[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 24, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S510-S515]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       A REPORT ON FOREIGN TRAVEL

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in the absence of any other Senator on 
the floor, I think this would be an appropriate time to report on some 
foreign travel which I recently undertook for a 2-week period in late 
December and early January, accompanied on part of the trip by Senator 
Voinovich. Our trip took us to the Mideast, where we had the 
opportunity to confer with Egyptian President Mubarak, and then in 
Israel, Prime Minister Barak, and Minister Ariel Sharon, who was 
contesting for the post of Prime Minister in an election to be held in 
Israel on February 6; and also former Foreign Minister Shimon Peres.
  I then continued on to Aqaba in Jordan and had the opportunity to 
meet with King Abdullah in Jordan.
  We found the Mideast to be very tense, with the exacerbation of 
violence inspired by Palestinian youth. The Palestinian Authority has 
not observed their obligation under the Oslo accords to have an 
educational system which omits the traditional incitement to violence 
of youngsters. Their educational materials in the sixth grade, seventh 
grade, ninth grade and beyond, urges the young people to engage in 
violence--a holy jihad for the glory of Allah--encouraging acts which 
result in their own deaths as martyrs. That has set into motion a 
sequence of events in the area where the violence has just been 
extraordinary.
  I think we are really looking at a generational problem--perhaps more 
than a generational problem--until there is some recognition that the 
Israelis and Palestinians can live side by side under the terms of the 
Oslo accords and the implementation, as may be worked out.
  When we were there, and to this day, the atmosphere was heavy with 
doubts as to whether a peace treaty could be reached.
  I have complimented President Clinton privately and publicly, and I 
do so again today, for the efforts he maintained right to the end of 
his term in office. Now the new administration, I know, will pick up 
this very difficult issue and will work as best they can to implement 
the peace process and try to bring stability to that region.
  Before traveling to Egypt and Israel, Senator Voinovich and I visited 
Belgrade in Yugoslavia and made a trip into Bosnia. We were enormously 
impressed with the U.S. military presence in Bosnia, and U.S. soldiers 
helping to maintain a very fragile peace in that area of the world.
  In Yugoslavia, we met the new leaders, who are very impressive men 
who are carrying forward.
  The problem of former President Milosevic is a very big issue in 
Yugoslavia. The new Yugoslav leaders say they want to try him in 
Yugoslavia, as he has committed horrendous crimes against the people of 
Yugoslavia--embezzlement which is estimated as high as $1 billion, and 
stealing the election on election fraud. But at the same time, there 
are competing demands from the War Crimes Tribunal at The Hague.
  On my return trip, after Senator Voinovich had departed in Israel, I 
had the chance to meet with the chief prosecutor of the International 
Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Carla del Ponte, at The 
Hague. She is insistent on bringing Milosevic to trial at The Hague.
  Under the U.N. resolution, there is a priority status accorded to The 
Hague to try Milosevic.
  Perhaps these interests can be reconciled by trying Milosevic first 
in Yugoslavia, but before he serves a sentence if one is imposed, he 
goes to The Hague for trial. Ms. del Ponte was concerned that there not 
be a long interval because the War Crimes Tribunal is a temporary 
institution. There have been some suggestions that Milosevic be tried 
by the War Crimes Tribunal in Belgrade, Yugoslavia, but that remains to 
be worked out.
  One thing which must be accomplished, in my judgment, is that 
Milosevic must be tried and brought to justice. It is enormously 
important that a head of state be tried.
  I note my distinguished colleague, Senator Grassley, has arrived on 
the floor, so I will conclude these remarks with a comment or two on 
the discussions which were held with the leaders in India and in 
Pakistan where there has been a problem of nuclear confrontation and 
the dispute in Kashmir. There were also discussions on the persecution 
of Christians, which is a very rampant problem.
  Mr. President, on December 28, Senator Voinovich and I departed from 
Andrews Air Force Base and flew across the Atlantic landing late in the 
evening in Munich, Germany. Consul General Bob Boehme and Economic 
Officer John McCaslin met us in Munich. The two shared with us their 
thoughts on a wide variety of subjects ranging from a potential U.S. 
missile defense system to the current refugee situation in Germany. The 
next morning we had a working breakfast with representatives of the 
German/American business community. Our discussions ranged form lack of 
an educated workforce in Germany resulting in the need for skilled 
immigrants to staff many of their high-tech companies to harmonization 
of a European defense force with NATO to the ever-evolving situation in 
the Balkans. After our breakfast we departed Munich and arrived in 
Belgrade, Yugoslavia on Friday December 29.
  My first visit to Yugoslavia was in 1986, when I visited with then 
President Moisev. I was last in Belgrade in August 1998 in an attempt 
to visit then President Slobodan Milosevic to urge him to turn over 
indicted war criminals. Yugoslavia today is a country undergoing 
dramatic changes. Recently and most notably is the formation of a 
democratic form of government. The greatest political achievement of 
the Serbian people was a peaceful democratic revolution. Public 
protests usually happen before elections are held when the political 
tensions are at their

[[Page S511]]

greatest. In Yugoslavia, the opposite happened. Mass protests were the 
only way to guarantee that the popular will expressed at the polls was 
to be respected by former President Milosevic.
  The transfer of power following the electoral victory has not been 
simple, primarily because of Mr. Milosevic's attempts to falsify 
obvious electoral results. With widespread support from the citizens, 
the Democratic Opposition of Serbia secured the recognition of the 
electoral results and Dr. Kostunica was declared head of state on 
October 5, 2000. However, full legal transfer of power was not fully 
accomplished by this proclamation. President Kostunica has insisted on 
a strict observance of the rule of law. The immediate challenge ahead 
for President Kostunica and the Federal Government includes dealing in 
a clear and transparent way with relations in the Yugoslav federation 
and, in Serbia, resolving the political and security issues related to 
Kosovo. After my discussions with the various officials from the 
Serbian and Yugoslav Government, it was clear there is a strong desire 
for Mr. Milosevic to be tried by the Serbian government and be held to 
pay for what he has done to the Serbian people before they were willing 
to turn him over to the officials at The Hague.
  We were met at the airport by U.S. Ambassador Bill Montgomery and 
proceeded to our first meeting with Mr. Vojislav Kostunica, President 
of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Sen. Voinovich and I were the 
first Congressional leaders to meet with the newly elected President 
and we congratulated him on his monumental victory. President Kostunica 
proudly told us that after the recent December 23 elections, democratic 
party candidates won 176 out of 250 seats in Parliament, Yugoslavia was 
now ready to push forward with reform. Unfortunately, the new 
democratic Yugoslavia is now having to pay for ten years of corruption 
and mismanagement under the Milosevic regime. Basic public services and 
health care are lacking as well as energy production resulting in 
rolling blackouts in Belgrade during the time of our visit. Another 
internal problem facing the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is a 
political problem--dealing with the integration of Serbia and 
Montenegro. President Djukanovic of Montenegro has declared that 
Montenegro should be a separate state loosely aligned with Yugoslavia 
while Mr. Zoran Djindjic of Serbia, expected to be Prime Minister, 
desires a more traditional federal alliance with the Federal Republic 
of Yugoslavia.
  During our discussion, I told President Kostunica that I thought 
Slobodan Milosevic should be turned over to the prosecutors at the 
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia at The Hague 
for prosecution. President Kostunica told me that while he agreed that 
Slobodan Milosevic should be held accountable, the Serbian people 
should first be given the opportunity to prosecute Mr. Milosevic for 
his many transgressions against them, such as stealing the September 
elections and stealing approximately $1 billion from the coffers of the 
Yugoslav government. President Kostunica was quick to point out that he 
welcomed the office of The Hague Tribunal, which had recently reopened 
in Belgrade, as the first step in the eventual investigation and 
prosecution of Mr. Milosevic and also other indicted war criminal who 
were seeking safe harbor in Yugoslavia.
  We then met with Professor Miroljub Labus, the Federal Deputy Prime 
Minister in charge of economic policy as well as Mr. Bozidar Djelic, 
the Serbian Minister of Finance. Professor Labus as well as Minister 
Djelic, both were emphatic in their desire to bring pro market, 
transparent transactions to the economy of both the federal republic of 
Yugoslavia as well as Serbia. Two of the major moves the federal 
government had undertaken that week was to cut defense spending in 
order to direct more money into infrastructure repairs which had been 
badly neglected under the Milosevic regime and deregulate foreign trade 
in order to attract more overseas investment. Both felt that while the 
new democratic government had a good deal of support of the people 
behind them, they only had about 3 to 6 months to help get the 
government on the right track since the people were expecting to demand 
results soon.
  We next met Mr. Zoran Djindic who won his election only 6 days prior 
to our arrival. He told us that while he had won the political battle, 
the battle to undertake the reforms the people of Serbia demanded was 
just beginning. He said that for the past 50 years the government of 
Serbia had been a facade and that he intended to have a transparent, 
functioning democratic government. When we discussed Mr. Milosevic 
being tried at The Hague, he said Mr. Milosevic was merely a small time 
criminal but had been in the position to have the opportunity to commit 
big time crimes. He further said the will of the Serbian people was to 
try Mr. Milosevic in the Serbian courts first. On the topic of 
Montenegro, he said that integration into the Federal Republic of 
Yugoslavia was imperative for the establishment of joint institution of 
government so that Yugoslavia could begin to slowly move towards 
gaining membership into the EU.

  On the morning of December 30, we met with His Holiness Paul, 
Patriarch of the Serbian Orthodox Church. The elderly Patriarch was a 
distinguished looking gentleman who served as a priest in Kosovo for 34 
years. The Patriarch felt that while the Serbians had done many things 
wrong during the recent conflicts, others did as well, and the 
unfortunate result was that many ancient churches and mosques were 
senselessly and unnecessarily destroyed. The Patriarch stated that he 
felt that the Church had assisted in highlighting moral issues during 
the elections and the Church had always advocated peaceful solutions 
and a peaceful transfer of power.
  After our meeting with the Patriarch we flew to Bosnia to meet 
soldiers from the multinational peace keeping force in Tuzla. Major 
General Sharp, Commander of the 3rd Infantry Division, headquartered in 
Tuzla, Bosnia met us at the airport. General Sharp commands over 3900 
American soldiers, which help constitute a combined force of over 6700 
soldiers including those from Russia, Denmark, Poland, Estonia, 
Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Sweden and Turkey. We discussed his 
soldier's mission, which was supporting implementation of the Dayton 
Peace Accords and maintaining force protection awareness in the region. 
We discussed the problem of war criminals and he said that he knew of 
no indicted war criminals in his area of responsibility but that the 
orders for his division were to detain and hold any of the personnel 
that had been indicted for war crimes. We also discussed the increasing 
role of the National Guard in the peacekeeping role in the Balkans and 
the fact that Pennsylvania's 29th Infantry Division will be taking over 
that critical peace keeping mission there in 2002.
  We then flew by UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters from Tuzla to Camp Dobol 
to visit with some of the soldiers who are stationed there. During 
lunch we discussed many issues with the soldiers ranging from the need 
to continue to reform Tri-Care to the transferability of a soldiers GI 
bill to his family members. After having lunch we departed in Humvee's 
and went on a patrol through the towns of Flipovici and Katonovici with 
the soldiers of the 3rd Infantry Division.
  Upon returning from Tuzla late in the afternoon, we met with Yugoslav 
Minister of Justice Momcilo Grubac who told us that the new Yugoslav 
state would be formed under the rule of law and the massive legal 
reform was just beginning. The Minister told us that they were working 
on harmonizing existing Yugoslav law with EU law in order to comply 
with international standards and to attract overseas investment and 
provide legal and economic stability. When we discussed the trial of 
Mr. Milosevic, the Minister of Justice felt strongly that Milosevic 
should first be tried and held accountable in the Federal Republic of 
Yugoslavia before being turned over and tried in The Hague. The 
Minister of Justice said a new prosecutor for the City of Belgrade 
would be responsible for trying Milosevic. The current DA was a 
holdover from a Milosevic government and until December parliamentary 
elections could not have been removed. The Minister anticipated that in 
late January or early February the DA would be replaced with one that 
would be able to prosecute Milosevic.

[[Page S512]]

  Later that evening we met with Professor Dragoljub Micunovic, the 
President of the Federal Parliaments Chamber of Citizens ``the 
Republic's Upper Body'' and his colleagues. We met in the same 
Parliament building that we all saw on CNN only a few months earlier 
being stormed by citizens demanding fair counting of the elected 
results. These same citizens then were hanging out of windows waving 
the Yugoslav flag after they were successful in forcing Mr. Milosevic 
to declare President Kostunica the rightful winner of the federal 
elections. The Parliamentarians told us that they felt they had laid a 
successful groundwork for reform and that now it was time for them to 
deliver. They, like all the other officials we talked to in Yugoslavia, 
felt that Mr. Milosevic should be first tried in Yugoslavia. We were 
told that they were sure that the prisons in Serbia were much less 
comfortable that those in The Hague and thus Mr. Milosevic would face a 
much harsher sentence in Serbia. After serving his time in Serbia, they 
agreed it would be possible for him to go to The Hague to be tried.
  On New Years Eve we departed Belgrade for Cairo, Egypt. In Cairo that 
evening, we met with Ambassador Daniel Kurtzer to discuss the status of 
the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. My first meeting 
with Ambassador Kurtzer occurred on January 7, 1998, his second day in 
Egypt.
  On New Years Day we visited with President Mubarak at Itihadiya 
Palace in Heiliopolis. As always, the President was gracious as he 
rearranged his busy schedule in order to meet with our delegation. 
President Mubarak and I discussed the negotiations between Chairman 
Arafat, Prime Minister Barak and President Clinton. When we asked 
President Mubarak when the Egyptian Ambassador would be returned to 
Israel, he said the withdrawal of his did not lessen diplomatic 
contacts between Egypt and Israel and should not be construed as his 
lack of support for comprehensive peace between the Palestinians and 
the Israelis.
  President Mubarak said he felt that there was no pressure to conclude 
talks because of President Clinton's departure or because of Prime 
Minister Barak's upcoming election. I asked President Mubarak if he 
would be willing to participate at the negotiations in Washington. 
President Mubarak said that he did not feel that it would be helpful to 
negotiate along-side Chairman Arafat, Prime Minister Barak and 
President Clinton as the issues really need to be resolved between 
Barak and Arafat on their own.
  President Mubarak said that the younger leaders in the region--The 
King of Jordan, the King of Morocco, and Crown-prince of Bahrain--were 
all bright stars on the horizon in the region and could be counted on 
to be supportive of the peace process.
  We discussed the problem of persecution of religious minorities with 
President Mubarak. Egypt, a Muslim country, also has a large vocal 
Christian community which is comprised of Copts and Evangelicals. I had 
previously discussed the plight of religious minorities with President 
Mubarak in February of 1998, in January of 1999, and again in September 
of 1999. I was informed on my previous trips as well as back in 
Washington that both the Copts and other religious minorities faced 
wide-spread discrimination and persecution sometimes rising to the 
level of violence. President Mubarak assured Senator Voinovich and me 
that the Egyptian government would not tolerate such activity. We 
discussed the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 with 
President Mubarak who downplayed the significance of the Act in Egypt. 
He said there was no need for its application because his government 
would not tolerate religious persecution and that any incidents that 
did occur were undertaken on an isolated basis and investigated by the 
government.
  At mid morning on New Years day, we departed from Cairo and flew to 
Tel Aviv. Upon reaching Jerusalem, we were briefed by Ambassador Martin 
Indyk and headed off to our first meeting at the Kennesset with former 
Prime Minister Shimon Peres. Former Prime Minister Peres was under the 
impression that there was not sufficient time to conclude the 
compressive negotiations between the Palestinians and Israelis before 
the upcoming elections in Israel on February 6 and the end of President 
Clinton's term. In Prime Minister Peres' opinion, there was not enough 
focus on the economic issues surrounding a comprehensive peace plan. 
The former Prime Minister held the common opinion that the major 
stumbling blocks to the current negotiations were Jerusalem, the holy 
sites and the Palestinian claim to a right of return. He emphasized 
that there could be no Israeli concession on the right of return 
without endangering the continuation of a ``Jewish state'' which was 
the fundamental reason for the creation of Israel after the Holocaust.
  Our next meeting was with Prime Minister Barak whose frustration with 
negotiations was palpable. Barak stated that he had been very flexible 
in his negotiations with Arafat and that Arafat had taken no risks in 
the positions he was articulating. He stated that the continuing 
violence between the Palestinians and Israeli's lead to unrest in the 
region and did not help the current peace with Egypt and Jordan. The 
Prime Minister reminded us that last year was the best year in the 
history of Israel for Israel's economy. Prime Minister Barak stated 
that the only reason he had not already ended his negotiations with 
Arafat was to give President Clinton, who had personally invested so 
much in the negotiations, one last chance to broker peace in the 
region.
  Our final meeting on New Years day was with Minister Ariel Sharon. 
Minister Sharon said that his much maligned visit to the Temple Mount 
served only as an excuse for the Palestinians by which to mount 
violence against the Israeli people. He stated that he had visited the 
Temple Mount a number of times in the past without incident. Minister 
Sharon told us, if elected as Prime Minister on February 6, he would be 
willing to immediately talk to Arafat about continued negotiations. 
Minister Sharon said he was astounded that Prime Minister Barak was 
willing to ``give away'' Jerusalem and the holy sites without any 
debate or discussion with the people of Israel.
  He felt that the problems of Jerusalem, ensuring there are adequate 
security zones inside Israel, and the return of refugees were the major 
stumbling blocks to peace. Minister Sharon said although he was a 
General, he was committed to peace, not war. He recounted how he 
started as a young private in the Israeli Defense Force and rose to the 
level of General, fighting in every battle in the history of the State 
of Israel. He said that he had experienced all the horrors of war that 
he had seen many of his friends killed and wounded and was in fact 
twice wounded himself and therefore he understood, perhaps more than 
most, the importance of peace. However, he said, negotiating peace for 
Israel was almost as painful as war because peace means security for 
Israel and it was something that he was not going to undertake lightly.
  At the conclusion of that day after meeting with President Mubarak, 
Prime Minister Barak, former Prime Minister Peres and Minister Sharon, 
Senator Voinovich and I decided to send telefaxes to the leaders of 
Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Morocco and Tunisia, as well as President 
Mubarak, urging them to publicly express their support for President 
Clinton's proposal. The letter stated:

       We are advised that you think President Clinton's suggested 
     parameters for the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiation is a 
     reasonable proposal and should be accepted by both sides. If 
     that is true, we urge you to say so publicly to demonstrate 
     there is support in the Arab world to encourage Chairman 
     Arafat to give President Clinton an affirmative reply 
     promptly.

  Later that evening I departed Tel Aviv and flew to Aqaba, Jordan. 
Senator Voinovich stayed in Israel and had a separate schedule for the 
balance of his trip.
  I met with King Abdullah in his summer palace on January 2. I had 
previously met with the King's father for many years. King Abdullah 
said that he had found President Clinton's peace proposals to be very 
reasonable and that he had encouraged Chairman Arafat to use the 
proposal as a framework from which to build a comprehensive peace. The 
King and I discussed whether or not he believed that Chairman Arafat 
had control of the street violence and protest in Israel, and King 
Abdullah opined that he believed that at the outset of the Intifada, 
Arafat

[[Page S513]]

had more control but recently the influence of the Islamic Jihad and 
Hamas were on the rise. I discussed with the King the possibility of 
other Arab countries using their influence to publicly persuade Arafat 
that the Clinton peace proposal was something that should be seriously 
considered. King Abdullah stated that President Mubarak had by far the 
most influence on Chairman Arafat. King Abdullah thought that he along 
with the Crown Prince of Bahrain, President Ben-Ali of Tunisia, 
President Mubarak of Egypt, and King Mohamed of Morocco would consider 
publicly supporting the Clinton peace proposal.

  Later that afternoon we departed for New Delhi. We arrived in New 
Delhi at 10:15 p.m. and Albert Thibault, the Deputy Chief of Mission 
and Paul Mailhot, First Secretary, met us at the airport. The following 
morning we had a working breakfast meeting with members from the U.S. 
Embassy. At the briefing, we discussed the current issues that were of 
concern to India including the signing of the Comprehensive Test Ban 
Treaty (CTBT), India-Pakistan relations, and the future of U.S.-India 
relations under the Bush Administration. President Clinton visit in 
March of 2000 was the first Presidential visit since President Carter's 
visit to India. The main focus of our discussions was the relationship 
between India and Pakistan.
  My first meeting that morning was with Foreign Secretary Lalit 
Mansingh. I congratulated Foreign Secretary Mansingh on his designation 
as the next Indian ambassador to the U.S. We spoke briefly about the 
elections in the U.S. and the Foreign Secretary asked me if I thought 
that the election would result in some momentum for reform of our 
system of voting. I responded that reform was on the horizon but that 
the electoral college would not be eliminated. On the issue of the 
CTBT, the Foreign Secretary expressed his sentiment that the U.S. 
should not expect India to sign a Treaty that the U.S. itself perceives 
as flawed. He went on to state that the Indian neighborhood was getting 
more dangerous and that India had no choice but to ``go nuclear'' to 
protect itself against both China and Pakistan ``but we want to 
convince you that India is a responsible country.'' I then posed the 
question to him of what his assessment was of the likelihood was that a 
nation, excepting those classified as so-called rogue nations, would 
launch an attack against another country. The foreign secretary 
promptly responded that unless there was an ``act of madness'', one 
does not anticipate nuclear attacks from democratic regime. India, he 
said, is producing thousands of graduates every year, whereas Pakistan 
is producing thousands of terrorists each year. He went onto expressed 
his concern about the role of Pakistan in fostering religious fervor, 
which manifested themselves into acts of terrorism.
  The Foreign Secretary stressed that India shared the United States 
commitment to reducing nuclear weapons, but have not always agreed in 
how to reach this common goal. The United States believes that India 
should forego nuclear weapons. India believes that it needs to maintain 
a credible minimum nuclear deterrent in keeping with its own assessment 
of its security needs. Nonetheless, he said, India would be prepared to 
work with the U.S. to build upon the bilateral dialogue already 
underway.
  Next, I asked the Foreign Secretary the impact of the religious 
persecution legislation that was enacted in law in 1998. He responded 
that the legislation had no impact because there is no real problem 
with discrimination in India. When I asked him what steps the Indian 
government had taken to protect minority communities and prosecute 
offenders, the Foreign Secretary responded that there had been isolated 
incidences in the remote tribal areas of Orissa and Gujarat and that 
the Government had strongly condemned these murders. Prime Minister 
Vajpayee had committed that reducing communal violence was one of the 
main goals of his government and in that light he had spent last week 
in the state of Kerala focuses on the issue. He went onto note that 
many religious minorities held seats in Parliament including Defense 
Minister George Fernandes.
  That afternoon, Ambassador Celeste hosted a luncheon at his residence 
with leaders from the business, civil, political and philanthropic 
communities. We discussed a wide range of issues ranging from brain 
drain in India to the middle-east peace process.
  My next meeting that afternoon was with the Leader of the Opposition 
in the Upper House of Parliament Dr. Manmohan Singh. Dr. Manmohan Singh 
was also Finance Minister under former Prime Minister Narashima Rao and 
the architect of India's economic reform program in the early 1990's. 
We discussed topics ranging from the continued strengthening of U.S.-
India ties under the Bush Administration to the perseverance of India's 
economic liberalization. When Dr. Singh asked me about my general views 
on South Asia, I told him that I believed that with a population of 
over 1 billion, one fifth of the world's population, India has a lot of 
unrealized potential. I told him that I applauded India's move from a 
socialist economy to a free market economy and its achievements in 
science and technology. He said that India is committed to economic 
expansion and reform--especially in the emerging knowledge-based 
industries and high-technology areas, and it is determined to bring the 
benefits of economic growth to all its people.
  My final meeting that evening was with K. Natwar Singh, who is the 
chief foreign policy advisor to Congress Party President Sonia Gandhi. 
Mr. Singh also served as foreign minister under Prime Minister Rajiv 
Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi's late husband. We met in the room that used to 
serve as the late Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's office. Mr. Singh took 
me to the memorial, which marked the spot that on October 31, 1984, 
while walking to her office from her nearby residence, Indira Gandhi 
was assassinated.
  We discussed issues ranging from the middle east peace process to the 
balance of power in the newly elect 50-50 Senate to India-Pakistan 
relationship. Mr. Singh expressed the belief of his party that 
reestablishing a bilateral dialogue with Pakistan is critical if any 
progress is to be made in the Kashmir region. I told him that following 
my visit to the subcontinent in 1995, I wrote a letter to President 
Clinton summarizing my meetings with then Prime Minister Rao and Prime 
Minister Bhutto and suggesting that it would be very productive for the 
United States initiate and broker discussions between India and 
Pakistan regarding nuclear weapons and missile delivery systems.

  When I raised the issue of persecution of religious minorities, he 
responded that there is no state sponsored discrimination, but there 
had been isolated case by case incidents. Mr. Singh expressed to me 
that these were isolated incidents and that the government had strongly 
condemned the attacks. He informed me that Prime Minister Vajpayee 
personally was distressed over these attacks and had just returned from 
meeting with a group of Christian Bishops in the state of Kerala.
  The following day I attended a luncheon meeting with the 
Confederation of Indian Industry. Approximately 40 business leaders 
participated in a lively question and answer session where I responded 
to wide array of questions about from bipartisanship in the newly 
elected Senate, the U.S. economy, China PNTR and the Comprehensive Test 
Ban Treaty.
  I left the luncheon and arrived at the Mother Child Welfare Center in 
Chanakyapuri, New Delhi. This Welfare Center also serves as the local 
polio immunization clinic. Launched in 1988, the global Polio 
Eradication Initiative is spearheaded by the U.S. Center for Disease 
Control and Prevention, WHO, Rotary International, National Governments 
and UNICEF. The Governments of the United States, Denmark, Germany, 
Italy, Japan, UK, the European Commission, Bill & Melinda Gates 
Foundation, and the UN Foundation and the World Bank have all been 
supporting the effort to eradicate polio in India by 2002. This would 
be only the second disease to be eradicated after small pox. Here, I 
had the opportunity to hold and administer the polio vaccine drops to 
the infants at the clinic.
  Later that afternoon, I met with Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh. We 
discussed India signing the CTBT, FMCT--Fissile Material Production 
Treaty which would end the production of nuclear materials--India's 
nuclear

[[Page S514]]

weapons program, Kashmir, the problems in Afghanistan with the Taliban. 
He told me that India was committed towards any hostility in the region 
and that the CTBT was a meaningless Treaty in their eyes because they 
have already taken on a voluntary moratorium. He went on to stress that 
India recently signed a treaty with Pakistan that recently no 
aggressive use of nuclear weapons.
  The next morning we departed for Udaipur. That afternoon I met with 
Professor P.C. Bordia, an expert on India's licit opium production 
program. India is the world's largest source of opium for 
pharmaceutical use. However, located between Afghanistan and Burma, the 
two main world sources of illicitly grown opium, India is a transit 
point for heroin. Opium is produced legally in India under strict 
licensing and control, and the Government of India tries to extract 
every gram from the cultivators. The United States and India signed an 
agreement in June 2000 to jointly survey and study samples of licit 
opium poppy crop. Professor Bordia explained to me the methodology of 
the three year study. This collaborative DEA funded project seeks to 
produce reliable data on the yields of opium gum from India's poppy 
cultivation, which would help the Government of India to maintain tight 
control over its licit poppy production to prevent diversion and ensure 
an adequate supply to meet the international medical and scientific 
needs. The project is scheduled to begin in mid-January 2001 with the 
visit of two U.S. scientists, Drs. Basil and Mary Acock.
  Later that afternoon, my staff toured the Udaipur Solar Observatory 
GONG project--Global Oscillation Network Group--which has been funded 
by the National Science Foundation for the last nine years. The GONG 
project is an international project conducting a detailed study of the 
internal structure and motions of the Sun using helioseismology. The 
U.S. National Observatory developed GONG stations in six stations all 
over the world. These are in Hawaii, California, Chile, Canary Island, 
India and Australia, and the National Solar Observatory in Tucson, 
Arizona. Dr. Arvind Bhatnagar and Dr. S.C. Tripathy explained that this 
project enables surveillance of the Sun 24 hours a day. My staff saw 
first hand the working of the sophisticated $1.5 million state of the 
art telescope that has been installed in Udaipur under this project. 
This telescope monitors the Sun automatically, and takes digital 
velocity images of the sun every minute. This data is then combined 
with the data from the other five sites at the central facility located 
in Tucson. Dr. Bhatnagar explained to my staff with tremendous 
enthusiasm that the GONG project promises to unravel several 
fundamental problems of solar interior and general astrophysics.
  On Sunday, January 7, prior to departing for Islamabad from New 
Delhi, I met with the Station Chief and agents in-charge of the FBI and 
DEA in New Delhi.
  That same morning I also met with Dr. John Fitzsimmons and Dr. Gary 
Hlady to discuss the National Polio Surveillance Project and to see 
what might be done to expand that program to cover other illnesses such 
as measles, rubella, tetanus etc. They told me that polio eradication 
within Asia was within reach by the year 2002 and that measles was on 
the horizon. We also discussed ways in which Congress could assist the 
CDC and NIH to develop programs targeted at eradicating these diseases.
  It was apparent by comments in both India and Pakistan that the 
Senate's 1999 vote against ratifying the CTBT was closely watched and 
that the vote diluted our power to persuade nations like India and 
Pakistan to support the CTBT. In my discussions with officials, it 
became evident that securing compliance with the CTBT by these two 
nations without U.S. ratification would be problematic.
  We departed New Delhi on the morning of January 7 traveled to 
Islamabad, Pakistan. I last visited Pakistan in 1995 meeting with then 
Prime Minister Benezir Bhutto who is now living abroad in exile and 
facing corruption charges in Pakistan. Upon our arrival, the Charge, 
Michele Sison, met me at the airport and we departed for our first 
meeting. General Musharraf, the Chief Executive and current political 
leader of Pakistan as well as the foreign minister, were out of the 
country on foreign travel.
  Our first meeting was with the Foreign Secretary, Inam ul-Haq. 
Secretary Ul-Haq is Pakistan's highest-ranking career diplomat having 
previously been posted as Pakistan's Ambassador to the United Nations 
and as Pakistan's Ambassador to China. Our meeting began with a 
discussion of Pakistan's nuclear tests and the Comprehensive Test Ban 
Treaty (CTBT). The Foreign Secretary told me that General Musharraf and 
the current government was in favor of ratification of the CTBT. 
However, I was told that there was a very vocal group in Pakistan which 
was opposed to Pakistan's ratification of the Treaty and that the 
Foreign Minister was personally working on persuading opponents of the 
Treaty and its benefits. The foreign secretary informed me that the 
Pakistani government closely followed the limited debate and vote in 
the U.S. Senate regarding the CTBT and that ratification by the U.S. 
would be very helpful in Pakistan's internal debate on the issue.
  I next discussed the procedure by which General Musharraf came to be 
the current political leader of Pakistan. I was told that after the 
General's ouster of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and ascension to power, 
a lawsuit was filed against the General in the Supreme Court 
challenging the legitimacy of his actions. When I asked if the outcome 
of that suit was predetermined, the foreign secretary informed me that 
there was a similar situation when a previous General had ousted a 
previous Prime Minister and a lawsuit was filed challenging the 
legitimacy of the action. The Supreme Court in that case found the 
General's actions to be unjustified and returned the Prime Minister to 
power. I told the Foreign Secretary of the great concern in the United 
States Congress regarding the return of democracy to Pakistan and that 
I was hopeful General Musharraf would honor the October 2002 Supreme 
Court deadline for restoring democracy.
  Our discussion then turned to Kashmir and the ongoing conflict there. 
The Foreign Secretary stated that his government was pleased with the 
easing of tensions and was hopeful, but not optimistic, that the Indian 
government would engage in dialogue regarding Kashmir.
  I asked the Foreign Secretary what could or should be done with the 
Taliban and Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan. The Foreign Secretary told 
me that Undersecretary of State Pickering had conducted meetings with 
officials from the Taliban and that they were very grateful for the 
support of the U.S. provided during their war with the former Soviet 
Union. The Foreign Secretary felt that the U.S. should continue to 
provide humanitarian aid to Afghanistan and that perhaps through 
dialogue with the Taliban some solution regarding Osama Bin Laden could 
be reached. The Foreign Secretary thought that more sanctions would do 
more harm than good. The Foreign Secretary told me that Pakistan 
suffered from more terrorist attacks than any other country and that 
combating terrorism in Afghanistan worked to Pakistan's benefit as 
well.
  Finally, we discussed the situation facing religious minorities in 
Pakistan. Pakistan is a predominately Muslim country with roughly 90 
percent of its population belonging to that religion. The remaining 
religious minorities are roughly 3 percent Hindu, 6 percent Christian 
and 1 percent Sikh. The major problem facing non-Muslims in Pakistan is 
the blasphemy law, which allows for the death of anyone who blasphemes 
the Prophet Mohammed. I was told that the interpretation of the law is 
very liberal and mere attendance of mass by Catholics is a sufficient 
basis on which to charge someone for the crime. I urged the Foreign 
Secretary to have his government repeal this law and play a more active 
role in the protection of religious minorities.
  After my meeting with the foreign secretary, we attended a working 
reception at the Charge's home in Islamabad. The attendee's at the 
reception were leaders from the Government, the Academy, various NGOs, 
religious and American communities. During the course of the evening, 
we engaged in spirited debate on topics such as the CTBT, missile 
defense, religious tolerance and the importance of democracy.

[[Page S515]]

  The next morning I had the opportunity to sit down with Mr. Shahbaz 
Bhatti, Founder and President of the Christian Liberation Front of 
Pakistan whom I had met in Philadelphia earlier this year. His group is 
an umbrella organization whose self described mission is the 
``liberation of the oppressed from social subjugation, economic 
deprivation, religious discrimination, religious intolerance and 
expression.'' Mr. Bhatti and I discussed Pakistan's blasphemy law, 
which he told me is broadly interpreted, and states that anyone who 
blasphemes the Prophet Mohammed is to be sentenced to death. Mr. Bhatti 
told me that there were many individuals currently being detained in 
Pakistani jails under the law and he provided me with a list of names. 
I asked Mr. Bhatti if he thought that the religious persecution act the 
Congress had passed had any effect on his situation in Pakistan.
  He told me that he thought the Act was a useful instrument for the 
enhancement of interfaith harmony and religious tolerance, not only in 
Pakistan, but also all over the world. Mr. Bhatti told me that he felt 
that the U.S. State Department needed to be more focused on persecution 
in Pakistan in the coming year. Mr. Bhatti said that while he had met 
with the U.S. Ambassador when he had visited Pakistan and that he had 
met with the Ambassador again in Washington, he felt that Pakistan 
should be elevated to a country of special concern in the State 
Department's annual report. Mr. Bhatti felt that Islamic militants 
inside Pakistan were pressuring the government to be even less tolerant 
of religious minorities. Mr. Bhatti told me that he had received 
telephonic threats at his home and that vandals had done property 
damage to his office. He told me that he had a meeting with General 
Musharraf to discuss religious tolerance and while the General seemed 
to be genuinely concerned about the plight of the religious minorities, 
he told Mr. Bhatti that he had to deal with a constituency, which did 
not share his tolerant views.

  After my discussion with Mr. Bhatti I called the Foreign Secretary to 
discuss the plight of the religious minorities and the detention of 
certain individuals under the blasphemy law. The Foreign Secretary told 
me that he would look into the matter and I told him I would send him a 
list of those imprisoned because of their religion which Mr. Bhatti 
provided me.
  We departed Islamabad and arrived into Istanbul on the night of 
January 8. The next morning we had a working breakfast with the 
Ambassador, his wife, Station Chief and the regional head of the DEA. 
Our discussions at breakfast covered a wide range of issues from 
resolution of Turkey's long-standing conflict with Cyprus, Syrian-
Turkish relations, Turkey's entry into the European Union, and the 
strong political and military ties between Turkey and the United 
States.
  After departing Istanbul, we traveled to Mons, Belgium to meet with 
General Ralston, the Supreme Allied Commander of all NATO forces in 
Europe. General Ralston and I discussed the United State's proposed 
National Missile Defense System and the views our European allies had 
of that plan. General Ralston told me that he felt that the European's 
felt vulnerable to strategic missile attack under the U.S. plan which 
just proposed to protect the United States. We discussed the stand-
alone European Defense force in addition to NATO. General Ralston had 
high praise NATO's new members, Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary and 
in fact was headed to the Czech Republic that afternoon.
  General Ralston told me that his forces were ready, willing and able 
to assist the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia 
(ICTY) in effectuating the arrest and return to The Hague of persons 
indicted for war crimes as soon as his political leadership instructed 
him to do so.
  After our meeting with General Ralston, we traveled to The Hague to 
meet with the Chief Prosecutor of the ICTY, Carla del Ponte, and some 
of her staff. She expressed her strong sentiment to me that Slobodan 
Milosevic must be returned to The Hague for trial at the ICTY before 
standing trial in Belgrade. Madam del Ponte felt very strongly about 
Milosevic being brought to trial in Belgrade for a number of reasons. 
First of all, she said, the ICTY had a clear mandate and enjoyed 
primacy over domestic courts--this was a Security Council mandate. 
Secondly, she expressed her fear that the Milosevic regime would still 
retain some power--even behind the scenes--for a long time; Further, 
she stressed that The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia must first 
establish its credibility before it takes on the daunting task of 
judging a former President. She said that the whole basis of the ICTY 
was to tackle those difficult, painful cases for which domestic courts 
are ill-equipped. I told the Chief Prosecutor that I shared her desire 
to have Mr. Milosevic prosecuted at The Hague but was doubtful that Mr. 
Milosevic would be turned over to The Hague after my recent meeting in 
Belgrade.
  The Chief Prosecutor and I also discussed the ongoing negotiations to 
establish an International Criminal Court and the concerns surrounding 
such a body. I told her that there were concerns in the United States 
Congress regarding the vulnerability of U.S. servicemen of being 
subjected to charges that are purely politically motivated and had no 
basis in fact. We discussed her consideration of requests by Russia and 
Yugoslavia under Milosevic to charge NATO officials with war crimes. 
Madam del Ponte told me that as a prosecutor she had no discretion in 
the matter and that, as a matter of course, she had to investigate the 
charges which she eventually deemed to be without merit.
  I asked Madam del Ponte if the ICTY needed any additional resources. 
She told me that resources continued to be tight--stressing that there 
was a great deal of work to do collecting evidence of the war crimes 
and that additional resources would be beneficial.
  My next meeting was with ICTY Judge Patricia Wald who resigned from 
the federal judiciary to serve at The Hague. We discussed the 
functioning and legal rules of the ICTY. Judge Wald informed me that 
the ICTY bench consists of members from the U.S., England, France, 
Australia, Portugal, Italy, China, Vienna, Malaysia, Zambia, Colombia, 
Jamaica and Egypt.
  My meetings with Chief Prosecutor Carla del Ponte and Judge Pat Wald, 
following on my earlier meetings in Belgrade, supported my notion that 
bringing Milosevic to justice at The Hague rather than in Yugoslavia 
would prove to be complicated. The new Yugoslavian democratic 
government's persistence on trying Milosevic in Serbia and the ICTY's 
insistence that it had primacy over Milosevic established the 
complexity of the issue. The concept on an International Criminal Court 
arose because of the failure of national courts to bring individuals 
like Milosevic to trial. On one hand, to permit Yugoslavia to try 
Milosevic, at least first, would encourage national courts to deal with 
such issues. On the other hand, Madam del Ponte's adamance that the 
ICTY had primacy granted under U.N. Resolutions and should not have to 
negotiate. She further expressed her concern that Yugoslavia could not 
be trusted to prosecute Milosevic due to problems of witness 
intimidation and the Milosevic regime still retaining influence in the 
Justice system. It is a difficult problem with no easy solution.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________