[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.

                          ____________________