed its
independence about 10 years ago, but which continues to be claimed by
Azerbaijan. As a matter of fact, Azerbaijan also continues to maintain
a blockade of Nagorno Karabagh, causing significant human hardship
there as well.
Mr. Speaker, when I was in the region earlier this year in the
Caucasus, in the frontline area of Karabagh, which was the target of
constant sniper fire from Azerbaijani forces, I became aware of a very
disturbing fact, which I would like to point out this evening.
The equipment that was being used by the Azerbaijani forces, from the
weapons right down to the uniforms, were American and NATO supplies,
provided to Turkey and then funneled to Azerbaijan.
Of course, Turkey, as we know, is a NATO ally, despite the fact that,
unlike the other NATO countries of North America and Western Europe,
Turkey is a country with numerous restrictions on democratic and civil
liberties and a terrible human rights record.
But while Turkey is a NATO member, Azerbaijan is not, and it should
not be receiving American military equipment, particularly not anything
as sophisticated and dangerous as F-16 aircraft. Turkey should not be
supplying such equipment to other nations.
Mr. Speaker, Azerbaijan is not exactly one of the democratic success
stories of the former Soviet Union. In fact, the leader of Azerbaijan,
Heydar Aliyev, is a former Communist Party boss who seized power in a
coup and has led an authoritarian regime ever since. He has not
permitted opposition political organizations or a free media.
More shocking, while oil wealth begins to pour into the Azeri capital
of Baku, President Aliyev has done nothing to relieve the suffering of
his own people in the countryside of Azerbaijan. Yet, it is precisely
the huge oil wealth and Azeri territory in the Caspian Sea that has led
Western Governments, including, I am sorry to say, our own government,
to tolerate and promote this antidemocratic regime.
The combination of the oil resources in Azerbaijan and Turkey's
position as a NATO member have led to excessive tolerance, in my
opinion, on the part of our State Department for these two regimes and
their growing military partnership.
I just hope, Mr. Speaker, and this is the last thing I would like to
say tonight on this subject, is I just hope that the proposed Turkish-
Azerbaijani F-16 sale will be where we finally draw the line in our
support for this undemocratic regime and the dangerous situation that
the F-16s might pose if this sale were ever allowed.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if I could, I would like to switch now and talk
again briefly about the situation in India. I would like to make a very
positive statement, if I could, about the recent visit to India by some
of our U.S. officials representing the President. I speak today
specifically about U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Mr. Bill
Richardson, a former colleague of ours in the House of Representatives;
Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia, Mr. Karl Inderfurth; and
Director for South Asia in the National Security Council, Mr. Bruce
Reidel, who recently made a very successful trip to India.
Indian and American officials associated with the trip have stated
that the meetings were conducted with exceptional warmth, which can
only indicate that U.S.-India relations have never been stronger.
I wanted to say, Mr. Speaker, that Ambassador Richardson and
Secretary Inderfurth have traveled to South Asia in preparation for
President Clinton's trip to the subcontinent, which was scheduled for
this fall. As you know, President Clinton's trip to South Asia will be
the first by an American President that has taken place in over 20
years.
These meetings were not intended to produce high-level agreements,
but they gave senior administration officials the opportunity to meet
with senior officials from the newly elected Indian government. The
government in India changed hands. It was an election in March, and a
new government took office in early April. Numerous issues were
discussed with our U.S. officials and the new government, and I am
pleased to see that the talks were very positive.
I wanted to talk about some of the issues that were discussed,
because I think they are important. The U.S. delegation spent much of
its time encouraging the reassumption of dialogue between India and
Pakistan. This was something that the previous Prime Minister Gujral
had encouraged quite a bit.
Talks between these South Asian neighbors had abruptly ended in
September just prior to the new election cycle when both countries
failed to resolve their differences over Kashmir. Fortunately, soon
after Ambassador Richardson and Secretary Inderfurth
[[Page H2314]]
had left South Asia, reports indicated that talks between the two
countries may resume after a summit meeting of the Indian and Pakistani
Prime Ministers during the SAARC meeting in July. So we are very
hopeful that we are going to see the reassumption of these talks, and I
was very pleased to see that our representatives encouraged the
reassumption of the dialogue between India and Pakistan.
Mr. Speaker, both the United States and India also, I would note,
were very willing to discuss sensitive and controversial issues. For
example, Ambassador Richardson stated that the United States will
continue to work with the Indians in curbing the development of the
nuclear weapons program, but that the nuclear issue would not dominate
the dialogue between the two countries.
The U.S. Delegation informed Indian officials that the United States
was pleased that the Indians had shown restraint after Pakistan had
test-fired the Ghauri missile. I would like to inform Members of this
body that the Defense Department is ready to consider sanctions against
Pakistan following the firing of the missile.
A spokesman from the Pentagon recently stated, and I quote, that the
United States has imposed sanctions against Pakistan in the past under
the Missile Technology Control Regime. We are continuing to review the
particular case and that review was in its advanced stages.
I would like the administration to look very closely at this issue. I
am concerned that China or North Korea might have provided Pakistan
with the technical information for the Ghauri missile. The continued
illegal transfer of missile and nuclear technology may lead to further
instability in South Asia. That is why I continue to oppose the
administration's certification that will allow the United States to
transfer nuclear technology to China.
Mr. Speaker, China is known to have transferred nuclear technology to
Pakistan, so we should not be transferring any kind of technology to
China that ultimately could be transferred to Pakistan.
I would also like to note that, on the heels of Ambassador Richardson
and Secretary Inderfurth's trip, reports from India indicate that the
United States and India are set to reinitiate civilian nuclear
cooperation after 20 years. This partnership will focus on bilateral
research projects and aimed at the improvement of the operational
safety of India's nuclear power plants.
The first meeting between the two countries is scheduled to take
place in the U.S. later this year. U.S. law will govern the exchange of
civilian nuclear officials. The proposed safety cooperation between our
countries would not involve the transfer of technology or controlled
information or commodities from the U.S. to India. But increased
dialogue on nuclear issues between our two countries can only lead to a
safer and cleaner nuclear environment. So again, this is a very
positive development.
{time} 2145
During the meetings that took place with Ambassador Richardson and
Secretary Inderfurth the United States also acknowledged India's bid
for permanent membership on the United Nations Security Council.
Now basically what the U.S. position is, and they basically stated it
again at this meeting, is that the U.S. endorses Security Council
reform and the U.S. supports the inclusion of Germany and Japan and one
country each from Latin America, Asia and Africa. The United States,
however, would allow the regions to determine who their representatives
would be.
So United States is saying that there should be another Asian
representative, but it does not necessarily have to be India.
I have to say, though, that in private discussions with
administration officials there is no question in my mind that they
support India's bid, and I hope that the United States public policy
will ultimately be supportive of India being a permanent member of the
Security Council.
There was also discussion between the U.S. and Indian officials
during this recent trip on the need to fight terrorism. Ambassador
Richardson had called on India's prime minister and home minister and
had shared their concern over Pakistan-sponsored terrorism in Jammu and
Kashmir and in other parts of India.
Obviously, again, the United States needs to do more to fight
terrorism, to basically put pressure on Pakistan to not encourage and
to harbor and train terrorists on its soil, and hopefully the comments
that were made by Ambassador Richardson and Mr. Inderfurth will mean
that the U.S. takes a more proactive view and tries to basically
pressure, if you will, Pakistan into not encouraging terrorism in
Kashmir and in other places in south Asia.
Both countries also discussed, very importantly I would say, the need
to increase trade and investment. Finance Minister Sinha was just in
the United States last week, this is the new finance minister in India,
in the Indian government, and he assured U.S. business leaders that the
new BJP government was not anti-foreign investment and that economic
reforms would be accelerated with the new government. He recently
stated that there was no doubt about the continuity of the reform
process, and the finance minister said that the Indian government would
seek foreign investment, particularly infrastructure like roads,
railways, power, rural and high technology sectors, and he assured
investors that the new government would continue the deregulation
process to help build a strong private sector.
Now once again this is very important. One of the goals of our India
Caucus is to promote more trade and investment by U.S. businesses in
India. It is very important to see that the move towards a market
economy, towards privatization, continues under the auspices of this
new government.
There was a lot of attention paid during this recent trip to the so-
called strategic dialogue that has been initiated by U.S. officials,
and I would like to see the strategic dialogue extended into the
defense area.
During the trip Defense Minister George Fernandez and the U.S.
delegation agreed that more cooperation was needed in technology and
military-to-military exchange, and I think that India, Mr. Speaker, can
be a bulwark against the expansion of China's military in Asia. India
should be more integrated in my opinion into the U.S. defense
framework, and it should be able to buy military equipment and supplies
from the United States on an equal basis with other allies. The
strategic dialogue being fostered by the U.S. officials' recent trip I
think will hopefully lead in this direction.
And finally, Mr. Speaker, my overall goals and the goals of the India
Caucus include bringing India and the United States closer together,
making India more of a foreign policy priority for the United States
and, again, increasing U.S. trade with and investment in India. And I
believe very strongly that this recent trip by U.S. officials to India
has clearly helped to achieve these goals and is going a long ways
towards improving our relationship on almost every level with India.
____________________