[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 153 (Thursday, September 28, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14433-S14438]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
HISTORIC WHITE HOUSE CEREMONY
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in the absence of other Senators in the
Chamber to debate the motion to proceed, and I know my colleagues will
be arriving shortly, I think it appropriate to take a few minutes to
comment on a historic ceremony which will take place at the White House
at 12 noon today when the leaders of Israel and the Palestinian
Liberation Organization are scheduled to sign a historic agreement.
I well recall the day, a little over 2 years ago, 2 years and 15 days
ago, on September 13, 1993, when Prime Minister Rabin and PLO Chairman
Yasser Arafat signed the initial agreement.
I must say that was a difficult day for me personally to watch Yasser
Arafat honored at the White House after the long record of terrorism in
which the PLO had engaged, including being implicated in the murder of
the charge d'affaires at the United States embassy in the Sudan in
1974, the No. 2 United States official in that country, the hijacking
of the Achille Lauro and the death of Mr. Klinghoffer, and many other
acts of terrorism.
It seemed to me, as I think it did to most other Americans, that if
Israel--the prime victim of the terrorist attacks by the PLO--through
its leaders, Prime Minister Rabin and Foreign Minister Peres, were
willing to shake hands with Yasser Arafat under those circumstances,
that the United States should do what it could to facilitate the peace
process. That is in deference to the leaders of that sovereign state.
I also recall when a letter was circulated on the floor of the U.S.
Senate criticizing then Prime Minister Shamir for refusing to give land
for peace. I was one who refused to sign that document on the
proposition that U.S. Senators thousands of miles away from turmoil
ought not to try to influence, let alone dictate, policies to the
leaders of other sovereign states under those circumstances.
Now, after very protracted negotiations, we have Prime Minister Rabin
and Foreign Minister Peres and Chairman Arafat coming to the White
House today to sign this historic agreement.
During the course of the past several weeks, Senator Hank Brown of
Colorado and I have had occasion to travel, including a trip to the
Mideast to talk to the leaders of the nations there. After being there,
Mr. President, I have a sense of guarded optimism about the future of
peace in the Mideast.
I have traveled into that region extensively, going back to my first
trip there in 1964. I do have very substantial reservations as to the
adequacy of the PLO, the Palestinian response, and the response of
Yasser Arafat to eliminate terrorism in the area.
Last year, Senator Shelby and I introduced an amendment to the
foreign operations bill which would have cut off United States aid if
the PLO and Chairman Arafat did not take steps to curtail terrorism,
and also to amend the PLO charter to eliminate the provisions which
called for the destruction of Israel.
Frankly, Mr. President, I am not satisfied with what Chairman Arafat
has done in either regard.
There has been the explanation, really an excuse, that they could not
amend the charter because there was not a convening Palestinian
authority at that time. Also, Chairman Arafat has said that he has
taken certain action to declare those provisions null and void, but I
think realistically much more could have been done.
Similarly, on the critical issue of stopping terrorism, I think a
great deal more could have been done by Chairman Arafat on that
important aspect.
Senator Brown and I had an opportunity to meet with Chairman Arafat,
and we asked him those questions very directly. We asked him why he did
not do more to control Hamas, why he did not turn over individuals in
the Palestinian group who were suspected of murder.
[[Page S 14434]]
When we went over a detailed list, for each one there was an
explanation, really an excuse. Some of the acts of terrorism or murder
occurred before the agreement was signed; in other cases, the
appropriate Israeli officials had not filed the cases; in other cases,
the papers were not precise.
We challenged Chairman Arafat on why he made speeches condemning
terrorism in English and not in Arabic, and although it is plain he has
made the speeches in English and not in Arabic, he said his English was
not good and made the contention that he had, in fact, made the
speeches in Arabic. He continues to make speeches which poison the
atmosphere in which both parties seek a peaceful resolution to the
conflict.
When pressed as to why he did not do more to control Hamas, he made
an explanation that he himself was under threat of assassination from
the Hamas who are in part directed from Syria.
Later in the conversation we discussed the Syrian Government and
President Assad of Syria. Chairman Arafat said President Assad was a
good friend of his, which led to the inevitable question: How could
threats of terror and assassination come from the Hamas in Syria, when
President Assad was a good friend? And Chairman Arafat, in an effort to
smile, said, ``Well, that's his style,'' confirming the great
difficulties which are present in the Mideast.
Mr. President, I would like to make some additional comments about
the historic meeting which is scheduled in less than an hour at the
White House where a very significant agreement will be signed between
the State of Israel and the Palestinians, the PLO.
I had commented earlier about a trip which Senator Brown and I had
made recently, including a stop in the Mideast. I have been a student
of the issues there for many years, having made my first trip there in
1964, and in the last almost 15 years I have been a member of the
Foreign Operations Subcommittee of Appropriations and have done
considerable work there and am cautiously optimistic about the
prospects for peace in the Mideast.
It is a matter of grave concern, however, to note the continuous,
horrible terrorist attacks on Israel which have been maintained,
notwithstanding efforts of the Israeli Government to stop them and the
pressure which the United States Government has tried to apply to
Chairman Yasser Arafat and the PLO to contain those terrorist attacks.
Last year, Senator Shelby and I offered an amendment, which was
adopted, which conditioned United States aid to the Palestinians on the
PLO making every conceivable effort to stop the terrorist attacks and
also for the PLO to take out the language from the PLO charter calling
for the destruction of Israel.
I considered renewing that kind of an issue in the legislation which
was recently passed in the foreign aid bill and decided not to press
the matter at this time when the negotiations were so sensitive and so
near agreement. But it is with considerable reservation that I see U.S.
aid going forward. There are conditions that exist in law which call
upon Chairman Arafat and the PLO to do their utmost to stop terrorist
attacks. Nobody can ask them to be a guarantor or with absolute
certainty to stop those terrorist attacks, but it is an issue as to
whether they are making their maximum effort.
Frankly, I have doubts about this. To reiterate my earlier remarks,
when Senator Brown and I were in Israel, we visited with Chairman
Arafat in the Gaza and asked him a number of very direct, pointed
questions.
First, on the subject as to why he spoke in English and not in Arabic
when he was denouncing terrorism. Chairman Arafat denied that he always
spoke in English and said that his English was not good and said that
he had spoken in Arabic. We then challenged him on a number of alleged
murderers who were being protected by the PLO, as to why they were not
turned over to Israel.
Chairman Arafat then deferred to one of his subordinates who raised
one explanation, really, one excuse after another saying that some of
the incidents had occurred prior to the time the agreement was signed
and some the Israeli Government had not made the proper demands, the
proper papers were not filed.
But it seems to me, Mr. President, that Chairman Arafat could do a
great deal more than he is doing at the present time to restrain
terrorism. I believe that the U.S. Congress, certainly the executive
branch but also the Congress, must be alert on this very, very
important issue.
On the issue about pressing Chairman Arafat about stopping terrorism
for the Hamas, Chairman Arafat responded the Hamas had even threatened
his life coming out of Syria or coming out of Iran. He later said that
President Assad was a good friend, which led to the obvious question
about how a good friend would be tolerating the Hamas which made
threats on Arafat's life. Arafat said, well, that is President Assad,
hardly an understandable explanation.
Also as part of our trip, Senator Brown and I visited other
countries, and wherever we went, we were struck with the greatest
respect and admiration that the United States has held all around the
world. There is enormous prestige, there is enormous power, there is
enormous good will for the United States to be an intermediary and a
broker for peace.
When Senator Brown and I were in India, for example, we talked to
Prime Minister Rao, who said that he would like to see the subcontinent
nuclear free in the next 10 to 15 years.
The next day, I talked to President Benazir Bhutto and told her of
the Indian Prime Minister's statement. She said, ``Do you have it in
writing?'' She was very surprised.
We then wrote to the President telling him of our conversations and
suggesting that he take the initiative to try to broker a peace between
those two nations, where there is such enormous hostility.
I compliment President Clinton and Secretary of State Christopher for
their leadership, which has been instrumental in bringing about the
agreement which is scheduled to be signed within the hour at the White
House and for their efforts and success in the agreement which was
signed back on September 13, 1993. And I do believe that an activist
President, who really exerted leadership on a worldwide basis, could do
a great deal around the world, as, for example, in bringing the Prime
Ministers of India and Pakistan together.
I see that my distinguished colleague, Senator Nickles, has come to
the floor. I shall conclude, Mr. President.
I ask unanimous consent that a text of my report on the foreign
travels, some of which I have commented about this morning, be printed
in full in the Congressional Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record; as follows:
Senator Specter's Report on Foreign Travel
During the period of August 20-September 2, 1995, Senator
Hank Brown and I traveled to ten countries in two weeks and
met with heads of state of eight of these countries.
TAIWAN
We departed on August 20, 1995 and arrived in Taipei,
Taiwan on August 22, 1995, after having crossed the
international date line. At 5:00 pm, we had a lengthy meeting
with Taiwan's President Lee Teng-hui. We discussed President
Lee's private visit to the United States to visit his alma
mater, Cornell University from June 6-10, 1995, and the
People's Republic of China's (PRC's) retaliation for that
visit by conducting live missile tests wherein the PRC fired
6 missiles targeted 85 miles north of Taiwan's coast--2
missiles from Manchuria, 2 missiles from northwest China and
2 missiles from Central China.
President Lee also detailed the ``One China'' policy, under
which both Taiwan and the PRC believe that there is only one
China. Taiwan and the PRC differ, however, in that the PRC
insists Taiwan is part of China and that there can be two
systems operating in one country. Taiwan, on the other hand,
has taken the position, through its national unification
guidelines, that the PRC must realize certain political and
economic reforms before the unification may occur.
We also discussed our concerns regarding the current trade
imbalance between Taiwan and the U.S. President Lee assured
us that he has been working hard to reduce the trade
imbalance. He noted that his efforts have led to a drop in
the trade deficit from $16.5 billion to $6 billion and that
he personally is committed to reducing the deficit by at
least 10 percent per year by expanding Taiwanese purchases of
U.S. exports and reducing tariffs on imported U.S. products.
On the evening of August 22nd, we had a working dinner with
Taiwanese Foreign Minister and former Ambassador to the
United
[[Page S 14435]]
States Frederick F. Chien. We discussed Taiwan's political reforms and
its movement toward freedom of the press, open elections and
democratization. We also discussed at greater length the One
China policy and Taiwan's diplomatic and economic relations
with the PRC.
Dr. Lyushun Shen, the Director of Public Affairs at the
Taipei Education and Cultural Representatives Office in
Washington, D.C., noted that the PRC's recent missile firings
have had a strong impact on Taiwan's stock market, with the
index dropping 200 points the first day and 1000 points
overall, from 5500 to 4500.
CAMBODIA
On Wednesday, August 23rd, we departed Taipei at 6:45 am.
We arrived in Phnom Penh, Cambodia for an early meeting with
King Norodom Sihanouk. The King detailed his image of the
future of Cambodia, including his assessment that every
Cambodian is determined, and he is personally committed, to
ensure the continuation of a liberal democracy, along with a
multiparty system and free press, coupled with a free market
economy.
We spoke to King Sihanouk regarding the importance of
protecting human rights. In response, he observed that human
rights groups are active in defending their rights, without
interference from the government. Further, he stated that
when the 1st Prime Minister did not want to allow the United
Nations to maintain an office in Cambodia for human rights,
the King insisted, and succeeded in allowing the office to
remain open.
I asked King Sihanouk about the continued threat of the
Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot to the security and stability of
Cambodia. He dismissed the Khmer Rouge as a small movement of
communist extremists centered near the Thailand border.
According to the King, the Khmer Rouge has been severely
decimated by 10,000 defections over the last several years,
leaving primarily a small band of hardliners, totalling no
more than 6,000.
We also raised our concerns about the expulsion of Sam
Rainsy from Parliament because of his criticisms of the
government. The King responded that party issues are private
issues between each Member of Parliament (MP) and the party
on which they stood for election. Since Rainsy ceased to
represent and support the party platform on which he was
elected, the King reasoned, he could be removed from the
party. Upon such removal, he continued, Rainsy could then be
removed from Parliament because he no longer was a party
member.
After our meeting with King Sihanouk, we met with
Cambodia's 2nd Prime Minister Hun Sen, who is currently in a
power sharing relationship with the 1st Prime Minister Prince
Ranariddh Sihanouk. We discussed with Mr. Sen whether he has
any differences with the 1st Prime Minister and whether he
plans to challenge the 1st Prime Minister in the upcoming
elections in 1998. Mr. Sen acknowledged that he and the 1st
Prime Minister are from different political parties, but that
the two parties will join together as allies in the upcoming
elections rather than fielding opposing slates of candidates,
and that Mr. Sen would not challenge the 1st Prime Minister
for the position of 1st Prime Minister.
Mr. Sen expounded at some length about the benefit of a
political alliance before and after an election rather than a
divisive fight before an election and an alliance afterwards.
Such a system, Mr. Sen argued, is the most secure and the
most democratic. We suggested that when opposite parties
combine forces, it eliminates competition and the voters are
not given a choice of differing platforms. Mr. Sen responded
that his main objective is political stability and that the
Cambodian system does not end pluralism, but instead, ensures
pluralism with cooperation. He also noted that in a country
without the long tradition of democracy and the mechanisms
for elections that we enjoy in the U.S., if the two main
parties did not cooperate, it would be impossible to even
install a ballot box at the polls, much less conduct a free
election.
Mr. Sen further opined that the Cambodian government is not
like the Democrats and Republicans in Congress. If the
Cambodian People's Party (CPP) withdrew from its alliance
with the National United Front for an Independent, Neutral,
Peaceful and Cooperative Cambodia (FUNCINPEC), the government
would collapse, and conversely, if the FUNCINPEC party
withdrew from the alliance the government would also
collapse. So, according to Mr. Sen, in Cambodia the two top
political parties must cooperate together to ensure that
democracy continues.
After our meeting with Mr. Sen, we met briefly with several
prominent representatives of human rights organizations in
Cambodia, along with some Cambodian elected officials. The
focus of the discussion was on the expulsion of Rainsy from
Parliament and the concerns of those who fear that the
government may oust them in a like fashion from Parliament
for criticism of the government
Although Cambodia claims to have adopted the German model
of Parliamentary government, the human rights leaders noted
that under German Parliamentary Rules, a Member of Parliament
may only be expelled from the party. The MP cannot be
expelled from Parliament even if that MP was elected on a
party slate. Instead that MP would hold the seat until the
next elections at which time the party could select a
different individual as the designated MP for that area.
We had a country team briefing by embassy staff about
Cambodia's political and economic stability. We were briefed
on the Khmer Rouge insurgency and the limited threat posed by
the Khmer Rouge in Phnom Penh. It was noted that defections
in their ranks have reduced the Khmer Rouge to 6,000-7,000
individuals, down dramatically from 30,000-40,000 in the mid
1970's.
We asked why the U.S. should continue its annual aid to
Cambodia, which currently totals $40 million. The response
was that U.S. aid, which primarily takes the form of
humanitarian assistance, medical training and military
training in joint exercises, all help to strengthen
democratic forces in Cambodia and lessen the need for larger
expenditures by limiting the danger of confrontation in the
future. Robert Porter, the U.S. Deputy Chief of Mission also
observed that joint training exercises help enhance U.S.
military readiness by giving U.S. personnel onsite training
in tropical climates, conditions and cultures.
We also met with Prince Ranariddh Norodom, the 1st Prime
Minister (and son of King Sihanouk), and expressed our
interest in seeing an improvement in the movement toward
democracy and free elections. In particular, we discussed the
creation of a Constitutional Council in Cambodia to review
all laws and determine whether they conform with the
Cambodian Constitution. The 1st Prime Minister expressed an
interest in finalizing the Constitutional Council due to the
fact that the National Assembly had already passed 40 laws
which have not yet been adjudged Constitutional.
When pressed on the importance of ensuring constitutional
and democratic governance, the 1st Prime Minister responded
that Cambodia is a constitutional government which was
supported by a large majority on election day. He further
noted, however, that the current government must be compared
to the previous autocratic and ruthless regime of Pol Pot and
the Khmer Rouge. In addition, with the small but continued
threat of the Khmer Rouge, the current government must be
particularly sensitive to the importance of internal
security.
We raised our concerns about the explusion of MP Rainsy
from Parliament and the implication of this expulsion on the
growth of democracy in Cambodia. He emphasized that Cambodia
needs political stability now, with the two parties united
together. If someone wants to oppose the party and the
government then that party should leave the party and form
their own party.
On the issue of freedom of the press, the 1st Prime
Minister stated that freedom of the press in Cambodia is not
bad, particularly when compared to press freedoms in
countries in the region, such as Thailand, Singapore,
Malaysia and Indonesia--and those countries do not have
comparable security problems. He said currently, there are
over 50 newspapers that have full freedom to criticize the
government and many actively oppose the government, all
without criminal penalties. The 1st Prime Minister noted
ruefully that many of the cartoonists seem to take great
pleasure in lampooning him.
The 1st Prime Minister then discussed his strategy for
reducing poverty and thus encouraging the Khmer Rouge to
leave Pol Pot and join the Cambodian government through
improvements in education, agriculture and rural roads.
MYANMAR
We departed Cambodia and arrived in Yangon, Myanmar, where
we were briefed by U.S. embassy personnel, led by Charge
d'Affaires Marilyn Meyers. There is currently no U.S.
ambassador to Myanmar, nor has there been since December,
1990, when the U.S. withdrew its ambassador to protest the
government's refusal to honor the results of a free election.
We were briefed on the poor condition of democracy and
human rights in Myanmar. In the 1990 elections, the State Law
and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) refused to honor the
results of a landslide electoral victory by the National
League for Democracy (NLD) led by Aung San Suu Kyi. In that
election, opposition parties won 80% of the seats in
Parliament.
We were also briefed on the tremendous problem with
narcotics trafficking in Myanmar. Our reports indicate that
over 60% of the heroin passing through the ``golden
triangle'' of southeast Asia passes through Burma on its way
to distribution in the United States and across the world.
The government has apparently sought to combat the narcotics
trade by limited incursions against known drug lords. The
U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) has provided training and
funds to the government to assist it in its efforts at
detection and eradication of narcotics.
After the country team briefing, we met with Lt. General
Kim Nyuet of the SLORC. We conveyed our concerns over the
imprisonment of Aung San Suu Kyi and the lack of democracy in
Myanmar. General Nyuet expounded at length about Myanmar's
unique characteristics, noting that the country is comprised
of 135 different races of people, with different customs,
languages and religions.
The General claimed that the 1990 elections were marred by
uprisings and violence--including beheadings in center city
Yangon--which resulted in a breakdown of the government
machinery. As a result of this breakdown and the ensuing
public dissatisfaction, Nyuet argued, there emerged a need
for law and order as the first priority for keeping the
country together.
[[Page S 14436]]
We emphasized to General Nyuet the importance of human
rights as the linchpin to warmer relations between Myanmar
and the U.S., and advised the General that Congress is
considering an amendment by Senator McConnell that would
impose stringent sanctions against Myanmar until there is
concrete improvement in democracy and human rights. In
particular, I advised him that the U.S. will closely monitor
progress on a Constitutional Convention and the release of
all political detainees. When I asked him whether Aung San
Suu Kyi would be named to participate in the Convention, he
shrugged and said that all the delegates had already been
chosen.
Although I applauded his recent release of 1991 Nobel Peace
Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, we advised General Nyuet
that SLORC can and should remove its remaining restrictions
on Aung San Suu Kyi, including the monitoring of her meetings
and harassment and intimidation of individuals with whom she
meets. I also urged him to reconsider his suggestion that
Aung San Suu Kyi would not be allowed to be a delegate to the
Constitutional Convention.
The next morning, August 25th, we had the privilege of
meeting Aung San Suu Kyi for breakfast. She was a very warm,
dynamic, and impressive person who conveyed an intense desire
for democratic reforms and improvements in human rights in
Myanmar.
She spoke passionately and poetically about the importance
of dialog as the means for resolving conflict peacefully.
Every situation of conflict ends in dialog, she noted, so
intelligent people should be able to go directly to dialog
without the need for devastation. Dialog is inevitable, and
the sooner this dialog begins, the better.
She also discussed the nearly 6 years she spent under house
arrest without any charges and no trial and the similar
treatment accorded to many of her fellow country men and
women.
INDIA
Later that afternoon, we flew to New Delhi, where we met
with Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee, India's Ambassador to
the United States S.S. Ray, and other Indian officials for
dinner at the Foreign Minister's residence.
The main focus of our discussions was the relationship
between India and Pakistan. In particular, we discussed the
tremendous tensions between these two countries over the
situation in Kashmir, terrorism and nuclear weapons. Our
hosts spoke emphatically about the need to maintain sanctions
against Pakistan for the purchase of missile component parts
from China and the importance of supporting the Pressler
amendment which would keep these sanctions in place. They
noted that any movement away from these sanctions,
particularly any legislation that would allow Pakistan to
receive military equipment, would send the wrong signal and
damage the relationship between the U.S. and India.
We related to the Indian officials Aung San Suu Kyi's
discussion of the importance and inevitability of dialog as a
means to resolve all conflicts, and we asked them if the U.S.
could do anything to facilitate greater dialog between India
and Pakistan. They expressed an interest in achieving an
agreement that would enable both sides to lessen their
expenditures on border troops and military equipment and that
would lessen the growing tension between the two countries on
issues of nuclear proliferation and first strike limitations.
The next morning, August 26th, we met privately with
India's Prime Minister Narasimha Rao. He expressed a deep
concern about India's arms race with Pakistan and noted that
India has taken an important step by decreasing its military
budget.
He also stated that he would be very interested in
negotiations which would lead to the elimination of any
nuclear weapons on the Indian subcontinent within ten or
fifteen years, including renouncing the first strike use of
such weapons. His interest in such negotiations with Pakistan
would cover bilateral talks or would encompass a regional
conference including participation by the United States,
China and Russia, in addition to India and Pakistan. When I
pressed him on whether his proposal would include
international inspections, he said that he did not want to
get involved in details, but that India has experts working
on all details on all related matters.
PAKISTAN
On August 27th, we departed India and flew to Islamabad,
Pakistan, where we had a meeting and subsequent dinner with
President Farooq Leghari. We discussed the importance of
establishing peace in the region by addressing the problems
of terrorism and nuclear containment.
On the issue of terrorism, we expressed our concern about
the role of Iran in fostering revolutionary and religious
fervor, manifesting themselves in acts of terrorism.
President Leghari stated his belief that Iran still contains
extremist elements but that the voices of moderation
predominate. He noted that opening trade and dialog with Iran
will help to reduce its insecurity and bring it back into
international fold.
The next morning, August 28th, we had breakfast with Prime
Minister Benazir Bhutto. She expressed genuine surprise over
the content of our discussions with India Prime Minister Rao
with respect to an agreement to dismantle all nuclear weapons
on the Indian subcontinent within 10 to 15 years. She stated
that this was the first time that she had heard any such
commitment from India and she asked if we could get Mr. Rao
to put his agreement in writing.
When we pressed her on the importance of dialog between
India and Pakistan, and asked her when the last time was that
she spoke with India Prime Minister Rao, she said that she
had not spoken with him since she became Prime Minister. She
noted that she had attempted to begin a dialog at the Foreign
Secretary level, but that the talks were disbanded when India
initiated military hostilities against Pakistan. She also
related the perception in Pakistan that she is soft on India
precisely because she was seeking a dialog with India.
We suggested to Prime Minister Bhutto that the U.S. would
be willing to serve as an intermediary between the two
countries to facilitate this dialog, particularly in the area
of nuclear containment. Ms. Bhutto responded that since
Pakistan is the one targeted by India's missiles, and because
Pakistan lacks the capability to launch a 1st strike, it is
more appropriate for India to renounce a first strike option
unilaterally.
I wrote a letter to President Clinton summarizing our
meetings with Prime Ministers Rao and Bhutto and suggesting
that it would be very productive for the United States to
initiate and broker discussions between India and Pakistan
regarding nuclear weapons and missile delivery systems. A
copy of this letter is attached to this report.
On the issue of Pakistan's purchase of M-11 missile
components from China, Ms. Bhutto denied that Pakistan had
ever purchased or possessed such missiles. She noted that
Pakistan would not be under such pressure to develop nuclear
capabilities if India had not acquired such capabilities, and
that Pakistan only began developing its nuclear program in
1974, after India detonated its first nuclear test.
She also questioned the continuing U.S. sanctions against
Pakistan for the purchase of these components, noting that
the U.S. had originally levied sanctions against both China
and Pakistan for the sale and subsequently removed the
sanctions only from China.
Ms. Bhutto agreed with our suggestion that the U.S. could
perform a critical role as a third party mediator between
India and Pakistan on nuclear as well as conventional
weapons. She remarked that there has never been an
understanding between India and Pakistan unless a third party
has mediated, and she stated her belief that Prime Minister
Rao would be the ideal person to participate in such
negotiations because he is now in a position to be a
statesman.
At a press briefing, we commented on our discussions with
the Prime Minister of India and Pakistan on possible
discussions to remove the nuclear threat from the
subcontinent.
Shortly thereafter, the Indian government through its
embassy in Washington, D.C. sought to deny Prime Minister
Rao's statements on negotiations on nuclear disarmament by
claiming that our meeting covered only the 1988 Rajiv Gandhi
Action Plan on nuclear disarmament. We did discuss the issues
set forth above and we did not discuss the Gandhi Action
Plan.
SYRIA
We departed Islamabad on August 28th for Damascus, Syria.
The next morning, we met with Foreign Minister Farouk al-
Sharah. Our discussion with Sharah had barely begun when he
complained about the nuclear threat posed by Israel.
I asked Mr. Sharah if Syria fears that Israel will use
nuclear weapons against Syria. Interestingly, Mr. Sharah
acknowledged his concern, but noted that Israel would not
likely detonate a nuclear device because any such use, in a
region where the nations are so close together, would affect
Israelis as well as Syrians.
When asked if Syria had developed nuclear capabilities, Mr.
Sharah responded that it is important that nations develop
nuclear capabilities for peaceful uses and acknowledged that
Syria is moving in this direction, while remaining a party to
the Non Proliferation Treaty and cooperating with
international inspections.
We also discussed that status of peace talks between Syria
and Israel and the importance of dialog between the two
nations. Mr. Sharah expressed his concern over the deadlocked
talks, and opined that Israeli Prime Minister Rabin may be
feeling electoral pressure such that an agreement may be
possible only after the Israeli elections. Although the two
sides have not completed agreement on any components of the
peace talks, there was agreement on the principles of
security arrangements between the two nations.
On the issue of the Golan Heights, Mr. Sharah stated his
belief that if the Israelis did not intend to withdraw from
the Golan Heights, then they would not have entered the peace
discussions to begin with, and that a full peace can be
achieved only by a full withdrawal from the Golan.
With respect to terrorism, we discussed the importance of
ending support for terrorism. Mr. Shara denied any complicity
in the acts of terrorism by Hamas and the Jezbollah, or any
training by these groups in Syria.
We also discussed Saddam Hussein and the situation in Iraq.
Mr. Sharah noted that King Hussein's recent speech in which
he condemned the Iraqi dictator apparently had been favorably
received by Saddam, since the speech was transmitted in its
entirety on Iraqi television. When I asked Mr. Sharah if
[[Page S 14437]]
he believed it is possible to bring Saddam back into the family of
nations, he responded that he did not believe it is possible.
After meeting with Mr. Sharah, we had a very instructive
meeting with President Hafiz al-Asad. He stated there will be
peace between Syria and Israel and advised us not to be too
impatient about the current peace negotiations. He noted that
he thinks Mr. Rabin should move forward on these peace talks
and accomplish something before the elections because of his
platform for peace.
ISRAEL
We left Damascus and flew to Tel Aviv on the evening of
August 29th. The next morning, we had several meetings with
Israeli officials, commencing with a breakfast meeting with
Yaacov Frenkel, the Governor of the Bank of Israel, in which
we discussed Israel's efforts to expand trade and tourism
between Israel and its Arab neighbors. We also discussed the
importance of U.S. aid on Israel's economy. Mr. Frenkel
remarked that this aid is critical to Israel because of the
statement it makes to the Israeli people about the American
government's continued support of Israel and because of
Israel's costs of pursuing peace and financing the tremendous
inflow of immigrants, which total 80,000 to 90,000 yearly.
We were then briefed by U.S. Ambassador Martin Indyk and
his staff on the status of Israeli-Syria peace talks. The
U.S. had previously set the groundwork for the peace talks
when our Secretary of State announced an agreement that
Israel and Syria would have meetings in three stages; first,
between the Chiefs of Staff; second, between senior military
staff, and finally between the heads of state. After the 1st
stage, but before the meeting of the military officers,
President Asad changed his mind and stated that there must
1st be agreement on the issue of Early Warning systems before
the talks could proceed.
We were advised that at this point, then, the Israeli
government has turned its attention to its peace talks with
the PLO, and away from the Syrian negotiations. The
negotiations with the Palestinians have moved at a rapid
pace, with the agreement 90% complete.
We then had lunch with key Palestinian leaders, including
Faisal Husseini and Hanan Ashrawi, to discuss their
perspectives on the peace talks with Israel. They expressed
optimism about the pace of the negotiations. However, they
also expressed their deep concerns about the situation in
Jerusalem and the rights of Arabs and Palestinians in the
city. They suggested that Jerusalem become the capitol of two
states, with the provision that Jerusalem would be under the
exclusive sovereignty of NO state.
We also discussed the problem of terrorism. Mr. Husseini
stated that the best way to stop terrorism is to stop factors
which lead to terrorism--by allowing people greater control
over their lands. He also stated his belief that the Israelis
cannot keep 400,000 Palestinians hostage in Hebron to
resolution of the peace process, and that there must be
prompt resolution of the situation in Hebron.
Later on the afternoon of August 30th, we met with former
Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir. We discussed the status of the
current peace talks with the PLO and his concerns over
terrorism and internal security. He noted pointedly that the
difference between the peace talks between Israel and Egypt
and the talks with the Palestinians is that the peace talks
with the Egyptians were with an external entity, whereas the
negotiations with the Palestinians are internal, insofar as
they involve people currently living in Israel.
On Wednesday evening we met with Israeli Prime Minister
Yitzhak Rabin. In our meeting with Mr. Rabin, he declared his
dedication to utilizing this unique moment in history, which
began with the dismantlement of the former Soviet Union, to
bring about peace in the Middle East. He noted in particular
the advantage to removal of the Soviet umbrella over the
heads of Arab leaders.
In response to my question on the peace talks between
Israel and the Palestinians, Prime Minister Rabin expressed
optimism about the prospects for peace. He noted that he
wishes to see Israel as a Jewish state, without bilateral
governance. However, Mr. Rabin clarified that he does not see
Israel as a Jewish state if racism will be the governing
policy. Instead, he prefers peace within Israel with rights
for Palestinians. As part of this peace, Prime Minister Rabin
talked of new priorities, under which Israel will no longer
expend resources on settlement of the West Bank, where only
3% of Israeli Jews live.
I asked him if there is any way to control terrorism. He
commented first about the recent bus bombing, noting that
although the bombing was carried out by Hamas, it was done in
an area under Israeli control. The elements supporting this
terrorism, he continued, are seeking to bring down the
Israeli Labor government because the peace process will
certainly come to an end under a Likud government. According
to Prime Minister Rabin, many of these same forces of
extremism are seeking to assassinate PLO Chairman Yassir
Arafat because of his overtures to Israel. The acts of
terrorism are difficult to control--over 70% of these
terrorist acts since 1994 have been carried out by suicide
missions which are virtually impossible to prevent.
Regarding peace discussions with Syria, Mr. Rabin stated
that Israel stands ready to negotiate, but that the Syrians
want the U.S. to remain involved as a third party mediator to
these talks. He expressed his concern over the breakdown of
talks over the issue of Early Warning systems.
The next morning, August 31st, we had breakfast with
Israeli opposition party leader Benjamin Netanyahu. In
response to my question about whether the PLO is complying
with the conditions for U.S. aid, he stated that Arafat is
not doing all that he can to stamp out terrorism. In
particular, Mr. Netanyahu pointed to speeches by Arafat in
which he has said that Palestinians should be patient but
that the ultimate way is the way of a ``Jihad''. He further
noted that Arafat has taken minor steps to crack down on
terrorists, but that he has refused to extradite known
terrorists in his own police force.
When asked if reports were true that he was willing to meet
with Arafat, Mr. Netanyahu said that these reports were not
true. He said he would furnish us with a list of known
terrorists that are wanted for murder, whom Arafat has
refused to extradite to Israel, so that I could bring up
these names with Arafat personally. In particular, he
highlighted the Abu-Sita cousins, who are suspects in the
murder of Uri Megidish. According to Mr. Netanyahu, these
individuals are currently serving in the Palestinian
intelligence service and the Palestinians have refused
repeated requests to turn them over to Israeli authorities
for trial.
After meeting with Mr. Netanyahu, we spoke with Israeli
President Ezer Weitzman about the importance of peace with
the Palestinians and the Syrians. Mr. Weitzman agreed that,
in general, a peace agreement between Israel Syria would be
good for both nations.
We asked President Weitzman whether the U.S. should
continue giving aid to the PLO if Arafat is not complying
with the conditions attached to that aid. He responded that
the U.S. should stick to the requirements set forth in the
law and force Arafat to comply with the conditions attached
to that aid. Mr. Weitzman also commented that he would not go
to the U.S. to sign an interim agreement between Israel and
the PLO because in its current form this agreement is not the
final agreement.
After meeting with President Weitzman, we drove to Gaza for
a meeting with PLO Chairman Yassir Arafat. Chairman Arafat
emphasized again and again the importance of a resolution of
the situations in Hebron and Jerusalem as critical factors in
ensuring peace and the success of the peace talks with
Israel.
We asked Arafat if it is possible for the PLO to exert more
pressure on Hamas to renounce acts of terror. He responded
that pressure must be brought to bear on Iran and Syria. He
noted, however, that the PLO has stopped 11 attempted acts of
terror, with the latest coming just 2 days prior to our
meeting. He also noted that as a result of his peace efforts,
he has received death threats by Hamas groups operating out
of Syria.
In response to allegations that he only condemns terrorism
when speaking in English, but not Arabic, Arafat denied the
charge, noting that since his English is not good, he
typically speaks in Arabic, and that he had condemned
terrorism in Arabic on numerous occasions, including at the
University. Arafat explained that his speeches in Arabic are
being misunderstood, and that when he calls for a ``Jihad''
he is actually using a term used by the prophet Mohammed when
he called the building of a state the ``grand Jihad''.
When we pressed Arafat on why he is refusing to extradite
known terrorists, including the Abu-Sita cousins, he deferred
to his Security Minister, who responded that the Palestinians
cannot turn over any suspects until there is evidence they
committed an extraditable crime and then, only after
receiving a court order authorizing the extradition.
EGYPT
That evening we flew to Cairo, where we met with Egyptian
President Hosni Mubarak. We asked President Mubarak if he
believes Arafat is doing all that he can do to combat
terrorism, pursuant to the conditions established on
receiving U.S. aid. He responded that Arafat is working
practically and on the ground level to stop terrorism, and
that forces such as Iran are the ones supporting Hamas and
Jezbollah.
We also discussed our concerns about Saddam Hussein and the
situation in Iraq. President Mubarak related that he has
worked hard to try to influence Saddam to relinquish power
and leave Iraq, including his offer to grant Saddam asylum in
Egypt if Saddam promises to leave Iraq peacefully, but his
efforts have not been successful.
BULGARIA
On September 1st, we departed Egypt en route to Sofia,
Bulgaria, where we had meetings with the President of the
National Assembly, Blagovest Sendov, and the President of
Bulgaria, Zhelyu Zhelev. Both Mr. Sendov and Mr. Zhelev
expressed an interest in NATO membership if the Parliament
supports such membership, with Mr. Zhelev stating his firm
desire that such membership should occur.
We also discussed at length the current situation in the
former Yugoslavia, and its implications on Bulgaria. Finally,
both Mr. Sendov and Mr. Zhelev discussed the importance of
foreign investment in Bulgaria and U.S. support for
Bulgaria's membership in the World Trade Organization and
GATT.
[[Page S 14438]]
BELGIUM
From Bulgaria, we travelled to Brussels, Belgium, where we
were briefed by the U.S. representatives to NATO on the
situation in Bosnia, including the recent bombing raids on
Serbian positions. They advised us of the negotiations and
cooperation between our NATO allies and the UN command in
orchestrating the military operations after the Serbian
mortar attack on Sarajevo. Significantly, they noted that
these air strikes were focused on the Serb heavy weapon
positions and on all lines of support for those weapons,
including communication and control centers.
We also discussed the negotiation strategy for NATO,
including the status of talks with Serbian strongman General
Ratko Mladic. They expressed hope that these talks will be
productive, although they noted that Mladic does not appear
terribly cooperative. They also noted NATO's intention to
proceed with the air strikes if Mladic and the Serbs do not
remove their heavy weapons from around Sarajevo.
We returned to the United States on September 2, 1995.
____
U.S. Senate,
Select Committee on Intelligence,
Washington, DC, August 28, 1995.
The President,
The White House, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: I think it important to call to your
personal attention the substance of meetings which Senator
Hank Brown and I have had in the last two days with Indian
Prime Minister Rao and Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir
Bhutto.
Prime Minister Rao stated that he would be very interested
in negotiations which would lead to the elimination of any
nuclear weapons on his subcontinent within ten or fifteen
years including renouncing first use of such weapons. His
interest in such negotiations with Pakistan would cover
bilateral talks or a regional conference which would include
the United States, China and Russia in addition to India and
Pakistan.
When we mentioned this conversation to Prime Minister
Bhutto this morning, she expressed great interest in such
negotiations. When we told her of our conversation with Prime
Minister Rao, she asked if we could get him to put that in
writing.
When we asked Prime Minister Bhutto when she had last
talked to Prime Minister Rao, she said that she had no
conversations with him during her tenure as Prime Minister.
Prime Minister Bhutto did say that she had initiated a
contact through an intermediary but that was terminated when
a new controversy arose between Pakistan and India.
From our conversations with Prime Minister Rao and Prime
Minister Bhutto, it is my sense that both would be very
respective to discussions initiated and brokered by the
United States as to nuclear weapons and also delivery missile
system.
I am dictating this letter to you by telephone from
Damascus as that you will have it at the earliest moment. I
am also telefaxing a copy of this letter to Secretary of
State Warren Chistopher.
Sincerely,
Arlen Specter,
Chairman.
____________________