[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 21]
[House]
[Pages 30790-30791]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



DISTURBING PATTERN OF PAKISTANI ACTIONS DEMANDS SERIOUS SCRUTINY BY THE 
                      ADMINISTRATION AND CONGRESS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday in this House we approved on a 
bipartisan basis a resolution congratulating the people of India and 
their government for the successful parliamentary elections recently 
concluded by that thriving democracy. I was pleased to support that 
resolution and to speak in favor of it.
  Unfortunately, action on another resolution that has been approved by 
the Committee on International Relations and is ready for consideration 
on this floor has been delayed. That other resolution would express the 
strong opposition of Congress to the recent military coup in Pakistan 
that overthrew the civilian government. While individual members of 
Congress, including me, have spoken out against the Pakistani coup, it 
is important for the House of Representatives to go on record 
collectively stating that we do not tolerate the overthrow of an 
elected government.
  I am very disappointed, Mr. Speaker, in the Republican leadership for 
the continued delay in bringing up this resolution. Since we are about 
to adjourn, it is likely the resolution is dead for this year.
  Last month, Mr. Speaker, the military coup in Pakistan was one of a 
series of disturbing actions that deserve very close scrutiny and clear 
condemnation by the U.S. government, the Congress, as well as the 
administration. One of the most shocking of these was last week's 
rocket attacks against American and UN targets in the Pakistani capital 
of Islamabad. The rockets were aimed at buildings in the heart of the 
capital, including the U.S. Embassy, a library and cultural center 
known as the American Center, and an office tower housing several UN 
agencies. Thank God, no one was killed, although one person was 
injured, a Pakistani guard at the American Center.
  Mr. Speaker, the attacks came 2 days before UN sanctions were 
scheduled to go into effect against the Taliban redream in neighboring 
Afghanistan unless that country turns over bin Laden, the international 
terrorist who has masterminded attacks against American and western 
targets in various countries. There has been solid evidence in the past 
linking bin Laden's operation with Pakistan, so this connection is 
extremely plausible.
  As the New York Times reported last Saturday, November 13, the list 
of possible culprits is short. Apart from the Taliban itself, Pakistan 
is home to several well-armed paramilitary groups sympathetic to the 
Taliban and hostile to the United States, in addition to thousands of 
Pakistani militants, who, over the years have trained side-by-side, 
with Taliban Members in Islamic schools.
  I should add, Mr. Speaker, that Pakistan has for years been 
identified with the violent separatist movement in India's state of 
Jammu and Kashmir, causing the deaths of thousands of civilians and the 
displacement of hundreds of thousands from their homes. Pakistan's role 
in selling death and destruction in Kashmir was exposed to the world 
earlier this year when Pakistani military leaders, many of the same 
elements who carried out last month's coup d'etat, precipitated a major 
crisis by unleashing an attack against Indian positions in the area of 
Kargil, along the line of control that separates India and Pakistani 
controlled areas of Kashmir.
  Pakistan's actions were condemned by the U.S. and the international 
community, and Pakistan was forced to essentially withdraw. But the 
attacks by Pakistani forces on India army positions continued day-to-
day, causing casualties on both sides and threatening the stability of 
the entire south Asia region.
  You have to wonder, Mr. Speaker, why the U.S. continues to try to win 
the favor of the Pakistani regime, given the proven collaboration 
between Pakistan and the fundamentalist Taliban militia in Afghanistan, 
and with bin Laden. Bin Laden and the Taliban represent the height of 
violent anti-Americanism, and yet here is the Pakistani regime 
tolerating, if not directly supporting, the operations of these 
movements in their country.
  We have recently seen another example of the lack of respect for 
democracy and the rule of law on the part of the new Pakistani military 
regime with the initiative to indict the deposed Prime Minister, 
Sharif, on trumped up charges of treason and hijacking, charges which 
carry the death penalty.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get carried away singing the praises of 
Mr. Sharif. He was deeply involved in the ill-fated military campaign 
in Kashmir earlier this year. But he was the recognized legitimate 
leader of the nation. He had apparently attempted to dismiss the army's 
Chief of Staff, General Musharraf, and, instead, the general turned the 
tables and dismissed the prime minister, indicating who is really in 
charge in Pakistan. The turn of events indicates that the notion of 
democratic civilian leadership and the rule of law are not well 
developed in Pakistan.
  Reports in the last day out of Pakistan indicate that Prime Minister

[[Page 30791]]

Sharif, who has been in military custody since he was deposed in the 
October 12th coup, has been moved to the port city of Karachi in a 
military aircraft in preparation for a court appearance.
  Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, there are some who seem to welcome the 
seizure of military power by the military in Pakistan as a recipe for 
stability. I believe this is misguided thinking. First, as the rocket 
attacks against American targets last week indicate, the military 
regime is no better at maintaining stability and security than the 
previous civilian government. Furthermore, this year's Pakistani attack 
on India in Kashmir demonstrates behavior that is highly destabilizing 
and could lead to a wider war that would devastate much of South Asia.
  It was the military brass now in charge of the country who 
precipitated that conflict, and who continue to promote the ongoing 
border incidents. Finally, the fact that Pakistan has been under 
military dictatorship for approximately half of its 52 years of 
independence inevitably led General Musharraf to conclude that it was 
his right to dismiss the Prime Minister, not the other way around. 
Until that type of thinking changes, Pakistan's prospects for stability 
and democracy are dim. While we may not be able to change Pakistani 
behavior, the United States should not be playing the role of enabler, 
out of cynical expediency or in the misguided belief that the military 
regime will bring ``stability.'' This body should go on record 
expressing our condemnation of this year's turn of events in Pakistan.

                          ____________________