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
REP. HASTINGS: (In progress) -- a contest, which will be coming up soon.
Sorry, young lady.
As everyone here knows, the emergence last year into the political arena of former president Levon Petrossian energized what seemed like a quiet campaign with a predictable outcome. The unusual circumstances of his departure from office in 1998 undoubtedly help produce the heated rhetoric that followed his entry into the race.
Ultimately, according to official tallies, Prime Minister Serzh Sargsyan won the February 19th election with almost 53 percent of the vote. Levon Ter-Petrossian got about 21 percent, the two other leading politicians, who campaigned as opposition candidates, winning over 16 and 6 percent, respectively.
The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's observation mission noted the need for further improvements, but concluded that the election had by and large met international standards.
Nevertheless, Mr. Petrossian and his supporters charged fraud and organized an ongoing demonstration in Yerevan. The protests continued for days, attracting considerable crowds, until March 1st, and at that point, according to the authorities, some of the demonstrators sought to stage a coup d'etat, and law enforcement agencies had to restore order by force.
In the ensuing state of emergency, independent media were shut down, and rallies were banned. The demonstrators, for their part, reject official allegations of violent intentions or actions. They accuse the authorities of brutally attacking a peaceful assembly protesting the theft of the people's will.
Wherever the truth lies, the confrontation resulted in at least eight fatalities and many injuries. That was most regrettable.
I understand that in the last few days two more people have died. Allow me to express my condolences to all the victims' families.
The OSCE chairman in office condemned the violent crackdown. Other international organizations and foreign capitals followed suit, forcing Yerevan to defend itself to the skeptical international community.
Subsequently, two prominent opposition candidates reached agreement with Mr. Sargsyan to join forces. The four parties in this coalition represent, according to the figures provided by the central election commission, about 75 percent of the electorate.
Nevertheless, tensions remain high. The state of emergency was officially lifted on March 21st, but restrictions on freedom of assembly continue in effect, drawing criticism from the Council of Europe and the OSCE. And while Mr. Sargsyan has been sworn in, some opposition leaders refuse to recognize the election's outcome.
About 100 people imprisoned after March 1st are still in jail. Perhaps most important, Armenian society seems to be split into pro- government and fervently anti-government camps.
This chain of events has caused serious damage to Armenia's reputation. The purpose of our hearing is to examine the ramifications of these developments for Armenia and the United States.
What should we conclude about the credibility of the official election results? In that connection, what can we say about the state of democracy in Armenia? And how can we in Congress and the executive branch help Armenia overcome the obvious problems it is encountering on its path to democracy?
Of special interest are the implications for the ongoing OSCE negotiations on Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia's qualifications for U.S. assistance from the millennium challenge account.
Our three witnesses today, representing the United States government, the Armenian government and the Armenian opposition, will give us critical perspectives on these issues.
But now, I'd like to turn to my colleagues for any remarks they may have, and I'll start with the ranking member, who just came in, my friend, Mr. Smith, from New Jersey.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. HASTINGS: Thank you very much.
This hearing has elicited a great deal of interest, and the commission has received inquiries from many organizations, especially from Armenian NGOs wishing to testify.
I'm sorry that the constraints of a hearing format made that impossible, but I understand that various groups have submitted testimony for the record. I welcome their submissions and assure you that they will be included in the hearing record and posted with any report that we go forward with.
Our first witness is Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasian Affairs Matthew Bryza. As usual, he's been in the thick of things, most recently dealing with the crisis in Armenia. I'm not going to read off Secretary Bryza's impressive curriculum vitae or resume. It's available on our Web site, as well as at the tables outside.
Secretary Bryza, we are very pleased to see you again, and the floor is yours.
MR. BRYZA: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It truly is an honor to be here before you, Chairman Hastings, Commissioner Smith, Commissioner Kramer, to have a chance to explain not only our view in the U.S. government about what has transpired and where we need to go from here, but also I'd like to have a chance to put our views and the events in a broader context of U.S. interests in Armenia.
Should I wait maybe?
REP. HASTINGS: I don't know if--
MR. BRYZA: Because this is my first sentence, Mr. Commissioner, it's OK. So, well, that's OK.
REP. HASTINGS: Well, we do take note for the record that the co- chairman of the commission, Senator Cardin, has arrived.
And, Senator, if you do have any comments, you're certainly welcome to make them.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. HASTINGS: Well, not only complex. I feel that you've been comprehensive, Mr. Secretary, and it's deeply appreciated. I note that you indicated that you attended the inauguration. Did President Bush send a letter of congratulations to Mr. Sargsyan?
MR. BRYZA: No, Mr. Chairman. President Bush did not send a letter of congratulations, no.
REP. HASTINGS: Does he plan to? Or do you know?
MR. BRYZA: That's actually a question for President Bush. I don't know what he plans to do. I do sense from my colleagues at the White House that we all share the desire to see dramatic steps to restore democratic momentum in Armenia.
And we are committed to do everything we can both to elicit and support such steps, but beyond that, I do not know what the president is considering.
REP. HASTINGS: I'm not trying to parse your words, but your exact comment was that we will never know what happened on March 1st. Many in the international community have called for an investigation. Has the United States supported?
I heard you in your comments indicating very strong condemnation, and you went on in that regard. But have we joined the international community, those who have called out for an investigation?
MR. BRYZA: We have, Mr. Chairman. You'll see that in my written testimony. I passed over that point very quickly. And I hereby absolutely, explicitly reiterate that, yes, we call on the government of Armenia to work with the international community to conduct an impartial investigation into the events of March 1st.
I want to make clear when I said we'll never know what happened on March 1st, what I mean is we will never know who initiated the violence. But in any case, when it comes to an investigation in all of these steps I outlined, we have been working in lockstep with our European allies.
And Peter Semneby, the special representative of the European Commission for the South Caucasus, and I actually do a lot of traveling together. We were together twice, and in fact, every time I've been to Armenia in recent months, we've been there together, and we've thought through these steps together.
REP. HASTINGS: I deeply appreciate it.
I hope Commissioners Smith and Kramer won't mind. I'll go from my final question to Senator Cardin for any opening and/or questions that he may have.
But before doing so, I'd like to place into the record, and I'll do so orally and in writing, just so as how it's clearly understood by some very occasionally the efforts of the United States monetarily are not clearly understood by all.
In this case the sources that I cite are the Armenian Assembly of America and the United States Department of State for those funds that have been allocated over a period of time.
You, Mr. Secretary, rightly pointed to the Millennium Compact, and starting in '06, I believe, for a five-year period, it's $235.6 million. Overall assistance to Armenia since 1992 through '02 is $1,493,760,000, and actual monies on the commission sheet of foreign aid of total yearly assistance in '06, $74.5 million; in '07, $56 million; in '07, $63.6 million; and in '08 the request for $38.9 million.
I do that for the reason that many -- particularly, those of us in the legislative body, as well as the executive branch -- often are accused of not doing enough, and not just in the case of Armenia, but in lots of places around the world.
And I'd just like folks to take cognizance that a substantial effort is and will, I believe, continue to be made to assist in democracy development, as well as full economic development for the Armenia government.
The final question in this round is you, Mr. Secretary, are co- chair of the Minsk Group. In your testimony you cited to some positives, particularly with reference to negotiating the settlement of Nagorno-Karabakh.
I serve on a working group in the Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE, and we, until the now president, continued to refer to that as a frozen conflict. But you also cited to the hope that the two presidents would get together -- Armenia and Azerbaijan.
But my recollection is that Baku roundly refused to support the resolution in the United Nations that supported Azerbaijan's territorial integrity. And since they reacted so strongly, some people are hinting that maybe the Minsk Group has outlived its usefulness.
I'm not in that category of people, largely for the reason that you are there on a regular basis. But I have confidence that it will make substantial progress. And I also am not one to believe that we should continue to push and not expect that others will push back in certain arenas.
So how do you react to the statements about whether or not the Minsk Group has outlived its usefulness?
MR. BRYZA: Well, first of all, I think, if you look at the press and at the statements of the government of Armenia in recent days, weeks, that sort of line of argument is gone. And I know that our friends and colleagues in Azerbaijan, as well as in Armenia, realize that the Minsk Group has played more than a catalytic role. It has guided the parties to the verge of a framework agreement.
So it has great value. In general, international regimes have value. The world is a better place, usually, if there's an international regime in place that fosters cooperation than when those regimes go away, although there are some international regimes that aren't so useful.
The Minsk Group is a very useful one. And so I think you're going to see very soon the two presidents come together, and the foreign ministers before that will come together.
We have spent a lot of time and effort explaining our vote on that resolution, and I'd like to just take one moment to clarify that. It was not a vote against Azerbaijan's territorial integrity at all. We do support Azerbaijan's territorial integrity, but as I said in my statement, we also hold that a compromise solution to the Nagorno- Karabakh conflict has to be a compromise.
And that means there has to be a compromise on the future status of Karabakh. I can't outline what that compromise will be, and as the Minsk Group co-chair, that's not my job. My job is to help the two parties formulate what that compromise might be.
And so in the case of this resolution that was in the General Assembly, we the co-chair countries voted no, so voted against that resolution, rather than simply abstaining, because we felt that resolution was so one-sided that we would have been sending the wrong single.
And one-sided -- by that I mean that it identified principles, or elements of our basic principles, that are the subject of such intensive negotiations, but only the ones that were favorable to the Azerbaijani side, and didn't mention the ones that are favorable to the Armenian side.
So to maintain our status as an honest broker, we felt -- and I felt -- we had to send a very clear signal that we don't want to see the negotiations bent to either side's favor in any place other than at the negotiating table. It's fair game to do that at the negotiating table. It's not so fair to bend the negotiations outside of the negotiating arena.
REP. HASTINGS: Thank you very much.
Could I ask the staff and those persons that are seated near those temperature gauges -- it's a little warm here, and I don't know whether we have the capacity to make it cooler -- but if someone would just check to see can they placed down, it would be deeply appreciated.
Senator Cardin?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. HASTINGS: All right. Thank you very much.
I also am hopeful of being able to visit the region. It's interesting that these matters continue to be on the table. I'm 13 years now in the OSCE, as my colleague, Congressman Smith. And it seems that we've been talking about these issues all that period of time, including as recently as Monday in Copenhagen, where I was at the bureau meeting and had this same discussion with two of my colleagues.
But I won't persist in asking additional questions. You've been generous with your time, Mr. Secretary. I do hope, just as an aside, that the ambassador to Kyrgyzstan, Ms. Jovanovich, who has been nominated by the president -- I didn't get a chance to say to Senator Cardin, but I hope that nomination will be taken up soon, because I do believe that it is important, when we have as complicated situations as exist in this region, that we do have an ambassador on the ground.
I don't know Ms. Jovanovich, but if she has survived Kyrgyzstan, she probably will do extremely well in Armenia, and it would be my hope that the Senate would recognize the need to expedite it. That's not your prerogative, of course. I will say what I have said here to Senator Cardin at the appropriate time.
But thank you, Secretary Bryza. I will have maybe a one or two follow-up on matters, particularly interested in the implications on the Millennium Challenge. And we can either discuss that, or I can do so in writing and have you respond.
Yes, Congressman Smith says he may have a few questions to put in writing as well.
Thank you so very much.
Our next witnesses are, one -- if they would come forward at this time -- Mr. Sargsyan and Mr. Grigorian.
I was told that both you gentlemen may very well choose to use videography of some kind. I would like to get through your testimony, and if we have the time, and if you are desirous, maybe we can try to hook up the equipment. This is not our hearing room, as it were, but anyway.
Our next witness represents the government of Armenia, and as is our custom, we invited Armenia's ambassador, offering him the option of selecting someone else. Arman has chosen Mr. Vigen Sargsyan, who was an adviser on foreign policy and national security to President Kocharian, and he continues to fulfill those responsibilities under President Sargsyan, as well as teaching at the American University in Armenia.
We also invited former President Levon Ter-Petrossian to testify. He chose to designate as his spokesperson Arman Grigorian, who is a sitting lecturer in government at the College of William and Mary. And Mr. Grigorian waited tables at the Duke of Gloucester at Chow-Ling's tavern many, many moons before he got to William and Mary.
He's also a Ph.D. candidate in political science at Columbia University. He previously was an analyst for President Ter-Petrossian during his tenure in office and was a member of his team during the recent election campaign, working on foreign policy and national security matters.
I'll start with you.
MR. SARGSYAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, with regard just for the record, we didn't have further information that will be available to be distributed, so we don't have material. That's why we haven't provided any. But obviously, because it is important, we'll forward some to your office tomorrow, because there are some videotapes which are very relevant and could share some light on this.
REP. HASTINGS: I don't mean to quarrel with you, but we did make it known that we would try, but go ahead.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. HASTINGS: Gentlemen, I very much appreciate both your testimonies. Congressman Smith was late for an appointment, and that's the reason that he left. And he wished to extend to you that he would like very much to have been able to ask some questions.
Because of the delicacy of the matter, my inclination is to submit to both of you and to your respective alliances questions in writing, for fear of exacerbating the very obviously complicated and protracted situation.
It may not sound relevant, nor was it in preparation for this hearing, that I read two books that interested me about Armenia and Azerbaijan and Turkey. One was Middlesex and the other The Bastard of Istanbul. If anyone has not read them, then I suggest to you they are good reading, and notwithstanding ideological beliefs.
Let me just pose to you the awesomeness of the responsibilities of those of us here in Congress have and how it is that sometimes well-intentioned people in countries on both sides, or on all sides, find it difficult when we do not take sides. And when you take sides, it seems that you agitate and aggravate the situation a great deal more.
And as one who has visited Yerevan and Baku, as a person that has worked now for nine years on the subject of Nagorno-Karabakh, I personally find it frustrating that the citizens in both countries and the leaders of both countries expect -- and I'm speaking for myself, no one else -- each time I meet with the leadership.
And I have in my capacity as president of the parliamentary association. I was the lead election observer for the OSCE in Azerbaijan, and I have been in that region in the Caucasus with the greatest hope that the people will lift themselves up.
I use sometimes in this forum the fact that in America I grew up, having been born in 1936, in the halcyon days of segregation in this country.
And little would it have it been expected that a child that had hand- me-down books, rode a school bus 30 miles each way, did not have libraries or cafeterias, past three white high schools on my way to school, would have an opportunity to eventually become a judge and a congressperson and to go on and become the only American to serve as the president of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
That took a lot of patience. And that took a lot of give and take. And somewhere along the line, people of reason, people of enlightenment, people who -- and I suggest both of you that are in this room -- all love Armenia, all want to see success.
This institution that I serve in bases itself on the art of compromise. By and large, it becomes more and more difficult when the pressures are brought to bear by each side on issues that we really do not have clarity about.
Let me just cite without asking a question. What would be hard questions for both of you?
As you well know, Mr. Sargsyan, on April 9th the European Union called for the full restoration of political rights in Armenia and noted, as you pointed out in your testimony, that the Venice Commission and ODHIR concluded that the amendments adopted on March 17th to the law on conducting meetings, assemblies, rallies and demonstrations unacceptably restrict further the right of assembly in a significant fashion.
In President Sargsyan's inaugural address, he spoke of the need for limitations. I'm not clear, and as a lawyer, I wonder what limitations of fundamental rights did he have in mind? And how, then, do you proceed to have overall liberal democracy, if you're going to restrict a democracy?
And in all fairness to Armenia, the debate is going on in America, centered around yet another kind of law dealing with the intervention of the government into fundamental rights of citizens as it pertains to gathering information to fight terrorism.
So we are kind of constrained by our own circumstances as to openness and the balance that's needed between the executive and the people.
Now, if I were to turn to you, Mr. Grigorian, and leave you with hard questions that I'm not asking you to answer today, I followed pretty carefully, as did the outstanding staff here at the Helsinki Commission, as I know you know that Matt Bryza and others at the State Department did, the aftermath of the elections, particularly the events of March 1st and the run-up to the election.
All of us note that Mr. Ter-Petrossian and his followers complained bitterly about Mr. Kocharian and Sargsyan and accused them of rigging elections and authoritarianism and corruption.
Now, one need not live but just a little while to remember the 1996 election, and the acknowledgement of the then internal minister that the election results were rigged, which by any logic would question the moral authority of Mr. Petrossian to raise question about rigged elections.
I don't want to be critical of my own government. I said humorously, but meaningly, that I come from Florida. And it's very difficult to accept election results that took place. All of the things that most of you saw and heard -- the hanging chads and the butterfly ballots -- that was in the constituency that I represent.
But to turn again to you, if you have proof that people are political prisoners, then that proof needs to be put forward. And if you would but just tell Mr. Petrossian for me, when he accuses people of murder, you full well ought to be able to back up what you are saying.
And then, if I turn to you, Mr. Sargsyan, and you tell me there are no political prisoners, then I will tell you that you're out of your ever-loving mind, because there are. And Matt Bryza only in diplo-terms brought it to bear in calling for the release.
A good starting point for any kind of relief for everybody is to release anybody that was put in jail because they protested. You're looking at one that went to jail 13 times in his life protesting. And I know what it means to be behind bars and being wrongfully held because my rights were denied.
Now, all of you all need to get grown up and make Armenia whole. That's what needs to happen. It doesn't need American intervention or European intervention. What it needs is Armenian citizens to come to terms with their own reality and to move your nation forward.
And then it makes it much easier, then, for me and others who will argue for appropriations for infrastructure and for economic development and for all of those things, if we know that human rights are protected, if we know that civil liberties are protected, if we know that media rights are protected. We'll leave with that in the hopes that one of the things that I'm fond of saying at the conclusion of speeches -- and I didn't mean to come here this way, but I listened to the two of you, and I know that you have supporters in each of you and others, all who I believe genuinely love their country, and I thought it best that I not try to get into gamesmanship with you or got you or permit either of you to go the route of gotcha.
And how I conclude many of my speeches that are very forthright -- and a lot of people don't like it in my constituency and among those that are in my race and whatever when I tell them the truth -- what I've said to you I mean heartfelt.
I will work hard, as I have, to try to help Armenia. But I'm not so sure that I will do it from either of your vantage points. I will do it from an Armenian vantage point, not from the vantage point of one side against another side. All of you have good points, and all of you have bad points. So if I've offended you, it's deliberate.
The hearing is concluded.
Source