[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 60 (Wednesday, May 13, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4773-S4774]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        NUCLEAR TESTING IN INDIA

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, as the Senate will know, the Government 
of India has announced that two further underground nuclear tests 
occurred at 3:51, eastern daylight time, this morning. These follow the 
three underground explosions announced on Monday.
  Now, this might at first seem a reckless act on the part of the 
Government of India. But, sir, I would call attention to a statement in 
an Associated Press report which reads, ``The Government said its 
testing was now complete and it was prepared to consider a ban on such 
nuclear testing.''
  Sir, this could be a statement of transcendent importance. It would 
be useful at this time, when tempers--and I use the word ``temper''--
are rising in the West, to recall the outrage when France carried out a 
series of underwater tests in the South Pacific in Mururoa Atoll on 
September 5, 1995, to the indignation of many other nations, but 
thereupon signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty the following year. 
And, sir, it has not only signed that treaty, it has ratified it.
  The United States was among the convening nations in 1996 that signed 
the treaty, but this Senate has not ratified the treaty. The People's 
Republic of China followed much the same course in completing a series 
of tests and then agreeing to the test ban treaty.

  Just now the press is reporting all manner of administration 
officials are distressed that the Central Intelligence Agency did not 
report indications that these tests were about to take place and that 
somehow we were taken off guard. But I repeat a comment I made to Tim 
Weiner of the New York Times yesterday that it might help if the 
American foreign relations community would learn to read.
  The BJP Party, the Bharatiya Janata Party--now in office for 
essentially the first time--leads the ruling coalition and has long 
been militantly asserting that India was going to be a nuclear power 
like the other great powers of the world. It is the second most 
populous nation. In the election platform--technically, a manifesto in 
the Indian-English usage--issued before the last election, the BJP had 
this to say: ``The BJP rejects the notion of nuclear apartheid and will 
actively oppose attempts to impose a hegemonistic nuclear regime. . . 
We will not be dictated to by anybody in matters of security 
requirements and in the exercise of the nuclear option.''
  This is hugely important, as is indicated by the enormous ground 
swell of support in India itself in the aftermath of Monday's 
explosion.
  In the platform put together by the coalition that now governs in 
India, there is a statement, not quite as assertive, but not less so. 
This is the National Agenda for Governance, issued 18 March 1998. It 
says, ``To ensure the security, territorial integrity and unity of 
India we will take all necessary steps and exercise all available 
options. Toward that end we will re-evaluate the nuclear policy and 
exercise the option to induct nuclear weapons.'' That is an Indian-
English term, ``induct,'' as in induction into the military. It means 
to bring them into an active place in the Nation's military arsenal.
  Now, the President, who is in Germany, announced today that we would 
impose the sanctions required under law, the Glenn amendment of 1994, 
directed against non-declared nuclear nations that begin nuclear 
testing. This is the law and the Indians knew it perfectly well, even 
if we have, perhaps, been insufficiently attentive to bringing to their 
minds the implications of the law. Chancellor Kohl--Germany being a 
large supplier of aid to India --was with President Clinton when this 
was said. We should not underestimate the degree to which this might 
just arouse further resentment in India.
  The law is there, but also the resentment is there. In this National 
Agenda for Governance that I just recited, there are a number of 
platform ``planks,'' you might say principles. The second on economy 
reads: ``We will continue with the reform process to give a strong 
Swadeshi thrust to ensure that the national economy grows

[[Page S4774]]

on the principle that India shall be built by Indians.'' Swadeshi is a 
turn of the century term of the independence movement meaning self-
reliance, use indigenous materials, sweep imports out.
  They are not going to be as intimidated by sanctions as we may 
suppose. This is the first Hindu government in India in perhaps 800 
years. We tend to forget that. When we go to visit India, distinguished 
persons are taken to view the Taj Mahal, the Red Fort, the India Gate. 
All those are monuments by conquerors --Islamic, then English. It is 
something we don't notice. They do. And after 50 years of Indian 
independence, founded by a secular government which denied all those 
things, there is now a Hindu government and its sensibilities need to 
be attended to if only as a matter of common sense.
  Do we want India in a system of nuclear arms control or don't we? I 
think we do. I think we ought to encourage them and explore the 
implications of the statement reported by the Associated Press. And 
while we are at it, it would do no great harm to ratify the 
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty ourselves.
  I see my friend from Nebraska is on the floor. I look forward to a 
comment he might make.

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I want to ask the Senator a question. 
First of all, I don't think there is anybody in the Senate who has been 
more consistently critical of the Central Intelligence Agency and has 
been more diligent in trying to change the way we classify documents. I 
find both of them to be a bit connected to his comments.
  One of the concerns I have in all this is that we look for a 
scapegoat. Now, one of the things that citizens need to understand is 
that increasingly we are getting our intelligence through open sources. 
That is good because when you get your information through open sources 
there is a debate. Is what somebody said true or not true--and you 
debate such things.
  I quite agree with what the Senator said earlier that for us to be 
going at the CIA right now because they didn't report this is a little 
ridiculous. All we have to do is read articles of John Burns over a 
half dozen months.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Of the New York Times.
  Mr. KERREY. If we head in the direction of finding a scapegoat here 
what we will miss is an opportunity to debate what our policy ought to 
be toward the largest democracy on Earth. In addition to the other 
things that the Senator said about India, this is also the largest 
democracy. A billion people live in India. Not an easy country to 
govern.
  They have a Hindu nationalist party that campaigned on a platform, 
and that platform was that nuclear testing would resume. They were not 
secretive about that. They did not operate in the shadows on that. They 
were upfront and they followed through.
  It seems to me we should blame ourselves for not paying attention to 
what is going on there and blame ourselves for not giving enough 
consideration or concern about the direction of the largest democracy 
on Earth.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senator his 10 minutes 
has expired.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I ask for an additional 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERREY. I am at the end of my question, Mr. President.
  I just wanted, in addition to making the point that the distinguished 
Senator has been very critical of the CIA--and I think he is quite 
right in this particular instance to say though we may need some 
questions answered, the biggest question is why didn't anybody in 
either the administration or in this Congress notice that the Hindu 
nationalist party had campaigned on a promise to make India a nuclear 
power. What does the distinguished Senator from New York think this 
Congress needs to do to make certain that we are paying attention in 
the aftermath of these sanctions to what India is doing, to make 
certain that, first, we don't miss an opportunity to get them to ratify 
this treaty, and in addition, to get them to do a number of other 
things that not only would be in their best interests, but to be in our 
best interests, as well, since a third of the Earth's population lives 
between India and China in this very, very volatile region to which we 
obviously have not paid a sufficient amount of attention.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Well, I would say to my gallant, able friend that the 
Intelligence Committee could do worse than inviting some of the 
administration officials who are so indignant that the CIA didn't tell 
them what was going to happen up to say: have you read any Indian 
newspaper recently? Do you happen to know what the largest democracy in 
the world is and who they elected in the last election? Have you looked 
into their party platforms.
  Mr. KERREY. Personally, I think it would be a waste of money to 
direct the CIA to read the New York Times and report to us what is 
contained in there relevant to any part of the world, let alone in 
India.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I much agree. May I say to my friend that I was 
Ambassador to India on May 18, 1974, when the Indians exploded a 
``peaceful'' nuclear explosion, as they said, in India on the same 
testing grounds used this time. It fell on me to call on then Prime 
Minister Gandhi to express our concerns. I have to say that Secretary 
Kissinger was mild; he toned down the indignation that came from the 
Department of State in his draft statement. I did say to Mr. Gandhi on 
that occasion, speaking for myself, without instructions, that India 
had made a great mistake, that it was the No. 1 country in south Asia, 
the hegemonic country in South Asia, Pakistan No. 3, if you like, then 
you go down to the Maldives, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka; but in 25 years 
time there would be a Mongol general in Islamabad with a nuclear 
capacity, saying, I have got four bombs and I want the Punjab back and 
I want this region or that region, the Kashmir, or else I will drop 
them on what was then Bombay, New Delhi, Madras and Calcutta.
  Well, something like that is happening and we better see that it 
doesn't go forward. So to explore the Indian offer here, suggesting the 
offer, seems to me, a matter of huge importance. We could see the end 
of the cold war, followed by a nuclear proliferation of a kind we never 
conceived. We can see China, North Korea, and Pakistan arming in 
nuclear modes against India and Russia and us looking at an 
Armageddonic future that we had felt was behind us.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I know the distinguished Senator from 
Pennsylvania has come here for other reasons. He used to be chairman of 
the Intelligence Committee. I know from listening to him that he has an 
active interest in this issue as well. I have heard him comment many 
times. In fact, he asked the administration officials why they don't 
attempt to resolve the conflicts between India and Pakistan and India 
and China, and why do we not pay more attention to it. I suspect the 
Senator from Pennsylvania would rather not spend too much time 
commenting on it, but by coincidence, we have another individual on the 
floor who has an active interest in this issue.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend. I ask unanimous 
consent that the time from 1:45 p.m. to 2 o'clock be reserved for the 
Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.

                          ____________________