July 7, 1999

Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr., D-N.J., said today that he was pleased that the Clinton Administration has thus far resisted Pakistani attempts to internationalize the Kashmir conflict.

Pallone today wrote to President Clinton urging that the U.S. not be drawn into the role of mediator in Kashmir.

"To the extent that President Clinton met with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif with the purpose of getting Pakistan to withdraw its forces from India's side of the Line of Control (LOC), I welcome that," Pallone said.

"But I would urge the President and the Administration to stick with the current, limited approach of achieving a Pakistani withdrawal, and not to take the Pakistani bait to internationalize the issue.

"It's clear that Pakistan has long sought to drag the United States into this conflict as an international mediator, as a strategic ploy to enhance its position in the conflict. Such a step would not be appropriate for the Kashmir conflict. India and Pakistan must resolve this issue on a bilateral basis, pursuant to the framework set forth in the Simla Accords and, more recently, in the Lahore Declaration."

Pallone also said he was encouraged by signals from the Administration that President Clinton would make his long-awaited journey to South Asia later this year -- but stressed that the trip should not be in the context of a U.S. mediation role in Kashmir.

"I've been saying for years that a visit by the President of the United States to the world's largest democracy is long overdue," Pallone said. "If the trip to India also includes a trip to Pakistan, so be it.

But it is important that such a trip not turn into the beginning of a shuttle diplomacy process on Kashmir, or the NPT."

According to a recent published report (New York Times, Monday, July 5), Administration officials indicated that yielding to Pakistan's desire to bring the U.S. in as an international mediator would be to side with Pakistan, given India's long-standing position that the issue should be resolved bilaterally. The Times article, and other media accounts, speculated that Mr. Sharif sought the meeting with President Clinton as a way of getting political cover to persuade hardliners that withdrawal was the only option for Pakistan.

"The current Administration policy is a further indication of Pakistan's international isolation," Pallone said. "This week's joint statement, combined with previous State Department statements linking Pakistan with the infiltrators in the Kargil area, demonstrate a welcome objectivity from the Administration. I don't want to go too far in perceiving a major, seismic shift in U.S. policy in the region, but I certainly hope we'll continue to see a movement away from the traditional pro-Pakistan tilt in the State Department and the Pentagon -- especially when Pakistan's actions are so indefensible, as they are in the current situation.

"My optimism is somewhat tempered by Mr. Sharif's characterization, in the Pakistani media, of the talks at the White House, with the Prime Minister suggesting that President Clinton will play a more active mediating role in Kashmir. I hope this was merely an exercise in spin control by Mr. Sharif.

"On a more practical level, I share the concerns about whether Mr. Sharif can necessarily deliver the promised withdrawal. My concern is not so much about Pakistani control over the infiltrators, but Mr. Sharif's control over the hard-line elements within his own government and military.

If the Pakistani government and armed services were truly committed to withdrawal from the Kargil area, they could make it happen tomorrow. I don't buy the argument that Pakistan has no control over these militants, particularly in light of the evidence that Pakistani army regulars are among the infiltrators.