Congressional Statements

The coup in Pakistan and the importance of maintaining the Pressler amendment

Rep. Pallone Morning Hour Statement in the House of Representatives
October 19, 1999

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I introduced legislation to prevent the Administration from waiving the Pressler Amendment, a provision of law which prohibits U.S. military assistance to Pakistan. I would like to take this opportunity to urge my colleagues to join me in this initiative. While I have offered this legislation as a freestanding bill, I am also looking into other legislative vehicles that my proposal could be attached to.

The fiscal year 2000 Defense Appropriations Conference Report approved by the House last week contains provisions giving the President broad waiver authority over several sanctions against India and Pakistan, including the Pressler Amendment. There are indications that the President will veto this bill, although for unrelated reasons.

Mr. Speaker, the intent of my legislation is essentially to return to the status quo on the Pressler Amendment. It is my hope that last week's military coup in Pakistan, while certainly very regrettable, may help to refocus Congressional attention on the danger of providing military aid to Pakistan and result in renewed Congressional support for retaining the Pressler Amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I have long supported lifting the economic sanctions against India and Pakistan, which is also accomplished in the Defense Appropriations Conference Report. I also want to thank the Conferees for another positive provision: a Sense of the Congress Resolution that the broad application of export controls to nearly 300 Indian and Pakistani entities listed on the so-called "Entities List" adopted by the Bureau of Export Administration (BXA) should be applied only to those entities that make "direct and material contributions" to weapons of mass destruction and missile programs and only to those items that so contribute. The BXA went way too far in blacklisting entities with little or no connection to nuclear or missile programs, and we need to keep the pressure on the BXA to fix this list, to take off entities that don't belong there.

But I am concerned that other provisions in the Conference Report could result in a renewal of U.S. arms transfers to Pakistan, a government that has engaged in an ongoing pattern of hostile and destabilizing actions. Indeed, keeping the Pressler Amendment on the books is the best way to accomplish the goal behind the entities list: namely, for the United States not to contribute to Pakistan's drive to develop or acquire weapons of mass destruction. It doesn't make sense to apply sanctions against commercial entities that have barely a passing relationship with weapons programs, while waiving the Pressler Amendment and thereby allowing for direct transfers of military technology.

As has been widely reported, Mr. Speaker, last week, the Pakistani Army Chief of Staff led a military coup against the civilian government. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was dismissed and placed under house arrest. Pakistan's Army has ruled the country for 25 of its 52-year history, so Army takeovers have been a relatively common occurrence.

Ironically, Mr. Speaker, we have seen several recent efforts by Pakistan to win concessions from the U.S. as a means of propping up Prime Minister Sharif's government and forestalling a military coup. These include the ill-advised attempt to have a special mediator appointed for the Kashmir conflict, as well as efforts to reopen the supply of U.S. Military equipment to Pakistan. In light of the latest Pakistani coup, the futility of this strategy is apparent.

Mr. Speaker, the Pressler Amendment, named for the distinguished former Senator from South Dakota, was invoked by President Bush in response to Pakistan's weapons development program. It was good law when it was first adopted, and it is still good law today.

Earlier this year, we were reminded again about why the Pressler amendment was needed because of the way that Pakistan instigated the hostilities against India in the Kargil region of Kashmir. In fact, it was the same generals who masterminded last week's coup who pressed for the disastrous military campaign in Kashmir. We are also continually confronted with evidence of Pakistani involvement in nuclear weapons and missile proliferation with other hostile or unstable regimes. Last week's coup only further reminds us of the danger of renewing U.S. Military ties with Pakistan.

Mr. Speaker, I also wanted to register my concern over recent published reports attributing to State Department officials the suggestion that a resumption of arms supplies to Pakistan would be considered as an incentive for the return to civilian rule. On this point, I want to reiterate that the purpose of the legislation I have introduced is to make sure that this Administration, and future Administrations don't provide arms to Pakistan.

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the New York Times columnist A.M. Rosenthal, who once covered South Asia, wrote a column entitled "The Himalayan Error." Mr. Rosenthal focuses on something I have often criticized, namely the pronounced tilt toward Pakistan in U.S. foreign policy. This tilt has resulted in neither democracy for Pakistan nor stability for the region. On Sunday, another New York Times op-ed writer, Steven R. Weisman, wrote an article entitled "Pakistan's Dangerous Addiction to Its Military." Quoting from Mr. Weisman's piece: "[A] major reason Pakistan has such a stunted political tradition, compared with India, is that the army has run the country for nearly half of its short history." [I ask unanimous consent to include the two New York Times articles in the Record.]

Mr. Speaker, the United States obviously can't bring about democracy in Pakistan, or change Pakistan's international behavior, overnight. But we can avoid the policies that encourage Pakistan's military leaders to seize power, to foment instability in South Asia, to threaten their neighbors and to collaborate with other unstable regimes in the development and transfer of weapons of mass destruction. Clearly, reopening the American arms pipeline to Pakistan would be a disastrous mistake.