[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 107 (Friday, July 25, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H5818-H5821]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         FOREIGN POLICY ISSUES

  Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 7, 1997, the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] is recognized for 60 minutes as 
the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to use my time today, and I do 
not plan to use it all, but I would like to use the time that I have 
today to discuss some foreign policy issues. The first relates to south 
Asia and to India in particular.
  I am the cochair of the India Caucus, and very much a supporter of 
the efforts by the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan to bring their 
countries closer together, pursuant to the so-called Gujral Doctrine, 
which is named after the current Prime Minister of India.
  Progress is being made by the two countries towards a peaceful 
settlement of their differences, as well as improved economic and trade 
relations, and a big part of this has been the discussions that have 
been held between the Prime Ministers and between officials in India 
and Pakistan at a level lower than the Prime Minister level.

[[Page H5819]]

  But this progress is really one of the major reasons why I am 
concerned and very worried about a Senate initiative, an initiative by 
the other body that tilts, in my opinion, U.S. foreign policy again in 
favor of Pakistan and against India.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to express today my strong opposition to an 
amendment that was passed in the other body, in the Senate last week, 
to the foreign operations appropriations bill, that lifts existing 
United States restrictions on military and economic assistance to 
Pakistan. This amendment would allow for the resumption of the Overseas 
Private Investment Corporation, the International Military Education 
and Training Program, the Trade and Development Assistance, as well as 
the democracy-building programs such as the National Endowment for 
Democracy in Pakistan.
  These restrictions were imposed by the Glenn-Symington amendment a 
few years ago, which restricted the delivery of aid and bilateral 
programs to Pakistan because of Pakistan's continual development of a 
nuclear weapons program. The restrictions were in place due to 
Pakistan's externally aided nuclear weapons program.
  What is troubling to me, Mr. Speaker, is that the Senate repealed the 
Glenn-Symington amendment among reports that Pakistan has recently 
fired and tested a Chinese-built M-11 missile, or an indigenously 
developed medium-range missile similar to the M-11. United States 
intelligence reports that Pakistan is building or has built, with the 
aid of the Chinese, a missile factory. These missiles can carry nuclear 
devices. This factory is not subject to international inspection.
  Mr. Speaker, for those familiar with Pakistan's nuclear program, it 
is well known that for several years Pakistan has moved forward with an 
aggressive program of acquiring nuclear technology and weapons delivery 
systems, as well as providing arms and training to rogue nations and 
terrorist groups.
  The intent of the Senate action last week may have been, I hope that 
was the intention, but may have been to encourage Pakistan to cap its 
nuclear program. However, I would contend that history has shown 
otherwise. In 1985, United States intelligence reported that Pakistan 
was receiving United States arms and was simultaneously developing a 
nuclear weapons program. In response, and with the support of Pakistan, 
Congress in 1985 enacted the Pressler amendment, to deny assistance to 
Pakistan if the President could not confirm that Pakistan did not have 
or was not developing a nuclear device.
  But later, in 1990, a few years later, United States intelligence 
found via overwhelming evidence that Pakistan did indeed have the bomb. 
The Bush administration at the time invoked the Pressler amendment and 
restricted United States aid to Pakistan.
  The invocation of the Pressler amendment by the Bush administration 
gave Pakistan an opportunity to make an important choice. Pakistan 
could either work with the United States and cap its nuclear program, 
or ignore the Pressler amendment and continue with its nuclear weapons 
program.

                              {time}  1400

  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, Pakistan chose the latter course. In 
1995, just 2 years ago, Congress amended the Pressler amendment with 
the so-called Brown amendment that allowed 370 million dollars' worth 
of previously embargoed conventional weaponry to be transferred to 
Pakistan.
  Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that Pakistan did not agree to 
do anything in exchange for the equipment and no conditions on its 
nuclear program were imposed. Why do we keep rewarding Pakistan when it 
continues to work against our interests?
  Nearly all of Pakistan's nuclear program is for military use with 
very little attention toward infrastructure and civilian use. In fact, 
in 1986, China and Pakistan signed a nuclear cooperation agreement. The 
details of that agreement are not known although intelligence reports 
show that the agreement includes the transfer of nuclear weapon 
technology in both the design of weapons and the enrichment of uranium 
fuel.
  Mr. Speaker, we have to be very careful. We cannot allow this 
amendment, passed last week in the other body, to be viewed as support 
for Pakistan's nuclear program. Very little information exists with 
regard to Pakistan's nuclear program. Command and control systems that 
manage Pakistan's nuclear program are vague and really nonexistent.
  A leading American think tank has stated that the primitive state of 
the Pakistan arsenal suggests that any Pakistan nuclear response could 
be haphazard and ill-managed. That is from the Institute for National 
Strategic Studies, a strategic assessment from 1997.
  Furthermore, this amendment may hinder the progress, this Senate 
amendment may hinder the progress that has been made by talks between 
India and Pakistan over the last 6 months. This is really what I am 
concerned about.
  I talked in the beginning about the Gujral doctrine and how these two 
countries are now working together toward peaceful solutions. This 
amendment passed in the other body, I think, could hinder these talks, 
because the Indian Government has already stated on the record that in 
light of the circumstances India will take the appropriate steps to 
safeguard India's security.
  What is happening is that the traditional tilt toward Pakistan in 
United States foreign policy, which so many of us in the India caucus 
have been trying to reverse so that the United States is not partial 
toward Pakistan, this tilt is beginning to express itself again as a 
result of this amendment that was passed in the Senate. And I find it 
interesting that when India allegedly deployed the Prithvi missile, the 
United States quickly denounced the deployment. Yet when Pakistan 
continues to develop its nuclear program with the aid of the Chinese, 
we turn the other way. In fact, we reward them with aid.
  Mr. Speaker, if we desire a peace in South Asia, we must work equally 
and fairly with all countries in the region. This amendment passed in 
the other body does not do this.
  I know we are going to have discussions, we are going to have a vote 
here in the House next week on our foreign operations appropriations 
act. That bill will go to conference with the bill that passed the 
other body. My hope is, and I will certainly work toward taking out the 
amendment that was passed in the other body in conference so that when 
the conference bill eventually comes back to the two Houses, it does 
not include that amendment. I think that it is an amendment that again 
tilts United States foreign policy toward Pakistan, is not helpful in 
the overall effort to bring peace to the South Asia region and 
basically should not survive the conference, if there is anything that 
we can do in this House about that.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn now to another matter that is also 
important in terms of United States foreign policy toward India. When I 
visited India earlier this year, I had the opportunity to talk to the 
then-Prime Minister Gowda, who expressed continued concern that the 
United States has not prioritized India as part of its foreign policy.
  Mr. Gowda stressed that an important gesture could be made in that 
regard if President Clinton was able to travel to India in conjunction 
with the 50th anniversary celebration which begins this August 15. 
There are many members of our congressional caucus on India, including 
myself, that have contacted the White House over the last few months in 
order to convince the President that he should travel to India this 
year. We know that the White House has given serious consideration to 
this request, and we want to reiterate our plea collectively today now 
that August 15 is drawing close.
  The majority of our 90-member India caucus signed a letter today to 
the President, and I would like to just take some time now to read that 
letter for my colleagues.
  It says, Dear Mr. President, as members of the congressional caucus 
on India and Indian Americans, we urge you to visit in India next month 
to celebrate the 50th anniversary of India's independence.
  The United States and India, the world's two largest democracies, 
have many areas of common interest that have not been developed to the 
degree that they could be. The end of the cold war, combined with the 
historic opening of the Indian economy, forced us to

[[Page H5820]]

significantly reassess our strategies and priorities with regard to 
Asia. There is substantial room to build on the current Indo-U.S. 
partnership and the political, diplomatic, economic, and security 
spheres.
  Under the auspices of our India caucus, we have had a number of 
opportunities in the past few years to interact with leaders from 
India's Government and private sector. Further, some of us have had the 
opportunity to travel to India recently. These direct contacts have 
convinced us that relations with India must take on a far greater 
prominence in United States foreign policy considerations as we move 
toward the 21st century.
  At the same time we have seen that the Indo-U.S. relationship has at 
times been strained, often unnecessarily so, and owing in many cases to 
the lack of a firm foundation in relations between our two great 
nations.
  Although many Americans may not recognize it, there is a rich 
tradition of shared values between the United States and India. Just as 
the United States proclaimed its independence from the British colonial 
order, so was India born of the struggle for freedom and self-
determination. India derived key aspects of her constitution, 
particularly its statement of fundamental rights, from our own Bill of 
Rights. The Indian independence movement, under the inspired leadership 
of Mahatma Gandhi, had strong moral support from American 
intellectuals, political leaders, and journalists. In turn, Dr. Martin 
Luther King, in his struggle to make the promise of American democracy 
a reality for all of our citizens, derived many of his ideas of 
nonviolent resistance to injustice from the teachings of Gandhi. Thus 
we see a clear pattern of Indian and American democracy inspiring and 
enriching one another at every historical turn.
  August 15 marks this historic occasion. A visit by an American 
President is long overdue. The last President to visit India was the 
Honorable Jimmy Carter. There is no doubt in our minds that a visit by 
an American President will improve and strengthen relations between the 
world's two largest democracies.
  Mr. Speaker, this was signed by over 60 Members today alone. Many of 
us really feel very strongly that it would be a great thing if Pakistan 
could take the opportunity, either by August 15 or sometime after 
August 15, in this year of independence, which begins August 15, to 
visit India as a gesture, an important gesture really, of its priority 
in terms of United States foreign policy.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn now to another foreign policy issue 
to a different part of the world. I would like to basically take this 
opportunity, if I could, to express my opposition to a state visit that 
will occur next week, a state visit to Washington, to the President, to 
the Congress, that will occur next week by President Aliyev of the 
Republic of Azerbaijan.
  Mr. Speaker, while I recognize that our President must from time to 
time receive foreign leaders with whom we have differences, in the case 
of the visit of President Aliyev, I have grave reservations based on 
both the past actions and the current policies that Mr. Aliyev has 
pursued and is pursuing.
  I would hope that this visit would offer an opportunity for our 
President and our administration to express our concerns about the lack 
of democracy and basic rights and freedom in Azerbaijan. I would 
especially hope the message would be sent to President Aliyev in no 
uncertain terms that Azerbaijan should immediately lift its blockades 
of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabagh.
  Finally, I hope that President Clinton would stress to President 
Aliyev American support for a freely negotiated settlement of the 
Nagorno-Karabagh conflict that recognized the self-determination within 
secure borders of the people of Nagorno-Karabagh.
  I am circulating a letter, Mr. Speaker, today that I have circulated 
today when we were in session, along with my colleague, the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Porter]. We are the cochairs of the Armenia caucus. 
Our letter to Pakistan expresses our concerns about the visit of 
President Aliyev.
  Most of the members of our House Caucus on Armenia have signed the 
letter, and I would hope, I sincerely would hope that we can make 
something positive come out of this visit by President Aliyev. 
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that the direction which U.S. 
foreign policy is headed in the caucuses region does not bode well for 
the positive outcome that we seek.
  The United States is in a unique position to be able to bring about a 
fair settlement of the Nagorno-Karabagh situation and to help promote 
the long-term security and economic development of that region. But 
that is not the way things are going.
  The OSCE, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, 
established the Minsk conference to mediate a settlement of the 
Karabagh conflict. The United States, along with France and Russia, is 
a cochair of the Minsk group. However, I am concerned that the United 
States not use its position to force a settlement that does not allow 
Nagorno-Karabagh to adequately protect its land and its people in the 
future.
  I am working with my colleagues to bring an official from the 
administration, the State Department, to come up to the Hill next week, 
hopefully to bring us up to date on the status of negotiations and for 
us to have an opportunity to impress upon the State Department the 
importance we attach to the self-determination of the people of 
Nagorno-Karabagh.
  Mr. Speaker, Azerbaijan has some pretty powerful allies in its 
corner, including former top administration officials from both the 
Democratic and Republican parties. This was documented in a recent 
front page story in the Washington Post. Basically what the Post 
described is an effort, a big money influence effort being driven by 
oil money. In this case Azerbaijan has proven oil reserves in the 
Caspian Sea basin off Azerbaijan, some of the richest oil reserves in 
the world. And many U.S. oil companies are interested in getting into 
this region.
  I want to stress that I have no problem seeing these petroleum 
reserves developed. Indeed, I would encourage construction of an oil 
pipeline from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean via Armenia. That 
would actually improve cooperation and the economic prospects of the 
entire caucuses region.
  But, Mr. Speaker, the big problem that many of us have is that these 
oil companies and the former top United States Government officials 
that are working for their interests are essentially lobbying for 
United States foreign policy to ignore the unacceptable behavior of 
Azerbaijan in order to curry favor with the regime and gain access to 
the oil reserves.
  Mr. Speaker, on the eve of President Aliyev's visit, I want to inform 
our colleagues about the type of leader this man is. The reason that so 
many of us oppose his coming here and are concerned about what it means 
is that he is coming here on a state visit, that Aliyev has a long 
record of human rights violations that date back to his four decades as 
an official of the Soviet KGB. During the 1960's, he orchestrated the 
depopulation of Armenians from their homes in Nakhichevan.
  As the Communist party leader of Azerbaijan during the 1970's, he 
violently suppressed all nationalist and democratic dissent. His ardent 
support, and I stress his ardent support, for the Soviet invasion of 
Afghanistan earned him a seat on the Soviet Politburo under Leonid 
Brezhnev where he served until he was removed by Mikhail Gorbachev in 
1987, for having engaged in widespread corruption.
  Since his return to power through a military coup in 1993, President 
Aliyev has suppressed democracy in Azerbaijan and committed widespread 
violations of human rights in that country, which have been documented 
by the State Department.
  I am also concerned that this visit to Washington by President Aliyev 
at this critical stage in the negotiations over Nagorno-Karabagh 
threatens to harm the peace process by undermining confidence in the 
role of the United States as an impartial mediator.
  Many of my colleagues know that section 907 of the Freedom Support 
Act prohibits direct United States Government aid to Azerbaijan because 
of the Assyrian blockade of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabagh.
  The administration continues to advocate against section 907 and this 
further reinforces the Azerbaijani perception that the United States, 
since the most recent OSCE summit in Lisbon has tilted toward 
Azerbaijan.

[[Page H5821]]

  What we are saying, Mr. Speaker, is that this visit, this state visit 
by President Aliyev now could serve to encourage Azerbaijan to further 
harden its negotiating stance in negotiating a peaceful settlement of 
the Karabagh conflict.
  This encouragement is particularly dangerous given President Aliyev's 
pattern of unacceptable behavior including his use of oil as a weapon 
against Armenia and Nagorno-Karabagh, his blockades of Armenia and 
Karabagh, his rapidly expanding military capabilities, his threats of 
force and intimidation tactics and his refusal to negotiate directly 
with the democratically elected representatives of Nagorno-Karabagh.
  Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say, in conclusion, that I would urge 
my colleagues to join the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and me 
in letting President Clinton know of our concerns about his upcoming 
meeting with President Aliyev and to push our State Department toward a 
fair solution to the very difficult Nagorno-Karabagh conflict.
  Mr. Speaker, I was in Armenia and in Nagorno-Karabagh earlier this 
year and believe me, there are no countries and no people that are more 
supportive of the United States and love and see the United States as 
such a great example of democracy and a market economy.

                              {time}  1545

  Armenia and Karabagh are Democratic nations. They are capitalistic 
nations. They really honestly believe that we are on their side. And we 
should be. Because they are on the side of what is right. They simply 
want to retain their own independence, their own freedom and exercise 
their own self-determination.
  I think the U.S. policy should at least be neutral in this conflict. 
Unfortunately, there are many indications that it is not, and 
particularly our concern and my concern is that President Aliyev's 
visit is going to give the impression once again that the United States 
and our State Department tilt towards Azerbaijan.
  But we will continue our efforts to raise the issue and to make sure 
that the United States takes a neutral position with regard to 
negotiations over Karabagh and, hopefully, we will be heard at the 
White House and in the State Department, if not now at some point in 
the future.

                          ____________________