[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.
____________________