FRANK PALLONE: U.S. RECOGNITION OF NKR WILL BE DIFFICULT
by Emil Sanamyan
o/article/2009-08-20-frank-pallone-u-s–recognitio n-of-nkr-will-be-difficult&pg=2
Thursday August 20, 2009
Veteran member of Congress discusses Armenian-American agenda
Washington – A member of Congress for more than 20 years, Rep. Frank
Pallone, Jr., a New Jersey Democrat, is a national leader on
Armenian-American issues and a founding co-chair of the Congressional
Caucus on Armenian Issues; he also chairs the Energy and Commerce
subcommittee on Health.
The interview that follows is based in large part on questions we
solicited from the Armenian Reporter readers last week. Washington
Editor Emil Sanamyan put them to Rep. Pallone on August 13.
Karabakh policy
Armenian Reporter: Kosovo, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia have recently
set precedents of international recognition without the consent
of countries that claimed sovereignty over them. Should friends of
Armenians in the United States initiate Nagorno-Karabakh’s recognition
instead of deferring to talks with Azerbaijan?
What work can be done in Congress to achieve this goal?
Rep. Frank Pallone: I believe personally that the United States
should recognize Nagorno-Karabakh. I certainly would be willing to
do whatever I can to have that happen.
But I will say that it will be difficult, because a lot of members
of Congress are not that familiar [with the subject], I assume that
the State Department would be against it, and I am not sure how much
Armenia itself would be pushing for it. So it would probably be hard
to do.
And while I support recognition of NKR, I do not know if the Armenian
community wants to prioritize that. The community has to prioritize
the issues and spend their time on things that are more likely [to be
successfully accomplished]. And [since] this issue would be difficult,
I would not recommend that they prioritize it.
AR: There has been quite a bit of criticism in Armenia of the outgoing
U.S. envoy for Karabakh, Matt Bryza, as biased in favor of Azerbaijan
and Turkey. What can Congress do to have a Karabakh envoy who would
better reflect U.S. respect for Armenians’ self-determination and
democratic choice, and appreciation of security challenges Armenians
are facing?
FP: Matt Bryza is only reflecting the policy of the State
Department. The State Department takes a position that Nagorno-Karabakh
doesn’t have the status of a state. And they have traditionally
highlighted territorial integrity over self-determination.
But they are wrong in this case because they do not realize that
Nagorno-Karabakh has every right to be an independent nation. So,
what you really need to do is to have the State Department change
its position.
They have to realize that according to the Soviet legal framework,
Nagorno-Karabakh had self-government and certain rights, including
holding a referendum and becoming an independent country, which is
what had happened.
So it’s not simply an issue of territorial integrity versus
self-determination. Nagorno-Karabakh is a successor state to the
Soviet Union, and no different from Armenia or Russia in that respect.
AR: Armenia has been historically carved up by imperial powers and the
current state occupies only a fraction of its historic homeland. Today,
Armenians are urged to make substantial territorial concessions as
part of a Karabakh settlement with no such concessions by the other
side. How can Armenian-Americans get their pre-history and their
interests to be better appreciated in the United States?
FP: Simply because Nagorno-Karabakh is a small area with a relatively
small population, it is difficult for the State Department, and any
administration to focus on it.
The argument that should be made is that this a powder keg. In other
words if you do not work to solve this situation and come up with a
compromise, there is a potential for another major war in the Caucasus
that would have major implications for several neighboring countries,
Turkey and Russia especially. And that this strategic concern must
be appreciated.
The war between Russia and Georgia [in August 2008] is a recent
example of the volatility in the Caucasus region.
Relations with Turkey
AR: Speaking of community priorities, how have you handled occasional
disagreements between Armenian-American priorities and those of the
Republic of Armenia? There were clearly divergent positions on the
Armenia-Turkey "roadmap" announced on April 22.
FP: Most people in the community that I talk to are in favor of
normalization of relations between Armenia and Turkey. And of course
I would like to see more normal relations between the two countries,
including significant trade between them.
But Armenian-Americans also want genocide recognition and they felt
that the Obama administration was trading the roadmap for genocide
recognition. I believe that these two issues should be separated. The
president should make a public statement recognizing the Armenian
Genocide and Congress should pass its resolution. We should proceed
with the roadmap as well; one should not be in lieu of the other.
The Armenian government was very supportive of the roadmap, but
they did not want it to be an excuse not to recognize the Armenian
Genocide. And after April 24, Turkish leaders began to step back from
the "road map," and going back to their preconditions related to the
Karabakh conflict.
These are all separate issues. Normalizing Turkish-Armenian relations
should not be linked to the Karabakh conflict.
AR: Three or more administrations have been blocking congressional
resolutions on Armenian Genocide. Have Armenian advocacy groups ever
asked the administration for something in lieu of a congressional
resolution that would both show respect for the genocide’s victims
and also benefit the Armenian-American agenda? In your mind, what
could be such an alternative?
FP: I would note that the Obama administration is not opposed to the
resolution, I have not heard that. And President [Barack Obama]’s
position is that the Genocide occurred and should be recognized. But
[because] all the emphasis was on the "road map" in April, the issue
of the genocide was sort of put aside.
I do think that a presidential statement and a resolution by Congress
are necessary to memorialize the Armenian Genocide. And while genocide
recognition needs to remain a priority, the diaspora should spend time
to prioritize other issues as well. These would include a settlement
with regard to Nagorno-Karabakh as well as U.S. support of Armenia
economically and militarily. We have the two Armenian republics and
they need to be protected.
AR: Former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds recently repeated her
allegations about the Turkish government’s attempts to bribe and even
blackmail U.S. officials into supporting their agenda. Do you support
a congressional inquiry based on these troubling allegations?
FP: I am not familiar enough with her to express an opinion.
Armenia aid and trips
AR: On the subject of aid to Armenia, the Obama administration’s
first aid request differed markedly from promises candidate Obama
made in his campaign. Was that a reflection of the administration’s
lack of interest in Armenia, inertia from the Bush administration,
or both? Can you explain how the budget request process works?
FP: The request comes out of the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), but the figures basically reflect the recommendations of the
State Department.
The Obama administration believed that their request was generous
because it was above President Bush’s request the previous year. They
ignored the fact that Congress appropriated significantly more and
that the Bush administration was not a friend.
So I told them that they cannot make their budget request based on
the previous administration because Bush was not a friend of Armenia
and they are. So, they have to be more generous and request more than
Congress appropriated the previous year.
There is also this tendency to expect that Congress would always add
aid to Armenia, and therefore the administration can request less. I
have told them that that’s the wrong approach for a friend.
Next year, we expect the administration to request at least as much
as Congress put in the previous year or make a more robust request.
AR: In the last several years there have been markedly fewer visits
by U.S. lawmakers to Armenia. What is the reason for that?
FP: That is totally a function of changes in the congressional ethics
rules. I used to go to Armenia every year, and I haven’t been back
for a few years now because when the ethics rules were changed about
four years ago, that precluded any trips being paid by advocacy groups
or individuals associated with them.
The Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) or the Armenian
Assembly of America (AAA), and other Armenian groups can no longer
pay for the trips.
Government-funded congressional delegations are still available,
but those are normally subject to committee jurisdiction. So if you
are not a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, you may not be
included. And if they have a trip, they are more likely to go Iraq
or Afghanistan or some of the major trouble spots.