Hearing of the United States Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (Helsinki Commission)-Armenia After the Election

Statement

Hearing of the United States Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (Helsinki Commission)-Armenia After the Election

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. CHRISTOPHER SMITH (R-NJ): Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for calling this very timely hearing, especially as things continue to unfold in Armenia.

As someone who has long been involved in Armenian issues and with the friendship that has built up over the years, especially in working with the Congress and recognizing the Armenian genocide, I read about the recent events in Armenia with great sadness.

When OSCE monitors gave last year's parliamentary election an improved grade, we all hoped for the best from this year's presidential election. Unfortunately, things took a turn for the worst after the election, and protest demonstrations have ended in violence.

Here, I want to extend my deep condolences along with you. I know Mr. Cardin and others on this commission have said very similar things to the families of the eight people who died so tragically. Families so much grief when one of their members dies under any circumstances, but I think the grief must be much sharper when the death comes through a conflict with the authorities of the country that you love.

As to the elections themselves, the OSCE did not register progress since the parliamentary elections, but said that the presidential elections were, quote, "mostly in line with international standards, but that further improvements were necessary."

And then after the demonstrations ended in tragedy, the Armenian government imposed restrictions on basic liberties. In his April 9th inaugural address, President Sargsyan said there must be limitations on fundamental rights of Armenian citizens, most notably on their freedom of assembly.

Armenian authorities shut down independent media and temporarily took Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty off the air. At the same time, the president conceded that restrictions cannot be absolute and promised to revisit that soon.

Despite the president's words of qualification, the restrictions are alarming. The U.S. government, the OSCE, the Council of Europe and the European Union all voiced their concerns, just as the OSCE and many international organizations have been skeptical of the official justification for the attack on the demonstrators.

Mr. Chairman, much of my involvement in Armenia, as I said, has been in the fight against the denial of the Armenian genocide. On behalf of the Armenian people and truth, many of us in Congress have worked to move our government to acknowledge this horrific crime, this genocide committed against the Armenian people almost 90 years ago.

I remember that in September of 2000 I had the privilege to chair a hearing on the Armenian genocide resolution. It was a four-hour hearing, the first hearing this House ever held on the Armenian genocide. The testimony we heard that day and many accounts of the atrocities that I have read in articles and books over the years shocked me deeply.

But it is not only our own government who must hold to a higher standard in respect to acknowledging the truth. Now, on behalf of the Armenian people, we must persuade the Armenian government to adhere to the highest standards of human rights.

I call on our government to energetically press the president of Armenia to restore full freedom of assembly and full freedom to publish and to broadcast. The violence following the presidential election occurred in early March. It is high time things returned to normal.

Democracy is not built by stifling, but by exercising, and I hope that the president will pay close attention to the well-intended words of his many friends abroad. Whenever the Armenian government has raised its standards in respect of human rights and democracy, it has empowered its friends abroad to support it more effectively. And I certainly count myself as one of Armenia's great friends.

Mr. Chairman, I must say a word about Nagorno-Karabakh. On March 4th Reuters reported cease-fire violations that may be the worst in over a decade. At the same time Azerbaijan is conducting a massive military build-up and escalating its verbal threats against Nagorno- Karabakh.

None of this bodes well for the Minsk process of negotiations. I look forward to learning from our witnesses how the U.S. can support Armenian democracy, especially through this dangerous period.

Again, I thank you for calling a timely hearing.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And thank you, Mr. President, Secretary, for your testimony and for your very extensive knowledge and hands-on in this entire process. It's deeply appreciated.

You mentioned a moment ago that the two presidents were likely to meet very soon, and hopefully there might be some progress in resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh ongoing dilemma.

But I would just note, and I would appreciate your response to this, 16 months ago, January '07, Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty reported President Aliyev saying, and I quote him, "We are at talks, but the enemy should know that Azerbaijan can liberate native lands by any means at any time, and we shall liberate it," he said.

On October 22nd, just a few months ago, '07, Reuters reports that Azerbaijan is increasing its defense budget by nearly 30 percent and that Aliyev vows, and I quote, "Azerbaijan must be ready to liberate its lands by any means."

On January 4th of this year, a very similar statement, almost identical, "We are reinforcing our army because we must be ready to free our lands at any moment and by any means."

And then there was the Reuters piece. And it looks like the Kosovo crisis, or the liberation or the naming of Kosovo as an independent state, gave additional credence to Aliyev's concerns about individuals -- in this case, the Armenian separatists, as Reuters reported sound, that he linked his comments to the newly declared independence that he was ready to take the break-away republic -- this is the Reuters writing -- Nagorno-Karabakh by force, if needed be, and was buying military equipment and arms in preparation.

My question is, while talk can be helpful and may lead to a nonviolent solution, I for one, and I'm sure you do, too, because you're there on the ground, dealing with this every day, take those statements, and they've been month after month after month. There's also a statement by the Azerbaijani defense minister, where he said the chance of war was close to 100 percent, and that was on November 27th, 2007.

The war drums are beating, and there's now some chaos on the ground in Armenia. The situation in Kosovo has left a very, very bitter taste in the minds of some, especially because territorial integrity, if you look at it in a purist form, was not respected.

I felt, when Rambouillet occurred, myself -- and I actually held a hearing on it at the time -- it seemed to me that it was inevitable that independence, not autonomy, would occur there. It was a matter of when and not if.

And frankly, I had real criticisms about it, because at some point it was the Kosovar Albanians who were subjected to human rights abuse of the highest order, and at times it was the Serbs in Kosovo, who also would get to retaliation, like in Mitrovica and other places.

So the concern is, from my point view, that you get Azerbaijan looking at this and saying, "Hmm. We've got Kosovo now." And he has talked war over and over again.

I guess the question is how seriously are we taking those threats of war? And what are we doing to mitigate that as a country? What's the Minsk doing? Our allies? What's the U.N. doing? NATO? Any responsible partner in this?

And what do you really expect? You said, "Very soon." How do you define "very soon?" Is that talks are imminent? And how do we get this threat of war to be mitigated and hopefully pulled off the table for the community?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. SMITH: Let me just ask the following. What clear and totally broadcast in advance penalty would Azerbaijan suffer, if it initiated hostilities?

And secondly, when Kosovo declared its independence, and our government and other governments very quickly embraced that, was it a subject of active review and scrutiny within your department and other departments as to what -- everyone knew that this would have an impact on Srpska.

It would have an impact on Serbia itself, in Belgrade, in Bosnia. And Russia, obviously, would become very deeply distressed over it. So there are other consequences in other places. But was the Nagorno- Karabakh situation on the table discussed as to what might happen there, especially as it relates to Azerbaijan's now seemingly enhanced belligerency, or state of potential belligerency? And again, the penalty issue.

And you didn't say when. Or is that just not set up yet?

MR. BRYZA: Oh, sorry. Sorry. Yes, I'm sorry. I forgot about that.

In terms of when, let me go back to that one, because you asked that in the last round. It could be a matter of months, if the two presidents decide that they are ready to make some tough political compromises, compromises that carry political risk for them at home.

As in any negotiation like this, you go a long way down the road, you work out the easier issues, you get to the harder ones, and then there's a very, very tough one at the very end. And that's where we are right now.

So there's no way to predict. If the two presidents were ready -- let's say their foreign ministers meet, who knows, in a month or so, and they got together, and they decided we feel trusting toward each other, we're ready to take a political risk and reach an agreement -- it would be very quick.

In a matter of weeks, months, they could work out the final details. I hope they do, but I don't know. It depends on them. We can only facilitate the communication.

In terms of penalty, I wouldn't want to speculate on that, because all the various scenarios are so unpredictable. What I can say is I think it's clear that any resumption of armed hostility in and around Nagorno-Karabakh would be tragic, tragic for everybody, absolute disaster.

I don't know who the heck knows what the outcome would be of the fighting, but as I said before, I think any fighting would lead to a perpetuation of the current situation.

REP. SMITH: If I could just interrupt for one second, my sense was -- and all of us who were members of the Congress, and Ben was a member of it, and Steny Hoyer -- and when hostilities were initiated against Slovenia at first, and then followed up by Croatia and then Bosnia, the feckless response by the European Union and the countries of Europe, the United States, was appalling.

MR. BRYZA: Yes.

REP. SMITH: You do it. You do it. Everybody was pointing. And I undertook -- as did the chairman, as did Steny and I and many of us -- multiple trips and kept coming to the conclusion that Milosevic keeps probing with bayonets, and everyone says, "Now, you can do better. It's going to be chaos if you continue this."

And then an arms embargo under Bush-1 was put into effect that was, I think, a colossal failure, because it, as you know, froze an inability of Bosnia and Croatia to defend themselves.

I think a predictable penalty at least needs to be on the drawing board, if hostilities are instigated by Azerbaijan. And I think the early March killing of eight soldiers -- I believe it was -- was another shot across the bow.

There seems to be a not of tinder in this tinderbox. He's making these statements. And if somebody says they're going to hit me, I get ready and get into a more defensive mode, because they're not going to sucker punch me.

And I'm very worried about what's going on here, and I know you are, too.

MR. BRYZA: Yes.

REP. SMITH: But I don't think the idea that there will be all out chaos and bloodshed -- maybe that's not as meaningful to Azerbaijan at this point. They look at Kosovo again and say, "Hmm. We don't like what happened there."

So I'm very, very concerned about this. In the end, was it discussed? I weighed in when the Kosovo deal was being considered and wanted ramifications really looked at more carefully, and I'm not sure this one was.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source