[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 8 (Thursday, February 3, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 3, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                         A TRIP REPORT SUMMARY

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, for 2 weeks in December 1993, I traveled 
to South Korea, Burma, India, Pakistan, and Kuwait and met with the 
Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] in 
Vienna, Austria.
  Control of weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons, 
is the most critical national security issue facing the United States 
today. A number of anti-democratic regimes--North Korea, Iran, Iraq, 
Libya, and Syria--are known to be developing such weapons. Concerns 
over the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction extend even to 
some democratic countries such as India and Pakistan where deep and 
longstanding animosities could result in renewed warfare that could 
become nuclear.
  Finally, China in recent years has emerged as a strong destabilizing 
force both in its own region of east Asia and as an irresponsible 
supplier of weapons to rogue regimes.
  The principal purpose of this trip was to study and discuss non-
proliferation issues in three critical areas: North Korea, India-
Pakistan, and the Middle East. Unfortunately, in all three areas, the 
Clinton administration's efforts have been longer on pontification and 
rhetoric than on performance.
  A good example can be found in North Korea's nuclear program. North 
Korea voluntarily signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT]. 
However, that country now refuses to allow the IAEA to inspect its 
nuclear facilities other than on a one-time basis. I met in Vienna with 
IAEA Director General Hans Blix. During our meeting, he urged the 
United States not to betray the principles of international nuclear 
inspection. Unfortunately, that is exactly what the Clinton 
administration is doing with regard to North Korea. Perhaps even more 
unfortunate is the administration's insistence on calling such a state 
of affairs ``very good news.''
  The Clinton administration has done exactly what the IAEA opposes. It 
has failed in North Korea. Yet, it has declared victory and gone home. 
The ``victory'' is an agreement with the North Koreans to hold talks 
about a one-time inspection of seven declared nuclear sites in North 
Korea. There is no agreement even to talk about two other suspected, 
but undeclared, sites. An IAEA spokesperson has questioned this 
reported deal. However, it remains open to question whether the agency 
ultimately will succumb to pressure from the Clinton administration and 
bless the arrangement.
  The issue remains--what to do about the intransigent and aggressive 
North Korean regime and its nuclear weapons program? This program poses 
a threat to our military personnel in South Korea. It raises in the 
minds of north Asian defense planners the question of whether their 
countries also should go nuclear. There also is the very real concern 
that North Korea might sell its bomb(s) and/or technology to the 
highest bidder. North Korea's Government sold every other modern 
weapons system it has developed. Do we have reason to expect a 
different result this time around? The answer simply is: No.
  The Clinton administration also is retreating from the only 
significant nuclear weapons sanctions legislation ever enacted by 
Congress. Passed under my sponsorship in 1985, it prohibits foreign aid 
and military sales to Pakistan unless the President certifies, on a 
yearly basis, that Pakistan does not possess a nuclear explosive 
device. Such a law is critical given the reality that India and 
Pakistan have fought three wars since 1947. Nuclear war between the two 
countries would be catastrophic. Yet, President Clinton asks for the 
right to resume military sales to Pakistan--whether it makes nuclear 
bombs or not.
  What the Clinton administration should do is make nuclear 
nonproliferation truly the priority it claims it is. Make an example of 
North Korea. That, however, would require the fortitude to put serious 
pressure on China to cooperate on international sanctions against North 
Korea. No other country has comparable influence over North Korea. 
Unfortunately, the Clinton administration appears to lack the political 
will to press the Chinese on this point.
  Is it better to isolate tyrants or criticize them face-to-face? In my 
view, a public official gains credibility by making a visit to a non-
free country rather than commenting from afar. This is particularly 
true for a country as troubled as Burma.
  Upon gaining its independence in 1947, Burma was the richest nation 
in Southeast Asia. After the Burmese military imposed ``The Burmese 
Road to Socialism,'' it became one of the poorest. Thirty years later, 
the country still is ruled by the military, this time operating under 
the guise of the State Law and Order Restoration Council [SLORC]. Nobel 
Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi continues to live under house arrest. Burma 
remains the world's top producer of opium. No senior officials ever 
seem to be prosecuted for drug-related corruption. The Clinton 
administration was scheduled to produce a review of its Burma policy 
last August. Such a review still has not been released.
  The fact that such a review has not been completed by the Clinton 
administration is part of a pattern. It seems that the State 
Department, the National Security Council and other foreign policy 
agencies are not functioning as well as they should in the 
Clinton administration. I hope they institute tougher management within 
the administration's arms control regime and get moving on these 
problems.


                              SOUTH KOREA

  South Korean Minister of Foreign Affairs Han Sung-chu is an 
internationally known scholar who spent 14 years in the United States, 
first as a college student and later as a professor. Minister Han has 
identified the North Korean nuclear program as one of the most pressing 
problems facing South Korea. However, he admitted to me that his 
country ``doesn't have a handle on it.'' I asked him how we ``get the 
North Koreans' attention.'' He indicated he would prefer a solution 
through ``dialogue.''
  In private, South Korean officials remind visitors their capital is 
within range of North Korean artillery. Every Korean remembers well 
that Seoul experienced house-to-house fighting four times during the 
Korean War. No one wants a repetition of that chaos.


                                 BURMA

  The military rulers of Burma have changed the name of the country to 
``Myanmar'' and the capital, ``Rangoon,'' to ``Yangon.'' Otherwise the 
country looks as if it has been asleep for 30 years, especially when 
compared to the rest of booming Southeast Asia.
  Expecting any official request to visit Noble Laureate Aung San Suu 
Kyi to be refused, I went to her home in the hope it might not be 
guarded. However, the front of the house was shielded by a board fence 
and there were two sets of heavily armed guards. My thought was, ``What 
a powerful woman for the government regime to fear her this much!'' I 
then made an official request to see her when I met with Lt. General 
Khin Nyunt, the powerful Military Intelligence chief. The request was 
denied. He accused her and her supporters of being influenced by the 
Burmese Communist Party. However, in 1990 pro-democracy demonstrators 
marched past the American Embassy waving the American flag and 
cheering--not something commonly done by the Burmese Communist Party.


                             BOMBAY, INDIA

  Bombay is the commercial center of India. Historically, this has not 
mattered much. Even though India is the second most populous country in 
the world, it has ranked only 30th as an export market for the United 
States. This is changing. The Indian elite truly were shocked by the 
collapse of the former Soviet Union to which the Indian economy had 
been linked significantly.
  Today, the Bombay Stock Exchange is waking up. It currently is 
experiencing a boom phase following the entry of foreign institutional 
investors. Since January 1993, investments have totaled $650 million, 
mostly from the United States.
  While in Bombay I met chief Minister Sharad Pawar, the equivalent of 
governor of the state that includes Bombay. Chief Minister Pawar was 
Defense Minister of India until last February. He reaffirmed how 
important the Pressler Amendment is to peace in South Asia. He also 
discussed the emerging Chinese military threat. The Chinese are bent on 
``domination,'' he warned.


                            new delhi, india

  While in New Delhi, the capital of India, I met with the Prime 
Minister, the Vice President, the Minister of External Affairs and the 
Finance Minister. The principal subjects of discussion were India-
Pakistan relations and the Pressler amendment. All officials with whom 
I met expressed their deep concern over, and opposition to, the Clinton 
administration's efforts to overturn the Pressler amendment.
  I also raised the issue of trade between India and Pakistan. Total 
trade between the two countries in 1992 was approximately $140 
million--essentially de minimis. I recommended to my hosts that both 
sides try to increase trade for both economic and political reasons. In 
the early days of our Republic there were substantial tensions between 
the United States and Canada. Now we are each other's most significant 
trading partner and the best of friends. Analogously, I hope India and 
Pakistan will become friends.


                          islamabad, pakistan

  In Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan, I met with the President, the 
Prime Minister, the Defense Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, 
and the President of the Senate. Again, Pakistan-India relations and 
the Pressler amendment were the prime topics of conversation. I made it 
clear that while I view the Pressler amendment as a means to an end 
(non-proliferation) and not an end in itself, it serves as an important 
barrier to a nuclear-armed South Asia. In a lengthy meeting and dinner 
with Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, I learned she and I had some mutual 
friends from Oxford. I felt we established something of a personal 
rapport, although she took a very tough line on the Pressler amendment.


                           karachi, pakistan

  Karachi is the commercial heart of Pakistan. I met with business 
leaders of Pakistan as well as representatives of American firms doing 
business in Pakistan. At a lunch hosted by the American Business 
Council of Pakistan, I met with the Pakistan representative of 
Citibank. Citibank has a major credit card operation in my home State 
of South Dakota.


                                 kuwait

  While in Kuwait I met with the Prime Minister and the Minister of 
Information to discuss security issues in the region. I also received a 
briefing from the commander of our forces at Camp Doha. The United 
States and Kuwait are engaged in the second year of a 10-year defense 
cooperation agreement. The United States has a certain level of 
supplies prepositioned in the country in case it must again be 
defended, and we conduct joint training exercises with Kuwaiti forces 
on a rotating basis.


                            vienna, austria

  In Vienna I received two briefings on nuclear non-proliferation 
issues. The first was from our diplomats assigned to cover these 
matters before the IAEA. The second was from IAEA Director-General Hans 
Blix and his staff. Both were excellent. Most of the conversation 
revolved around the then on-going negotiations between the United 
States and the North Koreans over the latters' failure to live up to 
their commitments under the NPT. Director-General Blix made it clear 
these negotiations did not commit him to a specific course of action. 
He is determined to have nothing less than full rights for the IAEA as 
authorized in the NPT. He was concerned particularly that these 
negotiations might create a lethal precedent, that they could bind his 
hands with both North Korea and other emerging nuclear states, such as 
Iran. As of this writing, Blix has not endorsed the Clinton 
administration's agreement with North Korea.

                          ____________________