[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 21 (Wednesday, March 2, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 2, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
REPORT OF THE VISIT OF SENATORS COCHRAN, PRESSLER, AND BROWN TO KOREA, 
  BURMA, INDIA, PAKISTAN, KUWAIT, AND THE INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY 
                                 AGENCY

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to submit a report to the 
Senate of my visit with Senators Pressler and Brown to Korea, Burma, 
India, Pakistan, Kuwait, and the International Atomic Energy Agency in 
Vienna from December 5 through December 19, 1993.
  I ask unanimous consent that the report be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the report was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, March 2, 1994.
     Hon. Robert Dole,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dole: I am pleased to submit this report on my 
     trip with Senators Pressler and Brown to Korea, Burma, India, 
     Pakistan, Kuwait, and the International Atomic Energy Agency 
     in Vienna from December 5 through December 19, 1993.
       We undertook this mission to engage senior officials in 
     discussions of political and economic changes in the 
     countries visited; the danger of proliferation of weapons of 
     mass destruction; and the likely impact of U.S. policy on 
     these issues.
       In South Korea, we met with Minister of Foreign Affairs Han 
     Sun-joo and Lieutenant General William W. Crouch, Chief of 
     Staff, U.N. Command/Combined Forces Command/U.S. Forces 
     Korea/Deputy Commanding General, Eighth U.S. Army.
       In Burma, we met with Minister of Foreign Affairs U Ohn 
     Gyaw; Lieutenant General Khin Nyunt of the State Law and 
     Order Restoration Council; and Brigadier General David Oliver 
     Abel, Minister of National Planning and Economic Development.
       In India, we had discussions with business leaders in the 
     Indo-American Chamber of Commerce and at the Bombay Stock 
     Exchange; Maharashtra Chief Minister Sharad Pawar, former 
     Minister of Defense; Minister of State for External Affairs 
     Salman Khurshid; Minister of Finance Manmohan Singh; 
     representatives of the All Parties Freedom Conference of 
     Kashmir; Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao; Member of 
     Parliament Murli Deora, Bombay chief of the Congress(I) 
     Party; Minister for Home Affairs S. B. Chavan; Vice President 
     K. R. Narayanan; and Minister of External Affairs Dinesh 
     Singh.
       In Pakistan, we met with Senate Chairman Wasim Sajjad; 
     Minister of Defense Aftab Shaban Mirani; Foreign Secretary 
     Shaharyar Khan; Minister of Foreign Affairs Sardar Assef Ali; 
     President Farooq Leghari; Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto; and 
     members of the American Business Council of Pakistan.
       In Kuwait, we had discussions with the Prime Minister, 
     Crown Prince Shaikh Saad Abdallah Al-Sabah, and Minister of 
     Information Shaikh Saud Nasir Al-Sabah, former ambassador to 
     the United States.
       At the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna we had 
     discussions with Director General Hans Blix; Deputy Director 
     for Safeguards Bruno Pellaud; Deputy Director for 
     Administration David Waller; and Jan Priest, Head of the 
     Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Policy Section of the 
     Division of External Relations.
       We gained valuable insights regarding U.S. nonproliferation 
     policy and issues confronting the countries visited. I 
     believe the trip will enhance U.S. bilateral and multilateral 
     relations.
       I am very grateful to you, as well as Deputy Chief of 
     Mission Charles Kartman and the embassy staff in Seoul; 
     Charge d'Affaires Franklin P. Huddle, Jr., and the embassy 
     staff in Rangoon; Charge d'Affaires Kenneth C. Brill and the 
     embassy staff in New Delhi and Consul General Charles A. Mast 
     and the consular staff in Bombay; Ambassador John C. Monjo 
     and the embassy staff in Islamabad and Consul General Richard 
     C. Faulk and the consular staff in Karachi; Deputy Chief of 
     Mission Georgia Debell and the embassy staff in Kuwait; and 
     Ambassador Swanee G. Hunt and the staffs at the embassy and 
     the U.S. Mission to International Organizations in Vienna, 
     for valuable assistance in making our trip successful. In 
     this report, I take the opportunity to discuss some of the 
     highlights of this enlightening and beneficial trip.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Thad Cochran,
                                                     U.S. Senator.
                                  ____


Report of the Visit of Senators Cochran, Pressler, and Brown to Korea, 
  Burma, India, Pakistan, Kuwait, and the International Atomic Energy 
                      Agency--December 5-19, 1993


                                purpose

       Senators Cochran, Pressler, and Brown welcomed the 
     Republican Leader's authorization to visit the Republic of 
     Korea, the Union of Burma, the Republic of India, the Islamic 
     Republic of Pakistan, the State of Kuwait, and the 
     International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna. The 
     delegation was hosted by the respective U.S. embassies.
       On December 7 in South Korea, the Senators discussed 
     tensions associated with the refusal of North Korea to allow 
     adequate IAEA inspection of its nuclear facilities.
       During the December 8-9 stay in Burma, they met with 
     members of the State Law and Order Restoration Council to 
     consider regional issues and human rights.
       In India from December 10 to 13, talks focused on regional 
     conditions, especially tensions with Pakistan over Kashmir; 
     nuclear proliferation; and India's opening economy.
       During its December 13-16 visit in Pakistan, the Delegation 
     discussed regional issues, nuclear proliferation, and 
     Pakistan's economic development.
       On December 16 in Kuwait, the Senators observed Kuwait's 
     recovery from the Persian Gulf War and discussed the 
     country's regional relations.
       In Vienna on December 18, the Delegation discussed nuclear 
     concerns with IAEA officials.


                           republic of korea

       After years of international uncertainty regarding its 
     nuclear weapons intentions, North Korea agreed in 1986 to 
     join the Non-Proliferation Treaty. When in 1992 the IAEA 
     asked to inspect some questionable nuclear sites, however, 
     the North Koreans refused and announced in 1993 their 
     intention to withdraw from the Treaty. During negotiations 
     with the United States, North Korea had suspended its 
     withdrawal, but at the time of the Delegation's visit to 
     South Korea, the North was still refusing IAEA access to the 
     sites and seeking greater U.S. concessions.

                Minister of Foreign Affairs Han Sung-joo

       Upon arrival in Seoul on Tuesday, December 7, the 
     Delegation met with the Minister of Foreign Affairs at his 
     office. The Foreign Minister mentioned the street 
     demonstrations that day protesting the decision to open the 
     South Korean rice market to foreign competition. Despite 
     strong public feelings on this issue, his government believed 
     Korea would benefit from freer trade, symbolized by 
     successful conclusion of the Uruguay Round.
       Addressing the North Korean nuclear issue, the Foreign 
     Minister described the next few weeks as critical, since the 
     continuity of IAEA safeguards was at stake. Although North 
     Korea was more militant than before, there was no qualitative 
     change in the situation sufficient to warrant a buildup of 
     South Korean or U.S. forces. The U.S. commitment to the 
     defense of South Korea was adequate to deal with the threat.
       It was not clear whether North Korea would eventually agree 
     to special IAEA inspections, was using the nuclear issue to 
     obtain as many concessions as possible, or was determined to 
     develop nuclear weapons in any case. Some diplomatic success 
     had been achieved, but each time North Korea had agreed to 
     something, it later demanded even more concessions. 
     Resolution of the dispute would require patient dialogue.
       The Foreign Minister said North Korean acquisition of 
     nuclear weapons would not automatically trigger similar 
     action by its neighbors. Without significant political 
     change, Japan would not consider developing nuclear weapons, 
     and South Korea was ``determined not to go nuclear, no matter 
     what.''
       He noted the rapid expansion in South Korean trade with 
     China since diplomatic relations were established in August 
     1992. That country was facing internal uncertainty, but the 
     Foreign Minister was hopeful China would play a constructive 
     regional role as its economy continued to expand.
       For the foreseeable future, with or without unification, 
     Korea would have to live with powerful neighbors: Japan, 
     China, and Russia. South Korea could not hope to match those 
     countries militarily, but it would maintain a reasonable 
     defense posture. Its main objectives were to maintain its 
     security relationship with the United States and to 
     promote a regional organization for confidence-building, 
     arms control, nonproliferation, sea safety and 
     environmental protection.

                  Lieutenant General William W. Crouch

       The Delegation met at Yongsan Base with Lieutenant General 
     William W. Crouch, Chief of Staff, U.N. Command/Combined 
     Forces Command/U.S. Forces Korea/Deputy Commanding General, 
     Eighth U.S. Army; Major General James M. Myatt, Assistant 
     Chief of Staff C5; and Colonel Richard M. Hasbrouck III, 
     Assistant Chief of Staff J2; for a briefing on the nuclear 
     situation in North Korea.


                             union of burma

       In 1988, the armed forces suspended Burma's constitution 
     and established the State Law and Order Restoration Council 
     (SLORC). The SLORC refused to honor the results of the 1990 
     election won by the National League for Democracy, whose 
     leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, had been under house arrest since 
     1989.
       After General Than Shwe became prime minister in 1992, the 
     government freed some 2,000 political prisoners, allowed 
     family visits to Aung San Suu Kyi, and suspended offensive 
     military operations against some insurgent groups.
       Although a national convention to draft a new constitution 
     began in January 1993, the SLORC limited the scope of debate 
     and made it clear the military would play a major role even 
     after a civilian government was established.
       At the time of the Delegation's visit, human rights issues 
     were major impediments to improved U.S.-Burma relations, and 
     the Clinton Administration had refused to name an ambassador.

                 Minister of Foreign Affairs U Ohn Gyaw

       The Senators were guests of honor at a December 8 dinner 
     hosted by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who welcomed the 
     delegation and expressed the hope that their visit would 
     improve relations between Burma and the United States.

                     Lieutenant General Khin Nyunt

       On Thursday morning, December 9, the Delegation met the 
     SLORC First Secretary, Lieutenant General Khin Nyunt, who 
     gave his interpretation of Burma's recent history. In 1988, 
     51 persons had been beheaded and a communist-instigated 
     takeover appeared imminent. When the politicians could not 
     control the turmoil, the military intervened. The first 
     objective had been to restore law and order. The current 
     constitutional convention was the next step, since the 
     1974 constitution was inadequate to move Burma from one-
     party socialism to free-market democracy.
       Senator Cochran asked when democracy would be achieved. The 
     General said the convention was trying to agree on 
     constitutional principles and to devise a civilian 
     governmental framework in which the armed forces would also 
     have responsibilities. He said it was difficult to predict 
     when the convention would complete its work.
       When the Senators asked if they could visit Aung San Suu 
     Kyi, the General answered that only family members could 
     visit her. The SLORC respected her as the daughter of the 
     national founder, but it would not abandon the principle that 
     a person residing abroad could not participate in Burmese 
     politics. She had left Burma at an early age and had lived in 
     Britain with her husband, an Oxford don. She had received 
     lenient treatment and was free to leave Burma at any time.
       He said the SLORC was trying to maintain the peaceful 
     conditions necessary to establish democracy. It was not the 
     Council's intention to prolong the current situation, but 
     Burma would have to move cautiously toward normalization 
     because communism was still a force. Communist groups had 
     disintegrated, but their leaders were hiding on the China 
     border. If communists and their sympathizers were given ``too 
     many rights,'' they could create problems for the country.

                  Brigadier General David Oliver Abel

       Brigadier General David Abel, Minister of National Planning 
     and Economic Development, received the Senators later that 
     morning. When asked how long it would take the convention to 
     develop a constitutional framework, he replied it should not 
     take long once the delegates agreed on basic principles.
       In response to questions about the economy, he said the 
     industrial base was small but growing with government-
     encouraged foreign investment. When it took power in 1988, 
     the Council had managed to stabilize a declining situation, 
     and the economy had gradually resumed healthy growth.
       Senator Cochran saw great potential in Burma, but he warned 
     that a negative human rights record would be a drawback to 
     development. The General replied that the situation had been 
     misinterpreted in the media: ``If the people are happy in the 
     political, economic, and administrative situation, I think 
     they have their human rights.''
       When asked what power the military would have under the new 
     constitution, General Abel said the veto power of the 
     military would not be absolute, but the armed forces would 
     intervene if national unity and solidarity were threatened. 
     That had been their patriotic function since Burma became 
     independent.
       Senator Cochran emphasized that the suspension of the 1990 
     election results was a major U.S. concern, and he wished the 
     Council success in establishing democracy at an early date. 
     He said that once democratic reform was achieved, Burma 
     should flourish, since the country had so much to offer.


                           republic of india

       At the time of the Delegation's visit, India was 
     experiencing basic economic reform, inflation had been 
     reduced, and accelerated economic growth was expected in 
     1994. Increased foreign investment was sought, especially by 
     U.S. firms, the major investors in India. As opportunities 
     for bilateral economic cooperation increased, however, Indian 
     suspicion of U.S. political intentions remained, especially 
     with regard to Kashmir and nonproliferation. Some Indians 
     feared the United States tilted in favor of Pakistan on both 
     issues.
       The United States maintained the Kashmir issue should be 
     settled by Pakistan and India and was encouraged that Indo-
     Pakistani tensions had lessened somewhat as both countries 
     focused on such confidence-building measures as the special 
     hotline used regularly by the Pakistani and Indian armed 
     forces.
       India was especially concerned that the United States might 
     modify the Pressler Amendment, under which U.S. aid to 
     Pakistan was suspended in 1990 because of the Pakistani 
     nuclear program. There were indications the Clinton 
     Administration wanted to overhaul U.S. foreign aid by 
     establishing broad standards for all nations rather than 
     targeting specific countries for sanctions.

                   Indo-American Chamber of Commerce

       In Bombay on Friday morning, December 10, the Senators were 
     breakfast quests of the Indo-American Chamber of Commerce, 
     which welcomed the ``visitors from the world's greatest 
     democracy to the world's largest democracy'' and expressed 
     appreciation for the fact that the United States was India's 
     investor and trading partner.
       Senator Cochran stressed the importance of trade as nations 
     redirected their attention from military power to economic 
     development. He hoped India's reforms would strengthen its 
     economy, contribute to stability in South Asia, and deepen 
     friendship between India and the United States.
       When asked about U.S. nonproliferation policy, Senator 
     Pressler said he knew of no change of the subcontinent that 
     warranted repeal of the Pressler Amendment.
       Senator Brown told the group that the strength of any 
     country was not to be found in the quantity of its 
     population, territory, or natural resources, but in the 
     creative spirit of its people. The United States had fostered 
     the economic freedom that enabled people to keep a fair share 
     of what they produced, and that was an enormous stimulant to 
     economic development. National economic success depended upon 
     efficient management and freedom from the deadening hand of 
     bureaucracy.

                Maharashtra Chief Minister Sharad Pawar

       During their meeting later Friday morning with Maharashtra 
     Chief Minister Sharad Pawar, the Senators discussed Indian 
     economic reform and foreign relations. When the Chief 
     Minister, a former defense minister, asked about the Pressler 
     Amendment's future, Senator Pressler said it was too early to 
     predict the changes President Clinton might recommend in U.S. 
     foreign aid policy. The Chief Minister noted that Indian 
     uncertainties had been heightened by the Pakistani prime 
     minister's commitment to continue that country's nuclear 
     weapons program.
       When Senator Brown asked the Chief Minister to assess the 
     Chinese defense buildup, he said it would continue for 
     another 10 to 15 years. China's nuclear program showed it 
     wanted to be a superpower, a goal that seemed to derive from 
     traditional Middle Kingdom attitudes rather than communist 
     ideology. When asked whether this meant India would still 
     need a nuclear program to offset China even if relations with 
     Pakistan improved, he replied that Pakistan was working 
     against India with a number of her neighbors, including 
     China. Iran and Pakistan were supporting fundamentalists in 
     India and sending arms into Kashmir. In this situation, any 
     U.S. ``moral support for Pakistan vis-a-vis India strengthens 
     Muslim fundamentalism.''
       When Senator Cochran asked the best way to improve U.S.-
     India relations, the Chief Minister observed that the United 
     States ``only takes interest when there is investment.'' The 
     United States needed to invest more in the big Indian market. 
     Just as U.S. businesses supported China policy, their 
     interest in Indian policy might grow as U.S. investment in 
     India increased.

                         Bombay Stock Exchange

       The Senators toured the Bombay Stock Exchange, India's 
     premier bourse and the oldest in Asia. Accounting for 70 
     percent of turnover in India's 22 stock exchanges, its 
     capitalization of $75 billion was 30 percent of India's Gross 
     Domestic Product and four times the comparable figure for 
     China.
       In discussions with Executive Director Arvind N. Kolhatkar 
     and members of the governing board, the Delegation learned 
     that the Exchange had responded to recent economic reforms by 
     shifting to a new trading ring and computerizing its trading 
     facilities. The market had boomed following the entry of 
     foreign institutional investment. Since January 1993, 
     investment by some 115 foreign institutions had totalled $650 
     million, the bulk coming from the United States. Some $5 
     billion in U.S. investment was expected in the next 5 years. 
     Recession in Japan and other countries had actually increased 
     interest in India.

         Minister of State for External Affairs Salman Khurshid

       The Minister of State for External Affairs welcomed the 
     Senators to New Delhi at a December 11 luncheon. The Minister 
     said repeal of the Pressler Amendment would permit delivery 
     of F-16 aircraft to Pakistan, legitimize that country's 
     nuclear weapons program, destabilize South Asia, and force 
     India to reassess its defense policies. This would be 
     disappointing in light of the fact that the United States and 
     India had worked together on a chemical weapons convention, a 
     comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, and an agreement to 
     end production of fissile material for nuclear weapons.
       The Minister objected to those who lectured India on human 
     rights and ignored her clear need to combat terrorism while 
     upholding democracy. ``We are faced with a proxy war in 
     Kashmir, and the menace of externally aided terrorism looms 
     large, not only in Kashmir, but in other parts of our 
     country, ``such as Bombay, where bombs were exploded in 
     March. India wanted to revive the political process in 
     Kashmir, but this required an end to outside aid to 
     terrorists.
       India's commitment to global nonproliferation was ``second 
     to none,'' but the country would not sign the Non-
     Proliferation Treaty in its present ``discriminatory'' form, 
     since Indians ``do not subscribe to attempts at achieving 
     regional solutions to an essentially global problem.

                   Minister of Finance Manmohan Singh

       In the afternoon, the Delegation called on the Minister of 
     Finance in his office. Senator Cochran congratulated the 
     Minister on India's economic reforms and assured him they had 
     received much attention in the United States. Dr. Singh 
     responded that India was grateful for U.S. help in the 
     transition. India's relationship with the United States was 
     of tremendous importance as India worked to strengthen its 
     role in the globalizing economy.
       Senator Brown said he had been amazed at the economic 
     liberalization and asked whether Dr. Singh thought it 
     would continue. The Minister said it would continue, 
     widen, and deepen, but there might be obstacles along the 
     way, since Indian voters--as in any democracy--might not 
     always see the long-term benefits, only the short-term 
     discomforts.
       Dr. Singh said he hoped U.S. investment would increase. 
     When told that some companies hesitated to invest because 
     they thought the regulations showed India did not want 
     foreign business, the Minister said the Indian government had 
     removed most of the irritants and was continuing to 
     liberalize. As an example of the government's determination, 
     he noted that though farmers constituted 70 percent of the 
     Indian work force and were an important political interest, 
     the government had taken the highly unpopular step of 
     deregulating the cost of fertilizer because it had ``to get 
     the system in shape.''
       In response to a question from Senator Pressler, Dr. Singh 
     agreed that normalized trade could help bring Pakistan and 
     India closer together. Although India had agreed to step-by-
     step normalization, to his great disappointment Pakistan had 
     declined. Perhaps the matter would be discussed when the 
     Pakistani and Indian foreign secretaries held talks in 
     January.

               Directorate General of Military Operations

       The Directorate General of Military Operations of India 
     briefed the Senators on border tensions with Pakistan.

                     All Parties Freedom Conference

       The All Parties Freedom Conference, a coalition of 27 
     Kashmiri political parties, was established in 1993 to unite 
     factions of the self-determination movement behind a common 
     political platform. The Senators met late Saturday afternoon 
     with three persons associated with the Conference; Shabnum 
     Lone, daughter of Abdul Gani Lone, a detained Conference 
     leader; Altaf Ahmed, son-in-law of Syed Ali Gilani, another 
     imprisoned leader; and Tariq Ahmad or Nehru University.
       The group said 40,000 people had died in Kashmir and Indian 
     troops should end their crackdown there and withdraw to 
     barracks. They maintained that India should accept the fact 
     that Kashmir was a ``disputed territory'' whose final status 
     should be determined by the people of Kashmir. Moreover, a 
     tripartite conference including India, Pakistan, and 
     legitimate representatives of the Kashmiri people should be 
     held to negotiate a final settlement to be supervised by the 
     United Nations or a third country.

                   Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao

       Early Saturday evening, the Prime Minister received the 
     Delegation at his residence. He moved immediately to the 
     Indo-Pakistani relationship, specifically the Kashmir 
     situation and the destabilizing impact of any change in the 
     Pressler Amendment's restrictions on U.S. aid to Pakistan 
     because of its nuclear program. Any move by the Clinton 
     Administration to change U.S. foreign assistance by modifying 
     the Amendment would lead to resumption of aid to Pakistan and 
     force India to reassess its defense policy.
       The Prime Minister told the Senators that statements on 
     Kashmir by officials like Assistant Secretary of State for 
     South Asian Affairs Robin Raphel would not improve U.S.-India 
     relations. Strong exception had been taken to the specific 
     statement that Washington did not recognize Kashmir's 
     instrument of accession and considered it a disputed 
     territory. When Charge d'Affaires Kenneth Brill said the 
     Raphel statement was casual and off-the-record, the Prime 
     Minister said the statement was nevertheless appalling; 
     wherever it came from and whatever its motivation, it hurt.
       When asked about the upcoming foreign secretaries' talks, 
     the Prime Minister said he had stopped hoping in advance. 
     There was a framework for resolving the Kashmir issue, but 
     the political will had been lacking. Over the years, he had 
     noticed that ``every time I see light at the end of the 
     tunnel, something has changed.'' He expected something better 
     this time, and friends like the Senators might be able to 
     persuade the Pakistanis to move forward. He thought the 
     general climate was good, but a great deal depended on the 
     Pakistani political climate.
       The Prime Minister said India wanted to forge economic and 
     commercial relations with China while continuing the dialogue 
     on their border dispute. When asked what he thought China 
     wanted, the Prime Minister replied ``They don't want any 
     trouble. They want investment, especially in the less well-
     off provinces. China does need peace for this. They do have 
     their ambitions in the long run, but for the next 10 years 
     they need peace.''
       When Senator Cochran said the Prime Minister had to be 
     pleased with the outcome of the recent Indian elections, he 
     responded that his government's policies ``are clicking with 
     our people.'' By rejecting the fundamentalist parties, the 
     people had shown they were for ``peace and development to the 
     exclusion of other emotive issues,'' and the economic reforms 
     under way would be given an added push by that message. 
     Senator Cochran said the United States strongly supported the 
     reforms and assured the Prime Minister that more U.S. 
     companies would come as those reforms matured.
       Senator Pressler asked whether trade might improve Indo-
     Pakistani relations. The Prime Minister said that would be 
     difficult, since Pakistan feared Indian trade and had erected 
     various barriers, producing a situation in which Pakistanis 
     paid four times the actual price for anything produced in 
     India. The two countries cooperated on such things as 
     libraries, but not on economics. ``Pakistan still feels we 
     pose a threat to them.''
       Senator Brown said that India's economic reforms were 
     significant but relatively unknown in the United States. A 
     visit by the Prime Minister would be well-received, 
     especially in the U.S. financial community. The Prime 
     Minister said his ambassador in Washington had been urging 
     that, and he had told him to go ahead with the dates.
       The Prime Minister expressed satisfaction that the United 
     States was India's largest trading partner and that the U.S. 
     Indo-American community was serving as a bridge between India 
     and the United States. He wanted greater interaction between 
     U.S. Senators and Members of the Indian Parliament. He said 
     he was personnally very accessible: ``I'm glad to answer 
     questions, and I don't see any other forum that is better 
     than this.''

          Minister for Home Affairs Shankarrao Bhaurao Chavan

       On Monday morning, the Delegation had discussions with the 
     Minister for Home Affairs in his office. He said the Kashmir 
     problem could be worked out if the Kashmiri people were left 
     to themselves. Pakistan had lost three wars over the 
     territory, and now they were waging a proxy war in Kashmir 
     through terrorism. Continued interference by Pakistan was 
     preventing the installation of a democratically elected 
     government, and only such a body could redress genuine public 
     grievances. If outside interference were stopped, the Kashmir 
     dispute could be settled through autonomy and other 
     arrangements. The press and judiciary were free there, and 
     the Indian government felt it could work with anyone elected 
     there.
       He noted there were more Muslims in India than in either 
     Pakistan or Bangladesh, and the Muslims of India felt 
     confident about their future in a secular country. The 
     government would be able to deal with the situation in 
     Kashmir in the same way and redress Muslim grievances there 
     within the Indian constitutional framework.
       The Home Minister said the statement by Assistant Secretary 
     of State Robin Raphel, whatever the motivation, had been 
     extremely disturbing. If Kashmir's accession to India were 
     questioned, then the status of all other Indian States could 
     be challenged, as well as the creation of Pakistan. Terrorism 
     should be distinguished from human rights. Pakistan had 
     supported the militants who holed up in the Hazratbal shrine, 
     and statements by various American officials had only served 
     to prolong the siege.
       Mr. Chavan expressed apprehension over any change in the 
     Pressler Amendment, since such action would eventually lead 
     to enhancement of Pakistan's offensive military capabilities. 
     When he asked for clarification on the Amendment's status, 
     Senator Pressler told him there would be strong opposition in 
     the U.S. Senate to any move to abandon the aims of the 
     Amendment.
       Senator Cochran inquired about the status of imprisoned 
     Kashmiris and asked if international agencies like the Red 
     Cross could visit them. The Home Minister said that would 
     pose no problem, ``but they should not encourage rebellion.'' 
     Government representatives had met with Amnesty International 
     and the International Committee of the Red Cross to discuss 
     possible visits to Kashmir to investigate alleged human 
     rights violations.

                Vice President Kicheril Raman Narayanan

       Vice President K. R. Narayanan received the Senators at his 
     residence. Senator Cochran asked him to identify the number 
     one problem in Indo-American relations. The Vice President 
     replied that although there were no major problems, there 
     were inevitable differences in perception from time to time. 
     Cold War problems had been eliminated, but some current 
     problems resembled Cold War differences.
       He warned that the United States should not attempt to 
     separate India's problems with Pakistan from India's problems 
     with China. He had always felt China wanted to dominate the 
     world, and he had been perturbed when President Clinton said 
     recently in Seattle that the United States and China were the 
     two great powers. The Chinese wanted to extend their power in 
     Asia; they had plenty of time and always said ``We can 
     wait.'' In the current period of transition, China wanted 
     friendship with everyone, but that was not their long-term 
     objective.
       The Vice President agreed with Senator Pressler that trade 
     could help lessen tensions between India and Pakistan. 
     Indeed, he felt the basic Indo-Pakistani problem was not 
     Kashmir, but trade. Without trade, it made little sense to 
     talk about friendship. Without trade, the two countries could 
     not go far on issues like Kashmir.
       Senator Brown asked what the United States and India should 
     be doing to draw closer to one another. The Vice President 
     said the core of economic development was technology. Some 
     Indians feared the United States believed India did not 
     ``fit'' into U.S. plans for the future and did not 
     ``deserve'' to share advanced technology. If this indeed 
     became U.S. policy, the resulting gap between haves and have-
     nots would become greater than in the imperial period.
       In answer to the Vice President's concern, Charge 
     d'Affaires Kenneth Brill pointed out that the United States 
     had greater technological cooperation with India than with 
     any other country. While it was true that there had been a 
     recent suspension of technology exchange in one field, the 
     suspension was required under the Missile Control Technology 
     Regime.
       The Vice President said this denial of technology 
     illustrated why India had refused to sign the Non-
     Proliferation Treaty. The United States was spending too much 
     time trying to keep from sharing technology for fear it would 
     fall into the hands of ``your next enemy,'' whoever that 
     might be. It was ``like the Cold War all over again.'' The 
     proliferation problem was not caused by countries like India 
     which needed technology for development, but rather by the 
     nuclear weapons states with their pile of weapons and their 
     continued nuclear testing: ``Stop piling on just a small 
     group of countries who are not proliferating.''

               Minister of External Affairs Dinesh Singh

       The Senators called on the Minister of External Affairs 
     during their visit to parliament House. Mr. Singh emphasized 
     the importance of Indo-American relations and said current 
     economic ties were stronger than ever. India stood ready to 
     cooperate with the United States in promoting genuine 
     disarmament and would work to promote nonproliferation 
     through nondiscriminatory, universal agreements.
       The Minister said visits by U.S. Senators and Congressmen 
     were opportunities for first-hand observation of Indian 
     democracy and for frank discussion of mutual concerns. He 
     wished the Senators could have more time to see for 
     themselves that India was one of the few developing countries 
     running a secular, multicultural democracy. That was the main 
     reason India opposed secession; if a portion of the nation 
     such as Kashmir seceded, others might attempt to follow. The 
     Indian government could give autonomy, but not independence. 
     India ensured equal rights under the Constitution for all 
     citizens; since there was equality, groups had no right to 
     complain, let alone secede.
       When Senator Pressler asked whether increased trade would 
     help improve Indo-Pakistani relations, the Minister replied 
     that he was ready to recommend bilateral removal of all 
     tariffs between the two countries. Athough Pakistan feared 
     India would flood her market, chambers of commerce in 
     Pakistan wanted to be able to buy Indian goods and were doing 
     so through third countries. The problem was not economic, but 
     political: The government of Pakistan did not want Pakistanis 
     to communicate with Indians.
       The Minister asserted that the United States should not 
     concentrate on tensions between India and Pakistan. It was in 
     the U.S. national interest to build up India to counter the 
     growing power and influence of China.

                  Press Conference at Roosevelt House

       Prior to their departure for Islamabad on Monday afternoon, 
     December 13, the Senators held a press conference at 
     Roosevelt House in New Delhi. They expressed the hope that 
     the January talks between the foreign secretaries of India 
     and Pakistan would be successful, and they emphasized that 
     the United States respected the rights and responsibilities 
     of the two countries to resolve the Kashmir dispute 
     themselves.
       When asked whether they had assured Prime Minister Rao that 
     the view of Assistant Secretary of State Robin Raphel on 
     Kashmir's instrument of accession was not the view of the 
     U.S. government, they declined to be drawn into the debate 
     over the legality of Kashmir's accession. Senator Cochran 
     said the origin of the Kashmir dispute was a matter of 
     historical interest, ``but the parties should look to the 
     future and find ways to deal with the problem.''
       Senator Pressler said that development of trade and tourism 
     was the key to improving relations between India and 
     Pakistan; business could do more to ``clear the atmosphere'' 
     than the actions of politicians or bureaucrats. He felt 
     strongly that initiatives should be taken to begin trade 
     between the two countries and that the United States should 
     assist such trade.
       Answering a question about nuclear proliferation on the 
     subcontinent, Senator Pressler said he was against U.S. aid 
     going to countries that were developing weapons of mass 
     destruction. This principle was embodied in the Pressler 
     Amendment to the 1985 Foreign Assistance Act, and he would 
     oppose any attempt to weaken that Amendment, which had forced 
     the ending of U.S. aid to Pakistan because of that country's 
     nuclear program. He would prefer to see the Amendment applied 
     to all countries.
       Senator Cochran said India's striking economic reforms had 
     created a favorable environment for improved U.S.-India 
     relations not only in commerce but in such fields as 
     nonproliferation, peacekeeping, and science and technology.
       Senator Brown added that India was on the verge of an 
     ``explosion in economic activity'' in which the United States 
     would play an important role. He expected Indo-American trade 
     to double in three years, and he did not believe the 
     expansion would be greatly affected by India's refusal to 
     sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty.


                      islamic republic of pakistan

       Although U.S.-Pakistan cooperation has been close over the 
     years, nonproliferation policy has been a major problem. When 
     President Bush could not certify in 1990 that Pakistan was 
     not developing nuclear weapons, U.S. aid was halted in 
     compliance with the Pressler Amendment. Many Pakistanis with 
     strong ties to the United States were disappointed by what 
     they felt was unfair treatment of their country.
       At the time of the Delegation's visit, Pakistan had come 
     through recent political uncertainties and was making 
     considerable economic progress. American companies were 
     active, and the Karachi Stock Exchange was booming.

                      Senate Chairman Wasim Sajjad

       After their arrival in Islamabad Monday afternoon, December 
     13, the Senators attended a dinner at the residence of the 
     Chairman of the Senate of Pakistan. In the discussion before 
     dinner, Senator Cochran expressed the hope that forthcoming 
     talks between India and Pakistan would reduce tensions. He 
     said the United States wanted friendly relations with both 
     countries and appreciated Pakistan's peacekeeping role in 
     Somalia and other parts of the world.
       Expressing Pakistan's deep concern over Kashmir, the Senate 
     Chairman said the United States was committed to human rights 
     and should fulfill its responsibility to persuade India to 
     solve the Kashmir issue through peaceful means. India 
     currently had over 400,000 troops in Kashmir: If Kashmir was 
     such an integral part of India, why were so many troops 
     necessary?
       India was not allowing the Red Cross, Amnesty 
     international, or other neutral observers to visit Kashmir. 
     Although Pakistan was willing to continue talks with India, 
     experience showed that India always offered to talk whenever 
     international pressure mounted on Kashmir, but found some 
     pretext to withdraw from talks after pressure subsided.
       The Pressler Amendment was discriminatory and had weakened 
     Pakistan's defense capability by denying the country arms 
     from the United States, its longtime ally. The Amendment had 
     neither promoted stability nor prevented proliferation on the 
     subcontinent. Since India was known to have an advanced 
     program producing nuclear weapons and missiles, it was 
     unreasonable to require Pakistan to end unilaterally its 
     peaceful nuclear program, especially since Pakistan did not 
     intend to make a bomb.
       As long as there was a Pressler Amendment that did not 
     apply to India, India had no incentive to cooperate with U.S. 
     nonproliferation objectives. Pakistan would accept 
     any arrangements India accepted for controlling nuclear 
     weapons. Pakistan, for instance, was prepared to sign the 
     Non-Proliferation Treaty if India signed.

                Minister of Defense Aftab Shaban Mirani

       On Tuesday morning, December 14, the delegation traveled to 
     Rawalpindi to meet the Minister of Defense. The Minister said 
     the Pressler Amendment did not achieve its nonproliferation 
     objective and discriminated against an old ally. Although 
     Pakistan shared U.S. nonproliferation objectives and had 
     proposed a five-nation conference on nonproliferation in 
     South Asia, the Pressler Amendment has seriously undermined 
     U.S.-Pakistan cooperation.
       Pakistan's chief regional concern was Kashmir, and the only 
     solution was a plebiscite as called for in U.N. resolutions. 
     Massive human rights violations were being perpetrated by the 
     Indian Army, one-third of which was occupying Kashmir. The 
     Minister hoped the Senators' findings would cause the U.S. 
     government to review its policies and take a more even-handed 
     approach toward Pakistan and Indian.
       The Defense Minister said his biggest defense problem was 
     the Pressler Amendment, which was forcing Pakistan to turn to 
     other countries for defense materiel. The country had paid $1 
     billion to purchase F-16 aircraft and other items and had 
     received nothing. Was this proper treatment for an ally who 
     had stood by U.S. policies in Afghanistan, Cambodia, and 
     Kuwait, and had suffered greater in Somalia than any other 
     country?
       When Senator Pressler said the United States was only 
     trying to control proliferation and wanted to be the friend 
     of both India and Pakistan, the Defense Minister retorted 
     that India, not Pakistan, had exploded a nuclear device, and 
     that Pakistan had helped the United States far more than 
     India: ``Don't compare us.''
       Senator Brown said Americans remembered Pakistan's 
     steadfastness in times of adversity, and each Senator felt 
     the need to work with Pakistan. He knew the retroactive 
     suspension of the defense materiel was especially difficult 
     to accept.
       The Minister did not believe the India-Pakistan talks in 
     January would produce a solution on Kashmir. The Indians knew 
     they could not win a referendum among the people of Kashmir, 
     so they would try to find a reason not to agree.

                    Foreign Secretary Shaharyar Khan

       Later in the morning, the Senators returned to Islamabad to 
     meet with the Foreign Secretary at the Ministry of Foreign 
     Affairs.
       The Foreign Secretary noted that the major concerns of 
     Pakistan's foreign policy were relations with the United 
     States, relations with India, nuclear proliferation, and 
     Pakistan's regional role.
       He began by reviewing the long U.S.-Pakistan relationship. 
     The nations had not only shared aims and friendship: ``They 
     were allies.'' The United States voted with Pakistan on 
     Kashmir in the early days in the United Nations; Pakistan 
     made the difficult decision to fight in the Persian Gulf War; 
     and the country had received 3.5 million refugees from the 
     Afghan civil war, the highest number ever supported by one 
     country.
       While some Pakistanis feared the United States had turned 
     its back on an old friend, the Foreign Secretary did not join 
     them, and he hoped the Senators would be convinced when they 
     met ``our modern, progressive Prime Minister'' that Pakistan 
     was a moderate democracy committed to peace with justice.
       India and Pakistan had fought three wars over Kashmir. If 
     that one issue could be resolved, other tensions would ease: 
     ``This cancer must be removed for us to have normal 
     relations.'' India had at least 6 divisions in Kashmir, one 
     soldier for every three adults: ``There are enough Indian 
     soldiers to keep a mouse from crossing'' the boundary. No 
     terrorists were crossing into Kashmir from Pakistan, and his 
     government would be glad to have a monitoring group on the 
     border to confirm that fact.
       The Foreign Secretary had once told Mr. Rao that their 
     countries were spending too much on military preparedness, 
     especially nuclear operations. They had enough technicians to 
     get ahead economically but were diverted by the Kashmir 
     issue. He asked Mr. Rao to show his commitment to a solution 
     on Kashmir; Pakistan had shown its commitment by actually 
     shooting some of its own citizens who tried to cross the 
     border. A week later, Mr. Rao wrote a letter blaming Pakistan 
     for terrorism. Because of this experience, the Foreign 
     Secretary was not confident any progress would be made at the 
     January talks.
       What was the civilized way to settle the issue? Go to court 
     or let a country friendly to both countries mediate the 
     dispute. The World Bank had forced them to accept mediation 
     by a third party of their water problem, why not have the 
     same process for Kashmir?
       Pakistan was committed to nonproliferation. It was ready to 
     sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty if India would sign. It was 
     for a comprehensive test ban. It had proposed a five-power 
     conference on South Asian nonproliferation. If the nations of 
     the South Pacific and Latin America could have a regional 
     approach to nonproliferation, why not South Asia? The United 
     States, Russia, China, and Pakistan had agreed, but India 
     had shot down the proposal by counterproposing the 
     inclusion of Kazakhstan, Israel, Iran, and perhaps even 
     Britain and Japan.
       Pakistan was the country whose aid was cut off. Pakistan 
     was the one who was threatened, while India, who did not want 
     cooperation, was free to do as it pleased, with only an 
     occasional tap on the knuckles. Since Pakistan had agreed it 
     would not deploy missiles as long as the U.S. missile 
     proposal was on the table, it could in no way be a threat to 
     India, since India's army was five times as large as 
     Pakistan's, and its navy six times as large.
       Pakistan was strategically positioned and had generally 
     good relations with the countries of Central Asia, including 
     Iran. Pakistan wanted to connect Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, and 
     other republics through improved infrastructure and 
     telecommunications. Implementation of its plans would greatly 
     enhance regional security and economic development.
       Senator Cochran said the Foreign Secretary's remarks had 
     deepened his appreciation of the importance of the U.S.-
     Pakistan relationship. He would keep an open mind when 
     revisions in the Foreign Assistance Act came before Congress 
     in 1994. He was fascinated by the idea of taking the Kashmir 
     issue to the World Court or to mediation by a third country. 
     Did the Foreign Secretary think Iran or any other country had 
     the confidence of both countries to mediate the dispute?
       The Foreign Secretary replied that India would reject any 
     mediation, claiming the disagreement was a bilateral problem. 
     Acceptance of this reality was the reason Pakistan was 
     willing to try the bilateral approach once again in January. 
     Because only 2 percent of the people voted in the last 
     election in Kashmir, India kept looking for an interlocutor 
     in Kashmir, and they blamed Pakistan when they could not find 
     one. They continued to act as if the situation could go on 
     indefinitely, just as it had for 47 years.
       The United States was the only country that could pressure 
     the two countries to settle. It would be difficult, but not 
     as difficult as the peace processes in the Middle East and 
     South Africa. It could be done.
       Senator Pressler said some feared an ``Islamic Bomb.'' The 
     Foreign Secretary responded that the Pakistanis had given 
     assurances to the United States that they would not enrich 
     uranium beyond a certain point and would not transfer nuclear 
     technology. They could build a bomb, but they had taken the 
     political decision not to do so, and they would not provide 
     information to any nation, Islamic or non-Islamic. Though 
     Pakistan had not recognized Israel, it had recognized the 
     importance of the Israeli-Palestinian agreement, and its 
     position would be affected positively if the peace process 
     achieved results.
       Senator Pressler said President Clinton would be sending up 
     legislative recommendations affecting these issues, and he 
     was sure the Senators would have the Foreign Secretary's 
     presentation in mind as they considered those 
     recommendations.
       Senator Brown asked what the United States should be doing 
     to help the countries of Central Asia. The Foreign Secretary 
     said the United States should help them stand up to Russia. 
     They had great natural resources, and the United States could 
     work with Pakistan to build roads and pipelines to help them 
     stand together on their own. Pakistani workers would take the 
     risks and do the construction, but Pakistan needed economic 
     backing. If the United States was not interested, Japan has 
     given the impression that it was.

              Minister of Foreign Affairs Sardar Assef Ali

       When the Senators met next with the Minister of Foreign 
     Affairs, he noted that Pakistan's recent election had been 
     clean and fair, ``one of the most accepted in our history.'' 
     The fundamentalists had been soundly defeated, and the fact 
     that the President and Prime Minister were now of the same 
     party should provide stability and improve relations with the 
     United States. The government saw no reason Pakistan should 
     not return to its previous level of warm relations as the 
     ``most allied ally'' of the United States.
       During the chill in U.S.-Pakistan relations, India had 
     continued its arms buildup through barter with the Soviet 
     Union at prices one-fifth the world level. India took 
     advantage of the Cold War and did nothing in the battle 
     against Soviet communism.
       Pakistan paid a heavy price for its stand in the Afghan 
     war, providing relief for 3.5 million refugees. The country 
     sustained environmental damage, increased narcotics traffic, 
     and emergence of a mafia. Bombings, presumably by Afghan or 
     Soviet terrorists, averaged two or three daily. The 1988 
     Geneva Accords did not end Afghanistan's internal strife, and 
     1.5 million Afghan refugees were still in Pakistan, though 
     they would eventually return to their homeland.
       Pakistan had furnished 10,000 troops in the Persian Gulf 
     War and had played a role in Cambodia and Somalia. If 
     Americans were now less interested in Pakistan, they ignored 
     not only that country's proud role in the defense of freedom 
     but also its vital geopolitical position: If the territory of 
     the five neighboring Central Asian republics were added to 
     Iran, the area would constitute the second largest 
     hydrocarbon reserve in the world. Pakistan believed it had a 
     role to play in helping this area open to the western world.
       Pakistan sympathized with U.S. nonproliferation concerns 
     and did not question American intentions. Pakistan was 
     justifiably proud of it nonproliferation record and was fully 
     committed to the goal of a South Asia free of nuclear 
     weapons. Pakistan had fought three aggressions from India, 
     however, and it had to view its nuclear policy in light of 
     the reality that India had not only exploded a nuclear device 
     but had built one of the largest armies in the world and a 
     huge navy with nuclear submarines and a nuclear carrier.
       The one-sided restraints placed on Pakistan by the Pressler 
     Amendment had damaged the country's self-defense capability, 
     and the discrimination had produced a strong reaction in 
     Pakistani public opinion. His government hoped to work with 
     the U.S. Administration and Congress to restore and 
     strengthen the traditional bilateral relationship.
       India always responded to Pakistani concerns by saying 
     ``Let's not argue about Pakistan; we're concerned about 
     China.'' India should examine the terms of the Non-
     Proliferation Treaty. China had signed the Treaty, so India 
     could not claim to be endangered any more by China. India had 
     not signed and had rejected Pakistan's proposal that they 
     sign together. India was developing long-range missiles even 
     as they claimed that they did not have weapons of mass 
     destruction. Any impartial observer would conclude that India 
     was the threat to peace, not Pakistan.
       The Pressler Amendment had frozen over $1 billion in 
     defense purchases in the pipeline, including $658 million for 
     F-16 aircraft. Why should India have a nonproliferation 
     program when they were the beneficiaries of a U.S. 
     nonproliferation policy that weakened Pakistan's defense? The 
     U.S. policy was pushing an ally too far and was not a moral 
     policy. It weakened Pakistani moderates against militants and 
     would eventually drive the entire region into proliferation 
     if not changed.
       Senator Cochran said it might be time for the United States 
     to take a new approach, although he had not made up his mind 
     on the issue. The Senators were going on to Vienna for talks 
     with IAEA officials on the international nonproliferation 
     regime, and the perspectives gained on the subcontinent would 
     be useful in those discussions.

 President Farooq Ahmad Khan Leghari and Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto

       The Senators dined later in the evening with President 
     Leghari and Prime Minister Bhutto. The President said 
     Pakistan shared many of the aims of the U.S. Administration, 
     wanted strong links with the United States, and hoped for 
     understanding from the U.S. Senate.
       Senator Cochran responded that the visit to Islamabad had 
     shown the need for changes in U.S. policy toward Pakistan and 
     that the Senators would be exploring ways to address problems 
     in U.S.-Pakistan relations.
       The Prime Minister said the recent elections were 
     indicative of the ``modernity and moderation'' of Pakistan. 
     If Pakistan could keep extremists at bay, it could be done in 
     other countries. Her opponents had accused her of being 
     ``soft'' on the nuclear issue when she urged moderation in 
     the face of U.S. interpretation of the Pressler Amendment to 
     require an aid cutoff when Pakistan came to possess 
     unassembled components for a nuclear device. Five Pakistani 
     governments had exercised restraint in not assembling a bomb, 
     and the United States should appreciate that fact. Pakistan 
     wanted to remain the ``most allied ally'' of the United 
     States, but when it received nothing for its steadfastness, 
     the government came under criticism from its opponents.
       The Pressler Amendment was intended to prevent 
     proliferation, but it had been used by India to promote 
     proliferation. The real question was how the United States 
     could play an effective role on the subcontinent. In light of 
     the Kashmir issue and the need for mutual arms reduction, the 
     time had come for the United States to review its policy in 
     South Asia and to remove the distance that had entered the 
     U.S.-Pakistan relationship.
       Pakistan was not asking the United States or Senator 
     Pressler to give up their commitment to nonproliferation, 
     only that nonproliferation requirements apply to all 
     countries and not just Pakistan. When Senator Pressler 
     responded that another Senator (not in the delegation) had 
     said repeal of the Pressler Amendment's restrictions on U.S. 
     aid to Pakistan would signal a lessening of U.S. vigilance on 
     nonproliferation, the Prime Minister said she was not just 
     talking about U.S. aid; she was talking about the basic U.S.-
     Pakistan relationship and stability on the subcontinent. When 
     Senator Pressler asked what changes she would suggest, the 
     Prime Minister said she had suggested a mutual arms reduction 
     treaty for the subcontinent.
       The Foreign Secretary, also present, said all parties 
     claimed to be seeking nonproliferation. The question was 
     whether the Pressler Amendment advanced nonproliferation. 
     Pakistan felt as currently interpreted it did not. A global 
     policy was needed that would bind all countries, with higher 
     standards applied to all pre-nuclear countries. The Prime 
     Minister said that since Pakistan had ``capped and frozen'' 
     its nuclear program, it deserved better treatment than it had 
     received from the United States.

                Press Conference at the American Center

       Before leaving Islamabad on Wednesday morning, December 15, 
     the Senators held a news conference at the American Center.
       Senator Pressler said the Senator wanted to see both India 
     and Pakistan sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Senator 
     Cochran said the talks with Pakistani leaders had produced 
     very persuasive evidence that the present interpretation of 
     the Pressler Amendment was against the interests of Pakistan. 
     He said the Senators would explore options for a more even-
     handed application of U.S. law.
       When Senator Pressler was asked why his Amendment had been 
     applied only to Pakistan, he said there were reports in the 
     media in the mid-1980s that an ``Islamic bomb'' was being 
     prepared, and he had feared that technology might pass from 
     Pakistan to another country. Senator Brown dismissed this 
     idea and said there was no such thing as an Islamic bomb: 
     ``The United States wants to control nuclear proliferation, 
     but not on the basis of likes and dislikes of religions.'' 
     U.S. nonproliferation efforts must focus not only on Pakistan 
     but on any country that might be tempted to build a nuclear 
     device.
       In answer to a question, Senator Pressler denied that his 
     Amendment had been counterproductive by denying Pakistan 
     conventional weapons and pushing the country toward 
     developing a nuclear device. He said the amendment had 
     heightened public awareness of proliferation dangers and had 
     dissuaded many countries from developing nuclear weapons. He 
     maintained the arms race on the subcontinent would have been 
     worse if his Amendment had not existed.
       Asked whether he would support the effort to remove all 
     country-specific language in U.S. nonproliferation policy, 
     Senator Pressler said that though he was not willing to do so 
     at that time, it was possible that Congress would pass ``new 
     but tougher legislation'' against nuclear proliferation by 
     all countries.
       Asked whether the delegation had raised with Indian 
     officials the issue of the violation of human rights in 
     Kashmir, Senator Cochran said the issue had been discussed in 
     India--as it had been in all countries the Senators had 
     visited--because the United States expected human rights to 
     be respected all over the world.

                 American Business Council of Pakistan

       The Senators were guests at a Wednesday luncheon in Karachi 
     hosted by the executive committee of the American Business 
     Council of Pakistan. Founded in 1985, the organization 
     worked closely with U.S. consular officials and 
     occasionally made recommendations to the Pakistani 
     government on trade and commercial matters of concern to 
     American companies, which accounted for about 40 percent 
     of foreign investment in Pakistan. The group complained 
     most about high corporate taxation and the government's 
     regulatory inconsistency.
       The businessmen felt economic liberalization would 
     continue; the stock market had gone up 40 percent. The 
     staying power of the Bhutto government would depend on 
     relations with the military, but it certainly should be able 
     to last 5 years.
       The businessmen said the Pressler Amendment had cast a 
     shadow over Pakistani-American business relations. The 
     Amendment had prevented the U.S. Overseas Private Investment 
     Corporation from providing new insurance for ventures in 
     Pakistan. Businesses has been forced to seek other sources, 
     and some companies had been unable to bid for projects.
       Senator Cochran responded that he hoped the Senate would 
     look carefully at any proposal by the President to modify the 
     Foreign Assistance Act. It was proper for the United States 
     to try to retard the spread of weapons of mass destruction, 
     but if any particular policy dislocated friends like 
     Pakistan, it should be closely scrutinized. Pakistan was an 
     old ally of the United States and continued to be a good 
     friend, as evidenced by the $30 million wheat sale announced 
     while the Senators were in Islamabad.
       Senator Pressler agreed that the Pressler Amendment would 
     be a big issue in the upcoming session of Congress. He said 
     the Administration had indicated their proposed changes would 
     follow the principles of the Pressler Amendment. Senator 
     Brown said the Amendment had been helpful; if modifications 
     were made, Congress should ensure that the changes could not 
     be interpreted as a retreat in the battle against nuclear 
     proliferation.
       When asked why the Senators had not visited Kashmir, 
     Senator Cochran said safety could not be guaranteed. The 
     delegation had met some Kashmiris in New Delhi and had also 
     discussed with Indian officials the question of Red Cross 
     visitation.
       Senator Brown brought up the question of human rights and 
     terrorism. He said Indian army officials said Pakistan was 
     sending terrorists into Kashmir. The Pakistani government had 
     denied this. A businessman replied, ``Not one person has been 
     caught crossing the boundary.'' Another noted that the Indian 
     press at first claimed Pakistanis were involved in bombings 
     in Bombay but now reported the bombers had been found in 
     Bombay. One businessman suggested the U.S. Congress send a 
     delegation to Kashmir to see what was happening there.
       One person said he hoped the Senators knew that Pakistanis 
     were genuinely angry at their treatment by the United States. 
     The government and the diplomats might be tolerant and 
     forgiving, but the Pakistani people expected Americans to 
     recognize the sacrifices their country had made as a U.S. 
     ally. Any action taken by the U.S. Congress on the Pressler 
     Amendment would be of great importance to the Pakistani 
     people.


                            state of kuwait

       Since the 1991 Persian Gulf War liberated Kuwait from 7 
     months of Iraqi occupation, the country's relations with the 
     United States have broadened and deepened. A pillar of the 
     relationship is a classified 10-year defense pact signed in 
     September 1991. American firms are participating 
     substantially in Kuwait's reconstruction, and the United 
     States is building a radio station there. The Administration 
     and Congress are also encouraging Kuwaiti democratization.

               Crown Prince Shaikh Saad Abdallah Al-Sabah

       Upon their arrival in Kuwait on Thursday morning, December 
     16, the Senators met with the Crown Prince/Prime Minister at 
     the Shaab Palace. Shaikh Saud Nasir Al-Sabah, Minister of 
     Information and former Ambassador to the United States, also 
     attended.
       The Crown Prince said that while Kuwait hoped the situation 
     with Iraq would improve, he personally had little hope that 
     any part of the region could be secure as long as Saddam 
     Hussein remained in power. U.N. forces would be able to 
     prevent minor border incidents, but Kuwait nonetheless 
     remained vulnerable.
       The Minister of Information said Kuwait looked to its 
     allies to focus the attention of the U.N. Security Council on 
     issues of concern to Kuwait, especially U.N. resolutions 
     concerning missing Kuwaitis, border demarcation, Iraqi 
     respect for Kuwaiti sovereignty, and Iraqi reparations for 
     the invasion and occupation of Kuwait. In response to a 
     subsequent question by Senator Brown, the Minister affirmed 
     that the United States fully supported Kuwait's views on 
     these matters.
       The Crown Prince explained that Kuwait's fear was that the 
     Security Council might lift sanctions while Saddam Hussein 
     was still in power, in which case Iraq might take the money 
     earned from oil sales to rearm and again threaten its 
     neighbors. For this reason, Kuwait placed special emphasis on 
     the Security Council resolution that demarcated the Kuwait-
     Iraq boundary.
       Senator Pressler asked about Kuwait's record on human 
     rights and democratization. The Crown Prince said he simply 
     encouraged the Senators to put their questions to any Kuwaiti 
     citizen. The Minister of Information said democratic 
     principles were enshrined in the Kuwaiti constitution, but 
     each country had to pursue democracy according to its own 
     traditions and governmental institutions. Every 
     international human rights organization that requested was 
     given full access to Kuwait, its courts, and places of 
     detention. As in other countries following military 
     occupation, there had been abuses by individuals seeking 
     vengeance in the period after liberation, but the 
     government had put an end to that. Western media did not 
     give Kuwait credit for what it had done in human rights, 
     however, and preferred to focus on a few incidents of 
     abuse.
       In response to a question by Senator Pressler, the Crown 
     Prince said that close relations among members of the Gulf 
     Cooperation Council were important to Kuwait and there was 
     concern when differences arose within the council with regard 
     to critical issues like Iraq. Because Iraq was working hard 
     to create and exploit these differences, Kuwait attached 
     great significance to the upcoming Council summit and hoped 
     differences on policy toward Iraq would be resolved.
       Senator Pressler asked about Kuwait's nuclear proliferation 
     concerns. The Crown Prince said Kuwait's interest focused on 
     Iraq and Iran. Iran was working hard to acquire weapons, 
     including nuclear arms, and reports indicated North Korea and 
     China were engaged in arms transfers to Iran. He had no hard 
     information about Chinese arms transactions with Iraq, but 
     two months earlier a senior Iraqi delegation had visited 
     Beijing.
       Senator Cochran thanked the Crown Prince and congratulated 
     him on Kuwait's remarkable recovery and reconstruction since 
     the Persian Gulf War.

                               Camp Doha

       The Senators visited Camp Doha, where they were briefed by 
     U.S. Army officers on the training and security mission of 
     the post and had lunch with military personnel from their 
     respective States. The base was operated under a 10-year 
     agreement that would be reviewed after 8 years and remain in 
     effect after that point unless the United States or Kuwait 
     decided to cancel it.
       The forces were mainly involved in combined/joint exercise 
     coordination and support, together with maintenance of 
     prepositioned equipment and supplies. Units from the U.S. 
     mainland were involved almost every month in the camp's 
     operations and exercises.
       While U.S. military salaries were not paid by Kuwait, 
     almost all other costs were. Other nationals were involved in 
     operations in Kuwait, including troops from India and 
     Pakistan, who reportedly worked well together.

           Minister of Information Shaikh Saud Nasir Al-Sabah

       The Minister of Information and former Ambassador to the 
     United States Shaikh Saud Nasir Al-Sabah hosted a dinner for 
     Codel Cochran and expressed warm appreciation for the help of 
     the United States in the liberation of Kuwait. The Senators 
     indicated in their responses that in coming to the aid of 
     Kuwait, Americans had been motivated by the U.S. national 
     interest and the values that had made their nation great.


                   international atomic energy agency

       The two IAEA missions are to promote the peaceful uses of 
     nuclear technology and to ensure that nuclear technology is 
     not used for weapons production.
       After a country signs the Non-Proliferation Treaty, it 
     agrees to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards. 
     When the world learned that Iraq had succeeded in conducting 
     a nuclear weapons program even after signing the Non-
     Proliferation Treaty and placing its declared nuclear 
     facilities under IAEA safeguards, the credibility of 
     safeguards was weakened. The IAEA decided that henceforth its 
     inspections would include more intrusive ``unannounced 
     special inspections'' to lessen the likelihood that a country 
     could disguise its nuclear intentions.
       While this new intrusiveness worked in defeated Iraq, it 
     was challenged in North Korea, which threatened to withdraw 
     from the Non-Proliferation Treaty rather than submit to IAEA 
     special inspections. The United States entered negotiations 
     with North Korea to persuade it to remain a Treaty signatory 
     and to submit to special inspections. It was a virtual 
     certainty that if the negotiations did not persuade North 
     Korea to permit inspections, the IAEA Board of Governors 
     would refer the matter to the U.N. Security Council, which 
     might apply sanctions.

                       Director General Hans Blix

       On Saturday morning, December 18, the Senators visited IAEA 
     Director General Hans Blix at his residence. Also present 
     were Bruno Pellaud, Deputy Director General for Safeguards; 
     David Waller, Deputy Director General for Administration; and 
     Jan Priest, Head of the Safeguards and Non-Proliferation 
     Policy Section of the Division of External Relations.
       The Director General reviewed the IAEA organization and the 
     missions of the Agency. Although the major IAEA work in 
     safeguards related to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the 
     Director General emphasized that the IAEA only inspected and 
     was not the secretariat of the Treaty; it was independent in 
     its operations.
       With regard to nonproliferation in South Asia, a hopeful 
     sign was that India appeared ready to accept President 
     Clinton's proposal to ``cap'' plutonium by ending production 
     of fissile material, if the cap applied to all countries. 
     Pakistan would also agree, in which case both countries would 
     open their nuclear facilities to IAEA inspections. Countries 
     could continue to reprocess civilian waste, but reprocessing 
     facilities would have to be under IAEA safeguards.
       The Director General said IAEA could not select countries 
     for special attention, and since most of the world's nuclear 
     material was in countries posing little proliferation threat, 
     the Agency had to expend scarce resources in routine 
     inspections. If IAEA could reduce those routine inspections, 
     it could save money. Deputy Director General Pellaud said 
     there might be a way out: While the Agency could not 
     discriminate among countries, it could discriminate among 
     reactors, i.e., it could focus inspection on reactors using 
     the technologies most associated with weapons programs.
       Its experience with the Iraqi nuclear program had caused 
     IAEA to assert its right to conduct special inspections at 
     undeclared sites if it had reason to suspect that a country 
     was producing weapons material, and to take the matter to the 
     U.N. Security Council if it found a safeguards violation.
       The Director General reviewed the facts which caused the 
     Agency to suspect North Korea of violating safeguards. Far 
     from rushing to judgment, as some had charged, the Agency had 
     worked through the whole autumn of 1992, trying to persuade 
     North Korea to accept voluntary inspection. IAEA officials 
     then requested special inspection and notified the Security 
     Council of the situation. He emphasized, however, that the 
     Agency was by no means certain that the suspect sites would 
     yield conclusive evidence and said the importance of the 
     sites should not be overemphasized.
       IAEA had made it clear that the North Koreans could not 
     determine what would be inspected. The Agency would not 
     negotiate the issue: It would not confine its inspections to 
     sites designated by North Korea. The United States was 
     discussing a number of issues with the North Koreans in an 
     effort to persuade them to cooperate with the IAEA. The 
     problem with the U.S. approach was that it might be perceived 
     as rewarding intransigent attitudes, and other countries 
     might later also threaten to withdraw from the Non-
     Proliferation Treaty in order to obtain concessions from the 
     United States.
       Senator Cochran asked if the process by which Argentina and 
     Brazil reached accommodation on their nuclear standoff might 
     be useful to India and Pakistan in resolving their 
     differences. Dr. Blix responded that a limited India-Pakistan 
     agreement might be possible if there was movement by China 
     and other nuclear powers toward nuclear disarmament. What 
     was needed was a tailor-made solution including India, 
     Pakistan, and China. The same thing was needed among the 
     countries of the Middle East.
       He emphasized that nations were dissuaded from developing 
     nuclear weapons by political calculation, not by the 
     safeguards regime. If countries did not think they needed a 
     bomb for their military security, they were unlikely to 
     develop a bomb. Thus, if countries were under a ``nuclear 
     umbrella,'' as in the case of Europe and Japan, they had 
     little incentive to go nuclear.
       When Senator Brown asked what policy should be followed to 
     encourage countries to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the 
     Director General said little more could be done. Countries in 
     Latin America and the South Pacific, for instance, had 
     devised regional compacts for nuclear-free zones, and others 
     might do the same. The Middle East situation could only be 
     settled in the context of a final peace settlement.
       With regard to North Korea, some had suggested North Korea 
     should be denied technical assistance or even expelled from 
     the IAEA. That nation would sustain greater damage, however, 
     if Japan prohibited remittances to North Korea from Koreans 
     living in Japan, or if China suspended trade relations.
       Dr. Blix said the U.N. Secretary General might go to North 
     Korea during his upcoming trip to South Korea, though he 
     would not become involved in negotiations. Dr. Blix said such 
     a visit might provide a bit of realism to the North Korean 
     leadership.


                               conclusion

       While the trip provided new insights into regional tensions 
     and the threat to peace and stability which results from the 
     development of nuclear weapons capability in India and 
     Pakistan, and from the new threat from North Korea, it also 
     enabled us to convey a clear message to Burma on the 
     importance of recognition of the rights of individuals there 
     to participate in democratic political processes without fear 
     of personal harm or recriminations.
       In Kuwait we were pleased to be able to assure military 
     forces of the United States who are stationed there of our 
     continued appreciation and support for the contribution they 
     are making to keep the peace in that very important area of 
     the world.

                          ____________________