[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 13 (Thursday, February 10, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: February 10, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
THE MIDEAST
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent three articles be
printed in the Record. They summarize travel of congressional
delegations during the recent recess, and they articulate and summarize
a number of the findings which this Senator made. They are an article
from the Wall Street Journal captioned ``Capitalism's March in Asia,''
dated January 28, 1994; an article in the Jewish Chronicle of
Pittsburgh, dated January 27, 1994, concerning the Mideast; and an
article in the New York Post, dated January 11, 1994, concerning Syrian
Jews.
There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Wall Street Journal, Jan. 28, 1994]
Capitalism's March in Asia
(By Arlen Specter)
The Senate vote this week to lift the embargo on Vietnam
recognizes the tremendous potential for trade with our former
enemy and the entire region. Americans are just beginning to
awaken to the fact that two-way trade with the Asian-Pacific
Rim already exceeds our commerce with the European Union, or
a combination of our North and South American neighbors.
This potential for increased trade and more U.S. jobs
springs from the fact that capitalism is on the march in
Asia. If Adam Smith and Karl Marx could visit Beijing and
Hanoi today, they would be shocked to see countries like
China and Communist Vietnam sprinting toward capitalism.
Officially they call it a ``socialist market economy,'' an
oxymoron that may be the practical answer for countries not
wanting to admit their wish to abandon the disadvantages of a
planned economy for the rewards of individual initiative.
On the same day in early January when our delegation of
seven U.S. senators heard China's Premier Li Peng in Beijing
extol the theoretical virtues of socialism, the vice chairman
of the National People's Congress announced plans to copy
economic legislation from capitalist countries.
Our delegation heard a similar message on our visit to
Hanoi. A young official from the Vietnam Ministry of Trade
was succinct in stating that the private sector was more
effective than state ownership because ``people work harder
for their own pockets.'' Looking to Western political
ideology, Vietnam's most powerful political figure, Secretary
General Moy of the Communist Party, claimed that his country
sought to follow Abraham Lincoln's model of a government of
the people, by the people and for the people.
Statistics show China's gross national product growing at
about 10% a year. Li Peng boasted of a trillion-dollar
Chinese market in urging our delegation to renew most-
favored-nation status for China. Similarly in Thailand,
Indonesia and Vietnam, we heard of multibillion-dollar U.S.
opportunities in hydropower, telecommunications, air and rail
transport, automobiles and environmental projects.
In all these countries, U.S. businessmen urged our
delegation to delink trade interests from human rights and
even the MIA issue. Frank Hawke, representing Citibank's
global finance operation in Asia, noted that about half of
his company's $2 billion annual profits came from developing
countries. Members of the American Chamber of Commerce in
Beijing chided our policy of lecturing China on human
rights when 23,000 people were murdered annually in the
U.S. and our cities were virtual war zones.
When we objected to China's missile sales, Li Peng
chastised us for being the world's number one ``big brother''
in arms sales. Indonesian officials expressed concern about
the continuation of their trade privileges when our
delegation raised the issue of human rights in East Timor and
labor conditions generally.
Those protests suggest that our conditions for trade
preferences are having an effect. Access to our markets at
reduced tariff rates is vital to Beijing's and Jakarta's
trade, so we should continue our leverage on human rights and
arms sales without breaking the lever. It is obviously a
judgment call as to how hard to press; but there is much room
for improvement and we are having significant success, as
evidenced by China's recent concession to allow greater
inspection of manufacturing in their prisons.
Regrettably, a tough trade policy and sanctions also seem
necessary to enforce U.S. property rights. China has flooded
our markets with illegal textile trans-shipments. After
cutting their import quotas, we have finally extracted
commitments from China to stop the illegal trans-shipments of
textiles, but that will have to be monitored closely to
ensure compliance.
Responding to longstanding U.S. complaints, Thailand is
finally enacting tough legislation and establishing a special
court for enforcing intellectual property rights. Similarly,
Indonesia needs continuing pressure and monitoring to fulfill
existing promises to respect U.S. copyrights.
Notwithstanding the problems, the big picture suggests
enormous U.S. opportunities in the Pacific Rim. China's
Deputy Power Bureau Director Yu Fomin was outspoken in his
preference for U.S. products over those of France and other
competitors. Within the next decade, Indonesia will provide a
market or infra-structure development in excess of $100
billion.
The potential for U.S. business development in Indonesia is
illustrated by a multibillion-dollar copper-gold mine being
developed by Freeport-McMoRan Inc. in Timika in east
Indonesia. In the past five years, that talented and
ambitious U.S. company has developed the world's third
largest copper mine, creating thousands of new jobs there and
in the U.S.
The problems of balancing competing interests in economic
development were kept in perspective when we talked to
Thailand's King Phumiphon, who told us that his favorite
hydro-dam project was deferred because of community protests.
We understood constituent pressures on U.S. senators, but we
asked why that would affect a monarch. The king responded:
``They'd demonstrate.''
____
[From the New York Post, Jan. 11, 1994]
Senator Reports Assad Is Allowing Exit of Jews
(By Arlen Specter)
Outlet diplomacy seems to have worked for Syrian Jews, who
have been permitted to leave Damascus and Aleppo in large
numbers in the last 18 months as a result of a change in
Syria's policy in April 1992..
When I first urged Syrian Foreign Minister Shara almost a
decade ago to allow Syrian Jewish women to immigrate to the
U.S. because there were such limited opportunities for
marriage in Syria, he responded that they were content and
should remain.
In a meeting with President Assad more than six years ago,
he repeated that statement, adding that Sryia was in a state
of war with Israel; it would be unwise, he argued to allow
immigration which might strengthen the enemy.
Over the years, the U.S. ambassador in Damascus and
congressional visitors, with then Rep. Steve Solarz (D-N.Y.)
at the forefront, continued to press Syria officials to let
the Jews go President Bush is reported to have pressed the
issue in his meeting with Assad in Geneva in 1990.
In a meeting with Assad the same year, I again insisted
that Jewish women in Syria were being deprived of a fair
opportunity to marry because of the limited number of Jewish
men there. Assad responded with a romantic offer that he
would allow any Jewish woman to leave when a suitor came to
Syria and took her to the U.S. to marry. That offer was
relayed to the active Syrian Jewish community in Brooklyn and
elsewhere.
Referring to that offer last month in a meeting with a
visiting congressional delegation in Damascus, Assad chided
me that not one man took him up on his offer. I replied that,
being married myself. I had done all I could by publicizing
his offer.
At the meeting, Assad said Syria had changed its policy in
April 1992, allowing Jews to emigrate--as long as it was not
to Israel--once external pressures had ceased.
According to statistics verified in December by the Syrian
Jewish community, almost 2,600 of Syria's 3,800 Jews had been
permitted to visas. But concern was expressed for the more
than 800 who had not been granted visas.
When Secretary of State Warren Christopher was in Damascus
on Dec. 5, he announced that Syrian officials would grant
visas to the balance of Syria's Jewish residents by the end
of 1993. Members of the Damascus Jewish community asked our
congressional delegation to obtain such confirmation in our
meetings with Assad and Shara.
Assad and Shara did confirm, in Dec. 15 and 16 meetings
that the visas would be issued, but there remained some
ambiguity as to whether all the visas would be issued on
schedule.
Assad insisted that many Jews did not wish to leave Syria
and some who had departed wished to return--referring to a
letter he had recently received. He also stated that the
issued and unused visas showed there were Syrian Jews who
really wanted to stay, but had obtained the travel permits
because of external pressure.
Whether all visas will be issued on schedule or whether
some Syrian Jews may wish to remain, the important fact is
Syria's change of policy is in permitting Jewish immigration.
This significant policy change may be due to Syria's interest
in closer ties with the U.S., and the timely issuance of the
new visas may be related to Assad's meeting Sunday with
President Clinton in Geneva.
On my first visit to Damascus in 1984, I received a very
cool reception. When I returned in 1988, after Assad had been
told by Mikhail Gorbachev the previous spring in Moscow that
the U.S.S.R. would no longer finance Syria, President Assad
met with me for more than 4\1/2\ hours--evidencing real
interest in U.S.-Syrian relations.
At that time Syria was totally uninterested in peace
negotiations with Israel; that situation has also changed. In
our December visit, Assad insisted his country was ready for
a comprehensive peace treaty with Israel.
This change in Syrian policy certainly may benefit the
entire region. It is a very good sign of the times that Syria
has been willing to ``let our people go.''
____
[From the Jewish Chronicle of Pittsburgh, Jan. 27, 1994]
Specter Sees Sea-Change in Mid-East
(By Arlen Specter)
Our Congressional delegation's plane landed in Cairo last
month--simultaneously with the arrivals of Israel's Prime
Minister Rabin and PLO Chairman Arafat, so we had the unique
opportunity to hear their views on the impasse concerning
Israel's withdrawal from Jericho and Gaza. We heard about the
region's fast-moving developments from Egypt's President
Mubarak, Syrian President Assad, Crown Prince Hassan of
Jordan and the Palestian negotiators.
Among the swirling impressions, these stand out:
1. The past immutable positions of the Mid-East adversaries
have changed dramatically;
2. The uniform desire for comprehensive peace overshadows
the parties' bitter disagreements;
3. The U.S. has not yet become accustomed to its greater
power and prestige resulting from the disintegration of the
Soviet Union. We are the only game in town--the only
superpower in the world.
Arafat arrived at Egypt's presidential office when our
delegation was talking to Mubarak, so a meeting was hastily
arranged for us to meet with him.
A year ago, Israelis dealt with Arafat at the risk of a
criminal prosecution. Now their top officials travel
extensively to negotiate with him. So, U.S. Senators are
interested in talking to Arafat because his views count.
The bottom line: he's effusive; he's elusive, he insists he
wants to work it out. It's worth trying in light of Rabin's
optimism that the borders can be made secure and the size of
the Jericho province can be negotiated.
Three days later in Damascus, we heard Syria's President
Assad exhort Israel to expedite discussions for a
comprehensive peace settlement. A few years earlier he had
summarily dismissed such negotiations. When I first traveled
to Damascus almost a decade ago, the Syrian antagonism to the
U.S. was fierce.
By 1988, after being told by Gorbachev in Moscow the
previous spring that the U.S.S.R. would no longer finance the
Syrian military, President Assad was at least willing to meet
with a U.S. Senator. But, at that time, he totally rejected
any dealings with Israel because he said it sought total
control of the region ``from the Nile to the Euphrates.''
In last month's meeting, Assad had totally changed his
attitude, and in his January meeting with President Clinton,
he expressed his willingness to ``normalize'' relations with
Israel.
Where and how do we go from here?
First, we must comprehend the vast differences between
Israeli and Arab views of the facts. It goes far beyond
perceptions. It is a truism that everyone is entitled to his
own opinion, but not his own facts. In the Mid-East, there is
a curious reversal of that dicturm.
They share the same opinion that a comprehensive peace must
be found, but they disagree on historical and currently-
operative facts.
While it is dangerous to cut anyone short on venting
feelings or perceptions about the past or even the present
facts, perhaps the best approach is to focus on objectives
and what the parties can agree on what the facts should be
for the future.
Second, while virtually impossible for politicians, the
parties should lower expectations and avoid the inflammatory
generalizations that border on, if not pass, the line of
misrepresentation.
Rabin emphasized that the current agreement deals only with
the interim and leaves permanent arrangements to future
negotiations.
Saeb Erekai, vice chairman of the Palestinian negotiating
team, conceded that a Palestinian state is not mandated by
the Declaration of Principles although it is his hope.
Third, the U.S. must stay intensively and extensively
engaged while meticulously leaving the ultimate decisions to
the parties themselves. Perhaps U.S. observers should be
silently present during the negotiations.
Since the U.S. presses each side for debriefings after each
session, why not be present? Such a presence could have a
salutary effect on the parties and promote realistic
positions and even compromises.
From our meetings with the region's leaders, Israeli
citizens and Palestinians in Gaza and Jericho, there is no
doubt that U.S. suggestions or persuasion could tip the
delicately balanced Mid-East scales. For different reasons,
each party looks to some future largesse or favor from the
U.S.
Without costly commitments, the U.S. can use its stature to
promote peace for the Mid-East's benefit.
It is a totally different region from a decade ago or even
a year ago. The momentum favors peace.
____________________