Congressional Statements
Sen. Brownback presents Amendment to
Foreign Operations Bill which would suspend economic sanctions against
India
Statement
June 20, 2000
Note: Brownback's amendment was withdrawn, as were dozens of others,
due to Rule 16 (which essentially states that if an amendment is not germane
to the bill under consideration, then the amendment cannot be considered).
Sometimes the Senate is not so stringent on Rule 16; however, because
they are trying to get the Approps bill through the Senate as soon as
possible, they have applied it to most all the Approps bills. McConnell,
Chair of the Subcommittee, allowed Brownback, however, to make his statement
on India.
SEN. BROWNBACK: Mr. President, I wanted to spend some time discussing
what this amendment is about. I think at the outset, the best way to capture
it is to compare it to what is taking place in the news today. This is
an amendment about lifting economic sanctions on India. The administration
has the authority -- we provided it last year and the year before -- for
them to lift the economic sanctions this country has against India. Those
sanctions were automatically put in place after India tested nuclear weapons.
We have been providing them the authority and flexibility to be able to
deal with India broadly. The administration was provided that waiver authority
last year and it has chosen not to use it. So currently this country,
the United States of America, has economic sanctions against India, another
democracy in the world.
In today's newspaper, the administration is stating they will lift economic
sanctions against North Korea. This is the country that has the most weapons
proliferation taking place anywhere in the world, proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction. It is a country on the terrorist list. It is on the
big 7 terrorist list of state sponsors of terrorism. This is the country
that has a number of different violations, a country where we have been
at war.
There have been some different things taking place in North Korea. I
am not saying I am opposed to the administration doing this. I am just
saying it is quite odd, and very striking, that at the time the administration
is proposing to lift economic sanctions, they continue to insist on economic
sanctions against India, the second most populous nation in the world,
soon to be the most populous nation in the world; a nation we trade with,
a nation that is a democracy, a nation that has a free press, a nation
that I think, in the future, stands to be a very strong strategic critical
ally of the United States. That is India. They will be a partner of ours,
working to hold stability in south Asia. Not that they don't have problems,
not that we don't have issues associated with that, but this is a democracy
with a free press, with capital markets, that has a number of similar
aspirations to those of the United States. At the same time we are lifting
economic sanctions against North Korea, this administration is going to
leave them on India.
My amendment is simple. It would suspend economic sanctions against India
-- suspend them. While we provided the administration with the waiver
authority so they could do it, they have chosen not to. By this amendment,
we, the Congress, would be lifting these economic sanctions against India.
I want to say as well what this amendment does not do. My amendment does
not suspend any military or dual-use technology assistance to India. The
President has national security waiver authority for military-related
sanctions, but we are not dealing with military-related sanctions. He
has authority to waive the prohibition on sales of defense articles, but
we are not doing that here. We are not dealing with defense services,
foreign military financing, or dual-use technologies.
If the administration really wants to get to the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty with India and say we want to force you to sign the CTBT, wouldn't
it be better to use the military set of sanctions rather than economic
sanctions that the administration is currently using? Plus, if you think
about this for a moment, is it likely we are going to force India, by
economic sanctions, to sign CTBT? They are a democracy. How will their
people react if their leaders are seen as capitulating to U.S. economic
pressure to sign something their leaders are saying they needed to do?
Is that a way we are actually going to be able to force India to do this?
I think not.
Plus, this is a much bigger country with much broader issues than simply
the U.S. issue of CTBT. We have a broad array of issues with India. We
need to grow this relationship rapidly. To hold the entire relationship
hostage to one issue is bad foreign policy on our part. It is hurting
us. I think it will hurt India and hurt our ability to shape things in
that part of the world.
I was hopeful that during the President's recent trip to India, he would
use that chance to remove the economic sanctions on India. He was there
for a number of days and had the opportunity to do that. It would help
set up the atmosphere for a more aggressive, broad-based relationship
with India. This was a way to leapfrog this relationship forward. This
trip did improve relations with India, but he could have done so much
more that he failed to do. A number of us were terribly disappointed that
he did not make more use of the broad waiver authority he now has. He
used it very sparingly. This was waiver authority that I fought last year
to give him.
There should be no more economic sanctions on India, period. The United
States should not do that. Yet the Clinton-Gore administration continues
to hold up international financial institution loans which are destined
for infrastructure projects which would help sustain the economic activities
in rural areas where the bulk of India's poor population lives. More than
a third of India's population lives in poverty today. U.S. opposition
to development loans to India impedes the growth of vital infrastructure,
employment, and living standards in the poorest parts of India. That is
not the way to improve U.S.-India relations. These loans are being held
up by the administration until India signs the CTBT.
The President of the United States has more appropriate carrots, as I
mentioned at the outset, particularly in the noneconomic area, and particularly
those associated with military functions, which could be used rather than
these sanctions which hit the poorest people in India. Nuclear proliferation
is a vitally important issue, but it should not be the only issue on which
we deal with a country such as India, the largest democracy in the world.
This is all the more outrageous in view of the news I mentioned about
lifting the economic sanctions on North Korea, a country which is run
by one of the world's most notorious dictators, a country on the state
sponsorship of terrorism list, as I mentioned, a country developing nuclear
weapons and which is a direct threat to the United States and our east
Asian allies.
Think about this for a moment. We are considering right now putting up
a missile defense system, putting it in Alaska, and part of the reason
is because of what we are fearing from North Korea. Yet we are going to
lift economic sanctions there, but we are not going to do it against India?
The contrast here is outrageous.
There are even recent newspapers reports out that I want to submit for
the RECORD about the development of nuclear material. This was in a newspaper
in Japan, about North Korea's secret underground facility producing uranium
for use in its weapons programs. These are weapons programs. They are
the largest proliferator around the world.
I ask unanimous consent to have this document printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
SANKEI SHIMBUN: DPRK SECRET UNDERGROUND FACILITY PRODUCING
URANIUM
[From the Tokyo Sankei Shimbun, June 9, 2000]
(By Katsuhior Kuroda)
SEOUL, 8 June. North Korea has reportedly utilized natural uranium
produced in the country as raw material for its nuclear weapons development
program. Meanwhile, Sankei Shimbun has obtained a detailed report on
North Korea's secret underground plant for refining natural uranium
and its material production procedures. The secret underground plant
is widely called "Mt. Chonma Power Plant," located at Mt.
Chonma in North Phyongan Province. North Korea has operated the plant
in secret since the end of 1989 for uranium production for the nuclear
weapons program, the report said.
EX-MILITARY OFFICIAL WHO FLED TO CHINA UNVEILS EXISTENCE
OF PLANT
The report was drawn up based on statements made by North Korean military
official Yi Chun-song [name as transliterated], 66, during interrogation
by Chinese authorities. Yi is former vice director of the operation
bureau of North Korean Ministry of People's Armed Forces who served
as commander in chief at a missile station. He fled from North Korea
to China last year and was held in Chinese authorities custody.
The report said that the "Mt. Chonma facility" has a uranium
refining capacity of 1.3 grams a day. By simple calculation, the production
during the past 10 years of operation would amount to approximately
5 kg. Concerning North Korea's uranium production plants, there are
some unconfirmed information including plants in Pakchon and Pyonsan,
but this is the first time that an accurate location and details of
the inside of the facility were unveiled.
According to the report, the "Mt. Chonma facility" is built
in a large tunnel under the 1,116-meter mountain. Soldiers of the 2d
Division of the Engineering Bureau of the Ministry of People's Armed
Forces started constructing the facility in 1984 and completed the work
in 1986. The uranium-producing operations started in 1989.
Approximately 400 people, including 35 engineers and 100 managers,
are working at the plant. The rest are physical laborers who were all
political prisoners sentenced to life in prison. The uranium minerals
are brought into the facility from mines in Songchon, South Phyongan
Province, and Sohung, North Hwanghae Province, by the transportation
unit of the Ministry of People's Armed Forces.
The report said that the arched entrance of the tunnel is 7 meters
wide and 6 meters high. A pathway of about 2.5 km is connected to the
entrance, and there is a corner at the end of the pathway. Making a
90-degree right turn and going along the path about 1 km, you will find
a 6-km-long main tunnel with a width of 15 meters and height of 6 meters.
The inside surface of the tunnels is covered by aluminum plates, and
there are 3-meter-wide drains and ventilation openings there.
The underground plant is comprised of 10 areas-two concentration grounds
measuring 3,000 square meters each, a drying room of 400 square meters,
four 400 square-meter-wide dissolution rooms for uranium extraction
and refining, a room for packing uranium into containers, storage for
the finished products, and a room where the workers change into anti-radiation
suit or take breaks.
The report said there is a waste disposal facility in the plant in
addition to the areas mentioned above. The packed uranium products are
carried out of the facility through a passage at the end of the tunnel
and transported to an underground storage area in Anju by helicopter.
The report added that although forests in the Kumchangri area, 30 km
southeast of Chonma, were polluted by water discharged from the Chonma
facility, the United States could not detect the Chonma plant despite
the technical team's inspections in Kumchangri.
According to Yi s career record attached to the report, Yi graduated
from P'yongyang University of Technology, and studied at Frunze (now
Bishkek) military university of the former USSR from 1958 to 1962. A
South Korean source said that Yi attempted to defect to a third country
after fleeing to China, but it is highly likely that he was sent back
to North Korea by Chinese authorities.
SEN. BROWNBACK: The U.S. has real, legitimate political and economic
security interests with India. We need to engage India on all levels as
soon as possible. In fact, seizing the opportunity we have to build greater
ties should be one of our main foreign policy goals. That is one that
is not taking place. We are, after all, the two most populous democratic
nations in the world. Our relationship should be based on shared values
and institutions, economic collaboration including enhanced trade and
investment, and the goal of regional stability across Asia.
I ask the President and other Members to take into consideration how
we treat India versus China as well. In China, we are on a very aggressive
relationship economically. We will be considering later in this body normalizing
permanent trade relations with China. We are saying we need to be engaged
with them on a number of different issues. With India we then say no,
we are going to put economic sanctions against you, whereas with China
we are trying to open up. And China is the one that has missiles pointed
this way, that threatens Taiwan, that has weapons proliferation. Religious
persecution itself takes place on that continent. I myself have visited
with Buddhists who have fled out of Tibet into Katmandu, a number of them
walking over the Himalayas in the wintertime to get to freedom. Yet look
at how we treat China. We are going to do everything favorable for China,
but for India we are going to put on economic sanctions. The contrast
is stark.
Again, as a major foreign policy objective, we should be looking to India
over the next several years to build up this strategic relationship in
some respects as an offset to China and what China is doing in South Asia
and what China is aspiring to around the world.
I do not think anybody is sanguine about where China is heading today.
We are going to need partners, and India is a key one for us to look at.
It is tough for us to convince them of that if we are going to leave economic
sanctions on them. One of the ways to reduce our dependency on China economically
is to lift economic sanctions on India and try to build up that relationship
even more.
These are the key reasons that I put forward this amendment. The differences
are so stark as to how we treat China and North Korea versus India. Ask
yourself why. I fail to see the reasons for this policy of seeking to
reward China, a country that has openly and continually challenged United
States interests and values, while at the same time ignoring and punishing
India.
As the example of North Korea which I mentioned earlier, the inequity
of this situation is striking. Why reward a country that is aggressively
working against everything for which we stand and, at the same time, punish
and blackmail a country with which we share basic values and interests?
We should be engaging India as the strategic partner it can become. To
do so, we should not be maintaining economic sanctions which serve only
to impede the development of this relationship. Maintaining economic sanctions
on India which affect the poorest parts of the country is not the way
to go about this.
The Prime Minister of India, I understand, will be in Washington this
fall. I believe it is incumbent upon us to lift these sanctions, and if
the administration will not do it, which they have shown to date they
will not, then we should.
AMENDMENT NO. 3493 WITHDRAWN
SEN. BROWNBACK: Mr. President, I understand there is a rule XVI
problem with the amendment I have put forward. While I would dearly want
to have a vote on the amendment on this bill, I understand it will be
a problem.
Therefore, reluctantly and regrettably, because I do think this body
should take up this issue, I withdraw my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
SEN BROWNBACK: I yield the floor.
Sessions' Statement 6/20/00
COMMENDING SENATOR BROWNBACK FOR HIS STATEMENT ON INDIA
SEN. SESSIONS: Mr. President, a few moments ago the Senator who
is presiding over the Senate spoke on the floor, expressing some views
about the nation of India. I believe the Senator raised a very important
matter that is too little discussed in our Government, in our news media,
and in this country. It seems to me every time I have heard the Senator
speak on it, he makes perfectly good sense.
I believe the Senator is on the right track with a very important issue
for our country. I simply want to say to the Senator, thank you for raising
it. I believe it is a matter we need to discuss more.
India is soon to be the most populous nation in the world. It is a democracy.
There is no reason for us to have an adversarial relationship with them.
The CTBT issues can be overcome. It is time for us to rethink our policy
in that area.
I thank the Senator for raising the issue.
I yield the floor.
|
