THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Friday, April 14, 1995 TAG: 9504140020
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A12 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: Medium: 57 lines
The Pressler Amendment has a perfectly rational purpose, to put the United States squarely in opposition to nuclear proliferation. But in the case of Pakistan, it has had some odd and unintended consequences.
The amendment was about to go into effect in 1990 banning aid or military sales to Pakistan upon the certification by President Bush that the country was pursuing a nuclear capability.
Pakistan gambled that a done deal wouldn't run afoul of the law and paid more than $650 million for 28 F-16 fighters. It did so even though it had been warned that the sale would not go through.
Whereupon, the contractor supplied the planes to the government for delivery to Pakistan, the Pressler Amendment kicked in, the planes were impounded and the money was not returned.
Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto says it's unfair to keep both the planes and the money, and President Clinton agrees. They've got a point. The order should not have been accepted and the planes should not have been built. But since they were, what is to be done?
Pakistan could renounce its nuclear ambitions, but Bhutto points out that it faces an India equipped with nukes since 1974. The two countries are engaged in a long-simmering dispute over Kashmir. She claims Pakistan has nuclear knowledge but hasn't assembled weapons and is prepared to enter into a regional agreement with India to reduce nukes but won't disarm unilaterally.
Bhutto also argues that the sanctions directed against Pakistan are lopsided. India does not do military business with the United States, so we have no corresponding leverage to exert against it.
Clearly, the United States must find ways to halt the spread of weapons of mass destruction, the most worrisome security issue in the post-Cold War world. But denying Pakistan access to weapons it has paid for and keeping the money could easily backfire. We can ill-afford such highhandedness; a refund is due.
It's true that Pakistan has not renounced weapons of mass destruction and is pursuing a reactor capable of supplying more bomb material. It has proved unable to stop the flow of drugs and is wracked by disquieting political crosscurrents. But it also cooperated with our efforts to supply anti-Soviet forces in Afghanistan and has turned over terrorists for trial.
Meanwhile, Pakistan teeters between moderation and more militant, anti-Western forces. The United States will make a mistake if it lets this issue turn into a reason for Pakistan to forsake the moderate path.
President Clinton has promised Bhutto to try to find a way to return Pakistan's money and to work with it in the future. Perhaps an idea suggested by Defense Secretary William Perry can work: Find another buyer for the planes and send the proceeds to Pakistan. One thing is certain: While a policy opposing proliferation is essential, Congress needs to take another look at the present requirements. As this case shows, there are flaws in need of correction. by CNB