[sacw] [ACT] South Asian Nuclear Rivals Marshal Armies of Lobbyists in Washington

[Harsh Kapoor]

FYI
(South Asians Against Nukes)
----------------------------------------

New York Times
February 13, 2000

Nuclear Rivals Marshal Armies of Lobbyists in Washington
By RAYMOND BONNER

WASHINGTON, Feb. 11 -- Pakistan and India, the world's newest nuclear
rivals, have brought their battles to Washington, where each country has
assembled a bevy of highly paid lobbyists already tested in one fight --
Pakistan won -- and now engaged in another: whether President Clinton
should visit Pakistan as well as India next month.

Mr. Clinton's foreign policy team will give him persuasive
pros and cons. But in the end, the decision may hinge on the power of
the Washington lobbyists who are being increasingly sought out by foreign
countries that believe that they need professional help, whether it is to
get a piece of the foreign policy pie or just to polish their image here.

Some countries, such as Israel, Greece and Taiwan, have always had a
strong presence in the parlors of policy making in the capital, and some
issues -- the Vietnam war in the 1960's; intervention in Central America
in the early 1980's -- have generated vocal constituencies. But the depth
and breadth of lobbying by individual countries has grown in recent
years, and foreign governments are now paying out tens of thousands of
dollars a month.

In the case of India and Pakistan and Mr. Clinton's travels, each side
has already begun to lobby the White House, the State Department and
Congress.

Traditionally, India shunned lobbyists, relying on its distinguished
foreign service to make the nation's case in State Department meetings
with Indian diplomats. These days, however, India is paying $50,000 a
month for the lobbying services of Verner, Liipfert, Bernhard, McPherson &
Hand, where the heavy hitters include two former Senate majority leaders,
Democrat George Mitchell and Republican Bob Dole, and a former governor of
Texas, Ann Richards. (Verner, Liipfert also lobbies for Ethiopia, the
Marshall Islands, Slovenia, the United Arab Emirates and Uruguay.)

Adding to some grumbling at home about the use of lobbyists, the Indian
government is paying an additional $25,000 a month for the clout of former
Democratic Congressman Stephen J. Solarz, a New Yorker who was viewed as
a friendly voice for India when he was a lawmaker.

Meanwhile, Pakistan is shelling out $30,000 a month for the services of
Charlie Wilson, a former Democratic Congressman from Texas who was a
staunch ally of the country when he served in the House. Even though Mr.
Wilson cautioned the Pakistani government last year about hiring another
lobbyist -- given that "Pakistan's resources are limited," Mr. Wilson
wrote in a memorandum -- just this month, Pakistan signed a contract with
the politically connected law firm of Patton, Boggs & Blow for $22,500 a
month.

(Other countries that are paying Patton, Boggs for help include Benin,
Croatia, Oman, Paraguay and Qatar.)

The person handling Pakistan's account is a former Clinton special
counsel, Lanny J. Davis, who helped the White House navigate the 1996
Democratic fund-raising imbroglio.

Mr. Davis said in an interview that he had talked to the White House and
the State Department, although he would not reveal which officials he had
approached, about adding a stop in Pakistan when Mr. Clinton visits the
Indian subcontinent next month. To spurn a visit, Mr. Davis said, "would
be conveying a message of hostility, and pushing Pakistan in a dangerous
direction away from the West and toward the Taliban."

"They keep thinking it's just a matter of hiring the right lobbyist,
that the right lobbyist will be their salvation," Robert Oakley, a retired
American diplomat, said about Pakistan, where he served as ambassador from
1988-1991.

And sometimes the right lobbyist may indeed make a difference.

Consider the battle last fall over legislation that would allow for the
resumption of United States military aid to Pakistan. Since 1990, military
assistance had been suspended because of Pakistan's nuclear program. On top
of that, economic sanctions were imposed on Pakistan after it tested
nuclear bombs in 1998.

Last year, the Senate's defense appropriations bill had a provision that
would allow the president to waive the sanctions against Pakistan; the
House bill did not have a similar provision. When the bill went to
conference committee, Mr. Wilson went to work.

"I worked day and night," Mr. Wilson said. "I moved to the Hill," he
added, passing time on a park bench, waiting to catch members.

The odds were against him. The Indian-American population is politically
active, and growing, seeking to build a lobby on the model of the

American lobby for Israel, lawmakers and diplomats say. And in Congress, as
a reflection of that activism and of generous campaign contributions,
there is an India caucus, with more than 100 members. Given its size, it
is listened to at the State Department, diplomats there say.

The co-chairman of the India Caucus, Rep. Frank Pallone, a New Jersey
Democrat who has received significant campaign contributions from
Indian-Americans outside his district, has publicly urged President
Clinton not to go to Pakistan.

By contrast, the Pakistani caucus, never had more than a dozen or so
members, and is largely dormant now.

And Mr. Wilson was up against a few negatives on the Pakistan side of
the ledger: Pakistan had recently tested its nuclear weapons;
Pakistani-backed guerrillas had crossed into the Kargil region of the
disputed territory of Kashmir last year, bringing international
condemnation and the threat of outright war with India; then, in the
midst of the Congressional deliberations, came the military coup -- or
"political sea change," as Mr. Wilson carefully depicts it.

In arguing his client's cause during the congressional fight, Mr. Wilson
hurled some tough charges. India had been "virtually a Soviet satellite,"
during the cold war, Mr. Wilson said he told representatives, a depiction
he repeated with emphasis for use in the current row. Another aspersion
was that "Indians hate Americans," he said, a charge most Indians would
probably dispute.

But Mr. Wilson had something else going for him. While a member of
Congress, he had served for 20 years on the defense subcommittee of the
House appropriations committee. The members of this subcommittee were on
the conference committee.

"I was extremely lucky," Mr. Wilson said. "They were all friends."

Mr. Wilson, and his client, won that day.

Now, the challenge for Mr. Wilson is to keep Pakistan off the State
Department's list of terrorist nations, and to persuade Mr. Clinton that
he must stop in Pakistan, however briefly, during the India trip. Once
again, his colleague for 20 years in the House, Mr. Solarz, is on the
other side, as is Verner, Liipfert.

Mr. Wilson and Mr. Solarz both granted lengthy interviews, as did Mr.
Davis. Brenda Meister, who handles the India account at Verner, Liipfert,
declined to be interviewed, saying that it was the firm's policy to
maintain a low profile.

On one thing, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Solarz agree: Mr. Clinton would
like to make the stop. Mr. Wilson's mission is to give him the political
cover to do it; Mr. Solarz's is to stop it.

That would be "inappropriate and counterproductive," Mr. Solarz
said. He minces no words. Pakistan is a "terrorist state," and now it has
a military government. Mr. Solarz has already made these views known to
the White House and the State Department, as well as to his former
colleagues in Congress.

Mr. Wilson is equally busy, trying to generate a letter from enough
members of Congress urging the president to make the stop.

Is he also talking to State Department officials? "Not more than
four or five times a day," he answers.