Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Turkey Azerbaijan Armenia topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Subcommittee hears concerns that Turkey’s support for Azerbaijan harmed Armenia and regional stability
Summary
Witnesses and members at the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe discussed Turkey’s military and political support for Azerbaijan, the displacement of Armenians from Nagorno‑Karabakh and possible U.S. leverage to press for a durable peace and respect for Armenian sovereignty.
Lawmakers asked witnesses how Turkey’s support for Azerbaijan affected the broader South Caucasus and what tools the United States could use to encourage a stable, rights‑respecting outcome for Armenia.
“Turkey has an opportunity to help resolve a tragic longstanding dispute,” Dr. Anna Borshchevskaya said in testimony, but witnesses and members said Ankara’s recent arming of Azerbaijan contributed to military gains that precipitated displacement of civilians from Nagorno‑Karabakh.
Members described the humanitarian consequences: “20,000 refugees that are now in Armenia,” one member said, citing the displacement of ethnic Armenians from the region. Witnesses noted Turkey’s backing changed the military balance in the conflict and urged Ankara to use its influence with Baku to press for a negotiated, enforceable peace.
Dr. Celeste Wallander suggested targeted measures, including scrutiny of arms transfers to Azerbaijan, as potential levers to encourage diplomacy. “The specifics could be to look at specific arms transfers that contributed to the loss of life and the expulsion of those tens of thousands of Armenians,” Wallander said when asked what tools the United States might use.
Why it matters: The South Caucasus sits at the junction of Europe and the Middle East; renewed instability affects European security, refugee flows and U.S. relations with partners across the region. Members asked for additional briefings on evidence linking particular Turkish actions or transfers to outcomes on the ground and asked witnesses for written follow‑up.
No formal actions were taken during the hearing; members may pursue further oversight and targeted policy options based on responses requested from witnesses.
