Recent Trip to India, Syria, and Israel--Part I

RECENT TRIP TO INDIA, SYRIA, AND ISRAEL -- (Senate - January 16, 2007)

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to report on the recent trip I made from December 13 to December 30 to India, Syria, and Israel.

The trip to India was a revelation to me--to see the vast economic progress that this gigantic nation of 1.1 billion people has made. For a long time, the nation of India resisted foreign investment, perhaps as a result of the colonialization by the British. But for most of the past two decades, India has been open for investment and trade. During the course of my travels there, which are detailed in a lengthy statement that I will include for the RECORD at the conclusion of my extemporaneous remarks, I have detailed the many U.S. plants we visited, such as GE and IBM, all showing a remarkable aptitude for the technology of the 21st century.

I recall, several years ago, being surprised when I sought a number from information and found out that the answering person was in India. I have since learned that this is a common practice because, whereas, it used to cost about $3.50 for a minute conversation between the United States and India, it now costs about 7 cents.

The Indians are very highly educated. They are able to take on jobs, so-called outsourcing, at a much lower rate of compensation. They have physician groups who are available to read, through the miracles of modern technology, x rays. They have a 10 1/2 -hour time difference, so they are prepared to do it on pretty much on an around-the-clock basis. While, obviously, there is a loss of jobs with outsourcing, I think our long-range benefits in trade with India--a major trading partner--and the strengthening of this democracy in Asia will provide a tremendous source of strength and assistance to the goals of the United States. I think it is especially important to see the Nation of India develop with its 1.1 billion people as a counterbalance, so to speak, to China with 1.3 billion people. We have in India a democracy, contrasted with the authoritarian government which prevails in China and, in the long run, the incentives and the productivity of free people in a democracy should be quite a counterbalance, if not a nation which will exceed the tremendous strides which China has seen.

A major topic of conversation on my trip to India was the recent agreement between the United States and India, where we will make nuclear technology available to the nation of India. When I first learned of that proposal, I had very substantial misgivings because India was not a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. But on examining the issues further and seeing that India had not joined that treaty as a matter of principle, feeling it was discriminatory, since the only people who were part of the so-called nuclear club, or were recognized to be part of the so-called nuclear club, were the five major powers. I think if the U.N. Charter were being written today, India would be included as one of the five major powers of the world. At any rate, that was a major topic of conversation.

The nuclear technology that the United States will make available to India will strengthen India's economy and will be a good bridge in cementing relations between the United States and India.

I had the privilege of meeting with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India to discuss a wide range of issues. He expressed great pleasure at his relations with President Bush and with the signing of the nuclear agreement, and he made a comment that India did not want another nuclear power in the region and specifically said he was opposed to seeing Iran gain nuclear weapons. I thanked Prime Minister Singh in India for the vote which they cast in support of the U.S. position in the United Nations on the Iranian issue, and I think the agreement will be very helpful in promoting good relations between the United States and India.

I then traveled to Syria, which was my 16th visit to that nation, starting in 1984. During the course of those visits--I have had the opportunity to meet with former President Hafez al-Assad, on nine occasions, and with his successor, his son, President Bashar al-Assad, on four occasions. I recollect that the first meeting I had with Hafez al-Assad was in January of 1988, and it lasted 4 hours 38 minutes, discussing a wide range of issues on the Iran-Iraq war, which had just been concluded, and then on Syrian-Israeli relations and then on U.S.-U.S.S.R. relations, and I found President al-Assad at that time to be a very engaging interlocutor. I suggested, on a number of occasions, that I had taken a sufficient amount of his time, and he generously extended the time until we had discussed a very wide range of issues. I found those discussions with President Hafez al-Assad to be productive.

In 1996, when Prime Minister Netanyahu took office, he made a public announcement that he would hold Syria responsible for the Hezbollah attacks on northern Israel. Syria then realigned their troops. I was in Jerusalem, and Prime Minister Netanyahu asked me to carry a message to President Hafiz al-Assad that he wanted peace, and I did. Later, now Foreign Minister Walid al-Mouallem said that that comment helped to defuse the situation.

For many years, President Hafez al-Assad refused to negotiate with Israel unless all five of the major superpowers sponsored the international conference. Israel's Prime Minister Shamir was opposed on the grounds that he would attend the conference sponsored by the United States and the U.S.S.R. but not when the odds were stacked 4 to 1 against Israel. I discussed that matter on a number of occasions with President Hafez al-Assad, whether my urging him had any effect. The effect is that President Hafez al-Assad agreed to go to Madrid in 1981 to a conference sponsored by the United States and the Soviet Union. I had urged President Hafez al-Assad to allow the Syrian Jews to leave. I made a point to him in the early to mid-1990s that the Jewish women in Syria had no one of their own faith to marry. He made an interesting suggestion. He said that if anyone will come and claim a Syrian Jewish bride, she could leave the country. I translated that offer to the large Syrian-Jewish community in New York and, regrettably, there were no takers. But after a time, President Hafez al-Assad let the Jews go on his own, which was a constructive move.

I first met President Bashar al-Assad at the funeral of his father. I was the only Member of Congress to attend the funeral. It was a 33-hour trip--15 hours over, 3 hours on the ground, and 15 hours back. I made the trip to pay my respects and to meet the new President. On this occasion, I met extensively for more than an hour with Foreign Minister Walid al-Mouallem and the next day for a little over an hour with President Bashar al-Assad. President Assad said that he was interested in undertaking peace negotiations with Israel. He said he was obviously looking for a return of the Golan but that he had a good measure of quid pro quo to offer Israel and assistance on the fragile truce which Israel now has with Hezbollah and also assistance with Hamas. In my formal statement, I go into greater detail on that subject.

I pressed President Bashar al-Assad on the obligations Syria had to abide by U.N. Resolution 1701 to not to support Hezbollah, and he said Syria would honor that requirement, that obligation. I, also, pressed him on allowing the U.S. investigation into the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri, and again I received assurances on that subject. It is always difficult to know the validity of the assurances, but I think the dialog and the conversation and pressing the point is very worthwhile.

With respect to Iraq, President Bashar al-Assad said that Syria would be interested in hosting an international conference attended by the warring factions in Iraq and that Syria had already gained the concurrence of Turkey to participate and Syria would invite other Arab countries to such a discussion. I realize that there is some disagreement with the issue of dialog with Syria, but it is my view, developed over many years of foreign travel, that dialog and talk is a very important and worthwhile undertaking.

My trip there followed visits by Senators BILL NELSON, CHRIS DODD, and JOHN KERRY. I think all came away with the same conclusion that the dialog was very much worthwhile. I then traveled to Israel, where I had an opportunity to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Olmert. I relayed to him the interest that Bashar al-Assad had in dialog. Prime Minister Olmert had been reportedly cool to any such discussions subsequent to my visit. Some more positive statements were coming from Israeli officials about possible negotiation also with Israel, but Prime Minister Olmert insisted on having some display of good faith on the part of Syria before even considering undertaking such discussions.

We also met with Foreign Minister Livni and former Prime Minister Netanyahu and our conversations are detailed in my written statement.

We then traveled to Ramallah to talk to Salam Fayyad and Hannan Ashrawi, members of the so-called Third Way, a very small Palestinian party but a very able people and very stalwart advocates for peace. Those comments are contained in my written statement.

I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my prepared statement be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Report on Foreign Travel

Mr. President, I have sought recognition to report on foreign travel, as is my custom, from December 13 to December 30, 2006.

I traveled to India, Syria, and Israel with overnight travel stops in the United Kingdom, Qatar, and Italy. I was joined by my wife Joan, my aide Scott Boos, Colonel Gregg Olson, United States Marine Corps, and Dr. Matthew Needleman, United States Navy.

UNITED KINGDOM

On December 13, we departed Dulles International Airport outside Washington, DC. Our first stop was in London, England where we landed at Heathrow International Airport after a flight of just over 7 hours. Upon arriving in London, we were greeted by Mr. James Sindle of the American Embassy in London. After a brief overnight stay, we headed back to the airport and departed for Mumbai, India, the next morning.

INDIA

Upon arriving in Mumbai in the early morning hours of December 15, we were greeted by Mr. Wilson Ruark, from the U.S. Consulate General in Mumbai. Mr. Ruark, a Vice Consul at the Consulate, was assigned to be our Control Officer. Being that it was 2 a.m. local time, we quickly headed to our hotel for some much-needed rest after two full days of air travel.

Among other issues, our meetings throughout India focused on the U.S./India Nuclear Deal, business outsourcing, and India's relationship with the U.S. and its neighbors, including Pakistan.

On the afternoon of December 15, we received a Country Team Briefing with the Consul General, Mr. Michael S. Owen, and his staff: Mr. Wilson Ruark, Vice Consul; Mr. Matthew B. Sweeney, a special agent of the Diplomatic Security Service; Mr. Glen C. Keiser, Consular Chief; Mr. Bill Klein, Consul; and Ms. Elizabeth Kaufmann, Public Diplomacy Chief.

I was pleased to hear that U.S. relations with India are at an ``all-time high,' much in part to the U.S./India Nuclear agreement, part of a new ``global partnership' entered into on July 18, 2005, by President Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Completion of the final terms of the deal will allow the U.S. to engage in peaceful nuclear cooperation with the world's largest democracy, one that commands respect in an important part of the world. When the United Nations was created in 1945, the 5 permanent members of the Security Council were the United States, Britain, France, China, and Russia. If that decision were made today, there is no doubt in my mind that India would be among the world powers considered for membership. With a population of 1.1 billion, an educated young workforce, and an ever-expanding economy, India provides an important counter-balance to China in its region of the world.

On the U.S./India Nuclear deal, the President characterized the agreement as ``hugely important' for our strategic relationship with India, and I agree. By way of background, U.S. nuclear energy cooperation with India goes back to the mid-1950's when the U.S. assisted in the building of nuclear reactors in Tarapur, India, and allowed Indian scientists to study in the U.S. During negotiations of the 1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), India refused to join the NPT on grounds that it was discriminatory and only recognized 5 nations with the right to possess nuclear weapons. All other signatories are required to dismantle their nuclear weapons operations. I heard this same sentiment expressed with many of the people I met with in India. However, after India tested a nuclear device in 1974, the U.S. and other nations tightened export controls leaving India in a difficult position without sufficient access to supplies for its civilian nuclear program. An additional test by India in 1998, and a subsequent counter-test by Pakistan, certainly did not advance their ability to obtain fuel and equipment from world suppliers.

On August 26, 1995, on travel with Colorado Senator Hank Brown, I met with India's Prime Minister Narasimha Rao. He stated his interest in negotiations which would lead to the elimination of any nuclear weapons on the Indian subcontinent within ten or fifteen years. Two days later, I raised the issue with Pakistan's Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. She expressed genuine surprise over the content of my discussion with Prime Minister Rao. She stated that this was the first time that she had heard any such commitment from India and she asked if we had it in writing. I suggested to Prime Minister Bhutto that the U.S. serve as an intermediary to facilitate dialogue. I wrote a letter to President Clinton summarizing the meetings and suggested that it would be very productive for the U.S. to initiate and broker discussions between India and Pakistan. Unfortunately, he did not share my interest in the issue, perhaps because his attention was focused on the election. After the election, I raised the issue again with the President, but again he did not show interest.

Despite being a non-signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), India has complied with most of its main tenets. It should be noted that India, unlike its neighbor Pakistan, has not shared its technology or weapons with outside nations. They have been a responsible nuclear weapon state, though not recognized under the NPT like the 5 acknowledged nuclear weapon states: U.S., Russia, France, Britain, and China.

For India, a deal with the U.S. will provide India much-needed credibility and the potential for energy security with access to equipment, fuel, and other assistance for its civil nuclear power program. The international community is likely to follow the lead of the U.S. In return, India, which does not currently have International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards on all nuclear material in peaceful nuclear activities, agrees to open its civil nuclear power reactors to inspection.

Congress recently approved authorizing legislation, with some controversial modifications regarding Iran which I will discuss in more detail later in this report, setting the stage for a final cooperation agreement. The legislation retains the prerogative of Congress to vote on the actual cooperation before it takes effect.

U.S. business ties with India are also on the rise, and have been for some time. India recently hosted 240 American businessmen and women, representing 190 companies--the largest delegation of its kind ever. New Delhi appears to be taking additional steps to embrace trade and has loosened various trade restrictions in recent years.

The Consulate explained that several societal and political functions appear to be restricting the advancement of the country. The risk of ``political paralysis' has become an issue among competing political factions in the 543-seat Lok Sabha (People's House). No single political party has come close to a parliamentary majority in recent times and coalitions have become necessary to wield greater influence over national affairs. Currently, the National Congress Party occupies more parliamentary seats (145) than any other party, and through alliances with powerful regional parties, leads India's government under the United Progressive Alliance coalition. Congress party chief Sonia Gandhi, the daughter-in-law of assassinated former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and widow of assassinated former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, has considerable power over the ruling coalition's policy-making process. The Bharitiya Janata Party (BJP), associated with Hindu nationalism, is the country's largest opposition party and controls eight state governments. Meanwhile, the government is led by Manmohan Singh, a Sikh and India's first-ever non-Hindu prime minister.

We discussed India's history and the arrival of the British, who brought rule of law to India despite flagrant disobedience which exists today. Politically controlled by the British East India Company from the early 18th century and directly administered by Great Britain starting the mid-19th century, India became a modern nation-state in 1947 after a struggle for independence marked by widespread use of nonviolent resistance as a means of social protest.

I was surprised to see that the Indians would have built a ``Gateway of India' monument to celebrate the arrival of King George V and Queen Mary in 1911. Completed in 1924, the massive structure sits atop the port of Mumbai on the Arabian Sea. It did not make sense that the Indians would have built such a structure to celebrate those who were there to exploit their interests, and I was right. As it turns out, the British built the Gateway of India.

While Muslims represent just 15 percent of India's population, the 140 million Muslims places India behind only Indonesia and Pakistan among countries with large Muslim populations. Eighty percent are Hindu, but they represent a diverse mixture of regional characteristics with numerous languages. Three percent of Indians are Sikh; around one percent are Christian. The Jewish population has declined as a result of emigration to Israel since 1948. Currently, 5,000 Jews live in Mumbai and another 4,000 live elsewhere in India.

The Consulate explained the numerous challenges to India's desire to expand its economic base. India has not spent enough money on roads, rail, ports, power, and water infrastructure. The weight of 1.1 billion people has strained India's physical infrastructure, clearly evident driving to meetings throughout Mumbai and along the route to the airport. While India has numerous world-class schools, the Consular staff explained that access to education in rural areas has been getting worse. India recently surpassed South Africa as the country with the most individuals living with HIV and AIDS, registering at over 5 million persons.

Immigration is a highly emotional subject, with some objecting to Indians taking jobs from U.S. workers. However, it is worth noting that these are very bright people and that we are a nation of immigrants. There is a desire to see the U.S. lift its cap on H1B visas, highly sought by Indians in the Information Technology (IT) industry. The current cap is at 65,000 and some are expressing a desire to see that number lifted to 125,000. Overall, the Consulate in Mumbai issued 120,000 visas last year, 15,000 to highly skilled workers. They expect steady and double-digit annual increases in demand.

Finally, we discussed India's relations with Pakistan and the threat of terrorism that exists in India. Continuing violence in Kashmir remains a major source of interstate tension. Both India and Pakistan have built large defense establishments--including nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs--at the cost of economic and social development. Little substantive progress has been made toward resolving the Kashmir issue, and New Delhi continues to complain about what it views as insufficient Pakistani efforts to end Islamic militancy that affects India.

On July 11, 2006, a series of explosions on seven crowded commuter trains in Mumbai left more than 200 dead and at least 800 injured. On December 1, 2006 Indian police filed formal charges against 28 suspected members of the connected to the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), a Sunni militant group fighting in Kashmir and designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. Police also have alleged that Pakistan's Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence was behind the bombings. Pakistan has denied the accusation. Thirteen of the accused are in police custody, and the rest are at large.

Later in the afternoon on December 15, I met with several impressive Indian business executives for a roundtable discussion on outsourcing--a word which has picked up a negative connotation resulting from lost jobs in the U.S. which have been shipped to India. These men were very knowledgeable and I was amazed at their rise to such important positions at such young ages--the four men ranged in age from 38 to 42. Anish Tripathi of KPMG, heads the knowledge function in India and reports directly to the Director and CEO. He explained his firm's role in advising U.S. firms on whether, and how, to outsource their operations to India and elsewhere in search of a lower-cost operations base. Saurabh Sonawala, the head of business processing outsourcing for HindiTron, a travel software producer and outsourcing advisor to over 20 major airlines, explained, ``It's not always about cost. India can do a better job.' Manish Modi, Managing Director of Datamatrix Technologies Ltd., described the process of outsourcing certain accounting functions for the auto industry. While the actual invoice must be handled and mailed in the U.S., a scanned copy on a computer screen in Mumbai allows an Indian worker to perform related accounting tasks. Satish Ambe of KALE Associates also was present in the meeting.

They explained that 80 per cent of outsourcing consists of so-called ``call centers,' where English-speaking Indians perform various functions from India. I asked how it would make sense to pay the cost of a phone call to India and still achieve cost-efficiency. They explained that 12 years ago, the cost of a phone call was $3.50 per minute. Today it is only 7 cents per minute. The cost of a data connection has also become much cheaper. Ten years ago a 64K line would have cost $10,000 per month. Today it is only $50 to $100 per month.

Other factors contribute to the desirability of using India as a base for operations. The time zone difference allows companies to employ low-cost labor instead of paying the ``graveyard shift' in the U.S. At a management level, labor costs only 30-40 percent of that in the U.S. At an entry-level, labor in India costs only 10 percent of that in the U.S. The gentlemen I met with claimed that India's workforce is better skilled and better educated. In the U.S. it is difficult to find someone with an accounting degree to man a phone line. However, in India, a degree has become a prerequisite due to the heavy competition for employment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov/