Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CR: Maintaining Neutrality Between Azerbaijan and Armenia

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • CR: Maintaining Neutrality Between Azerbaijan and Armenia

    [Congressional Record: July 17, 2006 (Extensions)]
    [Page E1420]
    > > From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access
    > > [wais.access.gpo.gov]
    [DOCID:cr17jy06-17]

    IN SUPPORT OF MAINTAINING NEUTRALITY WITH REGARD TO THE PEACE
    NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN AZERBAIJAN AND ARMENIA

    ______

    HON. DAN BURTON

    of indiana

    in the house of representatives

    Monday, July 17, 2006

    Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, in the weeks leading up to the G-
    8 summit, there was some speculation that the leaders of Azerbaijan
    and Armenia might be invited to attend the summit as an incentive
    to help spur further progress on peace negotiations between the two
    countries over the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. Unfortunately, it appears
    that that did not happen; and I am deeply disappointed that the world
    has missed the opportunity this summit offered to help promote peace
    in a region which has been in conflict for far too long.

    Although, in my opinion, a good opportunity to advance peace has been
    lost, I have not lost hope that, together with other nations, we can
    help Azerbaijan and Armenia achieve peace, and settle once and for
    all the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh, which I believe has significantly
    stunted the development of both nations as well as the broader region.

    In 1992, the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe--CSCE--
    now the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe--OSCE--
    created the Minsk Group, a coalition of member states dedicated to
    facilitating a peaceful resolution of the conflict. The co-chairs of
    the Minsk Group--Russia, France, and the United States--have served
    as mediators, trying to work in close and effective cooperation with
    all parties towards a fair and effective settlement of the issues.

    I believe though that our success and credibility as a mediator stems
    from the policy of never appearing to favor one nation's claims over
    the other. I believe that even the modest steps towards peace which
    we have witnessed, are a direct result of this neutrality. According
    to the United States State Department's 2005 Fact Sheet: "The United
    States does not recognize Nagorno-Karabakh as an independent country,
    and its leadership is not recognized internationally or by the United
    States. The United States supports the territorial integrity of
    Azerbaijan and holds that the future status of Nagorno-Karabakh is a
    matter of negotiation between the parties." This has been the policy of
    the United States towards this issue through both the Clinton and Bush
    administrations, and it is important in my opinion that it remains the
    same. Any outside influence, any shift in neutrality can only result
    in a false peace. That is why I am deeply concerned when I hear some
    of my colleagues throwing barbs at the Azeris and attempting to lay
    all the blame for this complicated issue at their doorstep.

    For example, one of my colleagues once said, "I have long supported
    the right of self-determination for the people of Nagorno-Karabakh
    and greatly admire the efforts of the people of this historically
    Armenian region to build democracy and a market economy in the face
    of hostility from Azerbaijan." So far as I know, the Nagorno-Karabakh
    region has never been a part of Armenia. To suggest otherwise, and
    to suggest that the problems in Nagorno-Karabakh are caused solely by
    Azerbaijan seem to me to distort the facts and potentially undermine
    our good faith efforts to see this conflict resolved; and to see
    peace and prosperity come to the people of both Azerbaijan and Armenia.

    Mr. Speaker, I would encourage all of my colleagues to both maintain
    our neutrality in policy, and to also realize that choosing one side
    over the other at this point in time is a setback to peace, especially
    when the side they appear to be choosing may be distorting the facts
    for its own benefit.
Working...
X