[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 86 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6139-S6141]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CHINESE NUCLEAR MISSILES IN PAKISTAN
Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, last year the Clinton administration
asked Congress for the authority to allow United States military
equipment to be delivered to Pakistan. Since 1990, such deliveries were
not allowed because of a 1985 law known as the Pressler amendment,
which prohibited any United States Assistance to Pakistan if the
President failed to certify Pakistan was not in possession of a nuclear
explosive device. My colleagues may recall that we debated this issue
quite extensively. It was very controversial. In the end, despite
strong opposition from this Senator and many of my colleagues, the
Senate approved the so-called Brown amendment, which authorized the
transfer of military equipment and repealed the Pressler amendment's
prohibitions on nonmilitary aid to Pakistan. The Brown amendment became
law earlier this year.
To bolster the Clinton administration's request, Under Secretary of
State Peter Tarnoff sent a letter to Members of Congress on August 3,
1995, when the Senate first debated the Brown amendment. Secretary
Tarnoff attempted to assure Senators that the administration's support
of the Brown amendment would be conditional on ``no significant change
on nuclear and missile non-proliferation issues of concern to the
United States.''
Mr. President, that was then.
On February 22, 1996, Dr. John Deutch, the Director of Central
Intelligence, testified before the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence. Director Deutch confirmed earlier reports that Pakistan
had taken delivery of sensitive nuclear technology used to develop
weapons-grade uranium. He also confirmed that Pakistan had received M-
11 ballistic missiles from China. My colleagues will recall that when
we debated the Brown amendment, there was some dispute over whether
Pakistan had in fact taken delivery of the M-11 missiles. Director
[[Page S6140]]
Deutch's testimony was the first time a Clinton administration official
publicly confirmed the existence of the M-11s. In my view, this
development should have halted the delivery of the military equipment
to Pakistan. Unfortunately, the Clinton Administration did not consider
the acquisition of this nuclear technology to be, in Secretary
Tarnoff's words, a ``significant change on nuclear and missile non-
proliferation issues of concern to the United States.''
Mr. President, this morning's Washington Times reveals that Pakistan
has done more than just take possession of the M-11's. The Times
reported that the M-11 missiles in Pakistan are operational and nuclear
capable. If this account is accurate, and I have no reason to doubt it,
Pakistan now has a complete, modern, nuclear weapons delivery system.
Mr. President, first of all, in spite of a string of pious promises
and written agreements to the United States, China has demonstrated a
severe lack of international responsibility. By providing both nuclear
technology and the means to deliver nuclear weapons, Chinese
Government-owned companies have contributed to a vast escalation of
tensions between Pakistan and India. Director Deutch has pointed to the
Indian subcontinent as the most worrisome area in the world. He's
right.
The more immediate question, Mr. President, is what is the United
States going to do? At the time the Senate approved the Brown
amendment, we were of the belief that Pakistan did not possess both the
technology to produce weapons-grade uranium, and an operational nuclear
weapons delivery system. That was then. This is now. I do not believe
the Senate would have approved the Brown amendment had we known then
what we know now.
The Washington Times also reported that State Department officials
attempted to water down or alter the intelligence reports regarding the
M-11's, and also tried to prevent these reports from moving through
normal intelligence channels. Apparently this was done to prevent
sanctions from being enforced. This is a very serious allegation. In
effect, Federal officials are being accused of blocking the law from
being enforced.
Frankly, Mr. President, the Washington Times story is astounding. It
is no secret that I am an outspoken critic of the Clinton
administration's nuclear nonproliferation policy, or lack thereof.
Before today, I never thought the administration's credibility
regarding nonproliferation goals in South Asia could get worse. I was
wrong.
I have written to President Clinton, asking that he enforce the
nonproliferation laws he has sworn to uphold. I also have asked the
President to withhold delivery of any military equipment authorized by
the Brown amendment. Clearly, the conditions the Clinton administration
made to Pakistan for its support of the Brown amendment have been
violated to a degree unimaginable. I also intend to contact the
chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Senator
Specter, to request that the committee conduct a full investigation on
the allegations raised involving the blocking or altering of
intelligence reports by State Department officials. Finally, I intend
to continue seeking the support of my colleagues to repeal the Brown
amendment, and may offer an amendment to do just that in the near
future. I think we have more than enough evidence to demonstrate why
the Brown amendment should not have been passed. In my view, Congress
was badly misled last year relative to Pakistan's nuclear arms
development and delivery capability. My bill, which already has several
cosponsors, would restore the supremacy of our nuclear nonproliferation
laws.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my letter of today to
President Clinton and a Washington Times article by Bill Gertz be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, June 12, 1996.
The President,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: A story in today's Washington Times
reported that the U.S. intelligence community has determined
that Pakistan obtained M-11 ballistic missiles from the
People's Republic of China (PRC) as part of an illegal
conspiracy to evade national international arms control
agreements. Even more disturbing, the Times reported that
these nuclear capable missiles have been deployed by
Pakistan.
If these reports are true, I strongly urge you to enforce
the law and impose sanctions on both countries to the fullest
extent of the law. Further, I urge you to withhold from
delivering to Pakistan any U.S. equipment as provided in the
so-called Brown amendment to the Fiscal Year 1996 Foreign
Operations Appropriations Act.
As you know, the United States has sought for a number of
years to put an end to illegal missile transfers originating
in the PRC. As you well know, sanctions were imposed on China
just three years ago for transferring M-11 components in
violation of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR).
Those sanctions were lifted in 1994, after the PRC pledged
not to make future deliveries of missiles or related
components listed under the MTCR.
Last year, the New York Times and Defense News reported
that Pakistan had received M-11 missiles from the PRC. This
was confirmed by Central Intelligence Agency Director John
Deutch in his testimony before the Senate Intelligence
Committee on February 22, 1996.
These are troubling developments. We face a situation in
which the PRC has violated both a multinational missile
control agreement as well as a written non-proliferation
agreement with the United States. As a result of these
violations, Pakistan now has for the first time a strategic
nuclear delivery capability.
Again, if the reports are true, I see no recourse but to
impose sanctions on both Pakistan and the PRC. Our own
credibility as a world leader in nuclear non-proliferation
requires no less.
Our credibility also requires that we take additional
action: the withholding of any U.S. military equipment
authorized for delivery under the so-called Brown amendment.
Last August, when the Brown amendment was first considered in
the Senate, Under Secretary of State Peter Tarnoff stated
that your Administration's support for the Brown amendment
would be conditional on ``no significant change on nuclear
and missile non-proliferation issues of concern to the
United States.''
At the time Secretary Tarnoff made this statement, Congress
and the Administration were of the belief that Pakistan did
not have both the nuclear technology capable of processing
enriched uranium, and an operational system of ballistic
missiles capable of delivering a nuclear payload. Clearly,
the conditions set by your Administration have been violated
by Pakistan to a degree unimaginable.
Finally, I believe Congress was misled badly last year
relative to Pakistan's arms development and delivery
capability. Earlier this year, I wrote to you expressing my
concern that members of your Administration knew that
Pakistan was obtaining illicit nuclear technology from the
PRC while the Brown amendment was pending. I am equally
concerned with allegations raised in the Washington Times
article that members of your Administration may have
attempted to alter the content or the processing of
intelligence reports in order to avoid sanctions. This is a
very serious allegation, and I have requested that the Senate
Intelligence Committee conduct a thorough review of this
matter.
Mr. President, you and I have not always agreed with the
best course of action on nuclear non-proliferation,
particularly in South Asia. I am sure you will agree with me
that if the Washington Times story is true, we have reached a
very dangerous stage in an already very unstable part of the
world. It has always been our policy to other nations that
nuclear proliferation should carry a heavy price. It is
imperative to the peace and security of all the peoples of
South Asia that this policy be enforced.
For these reasons, I strongly urge you to enforce fully our
nation's non-proliferations laws, and honor the conditions
set forth last year by withholding any future implementation
of the Brown amendment.
Thank you for your attention to this very critical
nonproliferation issue.
Sincerely,
Larry Pressler,
U.S. Senator.
____
[From the Washington Times, June 12, 1996]
Pakistan Deploys Chinese Missiles
(By Bill Gertz)
U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that Pakistan has
deployed nuclear-capable Chinese M-11 missiles and that the
transfer was part of a conspiracy to skirt missile-control
agreements.
The declaration, contained in interagency intelligence
reports produced last month, confirms for the first time that
Pakistan now has a strategic nuclear delivery capability. The
finding is expected to trigger U.S. economic sanctions
against both Pakistan and China based on a 1990 law.
State Department officials, however, are trying to block
the intelligence judgment through bureaucratic maneuvering to
avoid imposing sanctions, according to intelligence sources
familiar with the effort.
The intelligence sources disclosed to The Washington Times
that a report that Pakistan has operational Chinese M-11
missiles
[[Page S6141]]
was discussed last month by the Weapons and Space Systems
Intelligence Committee. The committee is an interagency panel
of intelligence experts who evaluate missile developments
worldwide. The report was based on sensitive CIA data.
A separate ``statement of fact'' also was drafted last
month declaring that China and Pakistan took part in a
``conspiracy to transfer M-11s,'' according to an
intelligence document obtained by The Times.
U.S. officials said the statement is the first step in an
intelligence M-11 components were spotted in Pakistan three
years ago.
China's delivery of the weapons violates the 31-nation
Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), as well as a 1994
U.S.-China agreement not to deploy M-11s in Pakistan.
CIA and State Department spokesmen would not comment on the
intelligence findings. A Chinese Embassy spokesman also
declined to comment.
A Pakistani Embassy spokesman denied that any M-11s are
operational in his country or that any were bought from
China.
The M-11 finding highlights China's active role in arms-
proliferation activities and comes after the recent
administration decision not to impose economic sanctions on
China for selling nuclear-weapons technology to Pakistan.
The administration announced last month it would not impose
sanctions because it claimed senior Chinese officials were
unaware of the sale last year of ring magnets--components
used to produce nuclear-weapons fuel--to Pakistan.
William C. Triplett, a specialist on China, said the M-11
deployment, when coupled with the sale of nuclear-arms
technology, is a major boost in Pakistan's drive for a
strategic nuclear capability and will increase tensions in
the volatile region.
``This is a major change in the geostrategic balance
between Pakistan and India, and a devastating blow to Clinton
administration efforts to reduce tensions on the
subcontinent,'' said Mr. Triplett, a former counsel to the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Mr. Triplett, a former U.S. intelligence official, also
said he is not surprised by efforts of the State Department
Bureau of Intelligence and Research to block the M-11
deployment judgment. The bureau is notorious for politicizing
analyses and should be excluded from taking part in future
interagency estimates, he said.
Limited sanctions were imposed on China in 1993 for selling
M-11 components to Pakistan.
The sanctions, affecting an estimated $500 million in
American sales, were lifted in October 1994 after Chinese
Foreign Minister Qian Qichen and Secretary of State Warren
Christopher signed an agreement halting sales of the M-11 and
similar missiles.
Under a 1990 U.S. law, Pakistan's possession of operational
M-11s requires the president to impose two years' sanctions
on both countries that limit U.S. sales of high-technology
products.
The sanctions also would bar imports of any products made
by the government-owned China Precision Machinery Import-
Export Corp., which makes M-11s, and Pakistan's Defense
Ministry. Both companies were sanctioned in the 1993 M-11
component transfer.
Sanctions would have their greatest impact on sales of
high-technology goods to China. Those goods were a major
portion of the $12 billion in U.S. trade with China last
year.
A State Department official said in 1994 when MTCR-related
sanctions were lifted that if complete missiles were deployed
in Pakistan ``we would have no choice but to impose MTCR
sanctions.''
Mr. Deutch said in Senate testimony Feb. 22 that China has
continued to sell inappropriate weapons and military
technology in recent months, including ``nuclear technology
to Pakistan, M-11 missiles to Pakistan, cruise missiles to
Iran.''
``If this is true, there is no longer any excuse for not
imposing sanctions on both China and Pakistan,'' said Gary
Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms
Control.
China's disregard for the arms-control agreements despite
U.S. appeals has exposed the weakness of U.S. policy toward
Beijing, he said.
The MTCR, which limits sales of missiles with ranges
greater than 186 miles or with warheads weighing more than
1,100 pounds, has no enforcement mechanism. But an amendment
to the 1990 Defense Authorization Act requires the government
to impose sanctions against foreign firms for MTCR
violations.
U.S. officials have said the M-11 is a nuclear-capable
missile whose export is barred under the MTCR because its
warhead capacity exceeds MTCR limits.
U.S. intelligence agencies reported last year that the M-11
deal moved ahead after Pakistan paid $15 million to China for
missiles, launchers and support equipment. The M-11s were
shipped to Pakistan in 1993, but their assembly was not
confirmed.
Spy-satellite photographs taken in April 1995 showed
missile canisters at a facility in Sargodha, Pakistan. Two
teams of Chinese missile technicians were sent to Pakistan
later to provide training and to unpack and assemble the M-
11s, intelligence sources said.
____________________