ELECTIONS '98
COMMENTARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

Bill introduced to repeal Pressler law

With the tacit support of the Clinton administration, two senators have introduced a bill to repeal the Pressler Amendment which has banned US economic and military assistance to Pakistan since 1990 in protest against its nuclear weapons programme.

The legislation, which stood in the names of Senator Sam Brownback (Republican) and Tom Harkin (Democrat), was presented in the Senate during a discussion on the defence appropriation measure, apparently as an incentive to Pakistan for deciding against conducting a nuclear test.

Along with the legislation, the adoption of which would pave the way for the delivery of embargoed 28 F-16 fighter bombers to Pakistan, a high-level delegation, headed by Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, has reached Islamabad to appeal to Prime Minister Nawaz Sharief to exercise restraint following India's nuclear test.

In October 1990, the then president George Bush invoked the 1985 Pakistan-specific non-proliferation measure, known as the Pressler Amendment, to deny Pakistan military and economic aid which had been of the order of about $ 650 million a year in the 1980s.

Along with the aid cut, the US blocked the delivery of military equipment worth $ 1.4 billion paid for by Pakistan, leading to a dispute between the two countries because Islamabad got neither the arms nor the refund.

Bush resorted to the law only after it was determined that Pakistan possessed nuclear devices.

Though the repeal provision was introduced yesterday, indications are that it may be put to vote only next week, by which time it will be known whether Pakistan has accepted President Clinton's advice against going in for a nuclear test.

Indications are that the US delegation will offer the scrapping of the Pressler provision as an incentive to Pakistan along with other inducements.

However, the repeal provision is bound to meet with resistance from the strong anti-proliferation lobby in the senate. Some senators argue that an easing of the ban might be premature.

Democratic Senator Paul Sarbanes questioned the rationale behind the scrapping of this anti-proliferation measure designed to deal with the Pakistani nuclear problem. How could its repeal help tackle the Indian issue, he asked.

Former senator Larry Pressler, who was the author of the 1985 amendment, criticised the move to scrap the provision he had put in place 13 years ago to deal with the proliferation problem in South Asia. In fact, US efforts at diluting the provision had resulted in the situation that compelled India to undertake nuclear tests.

Speaking at the congressional luncheon organised by the Indian American Forum for Political Education, he said the dilution of the Pressler amendment over the past three years had resulted in North Korea sending arms to Pakistan. India found itself surrounded by countries with nuclear weapons.

The Clinton administration did not take a public position on the repeal move, but the New York Times today quoted an administration official as having said that the White House had signalled support by calling it ''an intriguing proposition'' in talks with supporters of the repeal.

Earlier, at the State Department, its spokesman James P Rubin said: ''We are deeply concerned about the possibility of Pakistan following suit and conducting nuclear explosions. We are aware of the strong political pressure that now exists in Pakistan to do that, and we have reason to believe that that is a live possibility.''

He declined to comment on the time of any such activity. ''I really can't comment, other than to say that President Clinton made it clear to the prime minister of Pakistan the importance of restraint,'' he added.

He said, ''The hope is that as a result of those discussions, the Pakistani government will see that it will be in a much better position by not testing, and that it will be in a much worse position by testing.''

Rubin, however, said the US recognised and had reason to believe that it was a live possibility that Pakistan would go in for a nuclear test.

Asked whether the US would offer incentives to Pakistanis for avoiding testing, he said: ''Well, I'd rather give the officials an opportunity to have those discussions directly with Pakistan before discussing them publicly."

UNI

Tell us what you think of this report