[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 41 (Monday, March 29, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H1636-H1637]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   PAKISTAN NAMED MAJOR NON-NATO ALLY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Carter). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise on the House floor this evening to 
discuss Pakistan's recent designation as a major non-NATO ally.
  Last week, Secretary of State Colin Powell visited India and Pakistan 
to support the efforts that have been made by both nations to seek 
peace. For the first time in decades, relations between India and 
Pakistan were easing; and as a result, confidence-building measures 
were being established, such as transportation across the border and 
cricket games between the two countries.
  Although both countries are on a slow, yet steady, path for improved 
economic defense and political relations, unfortunately that balance 
has been damaged, in my opinion, by the Bush administration's favorable 
treatment of Pakistan in naming it a major non-NATO ally.
  Mr. Speaker, although we have advocated for the U.S. to view India 
and Pakistan as two separate, distinct nations, at the same time we 
have advocated for fair treatment based on record of democracy, 
commitment to ending terrorism, and a variety of values important to 
the United States. India is a strong, vibrant democracy of over 50 
years, and Pakistan is a rogue nation under military rule. India's 
nuclear program is civilian controlled, and Pakistan's nuclear program 
was sold to nations such as Libya, Iran, and North Korea to assist 
illegal, covert nuclear weapons programs. India is protecting its 
citizens from terrorism in Kashmir, and Pakistan has sponsored 
terrorist activity in its own backyard.
  It seems clear that the U.S. and India are natural allies based on 
our shared values. The reason why the U.S. and Pakistan are now allies 
is a result of the shared effort to end global terrorism. However, 
based on all the reasons I just stated above, I am taken aback by the 
new designation that the U.S. has bestowed upon Pakistan as a major 
non-NATO ally. Not only was I surprised, but India as a nation was 
surprised as well. Secretary Powell had just met with India's leaders, 
but he did not mention the new status of Pakistan that was soon to be 
announced.
  Naming Pakistan a major non-NATO ally is completely inconsistent with 
U.S. policies. Pakistan is not a democratic nation. Pakistan supports 
terrorism in Kashmir, and Pakistan has engaged in nuclear activity for 
which it has recently pardoned a key scientist who aided covert nuclear 
programs to rogue nations. The result of this new designation, I think, 
has the potential to be devastating.
  Not only was India surprised and disappointed, but further, 
Pakistan's new role will lead to severe implications in the South Asia 
region. It is unclear what the title ``major non-NATO ally'' means and 
what it means in legal terms, but the most immediate concern is that a 
rapid and large-scale supply of American military equipment could flow 
from the United States to Pakistan, including the possibility of F-16s. 
In accordance with the Pressler amendment of 1990, Pakistan was not 
afforded major military supplies until post-9/11, in which case 
specific counterterrorism supplies had been provided.
  But this is very concerning because U.S. military supplies given to 
Pakistan for use against Russia and China have been historically used 
against India. Given the current climate of the conflict between India 
and Pakistan over Kashmir, any additional weapons provided to Pakistan 
will likely be used to escalate this conflict between the two nations 
and has the potential to build up a full-scale arms war.
  In addition, this new designation has the impetus for breaking down 
negotiations in peace talks between the two nations that have just 
gotten underway. Pakistan's newly established access to U.S. military 
supplies could serve as an impediment to any further Indo-Pakistani 
talks.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand why the U.S. has afforded Pakistan 
this major non-NATO ally status. Pakistan has a history of abusing 
military and nuclear equipment, and yet we are allowing them to have 
access to depleted uranium ammunition, special privilege in bidding for 
certain U.S. Government contracts, radar systems, attack helicopters, 
and airborne early warning systems.

[[Page H1637]]

  In exchange for Pakistan's assistance to the U.S. in the war against 
terrorism, the U.S. has already allocated $3 billion worth of 
assistance, half of which is directed toward Pakistan to buy military 
equipment from the United States. The Bush administration must 
reevaluate their policies towards Pakistan. The new designation of 
major non-NATO ally is unfair, inappropriate and, most importantly, in 
my opinion, dangerous given the volatile nature of the South Asia 
region.

                          ____________________