Rep. Gilman (R., NY) is Chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, and in this capacity is the primary spokesman in the House on foreign policy. Rep. Gilman was elected to his 12th term in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1994. His international experiences include tenures as Congressional Delegate to the U.N., service on the Ukraine Famine Commission, the U.S.-European and U.S.-Mexican Inter parliamentary Conferences. A World War II veteran Rep. Gilman is noted for his support of a number of human rights issues including the plight of Soviet Jews and other ethnic and religious groups denied their basic freedoms.
AGBU/AIS: Armenia has on several occasions indicated its readiness to establish meaningful relations with Turkey, but unfortunately the reaction from the other side has not been very encouraging. What can the United States do in terms of acting as an honest broker to break the ice between its two allies?
Rep. Gilman: There are two objectives the United States can pursue to help improve Armenian-Turkish relations. First, the U.S. should continue its efforts to bring about a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh.
Although the predominantly Armenian region of Karabakh falls within the borders of nearby Azerbaijan, Turkish popular perceptions of that conflict and sympathy for the Azeri people have had direct consequences for Armenian-Turkish relations, as we have seen in Turkey's refusal to undertake full diplomatic relations with Armenia and to completely open its border with Armenia to commerce or humanitarian aid shipments.
The United States should also become actively involved in the effort to route an oil export pipeline from Azerbaijan through Armenia to Turkey's Mediterranean coast. Azerbaijan needs to find a way of exporting its oil, but does not wish to succumb to Russian pressure to use Russia's existing pipelines. Turkey also wants the pipeline to run through its territory.
I understand that a pipeline route crossing Armenia is now being considered by all three countries. An agreement on that pipeline could form an important part of a package of agreements settling the conflict in Karabakh as well as providing landlocked Armenia with a new, long-term source of energy and tariff revenues to assist its transformation to a market-based economy.
AGBU/AIS: United States policy regarding the countries of the former Soviet Union seems to be closely linked to its ties with Moscow. How long will this (or should this) continue, and when do you think the United States will start (or should start) looking at each of the republics as unique and individual entities?
Rep. Gilman: With regard to receiving U.S. assistance, Armenia has ranked second on a per capita basis among the former Soviet states. Only Russia has received more. I think that reflects the clear perception in the U.S. of the unique situation Armenia faces.
U.S. actions in this area therefore seem largely divorced from considerations of policy towards Russia.
With regard to our policy towards the twelve newly independent states, however, I agree that there is room to question the current Administration's outlook towards Russia and its neighbors — specifically whether U.S. policy has been excessively "Russo-centric."
It seems obvious that there has been a pattern of Russian military and economic pressure meant to ensure Russia's preeminence in the region. Russia has sought to obtain base rights in neighboring states, to apply its military doctrine to the former soviet borders, to exert its monopoly on oil and gas export pipelines, and to use its import tariffs and energy exports to remind its neighbors of its economic importance to them. As this pattern has become more evident, we have to wonder whether the Administration has used every means available to challenge such measures.
We should begin to look at each of these countries as unique, but we cannot overlook the fact that political and economic reform efforts in these countries will inevitably suffer if reform fails in Russia. Russia, with its huge expanse, large population and considerable resources, in one way or another will play a role in the fate of all of its neighbors.
AGBU/AIS: Armenia has been a most grateful recipient of U. S. humanitarian assistance since the 1988 earthquake. But the mood in Washington today is increasingly critical of both the nature and often the level of foreign aid. How do you see the future for Armenia in terms of economic and humanitarian assistance from the United States?
Rep. Gilman: The United States must get its fiscal house in better order. I think all Americans realize that we cannot go on running up $200 billion annual deficits that threaten to undermine the very heart of our economy. We can't leave that kind of legacy for our children.
U.S. foreign aid programs will have to bear their share in reducing the deficit. The "Freedom Support Act" program, from which Armenia gets most of its U.S. assistance, is already in decline. For 1994, the Congress appropriated $2. 1 billion to the Agency for International Development under that program. In 1995 that declined to $850 million.
For 1996, the Administration has requested $788 million, but that has already been reduced to $643 million by the International Relations Committee. As the overall amount of funds the Congress makes available for the tremendous needs of all twelve former soviet republics declines, Armenia will undoubtedly receive a lower level of aid from the program.
Rep. Benjamin A. Gilman (r) with Dr. Richard Garon Jr., Chief of Staff of the House International Relations Committee (I).
