[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 13]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 18874]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                          AFTER KARGIL--WHAT?

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BILL McCOLLUM

                               of florida

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 29, 1999

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concern over an 
important foreign policy decision. If left unpunished, the Pakistani 
conduct during the recent Kargil crisis--particularly in view of the 
Clinton Administration's handling of the crisis--would set a dangerous 
precedent for would-be aggressors and rogue nations. Failing to address 
the Pakistani precedent swiftly and decisively is therefore detrimental 
to the national security and well being of the United States.
  Three aspects of the Pakistani behavior during the crisis should 
worry us:
  1. Intentional reliance on nuclear capabilities in order to shield 
one's own aggression. A policy advocated by radical Islamists since 
1993, the current Pakistani nuclear doctrine constitutes a profound 
deviation from the post WWII norm of using nuclear weaponry--an 
ultimate deterrence in the form of weapons of last resort in case of 
aggression against one's own state and/or most vital interests. The 
Pakistani intentional and unilateral ultimatum--repeated warnings to 
escalate the Kargil crisis into a nuclear war in case India's reaction 
to the Pakistani aggression threatened to deprive Pakistani of any 
achievement--exceeds even the most aggressive use of the nuclear card 
by the USSR at the height of the Cold War (when Moscow reiterated its 
commitment to use nuclear weapons solely at time of a major world war). 
In contract, the Pakistani nuclear ultimatum is identical to the 
nuclear blackmail doctrine of the People's Republic of China and the 
Democratic People's Republic of Korea--a doctrine based on brinkmanship 
and blackmail which both states tinkered with but are yet to have 
implemented despite repeated crises. Thus, it is Islamabad that was the 
first to cross the threshold of aggressive use of one's own nuclear 
potential.
  2. Concealing the use of one's own national military forces as 
deniable ``militants.'' In so doing, Islamabad demonstrated 
unwillingness to face responsibility for actions that amount to an act 
of war. This is a blatant break of the international order stipulating 
that sovereign governments acknowledge their own actions--thus opening 
up to United Nations intervention as well as other forms of crisis 
management and containment by the international community. While such 
international intervention may not be welcome in Islamabad, or 
elsewhere for that matter, this is the way the modern world works: The 
acknowledged responsibility and accountability of sovereign governments 
are the cornerstones of international relations and are thus the key to 
preventing all out chaos in an already volatile world. Indeed, 
governments that internationally break away from this posture are 
labeled rogue and are shunned by the international community.
  3. Using Pakistani-controlled Islamist terrorists in a war-by-proxy 
against India, presently waged mainly in Kashmir. The kind of terrorism 
Pakistan is blatantly using against India in pursuit of primary and 
principal interests of the state has long been considered unacceptable 
and illegal by the international community. The Kargil crisis and the 
ensuing marked intensification of Islamist terrorism throughout Kashmir 
constitute an unprecedented escalation of Islamabad's continued 
sponsorship of, and reliance on, terrorism to further national 
strategic objectives. Even in the aftermath of the Kargil crisis, 
Islamabad is yet to demonstrate any inclination to stop its war-by-
proxy against India.
  By stressing the imperative for a ``face saving'' exit for Nawaz 
Sharif, the Clinton Administration in effect went along with 
Islamabad's lies--thus covering up Islamabad's rogue-state actions. The 
Clinton Administration in essence rewarded Pakistan for its aggression 
and nuclear blackmail, as well as blatant violation of previously 
signed international agreements (most notably the 1972 Simla 
Agreement). Taken together, the ``solution'' to the Kargil crisis 
forwarded by the Clinton Administration and the definition of the 
``Kashmir problem'' the US is now committed to help resolve, make a 
mockery of the most basic norms of international relations and crisis 
resolution dynamics. As such, the Clinton Administration effectively 
encourages other rogues and would-be aggressors to pursue their 
objectives through brinkmanship, blackmail, aggression, and terrorism.
  Instead, Pakistan should be recognized as the rogue and terrorism 
sponsoring state that it now is. Pakistan should be treated accordingly 
and, given the cynical use of war-by-proxy and nuclear threats for such 
a long time, dealt with harshly by the international community. This is 
an urgent imperative for the United States. With several other rogue 
states accumulating weapons of mass destruction and long-range delivery 
systems capable of hitting the heart of the United States, as well as 
sponsoring high-quality terrorists capable of conducting spectacular 
strikes at the heart of the United States, it is imperative for 
Washington to ensure that none would dare to use these instruments 
against the United States, its allies and vital interests. The Clinton 
administration's ``understanding'' of, and support for, Islamabad's 
rogue state behavior and blatant aggression send the opposite message--
encouraging rogues and would-be aggressors to dare the United States 
and harm its interests with impunity.
  In contrast, India should be rewarded for the responsibility and 
self-restraint practiced by New Delhi. Under the extreme pressure of a 
foreign invasion--albeit of a limited scope--on the eve of bitterly 
contested national elections, the Indian government rose to the 
challenge and placed the national interest ahead of political 
expediency. In so doing, New Delhi behaved like the major democratic 
power India has long claimed to be. India should therefore be
recognized and 
treated as the great power it is by the United States and the rest of 
the international community.

                          ____________________