[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.

                          ____________________