The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“DEVELOPMENTS IN ARMENIA” mentioning the U.S. Dept of State was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H219-H221 on Feb. 3, 1998.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
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 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 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.
____________________
