On the eve of Benazir Bhutto’s departure for Washington last April, many people said that her trip would amount to nothing. They were wrong. President Bill Clinton acknowledged not only that the Pressler amendment had failed to serve its anti-proliferation purpose but also that it was unfair and immoral for the US to keep Pakistan’s money and the military equipment. By and large, the same opinion was expressed in editorials and Congressional statements across the US. This was a far cry from the American point of view in the last few years.
Since then, US-Pak efforts to dilute the impact of Pressler have been redoubled. On June 8th, the House of Representatives passed the Brown amendment aimed at a partial repeal of Pressler’s economic sanctions. In addition, the House passed a “Sense of Congress” resolution asking the US government to sell the F-16s to a third country and reimburse Pakistan as well return military equipment sent for repairs before the aid cut-off in 1990. The Brown amendment was duly adopted by a bipartisan 16:2 vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Senator Hank Brown then attached his amendment to the Foreign Aid Authorisation Bill. But when major differences between the Republicans and Congressmen didn’t allow this bill to take off, Senator Brown tagged his amendment to the Department of Defence (DoD) appropriations bill. This too ran into trouble when four hostile Senators led by Mr Pressler decided to filibuster the bill by asking for a lengthy debate. No further movement was possible because Congress went into its summer recess.
During the Congressional break, much work was done by the Pakistani and American governments as well as by volunteer Pakistani lobbyists to bring the Brown amendment back on the agenda of Congress. Last week, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee heard the testimony of several leading experts on South Asia who advocated a partial repeal of Pressler. This is what they concluded.
Robin Raphael, Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia: “Our efforts …are hampered by the sweeping sanctions imposed under the Presser amendment…the US should resolve the fundamental unfairness of a situation where we have ended up with both Pakistan’s money and the embargoed equipment…the status quo is clearly unacceptable”.
Bruce Riedel, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs: “In considering whether to support the release of the embargoed equipment, the administration has carefully considered the impact on the conventional arms balance [between India and Pakistan] and has concluded that the impact would be minimal…should we release the equipment? We in the Administration would argue that we should…. resolving this matter in a manner that will be perceived as fair will … serve US interests”.
James Clad, Georgetown University: “… the US needs better tools than the locked-step and unilaterally applied Pressler amendment…’the way ahead lies in careful and sympathetic diplomacy, not in threats or attempted compulsion. Pakistan is not North Korea or Libya or Iraq. It is open to reasonable diplomacy'”.
Bruce Fein: “The greatest source of instability in South Asia seems India, not Pakistan…to embargo conventional arms transfers to Pakistan …is a wrongheaded strategy aimed at the wrong country at the wrong time”.
Professor Stephen Cohen: “It is highly unlikely that the equipment that the DoD has identified for release to Pakistan will have any significant impact on the regional military balance…it is hard for me to argue that America’s non-proliferation interests would be damaged by the release of this equipment…we need a direct link to the Pakistani military and a modest supplier relationship is one way to achieve it.”
Michael Krepon, President of the Henry Stimpson Center: “If the Congress denies the transfer of a modest package of conventional arms to Pakistan, as proposed by the Administration, Pakistan will likely reconsider its restraint regarding fissile material production…if, on the other hand, Congress agrees to release these modest items, India will likely reconsider its restraint over new missile deployments…on balance, more harm is likely to result from Congressional disapproval. President Clinton has made a commitment to Pakistan and much damage will come from failing to follow through on this commitment in good faith”.
In view of such across-the board-support for Pakistan in Washington, can we expect a quick redressal of our grievances?
Senator Hank Brown doesn’t think so. Congress and President Clinton are locked in an increasingly fierce battle over appropriations in the next budget and no one has time at the moment to concentrate on Pakistan’s predicament. Therefore we might have to wait some more before Pressler is revoked.
In the meanwhile, we should do something quick and concrete to pre-empt the potentially damaging impact of the hostage crisis in Kashmir on American public opinion. If the American hostage is killed by the mysterious “Al-Faran” terrorists, India will surely point an accusing finger at Pakistan and CNN will exploit this to the hilt. If this happens when the Brown amendment comes up before Congress, it could flush all our anti-Pressler efforts down the drain.
Forewarned is forearmed. Islamabad must immediately launch a vigourous campaign in Washington to denounce “Al Faran” and expose India’s evil “game-plan” to discredit Pakistan.