I had intended to write this entry at the beginning of the 109th Congress but it becomes particularly relevant in light of the reported cease-fire violation on the Indian/Pakistani border. Who are the new co-chairs of the India Caucus in Congress, and what will their priorities be? The IACFPA profiled Representatives Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and Gary Ackerman (D-NY) late last year:

This will be Ackerman’s second stint at the Caucus where he served earlier between 1998 and 2000, leaving an unbeaten legacy including earlier this year when he introduced legislation requiring the CIA director to report to Congress on Pakistani proliferation activities. The measure was adopted by the full House as an amendment to the Intelligence Authorization Act. Now he expects to handle the newest White House decision to sell high tech military goodies to Islamabad.

On the other hand, less is known of initiatives, if any, Rep. Ros-Lehtinen might have taken vis-à-vis India, other than some letters castigating that country for violating the rights of its religious minorities. Rep. Ros-Lehtinen who is on the House International Relations Committee where she Chairs the Subcommittee on Middle East and Central Asia, and on the House Government Reform Committee where she is on the Human Rights and Wellness Subcommittee, chaired by none other than old India-foe Rep. Dan Burton of Indiana.

In order to get a feel for what kind of advocacy we might see from the co-chairs, I went over to Project VoteSmart, which tracks legislative activity, and examined their records. First I found the text of a speech given by Ackerman:

The Bush administration would have us believe that General Musharraf is the pied piper of “enlightened moderation,” as he described himself in The Washington Post earlier this month, a battler of extremism, a bringer of democracy, the very soul of moderate Islam.

Others, generally outside the administration, hold a very different view of General Musharraf, arguing essentially that he does not practice what he preaches, that he battles extremists and terrorists only in a limited way, that he has in reality strengthened the military’s role in Pakistani governance rather than bring democracy, and has done little to cut the ties that his military and intelligence services have to extremists and terrorists in Pakistan. This portrait of General Musharraf says nothing about his government’s or his own capacity-or complicity in the nuclear Wal-Mart that A.Q. Khan was running, quote, “unbeknownst” to Musharraf, if you believe the administration’s of events.

I continue to believe that our administration is ignoring the law by failing to make a determination on the application of sanctions against Pakistan for the transfer of nuclear weapons designs and related technologies to terrorist states. Until someone in the administration provides me with a detailed explanation of why Pakistan should not be sanctioned under either Glenn or Symington’s amendments, I will continue in this belief and will continue to raise it at every appropriate opportunity.

The administration is making a very bad bargain with Pakistan. In exchange for perceived cooperation on al Qaeda and the Taliban, the administration is giving Pakistan a pass on nuclear proliferation issues. To my knowledge, neither we nor the IAEA have had direct access to A.Q. Khan or any of his associates. Despite Pakistan’s claims to the contrary and our apparent acquiescence, this is not an internal Pakistani matter. Once Pakistan decided to sell its wares internationally, it became a matter for the international community and for us.

His take on South Asia policy seems pretty clear. Whether he is simply playing to his constituency or following his true ideological beliefs is uncertain. What about Ros-Lehtinen? I didn’t find any speeches by her relating to South Asia policy (which is consistent with the IACFPA’s observation that little is known about her positions in this area). Both chairs did however throw their weight behind the issue of the U.S. selling F-16s to Pakistan. From NewKerala.com:

Ros-Lehtinen joined Ackerman and others in a letter sent recently to President George W. Bush urging him not to sell F-16 fighter aircraft to Pakistan, she recalled.

But she clarified that membership in the India Caucus did not mean an anti-Pakistan stand.

“We’re not going to be doing things on an ‘us-versus-them’ way. If you join the India Caucus it does not mean you are anti-Pakistan. It does not mean it is a slap in the face of the Pakistani community or government.

“But certainly India has been a very good friend of the US. It does not mean you have to choose sides. But, certainly, a great number of members of Congress have felt an affinity to this country.”

The caucus, she emphasised, would work with the White House. “With all the nations that are getting into the nuclear club and this global war on terror, more and more we depend on allies like India to help us in that troubled area,” Ros-Lehtinen said.

She explained her reasons for wanting to be co-chair of the largest caucus in Congress whose membership now goes above 185.

“There are some great stories to be told about India and the Indian American community. It’s (India) got such bad press because of outsourcing. Somehow, it has become the story about India when there are lots of other stories we could be talking about,” she asserted.

I will be looking to see if the co-chairs will weigh-in on the possible cease-fire violation, particularly in light of Ros-Lehtinen’s assertion that, “We’re not going to be doing things on an ‘us-versus-them’ way.” If she follows the Bush administration’s lead like she suggests, then it will be interesting to see how the U.S. avoids scolding Pakistan (so they supposedly keep fighting terrorists) while the powerful India lobby will be screaming foul.