[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 22, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S67-S75]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   REPORT ON FOREIGN TRAVEL TO THE UNITED KINGDOM, ISRAEL, PAKISTAN, 
                  JORDAN, SYRIA, AUSTRIA, AND BELGIUM

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I rise to comment about a trip which I 
made over the recess during the period from December 22 of last year to 
January 4 of this year on travels which I undertook with visits to the 
United Kingdom, Israel, Pakistan, Jordan, Syria, Austria, and Belgium.
  The stop which Congressman Patrick Kennedy and I made in Pakistan was 
an extraordinary visit, a shocking visit, and a visit at a time of 
great tragedy.
  On Thursday, December 27, Congressman Kennedy and I were scheduled to 
meet with Benazir Bhutto in Islamabad. She had set the meeting for 9 
p.m., at the end of a busy day of campaigning. While we were preparing 
to go that night to an earlier dinner with the President of Pakistan, 
President Musharraf, and then plans to go on to meet with Benazir 
Bhutto, we were informed, within 2 hours of our planned meeting with 
Ms. Bhutto, that she had been brutally assassinated. It was obviously a 
great shock, a great loss to Pakistan, obviously, a great loss to her 
family, and really a loss to the world because she had the unique 
potential to unite Pakistan and to provide leadership in a very 
troubled country.
  Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and it is an ongoing matter of concern 
as to whether those nuclear weapons are being adequately protected. 
President Musharraf assured us that they were. So did the Chairman of 
the Joint

[[Page S68]]

Chiefs of Staff. And we accept those assurances. But with Pakistan in a 
condition with militants there, there is always the worry and concern, 
and it would be reassuring, comforting, if there can be political 
stability in Pakistan. It is our hope that will occur with the oncoming 
elections.
  But whether Benazir Bhutto would have emerged as Prime Minister, as 
the leader, remained to be seen. But certainly she had extraordinary 
potential. Those who have seen her on television know she was a movie 
star, beautiful, charismatic, and beyond those features, a great 
intellect, educated in the United States, at Radcliffe, of course, at 
Harvard, Oxford--a real intellectual and a real leader in the political 
sphere. Her father had been Prime Minister. She had been Prime 
Minister.
  I had the opportunity to meet her some 20 years ago when my wife and 
I visited her at her family home in Karachi. She was a very disarming 
young woman. When I took some pictures of her, she asked if I would 
send her copies. She said nobody ever sent her copies of pictures which 
were taken. I was surprised, really sort of amused, because she was on 
the cover of People magazine at that time. You only had to pick up most 
any magazine on the stands and find a picture of a glamorous, 
beautiful, talented Benazir Bhutto.
  I visited her when she was Prime Minister in Islamabad in 1995. I 
discussed with her the possibility at that time of having the 
subcontinent nuclear free. Senator Hank Brown and I carried a message 
from the Prime Minister of India, Prime Minister Singh at that time, to 
have the subcontinent nuclear free. Then I had seen her from time to 
time in Washington. Beyond any doubt, she had the power to and the 
potential to be a great leader in Pakistan and the great potential to 
be a stabilizing force.
  I learned after she was assassinated, according to members of her own 
party, that she had planned to give Congressman Kennedy and me some 
documentation about the likelihood of vote fraud. I have sought 
information on those matters.
  I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my statement, the 
full text of a lengthy 40-page report be printed in the Record, 
together with copies of the letters which I have sent to her family and 
to her political allies making inquiries about the information on vote 
fraud which reportedly she was interested in turning over to 
Congressman Kennedy and me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. SPECTER. With the assassination of Ms. Bhutto, it seems to me 
there is a need for an international investigation. By letter dated 
January 2, before returning to the United States, I wrote a letter to 
the Secretary General of the United Nations urging that there be an 
international investigation because of the obvious concerns as to 
whether security was involved or the kinds of conspiratorial theories 
which arise, whether there is any basis for them.
  President Musharraf of Pakistan had asked for assistance from 
Scotland Yard. My own view is that was insufficient because Pakistan 
would retain control of the investigation, but that would certainly be 
a step in the right direction.
  I supplemented that letter to the Secretary General on January 17, 
2008, with a suggestion that the United Nations put into operation a 
standing commission to investigate international assassinations. The 
importance of immediate action and investigation is well known--to get 
to the scene, to preserve the evidence to the maximum extent possible, 
and to question witnesses while their memories are fresh and before 
they are potentially intimidated. Some of the doctors who attended 
Benazir Bhutto reported they had been told not to talk to the media. I 
think these ideas are ideas which are worth pursuing.

  The composition of the standing commission would have to be very 
carefully thought through. There would obviously be exemptions for 
nations which are capable of carrying on an investigation with the 
technical expertise and which would have the confidence of the public, 
but I think this is an issue which ought to be undertaken. The 
Wiesenthal Institute has published the idea, full-page ads in the New 
York Times, that assassination ought to be classified as a crime 
against humanity. That, too, is an idea, in my opinion, which ought to 
be pursued. But the lessons learned and the pain and suffering which 
comes from the assassination of a great leader such as Ms. Bhutto ought 
to be studied. We ought to look to the future to be sure that where 
there are recurrences--and regrettably, it is highly likely there will 
be recurrences--that we profit by that experience.
  In addition to traveling to Pakistan, Congressman Kennedy and I 
visited in Israel and in Syria. We talked to Prime Minister Olmert in 
Israel. We talked to President Bashar al-Asad in Syria. Both are 
national leaders and both expressed a desire to have a peace treaty. It 
is very difficult to assess the possibilities by talking, even with the 
probing questions, because it depends so much on a matter of trust. But 
I think it is worth noting that back-channel negotiations have been 
undertaken. A report has appeared in the Arabic press and specified in 
my written statement but has not appeared, to my knowledge, in the 
American press. We do know Israel and Syria came very close to an 
agreement in 1995, until Prime Minister Rabin was assassinated, and 
then again brokered by President Clinton near the end of his term in 
2000. They came very close to an agreement, when it was reported that 
Syrian President Hafez al-Asad was more concerned with the succession 
of his son than in completing the treaty. Only Israel can decide 
whether it is in Israel's interest to give up the Golan, which is the 
central issue.
  But warfare is very different now than it was in 1967, when Israel 
took the Golan Heights. The rockets are impervious to elevated spots 
such as the Golan, and it is a very different strategic concern. But as 
Prime Minister Olmert commented--and I quoted him in the written 
statement--there are very material advantages which could come if Syria 
would stop supporting Hamas. It would promote the possibilities of a 
treaty between Palestinian President Abbas and Israel. If Syria would 
stop supporting Hezbollah and destabilizing Lebanon, there could be a 
great advantage. Such a treaty would have the potential of driving a 
wedge between Syria and Iran which would be of value.
  That is a very brief statement of the extensive written report which 
I have filed, and I appreciate it being printed in the Record, at the 
conclusion of my statement. I thank the managers of the pending bill 
for yielding this time, and I conclude my statement by yielding the 
floor.

                                Exhibit 1

                   Statement of Senator Arlen Specter


   report on foreign travel to the united kingdom, israel, pakistan, 
                   jordan, syria, austria and belgium

       Mr. President, as is my custom from returning abroad, I 
     have sought recognition to report on the recent trip I made 
     overseas from December 22, 2007 to January 4, 2008.


                             united kingdom

       On the morning of December 23, the delegation which 
     included my wife Joan, Representative Patrick Kennedy, 
     Christopher Bradish, a member of my staff, Colonel Gregg 
     Olson, our escort officer and Captain Ron Smith, our doctor 
     and me, departed from Washington Dulles International Airport 
     for London, England. After a flight of just over 7 hours, we 
     arrived at London Heathrow Airport. The following morning we 
     departed for Tel Aviv, Israel.


                                 israel

       We arrived in Tel Aviv on the evening of December 24. We 
     were greeted at the airport by Rachel Smith our control 
     officer from the embassy.
       The following morning, I was briefed by DCM Luis Moreno and 
     Political Counsel Marc Sievers on the latest developments in 
     the region. The country team stressed that, prior to the 
     Annapolis conference, tension in the region was high. The 
     team informed us that Prime Minister Olmert and President 
     Mahmoud Abbas have good chemistry and that the leaders remain 
     optimistic that an agreement can be reached in 2008. We 
     discussed some of the prevalent matters in the region 
     including the situation in the Gaza strip, the dynamic 
     between Fatah and Hamas, the Paris conference, the security 
     situation in Israel and the political outlook for the region. 
     Following the briefing, we departed for a meeting with 
     Israeli President Shimon Peres.
       Having traveled to Israel 25 times during my tenure, I had 
     come to know many of Israel's leaders including President 
     Shimon Peres. I asked the President for his thoughts on how 
     to break the cycle of violence and hate that reigns in the 
     region. He provided

[[Page S69]]

     his candid assessment of the prospects for peace but stressed 
     that nothing can be solved without cooperation, a strong 
     commitment to economic improvement which entails the creation 
     of jobs in addition to aid money and the tangible benefits of 
     changing the economic situation and the impact that has on 
     changing people's lives. President Peres stated it was 
     critical to support Abu Mazen and develop the West Bank.
       I asked Peres on the prospects for future dealings with 
     Syria. The President said Syria should make a choice: Lebanon 
     or the Golan. If they meddle in Lebanon, the Israeli's will 
     not discuss Golan and that all other issues are secondary.
       I pressed President Peres on Iran and what he thought 
     should be done. He stated that the U.S. needs a united, 
     coherent policy to combat President Ahmadinejad's policy of 
     enriching uranium. He complimented President Bush in showing 
     courage, but that the capacity to build a coalition was 
     absent. Peres did not express great alarm about Iran as he 
     believes that the world will not allow the Islamic Republic 
     to acquire nuclear weapons. I asked if there were any lessons 
     from our diplomatic engagement with North Korea to which he 
     responded by highlighting the benefits of diplomatic and 
     economic efforts.
       I mentioned to Peres that we would be traveling to Pakistan 
     and solicited his thoughts. He believes that religious 
     fanatics in the region are a massive problem for the 
     government and that the U.S. should not force Pakistan and 
     its leaders to be an American democracy--a theme that would 
     continue in our meetings in Pakistan. He did not believe that 
     the situation between Pakistan and India would lead to war 
     but that it is imperative that Pakistan secure its nuclear 
     arsenal--something with which I strongly agree.
       President Peres suggested that oil is our great enemy: It 
     finances terror, makes a mockery of democracy, negatively 
     impacts the environment, and undercuts ideological 
     foundations. He called for increased efforts to pursue 
     alternatives to fossil fuels.
       When asked about his view on our engagement in Iraq and 
     Afghanistan, Peres stated that we have no choice but to 
     combat radical extremism and those who think modernity will 
     end. He elevated the struggle to one of those in the modern 
     world versus those who are not able to deal with the fact 
     that science has replaced them. He pointed to the fact that 
     you cannot find an Israeli hospital without an Arab doctor. 
     And even an Israeli who will not hire an Arab has no problem 
     with one operating on him with a knife.
       When discussing our bilateral relationship, Peres said: 
     ``The less we need America, the more friendly our relations 
     will become.'' President Peres ended the meeting by extending 
     an invitation for us to come back to Israel for the sixtieth 
     anniversary of Israel. We left the President's office for our 
     next meeting at the Knesset with former Prime Minister and 
     Likud party leader, Benjamin Netanyahu.
       The focus of our discussion with Netanyahu and Zarman 
     Shoval centered on Iran. He expressed his support for 
     continued economic pressure in the form of sanctions and 
     pension fund divestment. He reported that U.S. states 
     divesting from companies, mostly European, doing business 
     with Iran is having an impact. Netanyahu concluded that 
     Iran's building of long range weapon platforms and its 
     increased centrifuge activities leaves it with very little 
     left to do to obtain a nuclear weapon. A theme in my 
     discussions with Israeli officials, in Washington, DC and 
     Israel, is that our Nations don't differ on the facts but we 
     do differ on the interpretation. He was not convinced that 
     Iran halted its program and more importantly that we do not 
     know if Iran restarted its efforts.
       In addition to talking about unilateral actions, Netanyahu 
     recommended that we work with the Europeans and form a 
     unified front with Russia. He stressed the importance of 
     ``turning back the momentum'' domestically and 
     internationally to combat Iran.
       I asked Netanyahu what can be done to break the cycle of 
     violence and hatred. He said this is a battle between 
     modernity/globalization and militant Islam and that this 
     ``culture of death'' with nuclear weapons could lead to 
     catastrophe. Militant Islam, according to Netanyahu, works by 
     brainwashing individuals. The information and economic 
     revolution could be the best weapon against this ideology as 
     a form of combating brainwashing. Following our meeting with 
     Netanyahu, we departed for a meeting with Former Prime 
     Minister and current Defense Minister, Ehud Barak.
       I had met with Barak when he was in Washington, DC 
     attending the Annapolis conference. He provided me an update 
     on Israeli security service actions and intelligence gained 
     since we last spoke. I asked the Defense Minister to provide 
     his views on breaking the cycle of violence and hatred and 
     his outlook for the region. Barak believes that we cannot 
     reshape but can guide and offer a path of more opportunity. 
     He expressed his support for strengthening moderates like Abu 
     Mazen and Salaam Fayyad and that he is more optimistic 
     dealing with these leaders than he was when serving as Prime 
     Minister dealing with Yasser Arafat. I asked him about coming 
     close to an agreement in 2000 with Chairman Arafat. Barak 
     said the gap may have been narrow, but it was very deep.
       When asked about Lebanon and Syria, Barak said Syria 
     continues to destabilize Lebanon. He pointed to the recent 
     assassination of Francois El-Hajj, who was expected to be 
     Lebanon's new Army commander in chief should General Michel 
     Suleiman take over as President. Barak believes that Syria 
     would not stand to see the deputy elevated and that Syria 
     wants a government that will request the U.N. to halt its 
     investigation in the Hariri assassination--an attack that 
     some suspect was orchestrated by Syria. When I asked Barak 
     about his peace efforts while serving as Prime Minister with 
     Syria, he indicated that there was an opportunity, but Hafez 
     Assad was more concerned about his son's succession than 
     peace.
       On Iran, Minister Barak reiterated that the information 
     between U.S. and Israeli intelligence is 95 percent the same, 
     but that different interpretations persist. Barak expressed 
     concern over Iran's hidden program and that they are not 
     likely to cooperate. I asked about getting Russia to assist 
     and President Putin's offer to handle part of Iran's fuel 
     cycle. Barak stated that Russia wants to see the U.S. 
     squeezed right now but that we must engage China and Russia 
     if we want to have success on this front. We departed the 
     Knesset for our next meeting with President Mahmoud Abbas and 
     Salaam Fayyad in the West Bank.
       On Christmas Eve, we loaded in our convoy bound for 
     Bethlehem in the Palestinian-controlled West Bank. Security 
     was tight as we left Jerusalem and entered the West Bank with 
     security personnel lining both sides of the street every 100 
     yards. Upon arrival we were greeted by Salaam Fayyad, the 
     well-respected, western-educated finance minster, with whom 
     I've had a relationship for some years. I asked Abu Mazen 
     about the status of talks and prospects for peace. He shared 
     his optimism and informed me that he would be meeting with 
     Prime Minister Olmert in two days. He described 2008 as 
     precious and that he will work with the Israelis to reach a 
     deal. He expressed his concern over Israeli settlement 
     activities and the negative impact this could have on the 
     process.
       President Abbas informed the delegation that Hamas' 
     popularity was subsiding but that they are still receiving 
     assistance through tunnels and border crossings. Should these 
     not be blocked, money and weaponry still can flow to Gaza. 
     While this type of activity harms the process, he indicated 
     that humanitarian aid must flow to Palestinians residing in 
     the West Bank.
       The delegation pressed Abu Mazen about anti-Israeli 
     Palestinian decrees and expressed that these are not 
     acceptable. The President responded emphatically by saying, 
     ``I am the head of the PLO, I am the head of Fatah and I am 
     recognizing Israel and we want peace.''
       Congressman Kennedy asked President Abbas about comparisons 
     to the successful peace talks in Ireland and the prospects 
     for transferring some of the mechanisms employed to the 
     Middle East. Abu Mazen said there are elements that can be 
     utilized especially in the arena of people to people 
     programs.
       Salaam Fayyad shared his gratitude for the pledges made in 
     Paris and informed us that debt is being paid and the economy 
     showing signs of improvement. He cited that hotel occupancy 
     rate is near 100 percent which is up from 5-10 percent 
     earlier this year. He expressed his desire for implementing 
     larger infrastructure projects and a reduction in Israeli 
     restrictions, such as check points, which hinder businesses. 
     We concluded our meeting and returned to Jerusalem.
       On December 25, we had a morning meeting with Prime 
     Minister Ehud Olmert. The Prime Minister requested I brief 
     him on developments in the United States and our views 
     towards the region. Olmert asked about the U.S. role in 
     moving forward with Syria and if anything can be done given 
     their meddling in Lebanon. I told him I thought there is a 
     chance based on the progress made in 1995 and 2000. I told 
     him of my discussions in Washington, DC with Syrian officials 
     and that they expressed their interest in talks. I told him I 
     thought that the status of the Golan Heights would be the 
     crux of the negotiations.
       Olmert told me he is prepared to negotiate with Syria but 
     that it is a long process that needs to mature and that Syria 
     must deliver, not just talk. I pressed Olmert about what 
     actions he had taken and who would make the first move. I 
     reminded Olmert that Henry Kissinger said it took 34 
     negotiating sessions with Hafez Al-Assad to get an agreement.
       Prime Minister Olmert said the National Intelligence 
     Estimate on Iran was not helpful in efforts to combat Iran's 
     suspected nuclear weapons program. When asked if he thought 
     they stopped in 2003, Olmert replied, ``I don't know.'' He 
     expressed his hope that U.S. intelligence based its findings 
     on solid facts.
       Olmert, like Netanyahu, stated that if they have enough 
     uranium they can do everything else needed to make a weapon 
     in short order. Nevertheless, Olmert stated that we must 
     carry on impressing upon Iran to change their course.
       I requested specifics on how to confine Iran's nuclear 
     weapons program to which Olmert cited the usefulness of 
     economic pressure such as sanctions. He expressed displeasure 
     that the debate has been confined to two options: Military 
     action or acquiescence. The Prime Minister said he will raise 
     alternatives with President Bush during his January 2008 
     visit.
       Representative Kennedy asked Olmert about the Gaza-Hamas-
     Egypt nexus and the

[[Page S70]]

     problems associated with smuggling. Olmert confirmed that the 
     movement of money, weapons, to include anti-tank and anti-air 
     missiles, and terrorists across the Philadelphia line is a 
     major concern. He indicated displeasure with Egyptian 
     acquiescence on this front and said that he had raised his 
     concerns with President Mubarak and that he would be 
     dispatching Defense Minister Barak to Egypt the following day 
     to follow up on these issues.
       I asked the Prime Minister about the reported ``offer'' 
     from Hamas for a ceasefire. Olmert said that no offer was 
     made, but rather a journalist reported receiving a call from 
     Hamas indicating an interest and that the media subsequently 
     played it up. He questions the logic of negotiating with 
     Hamas as all it would do is provide Hamas an opportunity to 
     re-arm and Israel would get nothing. He made clear his stance 
     that he is not inclined to negotiate with a group who wants 
     to kill Israelis and refuses to recognize the state.
       On the Israeli-Palestinian track, Olmert stated that Abbas 
     and Fayyad recognize Israel and want to make peace and are 
     serious, committed partners. When we discussed breaking the 
     cycle of violence and hate in the region, Olmert pointed to 
     Abbas as an example as someone who changed, became a 
     legitimate political leader and sees things differently than 
     he did 30 years ago. However, the question if the two sides 
     can agree on outstanding issues in unknown. He believes 
     reaching an agreement in 2008 is possible but that 
     implementation would take more time.
       I pressed the Prime Minister about the settlements 
     controversy raised in the media and directly by the 
     Palestinians. He explained that he has established a complete 
     moratorium on new settlements, but that Israel can build on 
     plans previously approved at current sites. We departed the 
     Prime Minister's office for our next meeting with Foreign 
     Minister Tzipi Livni.
       I called on Tzipi Livni to get her perspective on the 
     Israeli-Palestinian track, Syrian-Israeli track and broader 
     regional matters. Livni believes Abu Mazen and Salaam Fayyad 
     are sincere in their goals for peace and in refraining from 
     using terrorism. She supports the approach of strengthening 
     pragmatic Palestinians like Abbas and Fayyad. She went so far 
     as to say that Salaam Fayyad is a determined person in this 
     process and has exhibited real courage.
       I asked the Foreign Minister about economic development for 
     the Palestinians and the strategy to elevate their situation. 
     She said development was important but that we should not 
     look to it as the sole source to bring about change. Minister 
     Livni stated that Israel cannot afford another terrorist 
     state, a real partner in peace must be found and the only way 
     to achieve a Palestinian state is through negotiations, not 
     terror. She appreciated the rights of Palestinians and the 
     impacts of security measures, but stated that Israelis have a 
     right not to live in fear and endure terror.
       That afternoon, the delegation met with Saeb Erekat, the 
     Palestinian's chief negotiator. I had met with Saeb in the 
     past and found him to be an intelligent and insightful player 
     on understanding the conflict.
       Saeb informed me that the Israelis and Palestinians have 
     ``matured'' and that there is a genuine need for the peace 
     process. He expressed his view that the sides are in 
     agreement on 70 percent of what a pact would entail but that 
     no outside country can finalize a deal--it must be done by 
     the Israelis and Palestinians--it must be done by Olmert and 
     Abbas.
       Saeb and I talked about the broader Middle East and 
     regional conflicts. He believes that democracy in the Middle 
     East will defeat Al Qaeda and if negotiations between Israel 
     and the Palestinians fail, Osama bin Laden wins. He expressed 
     his optimism that a deal can be reached in 2008 and that both 
     sides are prepared for peace. He stated that there needs to 
     be a package deal and both sides know exactly what the 
     other wants--Israel wants no refugees and security and the 
     Palestinians want Jerusalem and land.
       On the issue of Iran, Saeb said that Iranian nationalism 
     cannot be overlooked when approaching Tehran. He expressed 
     frustration over anti-Israeli comments made by President 
     Ahmadinejad: ``When he says he wants Israel off the map, he 
     is killing me!'' He cannot comprehend why Iran would support 
     Hamas in Gaza and pointed out that Abu Mazen has been invited 
     to Tehran nine times and never responded. He suggested that 
     Iran wants a deal and is willing to make one with the U.S. or 
     international community.
       Saeb closed by indicating that progress on the Syrian-
     Israeli track would be beneficial to the Palestinian-Israeli 
     track. The following morning we drove from Jerusalem to Tel 
     Aviv en route to Pakistan.


                                pakistan

       We landed in Islamabad, Pakistan on the night of Wednesday, 
     December 26 and were met by our control officer Jason 
     Jeffreys.
       The following morning, we met with Hamid Karzai, President 
     of Afghanistan, in his hotel room. President Karzai was in 
     Islamabad for officials meetings. President Karzai stated 
     that U.S. efforts in Afghanistan are working, roads are being 
     built, economies are being turned around and schools are 
     improving.
       I pressed President Karzai on the prospects for victory 
     over the Taliban and Al Qaeda. He stated that he and 
     President Musharraf had focused on this issue in their 
     meeting earlier and that it was a priority. Karzai stated 
     that the Taliban is not a long term threat in Afghanistan as 
     they have no popular support. The President stated that more 
     must be done to address the sanctuaries, training grounds and 
     madrasas.
       I asked Karzai about the prospects of catching Osama bin 
     Laden. The President told me that he will not be able to hide 
     forever and that sooner or later he will be caught.
       I asked President Karzai about Iran's pursuit of nuclear 
     weapons. He stated that nuclear weapons in the region bring 
     pride and a sense of security. He stated that Iran and the 
     U.S. should open a dialogue, talking pays and that no one can 
     benefit from confrontation.
       Following our meeting with President Karzai, we departed 
     for the embassy for the country team briefing led by 
     Ambassador Patterson.
       The delegation, including Ambassador Patterson, departed 
     the embassy to our next meeting with General Tariq Majid, 
     Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. General Majid's 
     headquarters are located in Rawalpindi--the same part of 
     Islamabad where Benazir Bhutto would be killed later that 
     same day.
       I pressed Gen. Majid on Pakistan's efforts to combat Al-
     Qaeda and locate Osama bin Laden. He indicated that he does 
     not know where he is but that Pakistan should be able to find 
     him but that it must be an integrated and combined effort 
     with U.S. support.
       I expressed my concern over the problems in the FATA region 
     and asked what is being done to combat the issues plaguing 
     that region and the country. He responded by telling me that 
     for many years, Pakistan did not have access to the tribal 
     belt but that military forces were now engaged--100,000 
     according to Majid.
       I told the General of my concern over Pakistan's nuclear 
     arsenal and the command and control structures in place to 
     ensure the weapons do not fall into the hands of militants. 
     He informed me that there is a structure in place that 
     ensures that there can be no rogue launch of nuclear weapons 
     as the President, Prime Minister, Foreign Minister, Defense 
     Minister and the service chiefs all have to approve usage.
       I expressed my desire to see the Indian subcontinent 
     denuclearized--a matter I had taken up with the Prime 
     Ministers of India and Pakistan over a decade earlier. Majid 
     informed me that Pakistan had made such an offer to India but 
     that it was rejected. Pakistan claims its arsenal is an 
     insurance policy against the much larger Indian force and 
     that they do not have regional ambitions. India not only 
     looks at Pakistan but looks east towards China and would not 
     likely give up their arsenal with such a neighbor. China 
     would be unlikely to surrender its weapons given the 
     considerable arsenals of Russia and the United States.
       I expressed my concern over Iran's nuclear activities and 
     ambitions. Majid indicated that Pakistan did not have a 
     problem with a peaceful program but that they object to high 
     levels of enrichment. Any military action against Iran, Majid 
     said, would compound problems in Pakistan. He suggested 
     bilateral talks between the U.S. and Iran as the path leading 
     us out of this dilemma.
       I told Gen. Majid of my great concern over the situation in 
     Pakistan, the political crisis, the removal of members of the 
     judiciary and the imprisonment of citizens. I told him there 
     was great concern in the United States and talk of altering 
     U.S. aid to Pakistan's military. Majid asked us to remember 
     that Pakistan is not the U.S. and that their democracy and 
     institutions are not as strong as ours. He asked us to review 
     the actions taken by the Chief Justice as he claimed he was 
     acting beyond his jurisdiction.
       Following our meeting with Gen. Majid, we were received by 
     President Pervez Musharraf at his palace. He expressed his 
     satisfaction with bilateral relations but indicated that 
     stopping the military cooperation would negatively impact the 
     relationship. I pressed Musharraf on the reported misuse of 
     aid and overcharging on reimbursements. The President 
     objected to the characterization of his government's actions 
     claiming that all requests are analyzed, mutually agreed upon 
     and submitted.
       I asked Musharraf about his efforts to combat terrorism. He 
     generalized about his government's efforts to combat the 
     Taliban and Al Qaeda. He indicated that actions in 
     Afghanistan have led to an overflow of troublemakers in 
     western Pakistan. When I asked if he will catch Osama bin 
     Laden, he responded that he, ``can't say for sure, but we 
     should.'' He claimed he does not have the forces required to 
     search and police some of the areas he may be hiding.
       I informed the President that we want transparency in 
     Pakistan and events such as removal of the Chief Justice 
     cause grave concern. I told Musharraf responded by saying 
     Pakistan has various pillars of government like the U.S. but 
     that their institutions are not as strong and capable as 
     those in the U.S. He indicated that the Chief Justice had 
     acted inappropriately and that his activities included 
     corruption, kickbacks and inappropriately using his 
     influence, which would not be tolerated in the United States. 
     Musharraf stated the Chief Justice was doing an injustice to 
     Pakistan, interfering in various cases in other courts, 
     actively campaigned in political rallies, traveling with his 
     own masked security detail and interfering with the executive 
     branch in privatization matters which had led to Pakistan's 
     recent economic success.
       When I pressed Musharraf on the rationale of imposing 
     martial law, he stated that the

[[Page S71]]

     government was weakening, economy declining and terrorists 
     rising and that it was needed to maintain stability. He 
     stated that most people that were detained had been released. 
     We departed the Presidential Palace for a working lunch at 
     the Ambassador's residence to further evaluate and discuss 
     the issues confronting Pakistan and our bilateral 
     relationship. Attendees included Ambassador Patterson, 
     General Helmly, Peter Bodde, Candace Putnam, Jason Jeffreys 
     and the delegation.
       On the afternoon of December 27, we received word in our 
     control room that there had been an incident at a political 
     rally for Benazir Bhutto. As we were preparing for a dinner 
     hosted by President Musharraf we got word that she had 
     possibly been injured and was taken to the hospital. As I 
     headed to the elevators, Chris Bradish, my deputy, informed 
     me that Benazir had died. I had known her for nearly 20 
     years. We were scheduled to meet with her in her home at 9 
     p.m. that night--in approximately 3 hours.
       I received many calls and e-mails from the U.S. requesting 
     information on the situation. Below is a transcript of a 
     phone conversation I had with MSNBC:

       HALL: On the phone with us now is Senator Arlen Specter, 
     who is in Islamabad and was, according to what I'm being 
     told, expected to meet with Benazir Bhutto sometime tonight. 
     Senator, are you there?
       SPECTER: I am. Congressman Patrick Kennedy and I were 
     scheduled to meet with Benazir Bhutto this evening. We were 
     scheduled to go to a dinner with President Musharraf. We had 
     met with President Musharraf earlier today and, en route to 
     the dinner, about ready to go, we heard the tragic news.
       HALL: And how did you learn the news, sir?
       SPECTER: Watching CNN. We heard, first, that there had been 
     a suicide bomber attempt, that Benazir Bhutto was OK. Then we 
     heard she'd been hurt, critically, and then the news came in 
     that it had been fatal.
       HALL: And tell us a little bit about what you were planning 
     to meet with her regarding. We know that Hamid Karzai met 
     with her, as well as Pervez Musharraf, on the security issue 
     concerning the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. What was 
     the focus of your meeting?
       SPECTER: Well, Congressman Patrick Kennedy and I are in the 
     region. We had been to Israel on our way to Syria. And we had 
     meetings with President Musharraf today, and we also saw 
     Afghanistan President Karzai, who just coincidentally was in 
     town.
       And we had a meeting with former Prime Minister Benazir 
     Bhutto this evening at nine o'clock Pakistan time, and it was 
     scheduled then because she had a full day of campaigning.
       And our concerns are about what is happening here, the 
     stability; what's happening with the supreme court; what's 
     happening with our fight against terrorism, our efforts to 
     capture Osama Bin Laden; and what is happening to the very 
     substantial funding the United States has put in here; what 
     the prospects were for the election.
       I've known Benazir Bhutto for the better part of two 
     decades, having been visiting her in Karachi back in 1988 and 
     when she was Prime Minister in 1995. And we were looking 
     forward to talking to her to get to her evaluation on whether 
     the elections would be honest and open, and to get her sense 
     of the situation.
       HALL: And what did you think her--the impact that she 
     played while, of course, she was alive, with her opposition 
     group, and now with her assassination? Obviously, you felt 
     that she was important, a critical piece of this puzzle, in 
     that you were planning to meet with her at 9 p.m., at the 
     time there.
       SPECTER: Well, Benazir Bhutto was a very prominent person 
     this year, the leader of a major party; had a real 
     opportunity to become Prime Minister, a brilliant woman with 
     a family background. Her father had been Prime Minister. She 
     had been Prime Minister twice.
       She had a lot of popular support, and she was the first 
     woman Prime Minister of Pakistan and a very prominent woman 
     internationally, sort of, the symbol of modernity, so that 
     it's a tremendous loss, and we. . .
       HALL: And what do you think is the . . .
       SPECTER: . . . we can't let the terrorists win. We have to 
     rebound and we have to be sure that democracy moves forward 
     in Pakistan.
       HALL: But Senator, we're looking at the images out of 
     Pakistan, and I don't want to paint a picture bleaker than it 
     is, but certainly, immediately following the assassination, 
     people spilling out into the streets blaming, some of them, 
     anyway, Pervez Musharraf--quite a picture of instability. 
     What needs to happen, in your opinion, being there?
       SPECTER: Well, it is easy to blame people, but it's 
     premature. There has to be an investigation. There has to be 
     determination, to the extent possible, as to what happened.
       When you have an assassination, this sort of a violent act, 
     you have to expect people to be erupting in the streets. But 
     there will be a tomorrow. There will be elections here. We 
     have to assert the democratic process and we have to move 
     forward.
       We cannot let the crazy suicide bombers take over the 
     world. And that is our job for tomorrow.
       HALL: And still very early into this breaking news, 
     Senator--again, to update our audience, we are following 
     developments in Pakistan in the assassination of former Prime 
     Minister Benazir Bhutto. Senator Arlen Specter was expected 
     to meet with her this evening.
       Senator Specter, the impact--so many people are wondering, 
     with Pakistan being so crucial to this war on terror, that 
     there may perhaps be a vacuum in that country, now, with the 
     assassination having taken place and this could offset all of 
     the work, the $10 billion that's been put into Pakistan and 
     the support of Pervez Musharraf since 9/11.
       SPECTER: Well, we are not going to allow this incident, 
     tragic as it is, to upset the very important work at hand. 
     You have the Pakistani government working with the United 
     States government. They have been allies of ours.
       We have not been pleased with some of the things that they 
     have done, like having the chief justice under house arrest 
     or having an emergency suspension, which has been eliminated.
       But the elections are going forward and we are going to 
     rebound from this event and do what is necessary to defeat 
     the terrorists and to have the democratic elections. We are 
     not going to give in.
       And we will rebound, and stability will be restored after 
     the outbursts which are present tonight. It may take some 
     time, but we're going to win.
       HALL: Senator, do you have confidence in Pervez Musharraf 
     and the job that he's done and doing?
       SPECTER: I do have confidence. When Congressman Patrick 
     Kennedy and I met with him today, we raised a number of our 
     concerns in a very candid discussion.
       We are concerned that the substantial U.S. funding be 
     directed toward the specific purposes of fighting terrorism. 
     And we are checking to see if some of it might have been 
     diverted. But by and large, we think the monies are going in 
     the right direction. We expressed concern about what is 
     happening with the supreme court here. We expressed concern 
     about the state of emergency, but that has been reversed.
       The elections are going forward and he is our best hope 
     there. It is not a perfect situation. Nothing is. But we have 
     to utilize the government which is here to help stabilize it 
     and to move forward.
       HALL: All right, Senator Arlen Specter from Islamabad.
       Thank you very much, Senator, for your time, just on the 
     very day you were expected to meet with former Prime Minister 
     Benazir Bhutto. Thank you, Senator.
       Just before midnight on the night of Bhutto's death, we 
     ventured back out into the city to go to Bhutto's local 
     headquarters to pay our respects. We met with her supporters, 
     gave our condolences and laid flowers beneath a photo of her.
       We were scheduled to travel to Lahore the following morning 
     to meet with Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi and Mian Shahbaz Sharif 
     and visit a USAID project. After the State Department 
     consulted with the Pakistani government, it was recommended 
     that our delegation cancel the planned trip to Lahore due to 
     the deteriorating and uncertain security situation. The 
     following morning we left Chakala Airfield for Amman, Jordan.


                                 SYRIA

       On Saturday, December 29 we departed Amman for Damascus, 
     Syria. Upon arrival at Allama Iqbal International Airport, we 
     were greeted by CDA Todd Holmstrom and officials from our 
     embassy Pamela Mills and Katherine Van De Vate. This trip was 
     my 17th visit to Syria.
       We proceeded to a working lunch with Mr. Holmstrom where we 
     discussed the situation in Syria, Lebanon, Israel and the 
     greater region. Following our lunch we departed for a meeting 
     with Foreign Minister Walid al-Mouallem.
       I provided him with a copy of Haaretz which published the 
     headline: ``Olmert Says Ball is in Assad's Court.''

                     [From Haaretz, Dec. 26, 2007]

                    Olmert: Ball Is in Assad's Court

                            (By Barak Ravid)

       Prime Minister Ehud Olmert sent a message to Syrian 
     President Bashar Assad yesterday saying he was still waiting 
     for a Syrian response on the likelihood of renewing 
     negotiations between the two countries.
       Olmert met yesterday with U.S. Senator Arlen Specter 
     (Republican-Pennsylvania), who will travel tomorrow for 
     meetings with Assad's government. Specter is a big supporter 
     of resuming dialogue with Damascus.
       Much of yesterday's meeting addressed Syria. During the 
     meeting, Specter asked Olmert whether he wanted to further 
     the diplomatic process with Syria. Olmert said that for the 
     past few months he has been appraising whether negotiations 
     could be resumed through mediators.
       ``I am still evaluating the Syrian track and the degree to 
     which Damascus is serious about [a peace process],'' Olmert 
     said. ``I have not stopped the assessment, but so far I have 
     not received a clear answer and I am still waiting.''
       Officials in Jerusalem added yesterday: ``Even though 
     Olmert did not ask specifically that his message be relayed 
     to Assad, we assume that it will be raised during [Specter's] 
     talks in Damascus.''
       Specter also met with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and 
     discussed Syria.
       Livni did not reject the possibility of renewing 
     negotiations with Syria, but said there was a series of 
     issues troubling Israel.
       ``The Syrians need to show that they are willing to 
     contribute something toward gaining the release of the 
     abducted soldiers in

[[Page S72]]

     the Gaza Strip and in Lebanon, or express willingness to end 
     the smuggling of weapons to Hezbollah, so that we will know 
     that they are serious,'' Livni said.
       This would ``make it easier for us to consider negotiations 
     with them,'' she added.
       According to an annual assessment prepared by the Foreign 
     Ministry's research office and presented to the Knesset 
     Foreign Relations and Defense Committee, ``Damascus is 
     interested in a settlement with Israel, but only on its terms 
     and with American involvement.''
       According to the report, Assad understands that the current 
     American administration is unwilling to negotiate with him on 
     his terms, so he is ready to wait until 2009, when a new 
     president is in the White House.

       Walid told me that during Speaker Pelosi's visit, she 
     brought a message from Olmert and President Assad responded 
     only to have Israel deny it made such an overture. We agreed 
     that certain conversations must remain out of the press and 
     remain private.
       Mouallem outlined a plan he believes critical to pushing 
     ahead with the Israeli-Syrian track including Israeli 
     withdrawal from the Golan and return to the June 4, 1967 
     borders. Walid stated that, based on prior discussions dating 
     back to 1995, 95 percent of a prospective deal had been 
     agreed upon.
       I said it was good that Syria sent representatives to 
     Annapolis; and added that Olmert was waiting for a signal 
     from Syria. I pressed him on Lebanon and told him it was my 
     view that the International Community as well as the United 
     States does not accept that Syria does not have a role in 
     Lebanon and that this relationship has a negative impact on 
     U.S.-Syrian as well as Israeli-Syrian relations.
       Walid stated the need to create a climate for peace. Walid 
     stated that French President Sarkozy asked President Assad to 
     help elect a president in Lebanon. The Foreign Minister 
     highlighted the importance of having a consensus candidate 
     and the difficulty of ruling by majority in Lebanon. He 
     stated that Syria agreed to work with the French provided 
     that the goal be a consensus unity government, not majority 
     rule, the U.S. remain neutral and France would not back any 
     party. The Foreign Minister provided me with a document which 
     was presented to the Lebanese on the path forward. He stated 
     that Syria's work was done and that it was in Lebanon's hands 
     to chart the course forward.
       I asked him about the prospects of a prompt resolution of 
     the stalemate. Walid told me that the Syrians and French had 
     been working for 45 days trying to find common ground. In the 
     end, according to Walid, the outcome depends on what the 
     majority will give the minority in terms of minister posts.
       When I pressed him on Syria's actions to destabilize its 
     neighbor, the Foreign Minister responded, ``We are not 
     destabilizing Lebanon, we are directly impacted. We have 
     250,000 Lebanese as the result of last summer's conflict with 
     Israel, we have 500,000 Palestinian refugees and we have 1.6 
     million Iraqi refugees.''
       The Foreign Minister emphasized he did not approve of the 
     U.S. holding the Israeli-Syrian track or improved U.S.-Syrian 
     relations hostage to the issue of Lebanon. He specifically 
     asked that the U.S. not deal with Syria only through the lens 
     of Lebanon, Hamas and Hezbollah.
       The Foreign Minister rejected my complaints that Syria was 
     supporting Hamas and Hezbollah. He said that weapons to Hamas 
     go through Egypt and that only 20 members of Hamas were in 
     Syria. He said that resumption of Syrian cooperation on 
     intelligence with the U.S. would depend on better U.S.-Syrian 
     relations.
       Following our meeting at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 
     we attended a dinner hosted by the embassy. Civil society 
     leaders were in attendance and shared their wide array of 
     views on the region and U.S. Syrian relations.
       The next morning we met with President Bashar al-Assad. He 
     reiterated what the Foreign Minister told us of the steps 
     needed to bring Israel and Syria closer to the table. He 
     stated that there must be U.S. involvement. I told him it 
     would be beneficial to use the momentum and attention of 
     Annapolis to show the region, the U.S. and the world that 
     Syria was interested in peace. Assad said he was more 
     optimistic about the potential for success on a Syrian-
     Israeli agreement after Annapolis than before.
       I told Assad that it would be beneficial to take positive 
     action to show that he is serious about peace and that Syria 
     is not meddling in Lebanon. I also told him that Syria would 
     benefit by cooperating with the U.S. on intelligence sharing. 
     Assad told me that there must be political cooperation 
     first--sending an Ambassador to Syria and refraining from 
     negative rhetoric would be a good first step.
       I pressed Assad on the case of missing Israeli soldiers. He 
     indicated that he had spoken to Hezbollah and asked them to 
     release the Israelis but that Hezbollah was waiting for a 
     response from Israel on a prisoner swap proposal. He said he 
     believed Hezbollah was ready to make a deal and Syria was 
     willing to take messages between the two. He stated that 
     Egypt was working on the release of the soldier held by Hamas 
     in Gaza. On the case of Ron Arad, Assad stated that he had no 
     information on what happened to him.
       When I asked Assad about the request for a new U.S. 
     mission, he stated that Syria needed a year to facilitate the 
     development of the requisite infrastructure. Assad said that 
     he was disappointed with the slow progress but that that 
     bureaucracy had been the cause of the delay.
       Following our meeting with President Assad, we met with 
     Syrian opposition leader Riad Seif. Seif shared with us his 
     ongoing bout with prostate cancer and the difficulty he has 
     had with the Syrian government limiting his ability to seek 
     treatment. Seif said he needs to travel outside of Syria to 
     receive the most advanced care which is currently not 
     available in Damascus. We discussed his activities and those 
     of the National Council which includes over 160 members and 
     was formed on December 1. We discussed the plight of those 
     who have been imprisoned and the repressive acts of the 
     Syrian government.
       The news conference which Representative Kennedy and I had 
     at the Damascus airport summarizes our meetings in Syria:

  Senator Arlen Specter and Representative Patrick Kennedy Remarks to 
Press at Damascus International Airport Prior to Departure December 29, 
                                  2007

       SENATOR SPECTER: Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, 
     Congressman Kennedy and I had a very productive, lengthy 
     meeting this morning with President Bashar al-Assad, and it 
     is my custom not to quote directly; obviously President Assad 
     speaks for himself. We had a meeting in the past several days 
     in Jerusalem with Israeli Prime Minister Olmert, and again I 
     choose not to quote directly, but to give you impressions as 
     to where I think the situation stands with respect to the 
     potential for a Syrian-Israeli peace treaty.
       It is my sense that the time is right now, and the 
     prospects are very good that the Syrians and the Israelis are 
     in a position to proceed to have a peace treaty. I say that 
     because of a number of factors. One is the Annapolis meetings 
     were a significant step forward. President Bashar al-Assad 
     had the courage to go there representing Syria, meeting with 
     the Israelis, meeting with the Palestinians, a meeting 
     attended by President Bush, a meeting with the invitations 
     coming from the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice. A very 
     important factor is present when President Bush has signified 
     his willingness to participate and interest in becoming 
     involved in the Mideast peace process, and that is a 
     significant change as to what has been for the first seven 
     years of his Administration.
       To give you just a little insight into U.S. political 
     activities, with the Congress in the hands of the Democrats; 
     I'm a Republican; Congressman Kennedy is a Democrat. But in 
     the United States, as you may know, Congress is separate. We 
     have separation of powers, and we speak independently; even 
     though the President is of my party, it is the tradition of 
     Senators to be independent. But what has happened is that the 
     President's domestic agenda has not been successful because 
     of the division of power. He had ideas for social security 
     reform, tax reform, immigration reform, and that is not 
     productive now. So he is in a position to turn his attention 
     to international affairs.
       There is the potential for a victory for the President. It 
     would also be a victory for Syria if Syria could regain the 
     Golan Heights. It would be a victory for Israel if there 
     could be a peace treaty. Right now, Syria and Israel continue 
     to be in a state of war. Now the President is not going to 
     spend his time unless there is a realistic possibility that 
     something can be worked out, that it can be fruitful. But he 
     is available, I think, to help on the Palestinian-Israeli 
     track, and the Syrian-Israeli track can go forward at the 
     same time.
       It is not to say that there are not problems. Lebanon 
     continues to be a major problem which we all know about. 
     Whether it is right or whether it is wrong, there is the 
     international perception that Syria has great influence, if 
     not control, in Lebanon. Again, I say I make no judgment on 
     the point. I am citing what I think to be the international 
     perception. And it would be very important if the efforts of 
     Syria and France working together can find an answer to the 
     Lebanese issue. Congressman Kennedy and I discussed this, at 
     some length, last night in a very long meeting, an hour and a 
     half, with Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem and again to 
     some extent with President Bashar al-Assad today. There are 
     problems with Hamas and Hizbollah, and again there is the 
     perception that Syria could be helpful in those, in those 
     matters. So it is overall a very complicated picture. I've 
     been coming to this region, as you may know, for a long time. 
     I made my first trip here in 1984, been here some 16 times. 
     [I] met nine times with President Hafez al-Assad, and now 
     seven times with President Bashar al-Assad. It is different 
     this year. It is different this year from what it was last 
     year. It is my hope that the parties will seize the moment.
       Let me yield now to my distinguished colleague.
       CONGRESSMAN KENNEDY: I want to say it is an honor to be 
     here. We had a very good meeting with the President, and I 
     was very pleased that the President, when we brought up the 
     issue of Syria's moving towards a more representative 
     democracy because of the fact that the President was very 
     clear that the kind of American democracy that we have, a 
     Jeffersonian democracy, does not necessarily work here in the 
     Middle East. He pointed to the fact that Iraq and Lebanon are 
     perfect examples.

[[Page S73]]

       I did say, ``Well then, what does work, where people can 
     have a voice in their government?'' He suggested that a 
     coalition government, where various people, based upon the 
     representation of their tribal group or ethnic group, can 
     speak through their coalition, could have a representative 
     government. And I said, ``Well, to that degree then, is Syria 
     moving towards that regard?'' He said: ``Well, that will take 
     time.'' And I said, ``Well, is it then your policy to jail 
     people who are outspoken politically to your regime? 
     Particularly the Foreign Minister said it was not the policy 
     of Syria to jail political opponents, only to jail people who 
     were related to foreigners in opposing Syria. And so I asked 
     about the National Council, the Damascus Declaration, because 
     recently they were all detained and put in jail, and they are 
     not related to any foreigners. So I asked ``Why were they put 
     in jail? And have they been, would they be released?'' and 
     the President said that they would be released if they have 
     not already. I gave him the names, I read the names, and he 
     said they all are released. Could you read the names?
       Akram al-Bunni, Walid al-Bunni, Ali Abdullah, Fidaa 
     Khourani, Mohammed Yasser al-Eitti, Jaber al-Shufi, Ahmed 
     Toumeh.
       The President said they were released. The President 
     assured me personally that they were released. He assured me 
     personally that they had already been released. Yes. And I 
     had the chance also to meet with Riad Seif, and I want to say 
     that when I go back to the United States, I am going to 
     nominate Mr. Seif for the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights 
     Award, named after my uncle Robert Kennedy. That award is 
     given to a person who has put their life in jeopardy on 
     behalf of human rights. As all of you know, Mr. Seif's life, 
     he was in jail for standing up for human rights; his son was 
     incarcerated and has never reappeared. He is fighting on 
     behalf of the 19,000 people who have disappeared and never 
     reappeared again. I just don't know anything more frightening 
     than being taken away in the middle of the night and not 
     knowing whether you are ever going to return to your family 
     again.
       And for all of you to know, I say this to my own government 
     when they are wrong as well. I say it all over the world 
     wherever there are problems, and certainly when there are 
     problems at home I write letters about my own government's 
     mistreatment of human rights. So it is universal wherever it 
     is. I would hope that someone over here would speak up on my 
     behalf if they were over in my country, just as I would hope 
     that I could speak up on someone else's behalf if I were over 
     in their country, because it doesn't matter what country we 
     are in; we are all human beings. We are not Syrians; we are 
     not Americans; we are human beings first, and we ought to be 
     treated as human beings.
       QUESTION: Khalid Ouweiss from Reuters: Senator Specter, 
     what is the next step to resume peace negotiations between 
     Israel and Syria? What needs to be done? Have you heard of 
     any compromises on both sides? Can you tell us in forthright 
     and certain terms what needs to be done and when and when do 
     you expect it to be done?
       SENATOR SPECTER: The next step will be the arrival of 
     President Bush in the Middle East in the course of the next 
     week to ten days. And the focus will be on the Palestinian-
     Israeli track. But I think there will also be an opportunity 
     to get a sense for what is happening in the region more 
     broadly, including the Syrian-Israeli track. The parties are 
     going to have to initiate, or continue talks through 
     intermediaries. It is my hope, really expectation, that at 
     some point when some preliminary progress has been made that 
     the United States government will be a party to broker 
     conversations. But, this is going to have to evolve step by 
     step from what has happened at Annapolis and what the sense 
     is in Jerusalem today and what my sense is in Damascus today.
       Later today I will be in touch with officials in the White 
     House in Washington and also with officials of the Israeli 
     government in Jerusalem to tell them the conversation with 
     President Bashar al-Assad and my sense as to what ought to be 
     done next.
       QUESTION: Ziad Haider for Los Angeles Times. Senator, could 
     you please elaborate on your role? Do you have a specific 
     role between the Syrians and the Israelis? Are you an 
     official mediator between the two sides?
       SENATOR SPECTER: What is my role? The foreign policy of the 
     United States Government under our Constitution is carried 
     out by the Executive [Branch]. The Congress has very 
     substantial authority on the appropriations process, on 
     control of the military, on the authority to declare war, so 
     Congress has very extensive responsibilities. Do I have an 
     official role in the government?
       QUESTION: Do you have a personal role? A specific personal 
     role as a mediator?
       SENATOR SPECTER: Well, I have described for you what my 
     undertakings have been. They have been to talk to Israeli 
     Prime Minister Olmert and other Israeli officials--Netanyahu, 
     Barak, and Perez--and to talk to President Bashar al-Assad 
     and also to Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem. And to convey 
     to President Bashar al-Assad what conversations I had with 
     Prime Minister Olmert and the others and I will now convey 
     the conversations back to the Israeli officials.
       QUESTION: Senator Specter and Congressman Kennedy, what was 
     the content of your conversations with President Assad and 
     Foreign Minister regarding the American steps with regard to 
     Lebanon, what steps they are going to take in that regard? 
     Are there any deals which have been talked about? Can you 
     confirm that?
       SENATOR SPECTER: Congressman Kennedy and I talked at length 
     with Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem and again today to 
     some extent with President Bashar al-Assad. We are looking 
     for an answer there. Congressman Kennedy referenced the fact 
     that we understand that it is not possible to have the same 
     kind of democracy in Lebanon like we have in the United 
     States, that what they are looking for is a consensus 
     democracy, that you can't have the majority govern the 
     country effectively, but with all the various factions, there 
     has to be a consensus. Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem gave 
     to Congressman Kennedy and me a document which the Syrians 
     and the French have agreed to as the basis for adjusting the 
     situation and going forward with elections in Lebanon. With 
     respect to Israeli Prime Minister Olmert, we talked about 
     Lebanon to some extent, but Israel does not factor into being 
     a determinative factor there. Prime Minister Olmert is 
     concerned about Hizbollah, concerned about potential Syrian 
     support for Hamas, but the answers in Lebanon are going to 
     have to come through the efforts of the Lebanese 
     themselves with the assistance of Syria and France.
       QUESTION: Lina Sinjab, BBC World News: Senator Specter, you 
     mentioned, you talked about the importance of getting Syria 
     and Israel back to the peace track and Syria's attendance in 
     Annapolis was provided to have a Moscow version of Annapolis 
     to talk about the Syrian-Israeli peace track. Are the 
     Israelis committed to that? Is Olmert's government committed 
     to attend the Moscow version of Annapolis and what is going 
     to happen next?
       SENATOR SPECTER: The question is, is Olmert committed to 
     the peace track and what will happen next?
       QUESTION: The question is there was a Moscow version of 
     Annapolis to discuss Syria-Israel peace track and to talk 
     about the Golan Heights, and is the Israeli government 
     committed to that?
       SENATOR SPECTER: Well, the question as to whether the 
     Israeli government is committed is something only the Israeli 
     government can answer and it will require the evolving 
     discussions. I believe the inference is clear that Israel 
     understands that if there is to be a treaty, that the Golan 
     will have to be returned to Syria. I believe that that is the 
     overhang. Has Prime Minister Olmert told me flatly that he is 
     prepared to give the Golan Heights back? No. We did not get 
     into that detail, but the whole process would not make any 
     sense unless Syria gets back the Golan. Now there is going to 
     have to be a working out of the fine lines. There is a 
     question about the June 4, 1967, boundary. There are 
     questions about security when the Golan goes back. There are 
     questions about confidence-building measures. But I think it 
     is accurate and conclusive to say that Prime Minister Olmert 
     wants to have a peace treaty with Syria. Prime Minister 
     Olmert is prepared to do what is necessary, in a reciprocal 
     arrangement, to get it done.
       QUESTION: Asaaf Aboud, BBC in Arabic. Senator Specter, you 
     mentioned in your briefing that this visit is different from 
     previous visits. In what aspect is it different? Have you 
     reached a specific breakthrough in terms of the Syrian-
     Israeli peace track, for example?
       SENATOR SPECTER: Well, it is different in many ways. When I 
     was here in 1995 and 1996, Netanyahu was Prime Minister, 
     there had been some conversations about Prime Minister 
     Netanyahu holding Syria responsible for what was going on 
     with Hizbollah. I carried a message to President Hafez al-
     Assad and it was, there were disagreements. A year ago, 
     Israeli Prime Minister Olmert said he was interested in 
     talks, but did not have the intensity of interest that he has 
     now. Annapolis is a big change. President Bashar al-Assad had 
     the courage to go in a difficult situation and made progress. 
     Now, most of all, as I explained at some length, President 
     Bush is willing to participate. To have the President of the 
     United States involved is a big plus if the parties will take 
     advantage of it. It is a very different atmosphere today, in 
     Damascus, in Jerusalem and in Washington. Big difference.
       Let me see how many more questions are there? I don't want 
     to cut anyone short, but I'll know long my answers will be. 
     One, two, three questions.
       QUESTION (Elaph): This is a question for Representative 
     Kennedy. You mentioned that regarding the Damascus 
     Declaration detainees, that you expressed concern over their 
     human rights, et cetera. And you did mention in your 
     statement also that you are willing to accept somebody from 
     Syria to criticize the violation of human rights in the 
     United States. The lady is from Elaph News Agency, or 
     website; she is saying that the Syrian opposition have, they 
     interpret, they are critical of foreign intervention in local 
     politics here, even on the human rights level. They would 
     understand that if an American writer or a journalist would 
     be critical of the human rights situation here, but they view 
     with caution the intervention of foreign officials in the 
     local political scene, the same way as a Syrian official 
     would not interfere in the local political scene in the U.S. 
     What would be your comment to that?
       CONGRESSMAN KENNEDY: That makes no sense. The greatest 
     human rights people in the world have their voice because 
     they transcend political boundaries of any nation state. They 
     are human beings. They speak to the human consciousness that 
     is universal.

[[Page S74]]

     We are not Syrians, [or] Americans; there's the great 
     Niemuller quote after Auschwitz: ``First they came for the 
     Catholics, and I wasn't a Catholic, so I did not speak up. 
     Then they came for the laborers, and I wasn't a laborer, so I 
     did not speak up. Then they came for the Jews, and I was not 
     a Jew, so I did not speak up. Then they came for me, and 
     there was no one left to speak up.''
       QUESTION: You talk about the return of dialogue between 
     Damascus and Washington. But we know that such a dialogue 
     should be conducted through diplomatic channels, at least 
     this is the level which is a reasonable level. But as we 
     know, there is no American ambassador to Damascus. So have 
     you been talking about the possibility of returning an 
     American ambassador to Damascus?
       SENATOR SPECTER: The issue about a U.S. ambassador to 
     Damascus, I think, in the eyes of President Bush turns on 
     Lebanon today. The Ambassador was withdrawn when the 
     assassination of Prime Minister Harari [Hariri]. I think that 
     is a decision which only the President can make, and I 
     believe that he is not yet ready to make it, but perhaps--
     it's his decision, I'll emphasize--when things improve, an 
     ambassador will come back.
       QUESTION: You talked about Netanyahu in the previous visits 
     you did. But do you feel after this visit that the current 
     Israeli government is willing to return the Golan Heights in 
     return for a peace treaty with Syria?
       SENATOR SPECTER: Well, I repeat that I do not speak for the 
     Israeli government. I started off by saying it is not my 
     practice to quote President Bashar al-Assad or to quote 
     Israeli Prime Minister Olmert or to quote anybody, but to 
     tell you what my impressions are from the extended 
     conversations which we have had. But we know that in 1995, 
     when Prime Minister Rabin negotiated for Israel with 
     President Hafez al-Assad, the deal was to return the Golan. 
     We know that when Prime Minister Barak negotiated in the year 
     2000 with President Hafez al-Assad, the deal was to return 
     the Golan. There was some disagreement as to precisely where 
     the line would be on the June 4, 1967, line.
       The core of any agreement, I think, is accepted that the 
     Golan is going to have to come back. But only the parties can 
     speak for themselves. Forty years later, it is a very 
     strategic difference. You have rockets; you have very 
     different issues of security than you had 40 years ago when 
     the Golan was taken by Israel. I think it is fair and 
     accurate to say, in a very complex context, that if there is 
     no Golan return, there is no deal. That is the core of the 
     deal. Then there has to be reciprocity. But nobody from the 
     United States, including the President, can speak for Israel 
     or for Syria. That's why it is important that the parties 
     come forward at this time. I do not believe there will be a 
     time this opportune, after Annapolis, and in the last year of 
     a presidency where the President has so many domestic 
     problems, that he has time and interest in coming to the 
     Israel-Palestinian issue and the Syrian-Israeli issue.
       Congressman Kennedy and I thank you for your attention. The 
     presence of a free press is very, very important in our 
     society, and Congressman Kennedy has spoken about our 
     interest in human rights. He spoke very eloquently about that 
     issue. Officials have a standing to talk about human rights, 
     as well as journalists. You journalists have unique standing, 
     but so do officials. But we admire what you are doing and 
     your efforts in spreading the word as to what Congressman 
     Kennedy and I have said today. We hope we'll be helpful in 
     getting the word out that something very constructive can be 
     done soon.
       One final comment: Mrs. Assad and my wife Joan had a very 
     pleasant meeting this morning and spent some very quality 
     time together.
       Thank you very, very much.

       We departed directly from the meeting for the airport en 
     route to Vienna, Austria. During the flight, I had to 
     opportunity to brief National Security Advisor Hadley on my  
     visits to Pakistan, Syria and Israel. Because the 
     connection was not good, I called Hadley from Vienna on a 
     hard line for a more extensive discussion.


                                austria

       Upon arrival in Vienna, we were met by Michael Spring, our 
     control officer and Christian Ludwig, a foreign service 
     national. The following morning we traveled to the U.S. 
     embassy for a country team briefing. Vienna is a unique 
     location in that the U.S. has multi-missions: one to the 
     Austrian government, the OSCE and the United Nations.
       CDA Scott Kilner led the briefing which included 
     representatives from the FBI, DHS and the United States 
     Military. In all, the U.S. has 24 government agencies 
     represented in Austria. We discussed the problem, one which 
     is not only faced by the State Department, that there is not 
     enough funding for certain government bodies.
       We discussed Austria's role in the international community 
     and more specifically their identity in Europe, their 
     relationship with the EU, their bilateral relationship with 
     the Czech Republic and their views on nuclear energy and 
     missile defense. The group noted that Austria is currently 
     campaigning for a seat on the UN Security Council. We 
     discussed terrorism, the IAEA, Kosovo, energy security, 
     Afghanistan and the changing demographics of Europe. We 
     discussed the situation in Iran and our mission's efforts to 
     process and assist Iranian refugees.
       Following the country team briefing, I briefed Secretary of 
     State Rice by telephone on some aspects of our discussions in 
     Syria.
       I met with Dr. Ferdinand Trautmannsdorf, the Director of 
     International Legal Affairs and Thomas Mayr-Harting, the 
     Political Director of the Austrian Foreign Ministry. The 
     officials were very interested in my recent travels 
     especially the situation in Pakistan. We had a substantial 
     discussion about Iran, to include the impact of the NIE in 
     Europe. I pressed them on Austria's significant stake in OMV, 
     an Austrian industrial firm which has dealings with Iran. 
     They responded by saying that the government does not have 
     the ability to influence OMV--a statement with which I 
     disagreed strongly.
       On January 2, 2008, we met with Geoff Pyatt from our 
     mission prior to our meetings at the United Nations. We 
     discussed the IAEA and the issues surrounding Iran's nuclear 
     program.
       We departed the hotel for our meeting with Dr. Mohamed El-
     Baradei, the Director General of the International Atomic 
     Energy Agency (IAEA). I had spoken to Dr. Baradei about two 
     months before by telephone when he extended an invitation to 
     me to visit him in Vienna to discuss further the issues 
     surrounding Iran's nuclear ambitions.
       Dr. Baradei shared his view that the Middle East is in 
     disarray and almost in civil war. I asked him about his views 
     on Iran and his concept of seeking a ``confession'' from them 
     on their nuclear agenda. He stated that the problems between 
     the U.S. and Iran go back to 1953 with the CIA's 
     intervention, the reign of the Shah and the embassy hostage 
     situation and that these events have led to distrust and a 
     lot of emotion on both sides. Iran's rationale for going 
     underground with its nuclear program was that they could not 
     do it above ground. The Director General stated that Iran 
     does not want to rely on others to enrich uranium and that it 
     is a matter of national pride and is a lucrative trade.
       When solicited about his views on President Putin's idea to 
     have Russia handle Iran's nuclear material, he stated that 
     Iran did not reject it but that they wanted their own 
     capability. He suggested that an acceptable security 
     structure must be negotiated with Iran to deter them. The DG 
     agreed that it is not acceptable for Iran to have nuclear 
     weapons and that his job was to verify that the program is 
     clean and under IAEA inspections.
       I pressed him on Iran's devious behavior in the past to 
     conceal nuclear efforts and asked if we can ever be 100 
     percent sure. He stated that you can never be 100 positive 
     but that he thinks Iran has things to tell him and that he 
     has told them they should come clean.
       The Director General suggested that direct U.S.-Iranian 
     negotiations should begin immediately to resolve the impasse. 
     The U.S. and international community need to understand what 
     the nuclear issue means to Iran with respect to its position 
     in the region and the world, that there needs to be an 
     understanding of the repercussions and that it must be done 
     in a manner that allows all sides to save face.
       We discussed Secretary Rice's precondition that the U.S. 
     would only meet with Iran if they halt enrichment. He said 
     there must be middle ground to bring the parties together on 
     this issue. He emphasized that sanctions alone won't resolve 
     the situation and only makes people more hawkish. Iran's 
     concealment of its R&D program, according to the Director, 
     led to a confidence deficit in the international community.
       I asked about the capabilities of an inspection regime 
     given Iran's substantial size. He confirmed the need to have 
     a robust verification system on the ground. Baradei stated 
     that the Additional Protocol to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation 
     Treaty (NPT) was helpful but that Iran stopped implementing 
     it. The Additional Protocol was the result of an IAEA 
     initiative to better constrain NPT member-states' ability to 
     illicitly pursue nuclear weapons after secret nuclear weapons 
     programs in Iraq and North Korea exposed weaknesses in 
     existing agency safeguards. That effort eventually produced a 
     voluntary Additional Protocol, designed to strengthen and 
     expand existing IAEA safeguards for verifying that non-
     nuclear-weapon states-parties to the nuclear Nonproliferation 
     Treaty (NPT) only use nuclear materials and facilities only 
     for peaceful purposes. He stated that the Protocol gives him 
     a good handle on Iran's nuclear program in that it provides 
     access to additional facilities and information.
       We discussed other issues confronting the Middle East such 
     as the Palestinian question and Pakistan. I expressed my 
     concern over the controls Pakistan has on its nuclear 
     arsenal. Baradei agreed with my assessment and stated his 
     first concern is those countries that already possess 
     weapons. In the case of Pakistan, he stated his concern about 
     those weapons falling under militant control.
       Following our meeting with Dr. Baradei, we met with the 
     United Nations office on Drugs and Crime. Dr. Thomas 
     Pietschmann from the Research and Analysis Section and an 
     expert on Afghanistan, Mr. Jean-Luc Lemahieu, an Afghanistan 
     expert and Matthew Nice, a synthetic drug expert provided a 
     detailed brief on the UN's efforts globally with a focus on 
     Afghanistan. We discussed the patterns and trends in illicit 
     drug production, trafficking and abuse. The group provided 
     significant data on cultivation, eradication and supply and 
     demand. Following the briefing we flew from Vienna to 
     Brussels, Belgium.

[[Page S75]]

                                BELGIUM

       On January 3, we met with Victoria Nuland, the U.S. 
     Ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). 
     We discussed a wide range of topics to include NATO's 
     involvement in Afghanistan, the NATO-Russian dynamic, NATO 
     expanding global partnerships, the EU-NATO relationship, 
     Kosovo and missile defense.
       On January 4, we departed for our return to the United 
     States.
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                  Washington, DC, January 2, 2008.
     Hon. Ban Ki-Moon,
     Secretary-General of the United Nations,
     New York, NY.
       Dear Secretary-General: In light of the uncertainty on who 
     assassinated former Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto 
     and the impact of her assassination on the pending Pakistani 
     elections. I urge the United Nations, either alone or in 
     conjunction with the Musharraf government of Pakistan, to 
     appoint an investigating commission.
       Since President Musharraf has already suggested an 
     international investigation, joint action by the U.N. would 
     be consistent with Pakistani sovereignty. Even without the 
     voluntary joinder of the Musharraf government, it is obvious 
     that a U.N. investigatian would have greater public 
     credibility.
       In making this recommendation, I recollect the action taken 
     by President Lyndon Johnson within seven days after the 
     assassination of President John F. Kennedy to appoint an 
     independent investigating commission.
       As you may know, Representative Patrick Kennedy, member of 
     the U.S. House of Representatives (D-RI), and I were 
     scheduled to meet with Ms. Bhutto at 9 p.m. an Thursday, 
     December 27th. She had called for that late meeting because 
     she was fully engaged in campaigning that day. As 
     Representative Kennedy and I were preparing to depart for a 
     dinner with President Musharraf at 7 p.m. and the later 
     meeting with Ms. Bhutto, we were informed of her 
     assassination.
       I am further concerned by a report in the Boston Globe from 
     January 2, 2008 picking up a Washington Post story by Griff 
     Witte and Emily Wax which says:
       ``Senator Latif Khosa, a lawmaker from Bhutta's Pakistan 
     Peoples Party, said she had planned to give the lawmakers 
     (referring to Representative Kennedy and myself) a report 
     outlining complaints an `pre-poll rigging' by Musharraf's 
     government and the military-run Inter-Services Intelligence 
     Directorate.''
       In a matter of this sort it is to be expected, based on 
     what happened following the assassination of President 
     Kennedy, to have a wide range of allegations and conspiracy 
     theories.
       It would be expected that expert investigative bodies like 
     the FBI and Scotland Yard and other national, reputable 
     investigating organizations would be willing to undertake 
     such an investigation under the name of the United Nations.
           Sincerely,
     Arlen Specter.
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                 Washington, DC, January 22, 2008.
     Hon. Sarfraz Khan Lashari,
     Election Monitor,
     Pakistan People's Party
       Dear Mr. Lashari: It is my understanding that Ms. Bhutto 
     may have intended to present me with a report detailing 
     election fraud in Pakistan's upcoming election at the time of 
     our scheduled meeting on December 27, 2007.
       According to a January 1, 2008 article in The Guardian, you 
     told reporters, ``That's what she was going to explain to the 
     U.S. Senators.'' ``We have a lot of evidence that the 
     government is involved in rigging. It was going to be 
     discussed on that evening.'' I am very interested in 
     examining any material that your party may have prepared for 
     my review.
       Americans are closely watching what is happening in 
     Pakistan. Any help you can provide in shedding light on this 
     tragic event may further the investigation into Ms. Bhutto's 
     death, as well as help to ensure that the upcoming elections 
     are free and fair.
       I Thank you for your consideration of this request. I look 
     forward to your response.
       My best.
           Sincerely,
     Arlen Specter.
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                                   Washington, DC.
       Mr. Asif Ali Zardari: Please accept my sincere condolences 
     on the loss of your wife.
       Since my wife and I first visited your wife in Kurachi some 
     twenty years ago, and in follow-up meetings when she was 
     Prime Minister in Islamabad and thereafter in Washington, I 
     have had great respect and admiration for her.
       As you may know, Representative Patrick Kennedy and I were 
     scheduled to meet with Ms. Bhutto at 9 p.m. on December 27, 
     2007, and were shocked by the assassination. I have noted in 
     the press that the Honorable Sarfraz Khan Lashari was quoted 
     in a January 1, 2008 article in the Guardian that Ms. Bhutto 
     was going to turn over evidence of election-rigging to 
     Representative Kennedy and me at our meeting.
       With this letter, I am enclosing for you a copy of my 
     letter to Mr. Lashari.
       If you have any such evidence in your possession and would 
     care to transmit it to me, I would be very pleased to receive 
     it.
       I am sure you will be interested to know that I wrote to UN 
     Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon on January 2, 2008 calling for 
     an international investigation of the assassination. I have 
     not yet had a response.
       I am also writing today to the UN Secretary General urging 
     that the United Nations set up a standing investigating 
     commission which would be available to move quickly to 
     investigate any future assassinations.
       With this letter I am enclosing copies of both those 
     letters for you.
       Again, my condolences. Let me know if I can be of further 
     assistance.
       My best.
           Sincerely,
     Arlen Specter.

                          ____________________