[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 55 (Monday, May 8, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H2635-H2636]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      WORKING FOR RESUMPTION OF INDIA-PAKISTAN DIALOGUE ON 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. Madam Speaker, recently we have seen some reason for 
hope about the resumption of a dialogue between Pakistan and India on 
resolving the Kashmir conflict. But we have also received a reminder of 
how difficult the path toward dying dialogue can be.
  On the hopeful side, the United States has asked Pakistan to take 
concrete steps for the resumption of a productive dialogue with India 
and a return to what is known as the ``Spirit of Lahore'' so that there 
will be no more Kargils.
  I should explain, Madam Speaker, that Lahore is a city in Pakistan 
near the border with India. It was the scene not much more than a year 
ago of a very amicable meeting between India's Prime Minister Vajpayee 
and the former Pakistani Prime Minister Sharif. Given the longstanding 
animosity between the two South Asian neighbors, the image of the two 
prime ministers embracing and pledging to

[[Page H2636]]

work in a spirit of partnership and respect was heart-warming, 
promising a new era in bilateral relations.
  But a short time later there was Kargil. Kargil is the name of a town 
in Kashmir under India's jurisdiction near the line of control that 
separates the areas controlled by India and Pakistan. In May of 1999, 
Pakistani-backed forces crossed that line and attacked India's 
defensive positions near Kargil. This bold gambit by Pakistan was not 
successful militarily. Ultimately, it proved to be even more of a 
disaster militarily for Pakistan, and the United States urged Pakistan 
to withdraw its forces back to its side of the line of control. Our 
government refused to go along with Pakistan's bid to strengthen its 
position by internationalizing the crisis by trying to get the United 
States to step in as a mediator in the bilateral dispute.
  What little was left of the ``Spirit of Lahore,'' Madam Speaker, was 
further eroded last October when a military coup in Pakistan removed 
the civilian government from power and threw Prime Minister Sharif in 
jail.
  In a recent interview with an international news service, our 
Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs, Karl Inderfurth, 
said that a solution to the Kashmir project must be homegrown and not 
exploited from the outside. Mr. Inderfurth expressed that the State 
Department was trying to move away from the old days when there was 
typically a pro-Pakistan tilt in U.S. policy in the region, to a more 
even-handed approach for working with both of the major South Asian 
nations. But he stated, and I quote, ``Right now we have more 
opportunities to pursue with India, and, frankly, right now we have 
many more concerns about the direction Pakistan is heading.'' He also 
expressed hope that Pakistan would take concrete steps that would allow 
a productive and serious dialogue to be resumed with India.
  Madam Speaker, I would stress that the most helpful concrete step 
that Pakistan could take would be to do all in its power to end the 
cross-border terrorism that has caused so much suffering to the people 
of Kashmir, Hindu and Muslim alike. While India has made clear its 
willingness to negotiate in good faith with Pakistan, India also has to 
maintain a vigilant defensive posture for as long as the Pakistani-
supported cross-border terrorism continues.
  Madam Speaker, I believe that President Clinton's recent trip to 
South Asia, which I had the opportunity to take part in, has played a 
significant role in helping to reduce tensions and hostility between 
Pakistan and India. As Secretary Inderfurth said, ``The President's 
visit has changed the terms of the relationship between the United 
States and India, the world's two largest democracies.'' The President 
made it clear to both India and Pakistani leaders that the U.S. would 
be happy to work with both countries as friends to try to encourage 
dialogue, but it is not our place to dictate the terms of the peace 
process in Kashmir much less the outcome.
  The great thing about the Lahore process is that it rose as a 
bilateral initiative between India and Pakistan. The key for breathing 
life into the bilateral Lahore declarations is for Pakistan to accept 
India's outstretched hand. And so far, unfortunately, Pakistan has been 
sending somewhat mixed signals.
  Meanwhile, Madam Speaker, we have seen how dangerous the Kashmiri 
militant movement, which is supported by Pakistan, has become. Over the 
weekend we heard from one of the militant leaders, Mushtaq Ahmed 
Zargar, who was one of the three militants freed last December by the 
Indian government in exchange for freeing the innocent hostages being 
held in the hijacked Indian Airlines plane. According to a news account 
from the AP, Mr. Zargar dismissed the idea of negotiations with India, 
promising to stay on the path of jehad, or holy war. He threatened 
punishment for any Kashmiri who opened talks with India. And this, 
unfortunately, is the true face of the so-called freedom movement in 
Kashmir.

                              {time}  2015

  Mr. Speaker, by taking steps towards negotiation, Pakistan could help 
to isolate and undercut these terrorist groups operating in Kashmir. So 
far, Pakistan has done just the opposite, actively supporting the 
terrorists. But at some point, I hope that the Pakistani leadership 
will recognize that that strategy is increasingly turning Pakistan into 
a pariah state.
  If and when Pakistan changes its course, and I hope it will soon, 
they will find a willing negotiating party in India and a supportive 
friend in the United States. I just hope that we can resume the India-
Pakistan dialogue in the ``spirit of Lahore'' as soon as possible.

                          ____________________