[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 1550-1551]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  NO U.S. MILITARY BASES IN AZERBAIJAN

  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 today to draw the attention of the 
Members of this House and the American people to a potentially alarming 
development in our foreign policy. As was reported in this Sunday's New 
York Times, the Republic of Azerbaijan has made what the newspaper 
called a startling offer. It wants the United States to open a military 
base there. The article notes that American oil companies have invested 
billions of dollars in Azerbaijan, and the New York Times also makes a 
particularly relevant point that such a partnership might draw the 
United States into alliances with undemocratic governments.
  This story has also been picked up by Reuters and the Journal of 
Commerce, among other media outlets, and while the State Department and 
Defense Department denied plans to construct a military base in 
Azerbaijan or to move an existing facility from the Republic of Turkey 
into Azerbaijan, unnamed U.S. officials were mentioned in press 
accounts as not ruling out the need for an undefined arrangement to 
ensure the security of a future pipeline to deliver oil from the 
Caspian Sea to the Turkish oil depot at Ceyhan.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot imagine a worse idea. While I strongly support 
new approaches to U.S. international engagement in the post-cold war 
world, this proposal would not advance U.S. interests or American 
values. The only justification for this proposal is to make U.S. 
foreign policy and our military forces a tool for protecting a new and, 
I would say, unproven supply of oil, and to try to placate the two 
countries that are deemed essential to the extraction and delivery of 
those oil supplies; that is, Turkey and Azerbaijan, two countries, I 
might add, with terrible records in terms of democracy and human 
rights.
  Mr. Speaker, for some time now I have been critical of what I view as 
the administration's apparent determination to see the pipeline from 
Baku to Ceyhan constructed. Ironically, the oil companies themselves 
are balking at this arrangement. The proposed pipeline is too long and 
costly, particularly as oil prices continue to drop. One major 
international consortium led by the American firm, Pennzoil, has 
announced that it will terminate its test drilling operations in the 
Caspian near Baku after finding only half the volume of oil and gas 
necessary to assure profitable exploitation. Today the Wall Street 
Journal reports that another group led by Amoco and British Petroleum 
is cutting personnel and deferring development on Caspian oil 
exploitation due to disappointing test results and declining oil 
prices.
  It is becoming apparent that the new pipeline proposal lacks 
commercial viability. It is a boondoggle whose only purpose is to 
placate the demands of Turkey and Azerbaijan, to give those two 
countries the power and prestige of controlling what some see as an 
important source of energy resources. And now apparently Azerbaijan 
craves the further benefits of a U.S. military commitment, and some 
unnamed U.S. officials are apparently toying with this idea.
  Mr. Speaker, this week I will be circulating a letter among my 
colleagues asking them to join me in making it clear to President 
Clinton, Secretary of State Albright and Secretary of Defense Cohen 
that we consider a U.S. military presence or commitment in Azerbaijan 
unacceptable.
  And yes, Mr. Speaker, the administration is right to identify the 
Caucasus region as an important American interest, but it is wrong to 
make oil the major, not only the only basis for our engagement in that 
region, and I hope we can stop this train before it leaves the station.
  Mr. Speaker, I enter the rest of the statement as an extension of my 
remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw the attention of the Members of 
this House and the American people to a potentially alarming 
development in our foreign policy. As was reported in this Sunday's New 
York Times, the Republic of Azerbaijan has made what the newspaper 
called a ``startling offer--it wants the United States to open a 
military base there.'' The article notes that American oil companies 
have invested billions of dollars in that country. The New York Times 
also makes a particularly relevant point: such a partnership ``might 
draw the United States into alliances with undemocratic governments.''
  This story has also been picked up by Reuters and the Journal of 
Commerce, among other media outlets. While the State Department and the 
Defense Department denied plans to construct a military base in 
Azerbaijan, or to move an existing facility from the Republic of Turkey 
into Azerbaijan, unnamed U.S. officials were mentioned in press 
accounts as not ruling out the need for an undefined arrangement to 
insure the security of a future pipeline to deliver oil from the 
Caspian Sea basin to the Turkish oil depot at Ceyhan.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot imagine a worse idea. While I strongly support 
new approaches to U.S. international engagement in the post-Cold War 
world, this proposal would not advance U.S. interests or American 
values. The only justification for this proposal is to make U.S. 
foreign policy and our military forces a tool for protecting a new--and 
unproven--supply of oil, and to try to placate the two countries that 
are deemed essential to the extraction and delivery of those oil 
supplies, Turkey and Azerbaijan--two countries, I might add, with 
terrible records in terms of democracy and human rights.
  Mr. Speaker, many Americans may wonder why Azerbaijan, a formerly 
obscure republic of the former Soviet Union, is the subject of such 
intense interest. The answer, in a word, is oil. To Azerbaijan's west 
lies the Caspian Sea, an inland sea or salt lake (and the exact 
designation is the subject of a debate with important ramifications 
about who controls its resources) which some have claimed contains vast 
reserves of oil and natural gas. American and other western oil 
companies have a keen interest in developing these reserves--which, I 
emphasize, Mr. Speaker, remain unproven reserves. Oil companies have 
spent billions of dollars on this effort, and have sent in thousands of 
their employees to Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan.
  Unfortunately, it is beginning to appear that America's policy in the 
region is being driven primarily by the desire to extract these 
unproven petroleum reserves. We have seen Azerbaijan's autocratic 
President, Heydar Aliyev, wined and dined at the White House, Capitol 
Hill and elsewhere in Washington. (The term ``autocratic'' is the New 
York Times's word, not mine.) The U.S. response to the lack of 
democracy, free expression and basic human and civil rights under 
President Aliyev--who seized power in a coup--has been muted at best. 
There have been efforts over the past few years under the Foreign 
Operations Appropriations legislation to reward

[[Page 1551]]

Mr. Aliyev, and the oil companies, with political risk insurance and 
other subsidies, courtesy of the American taxpayer. Now, I'm afraid we 
could see that policy come to its logical conclusion with the placement 
of U.S. military forces in Azerbaijan. We must stop this proposal 
before it advances beyond the planning stages.
  For some time now, Mr. Speaker, I have been critical of what I view 
as the Administration's apparent determination to see the pipeline from 
Baku to Ceyhan constructed. Ironically, the oil companies themselves 
are balking at this arrangement. The proposed pipeline is too long and 
costly, particularly as oil prices continue to drop. One major 
international consortium, led by the American firm Pennzoil, has 
announced that it will terminate its test drilling operations in the 
Caspian near Baku after finding only half the volume of oil and gas 
necessary to ensure profitable exploitation. Today, the Wall Street 
Journal reports that another group, led by Amoco and British Petroleum, 
is cutting personnel and deferring development on Caspian oil 
exploitation due to disappointing test results and declining oil 
prices. It is becoming apparent that the new pipeline proposal lacks 
commercial viability. It is a boondoggle whose only purpose is to 
placate the demands of Turkey and Azerbaijan, to give these two 
countries the power and prestige of controlling what some see as an 
important source of energy resources. Now, apparently, Azerbaijan 
craves the further benefits of a U.S. military commitment, and some 
``unnamed'' U.S. officials are apparently toying with the idea.
  Mr. Speaker, this week, I will be circulating a letter among my 
colleagues asking them to join me in making it clear to President 
Clinton, Secretary of State Albright and Secretary of Defense Cohen 
that we consider a U.S. military presence or commitment in Azerbaijan 
unacceptable.
  Yes. Mr. Speaker, the Administration is right to identify the 
Caucasus region as an important American interest. But it is wrong to 
make oil the major, let only the only, basis for our engagement in that 
region. I hope we can stop this train before it leaves the station. 
Then we need to focus on a Caucasus policy based on economic 
development, the promotion of democracy and human rights, self-
determination, and the resolution of territorial and other conflicts 
through negotiation.

                          ____________________