[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 79 (Monday, June 7, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H3742-H3743]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        THE SITUATION IN KASHMIR

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, in the past few weeks tensions have 
increased in the area that is known as the ``roof of the world,'' and 
that is India's state of Jammu and Kashmir, located in the western 
Himalayan Mountains. For years they have been victimized by foreign 
militants, mercenaries affiliated with Islamic extremist groups, and 
supported by Pakistan, who have imposed a reign of terror on the 
inhabitants of the state, and this spring the Pakistan-backed 
infiltrators took over Indian defensive positions located on India's 
side of the line of control near the town of Kargil. India has 
responded to this incursion on its territory by exercising its 
legitimate right of self-defense.
  Mr. Speaker, recently Pakistan's Ambassador to the U.S. has 
complained of what he called a ``bias in favor of the Indian position'' 
by our State Department. Ambassador Kokhar was apparently upset about a 
statement made by State Department spokesman James Rubin at his regular 
press briefing in which Mr. Rubin described the Kashmiri Mujahideen as 
infiltrators from Pakistan on India's side of the line of control. Mr. 
Rubin also stated that insertion of any additional fighters from across 
the line of control will only increase tensions and prolong the 
fighting.
  Mr. Speaker, I find it a little ironic that the Pakistani Ambassador 
complained about a pro-India tilt at the State Department, since for 
years the State Department has demonstrated what I consider to be a 
pronounced pro-Pakistan tilt. In fact, in the first few days of the 
current conflict, the State Department seemed to be going out of

[[Page H3743]]

its way to suggest that both countries were equally guilty. At last 
week's briefing, the State Department spokesman was just stating the 
facts, describing the situation in Kashmir as it truly is. I hope that 
the State Department and other administration officials will not bow to 
Pakistani pressure in characterizing the current conflict in Kashmir. 
It is clear that Pakistan has had a major role in precipitating this 
current conflict. Pakistan has for years tried to internationalize its 
bilateral dispute with India over Kashmir, and it is a strategy we 
cannot allow to succeed.
  Officially, Pakistan claims that it only provides political and moral 
support for militants in Kashmir, although I think it is highly 
inappropriate to use the term ``moral'' for a campaign of terror that 
has claimed thousands of victims, both Hindu and Muslim, and has made 
refugees of hundreds of thousands of Kashmiri pundits. Mr. Rubin's 
statement indicates a recognition of the obvious fact that the 
militants have crossed over from Pakistan. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, there 
are reports indicating that these well-trained mercenaries are not only 
supported by the Pakistani Army, but that Pakistani Army regulars may 
be participating in the infiltration of India.
  The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that India has undertaken a 
defensive operation to repulse hostile infiltrators, and India has 
taken appropriate steps to keep its neighbor Pakistan and the world 
community informed about its actions. The militants are occupying 
strategic locations, threatening to alter the current line of control 
that was established by the U.N. in a negotiated cease-fire and which 
both countries officially recognize and honor, almost as a de facto 
international boundary. India could not stand by and allow this to 
continue.
  During this conflict, India's Prime Minister Vajpayee has been in 
contact with his Pakastani counterpart, Prime Minister Sharif, and the 
Directors-General of Military Operations of India and Pakistan have 
been in contact with each other over the hotline installed to defuse 
tensions between the two countries. The U.S. Ambassador to India, 
Richard Celeste, has been briefed by both the Defense Department and 
the External Affairs Ministry in New Delhi. The week before last, 
India's Ambassador to the United States came up to Capitol Hill to 
brief Members of Congress, and other friendly governments have also 
been briefed.
  Mr. Speaker, I have spoken out repeatedly about the need to repeal 
the economic sanctions that were imposed on India and Pakistan last 
year pursuant to the Glenn amendment after both countries conducted 
nuclear tests. In fact, I have introduced legislation to repeal these 
sanctions which have done nothing to promote nuclear nonproliferation 
or to build confidence between India and Pakistan. What the sanctions 
have accomplished is to cause American businesses to lose trade and 
investment opportunities with both India and Pakistan, to disrupt 
bilateral relations in many other areas not related to military or 
nuclear technology, and to block important development projects funded 
by international lending institutions.
  The current situation in Kashmir should have nothing to do with our 
efforts to lift the sanctions imposed by the Glenn amendment.
  But the current situation does point to an area where I believe U.S. 
sanctions should be maintained. The Pressler amendment bans U.S. 
military assistance to Pakistan unless the U.S. President certifies 
that Pakistan does not possess nuclear weapons. Late last month, 
Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs, Karl Inderfurth, 
testified before a Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee in support of 
repealing the Pressler amendment, and I greatly respect Rick 
Inderfurth, Mr. Speaker, but I believe he was wrong on this issue.
  The justification for the Pressler amendment is Pakistan's long-term 
involvement in nuclear proliferation. Indeed, the Cox report contains 
several references to transfers of nuclear technology and missile 
technology between China and Pakistan. India's nuclear program, on the 
other hand, is an indigenous program, and India has not been involved 
in sharing this technology, and this is a very important distinction.
  Now, Pakistan's involvement in supporting the militants that 
continually infiltrate India's territory is an example of how Pakistan 
promotes regional instability and commits or supports aggression 
against its neighbors. India is not involved in these kinds of hostile, 
destabilizing activities.
  Mr. Speaker, our priority should be to do what we can to promote 
stability and economic opportunities in South Asia. The best way we can 
do that is to lift the sanctions imposed under the Glenn Amendment. 
While I obviously oppose repealing the Pressler Amendment, in any case 
we should be focusing now on lifting the sanctions imposed by the Glenn 
Amendment. We must not be pulled into intervening in the Kashmir issue, 
since India and Pakistan must resolve this conflict on a bilateral 
basis.
  I urge that American statements on this issue continue to recognize 
which party is the destabilizing force and which one is trying to 
defend itself from outside aggression.

                          ____________________