[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 78 (Tuesday, June 16, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6357-S6359]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              INDIA-CHINA

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concern with the 
handling of United States foreign policy on the eve of President 
Clinton's second summit with the People's Republic of China. American 
foreign policy should promote freedom, democracy, respect for human 
dignity, and the rule of law. It is hard for me to imagine that the 
President would reward inappropriate actions by the Chinese Communist 
Party leaders while simultaneously sanctioning the democratic leaders 
in India.
  Over India's 50-year history, U.S. relations have been hot and cold. 
But we cannot deny the reality that today, India is the largest 
democracy in the world. India recently held the largest democratic 
elections in the history of the world. And democracy is more than just 
a word. We have a common bond with the Indian people based upon a 
commitment to democracy, freedom, and the rule of law. They are a 
people who have struggled for freedom from a colonial power in order to 
gain independence. We share that struggle in our histories.
  India has many friends in the United States, and many Americans 
proudly claim Indian heritage. But our relationship with India has been 
neglected, and unfortunately, we find ourselves in a difficult bind. 
Due to India's recent decision to detonate nuclear devices on May 11 
and May 13, we have instituted sanctions. I deeply regret the 
circumstances regarding India's decision to detonate nuclear devices. 
But the increased instability has been caused by China's proliferation 
policies, a U.S. foreign policy which favors China over India, and the 
licensing of technologies by the United States which enhances China's 
military capabilities.
  Let me review some of the facts.
  India has broken no international laws or agreements by choosing to 
test nuclear devices.

[[Page S6358]]

  India is not a known proliferator of weapons or weapons technology.
  India's 50-year history demonstrates peaceful intent exercised within 
a democratic society.
  India has been a nuclear power since it conducted its first nuclear 
tests in 1974; this status did not change with last month's tests.
  Although not at war, India's borders are considered ``hot spots'' for 
several reasons.
  Since independence in 1947, India and Pakistan have been disputing 
borders.
  Also since independence, India has understood the importance of good 
relations with China for its own security.
  Relations were clouded by China's occupation in 1950 of Tibet, which 
had been independent until then and served as a stable buffer between 
the two countries. This occupation brought Chinese expansion to India's 
border.
  India sought renewed cooperative relations on the basis of a policy 
that recognized Tibet's genuine autonomy under Chinese sovereignty in 
order to maintain a buffer between India and China.
  Relations completely changed, however, following China's military 
build-up in Tibet beginning in 1956 and 1957. During this period, China 
began the systematic oppression of Tibetan religion and culture, 
forcing the mass migration of Tibetans. The Dalai Lama and thousands of 
Tibetans were given refuge in India in 1959. After forty years, the 
Tibetan oppression continues, the military occupation of Tibet 
continues, and nearly 200,000 Tibetans remain in India.
  Between 1957 and 1962, India's relations with China were marred by 
Beijing's huge territorial claims amounting to 50,000 square miles, and 
its illegal use of force to occupy 15,000 square miles of that claimed 
area.
  Indian attempts to reach a border settlement through negotiations 
with China failed in 1961, and its attempts to prevent further Chinese 
encroachment into Indian territory was met by a massive Chinese 
invasion in 1962.
  To this day, China continues to occupy 15,000 square miles of Indian 
territory in Ladakh and it claims sovereignty over the entire 35,000 
square miles of India's Northeastern most province [Arunachal Pradesh]. 
This source of tension and deep concern has not been removed despite 
several rounds of Sino-Indian diplomatic negotiations to resolve the 
border dispute since 1981.
  China conducted its first nuclear test in October 1964, within 2 
years of the outbreak of the Sino-Indian War. In 1966, China tested its 
first medium range ballistic missile, and tested again in 1970.
  India decided to develop its nuclear weapons program in 1970. It 
conducted its first tests, declaring its capability to the world, in 
1974.
  India did not join the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty--known as the 
``NPT''--in 1968 because the treaty sought to ensure an arms control 
system that would allow the five powers alone--China, France, the 
United Kingdom, Russia, and the United States--to possess nuclear 
weapons. That meant that China, the internally oppressive and 
undemocratic occupying force on India's border, would be permitted to 
have nuclear weapons while India, fearful and insecure, would be denied 
any recourse to such weapons.
  India has not signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty because the 
treaty seeks to prevent India from conducting further tests without 
limiting China's ability to do the same. Like the NPT, India refuses to 
join this treaty as a nonnuclear power unless China and the other 
powers agree to disarm.
  Between 1974 and 1998, India experienced sanctions by the United 
States on nuclear energy, space, computer, and other technologies.
  Following India's first nuclear tests in 1974, it did not conduct 
further tests, until now.
  India has not been a proliferator of nuclear weapons and missiles but 
China, a nuclear power, has proliferated.
  Some estimates indicate 90 percent of China's weapons sales go to 
states which border India. Of particular concern is Chinese 
proliferation of such weapons and technologies to Pakistan.
  Between 1974 and 1998, India has tried to break through the 
difficulties with China and Pakistan. India had not conducted any 
further tests, even though China had. India had not illegally 
proliferated weapons--China had. But India has been denied the same 
nuclear and technical cooperation which we have accorded to the PRC.
  India's commercial electricity needs are among the largest in the 
world, similar to China's. We have recently signed a nuclear 
cooperation agreement with the PRC, but maintain restrictions on 
nuclear power agreements with India.
  India's testing in 1974 and in 1998, again, violated no agreements. 
North Korea expelled international inspectors in 1993, in direct 
violation of the NPT. We ``rewarded'' the brutal dictatorship in North 
Korea with a classic appeasement plan--free fuel oil and $4 billion 
worth of the top of the line nuclear reactors in exchange for their 
promises to do what they didn't do under an internationally binding 
agreement.
  China may be too preoccupied today to directly threaten India, but 
they need only employ Pakistan as a surrogate belligerent to jeopardize 
India's security.
  Mr. President, the United States is helping the largest single-party 
authoritarian government in the world suppress the development of the 
largest democracy in the world. I submit that China's behavior against 
students on Tiananmen Square, resistance to freedom and democratic 
reforms, abysmal human rights record, and dangerous and irresponsible 
proliferation activities deserve America's scorn more than India's 
legal actions taken in defense of its own national interests. There is 
something inherently wrong with sanctioning a democracy legally acting 
in its perceived national interests while rewarding a single party 
communist state which threatens regional security in violation of 
international law.
  India watched carefully as the United States has led the world in a 
policy of engagement with China. From the U.S.-China relationship, 
India has learned some important lessons. First, look at the rationale 
the U.S. gives for its policy toward China. We must ``engage'' with 
China because it is the most populous country, an enormous potential 
market, a major trading nation, a member of the permanent five at the 
United Nations Security Council, and China is a nuclear power with a 
modernizing military. With these qualifications China has been able to 
get top priority and attention from U.S. Government and business 
leaders. In spite of posing a potential threat to the United States and 
being among the world's worst human rights violators, China gets the 
perks of enormously favorable trade and investment flows and top level 
diplomatic treatment, including presidential visits, while India gets 
sanctioned. This makes no sense--it is strange--and it's just wrong.
  The United States largely overlooks India despite its 950 million 
people, its democratic government, and the largest middle class in the 
world. Demographers predict that India's population will surpass that 
of China sometime during the next century. Thus, the only attribute 
India lacks when compared with its sometimes-aggressive neighbor, in 
this administration's definition of importance, is acceptance into the 
``nuclear club.'' The message sent by the Clinton foreign policy team 
has encouraged India to conclude the most effective way to ensure its 
interests are protected from an increasingly powerful Asian superpower, 
and garner greater diplomatic and commercial attention from the West, 
is to remind the world of its nuclear deterrent capability.
  What lessons are we to learn? First, the United States should be more 
cautious with our definition of ``engagement.'' By overlooking China's 
proliferation activities--not imposing sanctions when required by law--
we are rewarding the wrong behavior. Second, understanding that India 
considered its security environment to be precarious enough to risk 
global condemnation and economic sanctions, the U.S. should take a 
closer look to assess whether India's fears and actions were justified. 
And finally, we must base our foreign policies upon the principles of 
freedom, democracy, respect for human dignity, and the rule of law. We 
must look to our friends first in this endeavor, and work together to 
``engage'' those who would oppose freedom in the world. India, along 
with Japan, Korea, the Philippines, and other Asian democracies should 
form the foundation

[[Page S6359]]

from which our engagement in Asia begins. Working with the democracies 
of the world, we should engage China and bring the 1.2 billion Chinese 
people into the community of free nations.
  A foreign policy devoid of principle has led us to the point where we 
are rewarding dictators and punishing democracies. The President's 
visit to China this month represents another opportunity to define the 
United States' role in the world. The President must clearly articulate 
which behavior deserves praise, and which does not. He must demonstrate 
strong leadership on behalf of the American people. We must all 
understand, the behavior which the United States rewards is likely to 
be the behavior we will see more of in the future.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask, are we in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 8 minutes in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.

                          ____________________