[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 65 (Wednesday, May 20, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H3596-H3597]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         NEW APPROACH NEEDED IN NAGORNO KARABAGH PEACE PROCESS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.  Pallone) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to talk about a 
continuing concern for our Nation's foreign policy, and that is 
maintaining our close ties with the Republic of Armenia and the need 
for a negotiated settlement in Nagorno Karabagh. I am afraid the U.S. 
negotiating position in this conflict has gotten seriously off track, 
and I am hoping that recent events will create momentum to get us in 
the right direction.
  As I have mentioned in this House on several occasions, the people of 
Nagorno Karabagh fought and won a war of independence against 
Azerbaijan. A cease-fire has been in place since 1994, but it has been 
shaky at best.
  The U.S. has been involved in a major way in the negotiations 
intended to produce a just and lasting peace. Our country is a co-chair 
of the international negotiating group formed to seek a solution to the 
Nagorno Karabagh conflict along with France and Russia. But, 
unfortunately, the U.S. position has sided with Azerbaijan's claim of 
so-called ``territorial integrity'', despite the fact that this land 
has been Armenian land for centuries, and the borders which gave the 
land to Azerbaijan were imposed by Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin.

                              {time}  1900

  Last week, international mediators from the Organization for Security 
and Cooperation in Europe, OSCE, traveled to Armenia's capital of 
Yerevan to discuss the new Armenian government's position on the 
Nagorno Karabagh conflict. The American, Russian and French Armenia's 
negotiators heard Armenia's new foreign minister, Vartan Oskanian, 
reiterate Armenia's opposition to the OSCE peace plan, which calls for 
a phased solution to the dispute. Foreign Minister Oksanian called for 
a resumption of face-to-face talks between the parties to the conflict, 
Karabagh and Azerbaijan, without preconditions.
  Mr. Speaker, in late March, the people of Armenia elected Robert 
Kocharian as their president. Mr. Kocharian, who actually hails from 
Karabagh, has insisted that the OSCE plan is essentially a non-starter 
since it fails to guarantee Karabagh's security and self-determination. 
In fact, Mr. Speaker, the previous Armenian government of President 
Levon Ter-Petrosian fell largely because the former President had 
publicly come out in support of the highly unpopular and unworkable 
OSCE plan, after considerable pressure from the United States I might 
add.

[[Page H3597]]

  Unfortunately, it appears that we have not learned our lesson. The 
U.S. is still sticking to the original, unworkable plan. Worse still, I 
am afraid we may be trying to pressure Armenian and Karabagh into going 
along with this plan, suggesting that there could be repercussions from 
the U.S. This is clearly the wrong way to deal with the government of a 
friendly country like Armenia, particularly when that government is 
merely standing up for the legitimate security concerns of its people.
  The recent change of government in Armenia affords an excellent 
opportunity for us to offer a new approach to the Karabagh conflict, 
one that recognizes the need for long-term, ironclad security 
arrangements and full self-determination for the people of Karabagh. I 
am concerned that the U.S. and our OSCE partners are taking their cue 
from the government of Azerbaijan, which has refused to budge. But the 
bottom line is that Azerbaijan will not budge until the United States 
and the international community force it to negotiate in good faith.
  Mr. Speaker, I am also concerned about the failure thus far to 
deliver the U.S. aid to Nagorno Karabagh that has been promised and 
appropriated. In 1998, the Foreign Operations appropriation bill 
provided for the first time direct aid to Karabagh in the amount of 
$12.5 million for humanitarian needs. The humanitarian infrastructure 
needs in Karabagh are severe, as I have witnessed firsthand.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it is not clear that any aid has yet been 
provided to Karabagh. At a hearing two weeks ago of the House Committee 
on International Relations, officials testified that aid would soon be 
provided to Karabagh but would be disbursed by a non-governmental 
organization that would have broad discretion over how the aid was 
spent. Furthermore, it appears that the State Department does not 
intend to spend the entire $12.5 million in Karabagh itself, although 
that is what was intended by Congress. Several of my colleagues are 
also pressing for the aid to be spent in Karabagh, as Congress 
intended, and we plan to keep up that pressure.
  While working to get the aid that has already been appropriated to 
its intended recipients in Karabagh, I am also urging the Foreign Ops 
Subcommittee to build upon its historic achievement in the FY 1998 bill 
to earmark assistance to Nagorno Karabagh at $20 million and make it 
even more clear that the aid is intended for disbursement within that 
Nagorno Karabagh. I also urge that aid to Armenia be increased and not 
decreased, as the Administration has proposed.
  Armenia is making great progress in terms of democracy in free 
markets. We should not back out of that commitment now that our 
investment in democracy in this former Soviet Republic is bearing fruit 
and particularly not if the intent is to use the aid as a form of 
leverage against Armenia and Karabagh in the stalled peace talks.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to again stress the importance of 
maintaining the current ban on direct government aid to Azerbaijan 
until this country lifts its blockade of Armenia and Karabagh. This ban 
was enacted as part of the Freedom Support Act of 1992, it is good law. 
Now, Congress is reexamining the issue of the prohibition on aid to 
Azerbaijan.
  The Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday postponed a markup 
on legislation known as the Silk Road Strategy Act. I think that that 
legislation should not be passed, because we do not want to see a 
repeal of section 907.
  The House International Relations Committee is soon expected to 
consider similar legislation. While ostensibly an effort to enhance 
U.S. engagement in the region, the purpose of the bill seems now more 
than ever to be an attempt to repeal Section 907.
  Mr. Speaker, for the ban on aid to be lifted, Azerbaijan need only 
lift its blockades of Armenia and Karabagh. Until then, there should be 
no consideration of asking U.S. taxpayers to support the dictatorship 
in Baku.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas addressed the House. Her remarks will 
appear hereafter in the Extensions of Remarks.)

                          ____________________