[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.
____________________