Congressional Record

House of Representatives

Gallagher Calls For Embargo on Arms Shipments To Pakistan

(Mr. GALLAGHER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute, to revise and extend his remarks. )

Mr. GALLAGHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss briefly the situation in East Pakistan and the American response to a situation which our arms and military equipment helped to create. The current policy, which has allowed arms to continue to be shipped from the United States to the Government of Pakistan, in spite of the ban of March 25, is bureaucratic ineptitude which will become, in my judgment, diplomatic catastrophe.

On June 15 I introduced H.R. 9160 which will cut off all military, economic and relief assistance to the Government of Pakistan until outside observers report a cessation of army action against the population of East Pakistan and that the refugees, as far as feasible, have been allowed to return to their homeland and reclaim their property. I visited the refugee camps early in June and found the situation to be one of unimaginable horror. Although many of the world community regard the crisis as an internal matter of Pakistan it appears obvious to me that any policy which creates 6 million refugees completely destroys the queasy legalism of "an internal matter." In addition, it is bad enough that our arms contributed to the brutal actions of the army's repressive sweep through East Pakistan on and after March 25; it is impermissible for us to continue to subsidize the slaughter by not completely stopping our arms shipments.

The shipments of military equipment now going forward are in the Department of Defense pipeline, due to the fact that ownership passed to the Government of Pakistan prior to the time the ban was announced. The only way now to plug up that pipeline is for the United States to issue a formal embargo and I regard that step as crucial. Mr. Speaker, I have learned that the Government of Canada has stopped military shipments to Pakistan which in some cases, resulted from licenses and approvals granted as long ago as 5 years. Surely, given the extraordinary nature of the crisis and the damaging effect a continuation has on our credibility, our Government can find an adequate response.

Any kind of aid to that government will be misused and, in my judgment, will be diverted to crush the people who won the election in East Pakistan. We must never forget that the Awami League won 167 of the 169 seats contested in East Pakistan and this gave them a clear majority in the constituent assembly. It is obvious that the leaders of the Awami League felt that they could trust the word of the Government, or else they would have established "Bangla Desh" as soon as their electoral victory was confirmed. It is a fact that they did not and so, in spite of many misleading statements, they must not be regarded as rebels or secessionists. They are people who made democracy work and they are now under what might be called an internal siege; that is, the Army is in control. To put it another way, it might be said that the people of East Pakistan are the victims of outside aggression, in the sense that West Pakistan is separated from East Pakistan by 1,000 miles.

Be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, the problem facing the United States is not to make the problems any worse. Yet, we are allowing ships to sail from the United States with our military goods on board and these weapons will be used to continue the crushing of the winners of the election. In addition, I also believe that the United States must cut off all economic aid. Informed testimony during the hearings of my Asian and Pacific Affairs Subcommittee in May by Prof. Robert Dorfman confirmed that American economic aid is all that is keeping Pakistan from bankruptcy and, according to the professor, a resumption of our aid is essential for Pakistan to continue its savage repression in its east wing. The World Bank has refused to make any additional finances available to the Government of Pakistan, and I call upon the United States to follow that lead.

One hopeful sign is that Presidential Adviser Henry Kissinger will visit India and Pakistan in the next several days. I hope that he will visit the areas of the refugee camps, for, if he does, he will come away a believer. I had some doubts about the stories of brutality and unparalleled human misery myself before I visited those camps. When one sees the problem firsthand, its enormity is clearly visible and the appalling suffering is clearly evident. If Mr. Kissinger sees the camps and hears the stories of the refugees, he will, I am sure, recommend that the United States alter its policy.

This must happen, Mr. Speaker. Our policy now continues to inflame a situation that is a mounting tragedy and contains the clear threat of war between India and Pakistan. No government can continue to accept refugees in such staggering numbers and, no matter how compassionate or humanitarian the Government of India has been since the first refugee crossed its borders, such disruption cannot continue. India must receive not only all the relief assistance of the world community, she must also receive help by a vigorous and courageous effort to pacify the source of the refugees. If East Pakistan does not return to normal, India will be forced to consider undesired and unwanted options, which will have worldwide implications.

India has shown incredible restraint. Why cannot the U.S. Government take a forthright, although difficult action and stop the shipment of arms? Do we so lack flexibility that once we begin on a course, nothing can change it? We can clearly see the dangers of the Pakistan situation; let us draw back now, while there is still time.

Any further shipments to Pakistan, no matter what the technical explanation will be viewed by India as a lack of sympathy for its plight and as approval of Yahya Khan's use of terror as a political weapon. By continuing support in economic and military terms, we are intervening in the situation on the side of the Army of Pakistan.

Mr. Speaker, I call on this administration to issue a formal embargo to stop the pipeline of arms to Pakistan. By so doing, we will reopen the pipeline of good will to India- and restore some of our lost credibility in the eyes Of the nations of the world. Even more, we will show that we can be responsive to situations which alter suddenly and we will demonstrate that the humanitarianism which highlighted so much of our past is still relevant and visible in our relations with other countries today.

Ban on Military Supplies to Pakistan

(Mr. MORSE asked and was given permission to extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and to include extraneous matter.)

Mr. MORSE. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing legislation which would ban all deliveries of military supplies to Pakistan including all equipment in the supply pipeline. Senator MATHIAS will introduce the same legislation in the other body in view of the urgent need for immediate action by both the House and the Senate. The civil war in Pakistan is one of the great human dramas of this century, all the more tragic because of the enormous loss of life, the unparalleled misery for millions of refugees, and the intractability of communal hatreds in that part of the world.

I have long held that the Congress must be an active partner in the formulation of this Nation's foreign policy. For this reason alone the Congress should express its views on the Pakistan crisis. But in the face of human suffering of such magnitude, further silence by Congress would be unconscionable. The origin of my resolution is the April 23 letter of the Department of State to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which stated:

We have been informed by the Department of Defense that no military items have been provided to the Government of Pakistan or its agents since the outbreak of fighting in East Pakistan and nothing is now scheduled for delivery.

I interpret this statement as a decision by the administration to avoid U.S. interference and involvement in the civil war in Pakistan.

By formalizing the ban on all military aid, sales or deliveries to Pakistan, my resolution would constitute solid Congressional support for a policy of non-interference and non-involvement. But by specifically addressing itself to pipeline aid or sales, it would also close an appalling, and I believe unintended, loophole which has developed in the administration's position; namely, the continued flow to Pakistan of military equipment already in the supply pipeline as of March 25.

According to an unconfirmed report in the New York Times of June 22, the amounts involved may be as high as $20 million. In any event, we know from statements made by administration officials in April 1971 that in past years sales of military equipment to Pakistan haveaveraged around $10 million and are presumably at this level or higher today.

I suspect precise knowledge of the amounts involved is not immediately available even to the bureaucracy. In recent testimony before the other body, administration officials acknowledged that we are unfortunately having difficulty in verifying even what is being sent. Bills of lading often list only a specified number of boxes of undefined military equipment.

Whatever the amounts involved or the kind of equipment being sent, already the existence of this loophole is causing the United States acute diplomatic embarrassment. It leads to misunderstanding in Pakistan regarding our position. It troubles our relations with Pakistan's neighbors. Recently, a group of Indian MP's in New Delhi picketed the American Embassy when they learned that the Padma, a ship under Pakistani flag was leaving New York Harbor for Pakistan loaded with military equipment. According to latest reports, the Canadian Government has stopped this shipment in Montreal where the Padma is docked.

Another ship is reportedly scheduled to-leave the United States on July 2. Four to five more ships with military supplies will sail from the United States to Pakistan in July and August. No one knows if these shipments will exhaust the pipeline.

In my judgments each time one of those ships leaves American shores the United States will face a major diplomatic crisis with the parties involved as well as serious political controversy in this country. This is one important reason why both the House of Representatives and the Senate should act immediately on my resolution.

In a letter on June 17 to Secretary of State Rogers, I also made clear my reservations in regard to providing a country in the midst of a civil war with economic aid. But I recognize that opinion in the Congress on the question of economic aid may not have crystallized. Above all, Members of Congress are anxious that the people of Pakistan not suffer further. I therefore confine the resolution today to military aid and sales. I am convinced that a majority of the Members of Congress do not want to see the United States give or sell arms to a nation now in the holocaust of a civil war. I am convinced that a majority of the Members of Congress are as appalled as I am at news of the existence of the pipeline loophole.

I am hopeful that a majority in both Houses will support this resolution.