Stephen Solarz whom late President Zia ul-Haq of Pakistan had once described as Mr India made a vigorous but vain effort to persuade his Congressional colleagues to reject the amendment He could not repeat the feat he had achieved nearly two years ago when the house very narrowly rejected a move by Republican Congressman Wally Hergre to deny India development assistance until progress was achieved in its human rights record
The sponsors of the amendment applying the Pressler law to India insisted that it was not anti-India but only we will be treating India no differently than we treat Pakistan. That made sense because the nuclear arms race in South Asia was between India and Pakistan and unilateral arms control does not work what was required was a regional approach they said.
There was a little doubt that the strength of the voting reflecting a clear tilt against India came as a shock to officials of the Indian mission there.
The Indian ambassador Abid Hussein who was away on an official tour had in the recent past lobbied hard on the Capitol Hill explaining to the lawmakers India’s nuclear policy and the human rights situation in the country it was acknowledged during the debate But his effort apparently failed to make a dent since the majority of Congressmen were clearly inclined to the view that in projecting its nuclear nonproliferation policy in South Asia the United States must be evenhanded.
Stephen Solarz who chairs the house subcommittee on Asian and Pacific Affairs argued that if symmetry was the purpose of the Lagomarsino amendment it should be extended to other countries which had nuclear weapons or which had similar nuclear programs. Why stop with India? Why not China why not Israel why not South Africa?
Solarz said adoption of the amendment was not going to stop Pakistan’s nuclear program certainly not India’s program but it will have very adverse consequence for Indo-American relations.
Article extracted from this publication >> August 23, 1991
