[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.

                          ____________________