House of Representatives - June 22, 1999

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, as both Houses of Congress work to lift the unilateral American economic sanctions on India and Pakistan , an effort I strongly support, another dangerous issue has been introduced into the mix, threatening stability in South Asia.

Mr. Speaker, a provision in the defense appropriations bill, recently approved by the other body, the Senate, would suspend for 5 years the sanctions imposed last year on India and Pakistan after the two countries conducted nuclear tests. Last week, in this body, legislation was approved that would continue for 1 year the President's authority to waive the sanctions. These are worthy initiatives that I hope we can build on.

But, Mr. Speaker, the Senate legislation also includes language that would repeal the Pressler amendment prohibition on U.S. military assistance to Pakistan .

• In 1985, Congress amended the Foreign Assistance Act to prohibit all U.S. aid to Pakistan if the President failed to certify that Pakistan did not possess a nuclear explosive device. Known as the Pressler Amendment, after the distinguished former Senator who sponsored the provision, this law arose from the concern that Pakistan was ignoring U.S. concerns about proliferation, despite promises of billions of dollars of U.S. assistance. In 1990, President Bush invoked the Pressler amendment to block aid to Pakistan.
  
• Now, the Senate has acted to repeal the Pressler amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a serious mistake, as nothing has changed to justify the repeal of the Pressler amendment. Indeed, in recent weeks we have seen strong indications of Pakistani support for militants who have infiltrated into India's side of the line of control in Kashmir . Besides the so-called political and moral support for the militants that Pakistan acknowledges, there is growing evidence that Pakistan is providing material and logistic support for the militants, and that Pakistani army regulars are actually taking part in breaching the internationally recognized line of control in Kashmir . This is really in a cynical bid to ratchet up the tensions between India and Pakistan , and at such a time it does not seem prudent, in my opinion, to renew military transfers to Pakistan .

Mr. Speaker, given the long and well-documented history of Pakistani support for and collaboration with the militants who have been perpetrating a reign of terror in Kashmir , there is every reason to believe that providing U.S. arms to Pakistan would result in these American weapons being funneled to the militants.

• By arming Pakistan , we would be arming the militants responsible for the deaths of thousands of civilians in Kashmir, and who are now contributing to the escalating tensions with India.

Mr. Speaker, there was an article in Saturday's New York Times entitled `Kashmir Militants Seek Islamic State,' and it describes how Islamic militants from several different nations are working to transform Kashmir from a tolerant secular democratic state, that people from many faiths call home, into an area under strict Islamic religious rule. I wanted to quote from this article by Times reporter Steven Kinzer. He says,

The campaign is in part a legacy of the proxy war the U.S. waged against Soviet forces in Afghanistan during the 1980s.

The article describes how having succeeded in driving the Soviet forces out of Afghanistan and establishing a form of religious rule there under the Taliban, these warriors are now turning their attention to Kashmir. And quoting again from the Times article, it says that,

In Srinigar, the summer capital of Kashmir , militants from countries as far apart as Indonesia, Sudan and Bahrain have given interviews asserting that they learned the art of war from Americans and are now using their skills to fight the Indian Army. Many are evidently using not only tactics that Americans taught them, but also weapons Americans gave them.

In fact, the article notes how an Indian helicopter was shot down by an Islamic guerilla using an American made stinger missile, and that about a dozen more stingers, each capable of shooting down a plane or a helicopter, are unaccounted for in the region. The U.N. envoy in Srinigar is quoted as saying that, Weapons provided for Afghanistan with large help from the Americans and CIA are now in the hands of the militants.

• An Indian Army colonel states that, `The militants are using not only small arms that they got from the Americans, but also Stinger missiles and American anti-tank weapons. It's not only weapons, but also battle-hardened troops. It's a direct result of the American policy in Afghanistan.'
  
• Mr. Speaker, the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan was an important turning point contributing to the collapse of the Soviet Empire. Yet, one of the unintended consequences has been the creation of a radical movement of armed terrorists, mercenaries and militants who have imposed a repressive regime in Afghanistan, are trying to take over Kashmir , and who seem to have a great deal of influence within the Pakistani government and armed forces.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that during the Cold War our fear of Soviet expansionism led us to embrace regimes like Pakistan that do not share our values of democracy and tolerance. But in the post-Cold War era, there is no justification for militarily propping up such a regime. Maybe we cannot completely stop the militants who threatened Democratic India as well as American and western interests, but we can at least make sure we do not give them what they want most, and that is American arms. Sending military assistance to Pakistan amounts to a guaranty that these American weapons will be funneled to the militants. And given this sad reality, we must not repeal the Pressler amendment.