[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 14227-14228]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                 U.S. POLICY TOWARD INDIA AND PAKISTAN

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to address the Senate on an 
issue regarding an amendment which we have recently passed on this 
floor: U.S. policy toward India and Pakistan. I want to address the 
Senate on that issue.
  We passed an amendment on a defense appropriations bill that would 
allow the President to waive certain sanctions we have against India 
and Pakistan and also suspend economic sanctions we have against India 
and Pakistan. That passed this body and has gone over to the House. 
This is something the House is going to be considering, and it is 
important U.S. policy in a number of regards.
  Our relationship toward India has been one where we have been willing 
to sanction them rapidly and readily, in spite of the fact that they 
are a democracy and we share a number of institutional values and we 
have worked together sometimes in the past. But it seems as if we are 
very willing to sanction them. Yet, at the same time, we are willing to 
go toward China and say: China, you may steal our weapons technology, 
you may have human rights abuses, you may be shipping weapons of mass 
destruction to countries that are opposed to our interests; you have 
forced-abortion policies in place. Yet we are going to overlook all of 
those things because we want to have a good, open relationship with 
you, a good trade relationship. But, India, you tested here and you 
broke into these areas, so we are going to put economic sanctions on 
you, put these other sanctions on you, and we are going to hit you 
hard. It is the same with Pakistan.
  I think we have the wrong policies in place, and I don't understand 
it. I want to draw that to the attention of my colleagues because it 
appears as if we are putting these on with different balances, that we 
are saying in the case of China we are going to overlook the problems, 
overlook the situation, all these abuses, and with India we are going 
to smack you no matter what you do. They have a democracy, a vibrant 
democracy and a free press. The same with Pakistan, as far as their 
issues go, but we are willing to hit them so hard.
  So I don't understand why we are doing that, why the Clinton 
Presidency looks at the two countries differently,

[[Page 14228]]

and lets China get away with virtually anything, if you look at the 
record that has built up over a period of time. Toward India, we say we 
are going to smack you.
  Senator Roberts and I have put forward an amendment that has passed 
this body and is going to the House. It would suspend these sanctions, 
the economic sanctions, toward India and Pakistan.
  I think it is high time that the United States aggressively build its 
relationship with India and aggressively build its relationship with 
Pakistan. We need to do this. We need to have a broad-based 
relationship and not one that just has very narrow sanctions associated 
with it. For instance, as well, the administration is pushing that to 
lift these sanctions on India, they are telling the Indian Government, 
basically, they have to agree to CTBT, the Conventional Test Ban 
Treaty, in spite of the fact that the Senate may never pick this up. 
They are saying unless they agree to this, we are not going to lift 
these sanctions. It is a very narrow discussion point that they have 
with India, instead of having this broad-based discussion about how can 
we expand trade relationships, expand diplomatic relationships, and 
work together on issues of key concern.
  We should be asking: How can we expand relationships in the broad set 
of fields that we have? Instead, it is they have to agree to the CTBT, 
or we are not going to lift these economic sanctions on them, period. 
That is too narrow of a relationship for us to build with a great 
nation. India will be the largest nation in the world in the next 10 
years, population-wise. It has an extraordinarily large middle class. 
It has a number of people in a very poor situation, as well, but it has 
a large middle class.
  Look also at Pakistan. It is in the amendment where we suspend 
economic sanctions for 5 years and have a waiver on others. Pakistan 
sits in a difficult spot, right next to Afghanistan. They have had a 
lot of problems with Afghanistan. Pakistan seeks to be a friend of the 
United States. It is partly, obviously, an Islamic country and has been 
a key ally of ours in defeating the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. After 
Afghanistan, the Soviets backed off and we pulled out altogether. We 
not only sanctioned them under the Glenn amendment, we also had the 
Pressler amendment that basically removed our relationship with 
Pakistan, an Islamic country that seeks to be our friend, and we just 
nail them.
  It makes no sense to me why we do these sorts of things, and why the 
President, the Clinton administration, seeks to sanction a country that 
seeks to work with us, and closely with us, while with China we have 
had all this theft of technology, shipment of weapons of mass 
destruction, all the human rights abuses, and we are willing to look 
the other way.
  I think we ought to have trade relationships with China. I think it 
is important that we have a broad-based relationship with China. But at 
the same time we need to be expanding our relationships with India and 
Pakistan. These are countries--particularly in India's case--that share 
a lot of our traditions. I think it is wrong for us to have a double 
standard, particularly against a country that should be a very valuable 
future partner.
  I chair the Foreign Relations subcommittee that deals with both India 
and Pakistan, and it has been beyond me to understand the difference in 
U.S. policy toward these giant Asian countries. I think it is wrong of 
the administration to have this different policy. I think we really 
need to be much more aggressive and engaged and be a vibrant, broad-
based partner with India. I think it can be a good future relationship. 
It is something we can use as an offset toward China, in some respects, 
and our large dependency on China. I think it can be a future growth 
market for States such as mine and many others that have agricultural 
and aircraft products that we export. I think it can be a growing, 
vibrant market for us, one that shares a lot of our relationships and 
views and needs.
  I wanted to bring to the attention of my colleagues what is really 
happening in foreign policy. We also had a hearing yesterday on the 
issue of Iraq. I wanted to mention this tangentially because I think it 
is appropriate. We had people testifying from the Iraqi National 
Congress--a representative of the INC, Mr. Chalabi--and we had other 
witnesses testifying that Saddam Hussein is probably at his weakest 
point since the United States was engaged with Iraq. They are having 
daily reports of insurrection in the southern part of Iraq, and the 
northern part of the country is no longer in the control of Saddam 
Hussein.
  There are other factions that are controlling much of this Kurdish 
region. Yet the United States, in the Iraq liberation, provided $97 
million of drawdown authority and support for the opposition movement, 
and all we are giving the opposition movement is file cabinets and fax 
machines. Why aren't we really supporting this opposition movement that 
seeks to meet inside Iraq to set up more of a civil society in the 
region that Saddam doesn't control? Why aren't we really supporting 
these guys?
  I asked the administration witness yesterday--Under Secretary Beth 
Jones, a bright and good person--Do you think Saddam Hussein is going 
to outlast another U.S. President? Is he going to outlast President 
Clinton?
  She says: I really don't know.
  I said we know how to aggressively push and prosecute these issues in 
Kosovo. Why is it that we can't do this in Iraq? Why can't we support 
the opposition groups and give them lethal and nonlethal assistance 
that we can find truly necessary? Why can't we help them have a meeting 
of the Iraqi National Congress inside Iraq where they want to meet? It 
would send a powerful statement across the world that the INC, a 
potential opposition government, is meeting within Iraq.
  Yet the administration is not willing to step forward and is saying 
they are not so sure about whether or not we should do this. We are 
willing to give the opposition file cabinets and fax machines, but we 
won't give them training and lethal technology or the ability to fight. 
This is an extraordinary situation. It is one on which the Congress 
needs to speak out more.
  We need to aggressively move forward now on Saddam Hussein. We need 
to do that by supporting the opposition. This isn't about sending in 
U.S. troops. This is about supporting an opposition that wants to fight 
with Saddam Hussein, that wants to put the parts together to have a 
democratic Iraq, that wants to be an ally--not just that but wants the 
Iraqi people to be proud of and pleased with their government, instead 
of constantly harassed and killed by their leadership.
  Why on earth are we not pushing this and stepping forward and being 
more aggressive? I fail to get adequate answers from the Clinton 
administration on why. We know how to push forward aggressively on 
Kosovo. Why can't we deal in such a manner with Iraq? We know how to 
build a relationship with China. Why can't we build relationships with 
India and Pakistan? I really don't understand what is taking place. I 
ask these questions, and we are going to continue to hold hearings on 
these issues. We need to move forward in building a better relationship 
with India and Pakistan and dealing with the situation in Iraq.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We have 18 minutes on the Republican side and 
30 minutes remaining on the Democrat side. Ten minutes have been 
reserved for the Senator from Minnesota.
  The Chair recognizes the Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am not going to take my time at this 
moment. Senator Kerrey will precede me.

                          ____________________