U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

72–791PDF 2012

BALUCHISTAN

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND 

INVESTIGATIONS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

FEBRUARY 8, 2012

Serial No. 112–121

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

RON PAUL, Texas 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

DAVID RIVERA, Florida 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York 

RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina 

ROBERT TURNER, New York 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

DENNIS CARDOZA, California 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

FREDERICA WILSON, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

YLEEM D.S. POBLETE, Staff Director 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

DANA ROHRABACHER, California, Chairman 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

RON PAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

DAVID RIVERA, Florida 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

KAREN BASS, California 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

C. Christine Fair, Ph.D., assistant professor, Georgetown University ............... 9

Mr. Ralph Peters, military analyst and author .................................................... 31

Mr. T. Kumar, director, International Advocacy, Amnesty International USA . 41

M. Hossein Bor, Ph.D., counsel, Entwistle & Cappucci, LLP .............................. 51

Mr. Ali Dayan Hasan, Pakistan director, Asia Division, Human Rights Watch 68

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Dana Rohrabacher, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California, and chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations: Prepared statement ............................................................................. 4

C. Christine Fair, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ....................................................... 12

Mr. Ralph Peters: Prepared statement .................................................................. 33

Mr. T. Kumar: Prepared statement ....................................................................... 43

M. Hossein Bor, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ......................................................... 53

Mr. Ali Dayan Hasan: Prepared statement ........................................................... 70

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 96

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 97

(1)

BALUCHISTAN 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in room 

2200, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dana Rohrabacher 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I call this hearing of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee 

to order. 

Today’s hearing is about a part of the world and a people that 

most Americans know nothing about, Baluchistan, an area inhabited by the Baluch people who trace their history back for centuries. Baluchistan deserves our attention because it is a turbulent 

land marked by human rights’ violations committed by regimes 

that are hostile to America’s interests and values. It holds a very 

strategic location in an area of intense international rivalries. 

Baluchistan comprises about 800 miles of coast at the head of the 

Arabian Sea between Iran and India and runs inland to southern 

Afghanistan. The Baluchs are a fiercely independent warrior people 

who have made their land a perilous land to invade—until natural 

gas and other mineral wealth was discovered there in this last century. 

During the 17th century the tribes were united in a loose confederation until the British incorporated the area into the Indian empire in the 19th century. The British, however, ruled the area with 

a light touch, leaving tribal chiefs in control of their everyday affairs. 

At the time of the partition of the British Raj into contemporary 

Pakistan and India back in 1947, the Baluch leaders voiced a desire for independence, but the Pakistan army took control of the 

area and forced the Baluch tribal chiefs to submit to the rule from 

Islamabad. The partition was based on religion, that partition between India and Pakistan, it was based on religion, rather than 

ethnic identity. The Baluchs are Sunni Muslims; and Pakistan, 

which was founded as an Islamic state, sees itself as the rightful 

ruler of all Muslims of the subcontinent. 

Pakistani ideology holds Islam as the first identity, but other 

people identify themselves and their interests in many different 

ways. In practice, Pakistan does not treat all Muslims equally. The 

Baluch have seen little benefit from the development of the natural 

gas, coal, gold, uranium, and copper that is produced in their provVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:03 Mar 27, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\OI\020812\72791 HFA PsN: SHIRL
2

ince. Instead, the wealth is taken for the benefit of the dominant 

Punjabi elite that runs the country from Islamabad. 

Baluchistan remains the poorest province in Pakistan, even 

though it is the richest in natural resources. Attacks against natural gas installations and pipelines by Baluch insurgents are steadily increasing, and there have been assassinations of Chinese engineers who are helping Pakistan develop resources that will be 

shipped out of the province to benefit Islamabad and, of course, 

Beijing. 

The province’s major port—let me pronounce it—Gwadar—the 

port of Gwadar has also been developed with the help of China and 

may become a naval base as well as a trade and energy transit center. Pakistan, however, is using this development to attract 

Punjabis into the province with the aim perhaps of outnumbering 

the local native Baluch. 

There was a major uprising in Baluchistan that ran from 1973 

to 1977, and the Baluch nationalists were inspired by the independence of Bangladesh, which was won in 1971. The Baluch insurgency, however, was ruthlessly crushed by Pakistani forces. 

After two decades of relative calm, insurgency broke out again in 

2005. Islamabad has refused to concede any legitimacy to Baluch 

nationalism or to engage the Baluch leadership in serious negotiations. Its response has been based on brute force, including 

extrajudicial killings. The State Department and Amnesty International have condemned Pakistan for these murderous acts in Baluchistan. 

Across the border in Iran, there is a province, Sistan-Baluchistan, which is dominated by the ethnic Baluchs. The mullah regime there has denied them their basic human rights; and, as in 

Pakistan, the Baluchs are denied proper education and economic 

opportunities. As in Pakistan, the resources of Sistan-Baluchistan 

are often used to support an elite in a distant capital, leaving the 

local Baluchs in both countries impoverished. 

The Governor of Sistan-Baluchistan is appointed by the mullah 

regime in Tehran. The Governor of Pakistan’s Baluchistan is determined by a very complicated process which has some democratic 

elements, but the nationalist parties thought the system was so 

corrupt that they boycotted the elections in 2008. I hope our witnesses can shed some light on how free and fair a political process 

in that area could be and give us some insights into what is going 

on there in terms of the political process. 

A low-level insurgency is in progress in Iran, as it is in Pakistan, 

with both countries reacting with the same brutal way of stamping 

out resistance. The Baluch in Iran are even more oppressed than 

those in Pakistan because Tehran is run by Shia theocrats who 

consider Sunni Muslims to be worse than heretics. Sunni Baluch 

clerics have been killed as part of an Iranian counterinsurgency 

campaign. 

South Asia cannot be understood purely in religious terms, as 

Muslim versus non-Muslim or Sunni versus Shiite. Group identities there are rooted in deeper tribal and village allegiances, with 

cultural attributes and historical experiences that go back for centuries. This hearing will explore what these mean and what they 

mean to the United States, what are the geopolitics of the region, 

3

the security of Pakistan, Iran, and their neighbors, how these 

things are being affected as well as the stability of that whole area. 

Also, we are looking at finding out about those things and how 

all of these factors and the dynamics that are at work play into the 

existing borders and aspirations of self-determination from all the 

perspectives that Americans hold and value. We believe in self-determination and democracy, believe the people have a right to 

speak up, but we are also very concerned about the stability of that 

part of the world and what this means to America and to the people there. 

So, as I say, this hearing, although I know that a lot of people 

saw this with trepidations, we are trying to understand something 

that I think we as American people have not paid attention to. So 

we need to learn things, like how to pronounce the port there and 

things like that. But even more than that, how to identify what 

forces are at work and who has some legitimate complaints and 

what America should be doing in reaction to the events there with 

the people there. So we are not here to—we are here to learn, and 

that is what this hearing is all about. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rohrabacher follows:]

4


72791f-1.eps
5


72791f-2.eps
6

Mr. ROHRABACHER. With that, I would turn to my ranking member, Mr. Carnahan, for his opening remarks. 

Let me note, please don’t applaud, please don’t throw fruit at me, 

either. It would be nice—just because it takes up time, and we 

have got to be out of here in about an hour. So go right ahead. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am glad to see you have a rousing ovation here today in this subcommittee hearing. You say that 

like someone who is used to being applauded and having fruit 

thrown at you. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Oh, yes. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. It goes along with the territory. 

But, seriously, thank you for holding this hearing today. It is 

really very critical that we examine U.S. relations with Pakistan 

in multiple contexts like this. 

Mr. Chairman, since you last called a hearing this past summer 

on U.S. strategy in south Asia, it is fair to say that the U.S.-Pakistan relationship has continued to strain but remains absolutely a 

critical partnership. I would urge the Pakistani Government to step 

up its efforts to weed out terror activity within and along its own 

borders. 

Pakistan has significant challenges within its own country that 

have national, regional, and certainly international implications. 

One of the concerns and the topic of today’s hearing is the situation 

in Baluchistan. 

This past month, a State Department spokesman said, ‘‘The U.S. 

is deeply concerned about the ongoing violence in Baluchistan, especially targeted killings, disappearances, and other human rights 

abuses.’’

She further stated that the administration takes allegations of 

human rights abuses very seriously and that it had discussed these 

issues with Pakistani officials. 

While the administration is not here today to testify, I would 

urge U.S. officials to continue to bring these issues up in the course 

of our diplomatic discussions. 

With the significant investment of U.S. funding in Pakistan, it 

is Congress’ job to make sure we are getting the return on the investment that our taxpayers deserve. We need to ensure that every 

dollar of U.S.-taxpayer-funded assistance is being used properly 

and in our interest. Vigorous oversight of all U.S. foreign aid is 

critical to the success of our programs there and is a key component to building infrastructure and capacity in Pakistan. 

However, the U.S. and international commitment to Pakistan is 

not enough. In the face of all its challenges, it is critical that Pakistan work to ensure the integrity of its own people and its own 

country, including Baluchistan; and as the U.S., the U.N., and 

NATO continue in Afghanistan, the Afghan-Baluchistan border remains critical to ensuring that we are making decisions that move 

Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the entire region toward increased stability. 

Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am looking forward to hearing the esteemed panel of witnesses that we have with us today. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Sherman, do you have an opening statement? 

Mr. SHERMAN. I do indeed. 

7

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Go right ahead. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I want to thank the chairman of this subcommittee for allowing me to make a statement at this hearing. I 

have been on the full committee for 15 years and haven’t had the 

honor to be a member of this subcommittee but have had a chance 

to see its work when reported to the full committee. 

My statement will focus not only on Baluchistan but the adjoining area of the Sindh province. Many Baluch live in the Sindh 

province, and to a great extent the Pakistani Government treatment of both these southern areas is similar. 

Pakistan-U.S. relations hit an all-time low last year when we 

found bin Laden in Abbottabad and perhaps later when allegedly 

the U. S. Embassy in Kabul was attacked by those who may have 

had the help of the ISI. That is why it is more important than ever 

for the U.S. to reach out to the various people who have been 

marginalized by the Pakistani Government. 

The people of Baluchistan and Sindh, their culture, language, 

and way of life are under attack and underrepresented from so 

many major government entities in Pakistan. Political activities defending Baluch and Sindhi rights are subject to arrest, disappearances, torture, and even killing. 

I believe the U.S. must reach out to these underrepresented historic segments of the Pakistani population. The Baluch people are 

culturally and traditionally regarded as secular and moderate, 

strongly influenced by the cultural traditions of Sufism. Both the 

Sindhis and the Baluch have a culture that I think will be consistent with American values; and a significant part of the people 

of Sindh, of course, are Baluch ethnically or have Baluch origins. 

The Baluch and Sindhis, including those Baluch living in Sindhi 

province, share the goal of government recognition of their cultural, 

political, and economic rights. 

Baluchistan is Pakistan’s most underdeveloped province. It has 

the highest unemployment and poverty rates, the lowest quality of 

life when measured economically of any province in Pakistan. The 

road infrastructure is also poor; and, as the chairman points out, 

this is ironic because it is such a resource-rich area, especially as 

to natural gas. Islamabad’s reluctance to give the Baluch people 

more autonomy is in part because they covet those resources. The 

Baluch gained a more equitable share of the region’s rich natural 

resources, and that is another source of resentment. 

A third source of resentment is the Pakistani army cantonments 

that are being established in the Baluch areas. A small minority 

of Baluch have undertaken the armed struggle which was described by the chairman, and he also described its history. 

There is also, as the chairman described, Baluch on the Iranian 

side of the border waging a conflict against the Ayatollah regime. 

In this critical part of the world, we cannot afford to ignore the 

southern half of Pakistan, especially its population of Baluch and 

Sindhis. 

I had an opportunity last year to found the Sindh Caucus, and 

I would invite my colleagues to join. It is co-chaired by Dan Burton, 

Adam Schiff is an active member, and, as I have noted, the people 

of Sindh have a moderate tradition that is consistent with U.S. values and U.S. interests. 

8

For many years, the Pakistani Government has tried to impose 

just one language, Urdu, on the people of Pakistan, when in fact 

Sindhi is spoken by more people than Urdu. We need to reach out 

to the people of Sindh province and others who speak the Sindhi 

language, and we need to do so in the Sindh language. 

Right now, the Voice of America is broadcasting only in Urdu. 

That is why I want to commend our full committee for voting for 

my amendment to require that the Voice of America start broadcasting in the Sindh language, and now it is a matter of actually 

making that happen through the bureaucracy and through the Appropriations Committee. And I look forward to the day when that 

is a success and we are back here talking about the Baluch language. 

I believe my time has expired, and I yield back to the chair. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. 

It is always great to chair a hearing where someone is more radical than I am on certain issues. 

Mr. SHERMAN. A rare occurrence, I might add. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Actually, we see eye to eye on almost everything except he is a Democrat and I am a Republican. 

We also have another soft-spoken Member of Congress joining us, 

Louie Gohmert from Texas. I ask unanimous consent that he may 

sit in on this hearing and have the rights of all the other members 

of the committee. 

So ordered. 

Louie, do you have a couple minute opening statement for us? Go 

right ahead. Take 2 minutes. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I will wait. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Take 1 minute and get yourself——

Mr. GOHMERT. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to be here, 

and it is, I think, just wonderful that you have called this hearing, 

and I appreciate the interest I am hearing from our Democratic 

friends. 

But when you have a place in the world that was forced to be 

part of another country in 1948, as Baluchistan was, and then in 

that same country the people that are native to that area are harassed, what some of us would consider to be the human rights of 

dignity that every human being should be afforded are violated on 

a regular basis by the national government. And then further that 

government goes on to, whether it is official or unofficial, to furnish 

supplies, encouragement—what people I met with in forward-operating bases in Afghanistan last month tell me are the supplies, the 

IEDs, the weapons coming in to the Taliban, so many are coming 

from Pakistan and coming from the Baluchistan area. 

And as an editorial I was pleased to read in the Pakistan Daily 

Times noted, maybe it is time that we quit working so hard to support the Taliban in another country and concentrate more on our 

own country. And I think it would make the United States very 

happy to see that, it would make people of Afghanistan very happy 

that the Taliban was no longer being provided weapons to inflict 

harm on them, and it would make the Baluchs very happy, from 

my discussion with them, that they were allowed to live in peace 

without being subjected to horrors from their own government. 

9

So I am delighted you asked for this hearing, and I appreciate 

the opportunity to be here. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. Thank you very much. No applause. Thank you very much, Mr. Gohmert. 

We have witnesses ahead of us. You will note that there are a 

couple more witnesses than we originally planned. Because we do 

know so little about this region, we didn’t know who to invite, and 

there were some suggestions that were sent to me over the Internet 

that we maybe should expand it to make sure there is a little bit 

more representative cross-section of views, and that is what we did. 

So I want to thank whoever sent me those suggestions, and I think 

we are going to have a much richer hearing because of it. 

But we have a time problem, and the time problem is that they 

are going to call votes sometime in the next hour, maybe even 1⁄2

hour or 45 minutes, so I am going to hold each one of you to the 

5-minute rule for your testimony, and I am sorry, but I am going 

to have to, because otherwise there won’t be any time for questions 

and answers at all. 

We have with us on the panel Christine Fair, assistant professor, 

Center for Peace and Security Studies at the Edmund Walsh 

School of Foreign Service in Georgetown University. Previously, 

she has served as a senior political scientist with RAND Corporation, a political officer to the United Nations Assistance Mission to 

Afghanistan, and as a member of the International Institute for 

Strategic Studies, the Council on Foreign Relations, and serves on 

the editorial board of Studies in Conflict and Terrorism. 

I will introduce each one just prior to their testimony, and we 

know how soft-spoken you are, Dr. Fair, and how you never cause 

any controversy, but you enlighten everyone, so you may proceed. 

Five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF C. CHRISTINE FAIR, PH.D., ASSISTANT 

PROFESSOR, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY 

Ms. FAIR. Sir, you are one of my favorite Republicans. We don’t 

see eye to eye on a lot of things, but on the things we see eye to 

eye on, we see eye to eye. 

Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak on 

this really important topic. As you noted, there aren’t that many 

folks that know about Baluchistan, there aren’t that many folks 

who know about Pakistan, and when this topic comes up, it is usually focused on the war on terror in Afghanistan. So it is nice to 

see that there is a hearing specifically dedicated to this particular 

issue. 

I have submitted a longer—very long written statement that I request become part of the permanent record. 

In that statement, I spend quite a bit of time trying to map out 

what we know geographically, historically, and demographically 

about Baluchistan. Unfortunately, we don’t know a lot, because the 

Pakistan census is terribly out of date, and unfortunately the process of a census in Pakistan has become very politicized. 

But what we do know is that the Baluch ethnic group is the largest ethnic group in the province. The exact numbers are perhaps 

unknown. But we also know that, by any measure of human development—and I put a few, just a sample in my testimony—by any 

10

measure of human development, by any development, any measure 

of economic development, Baluchistan always ranks below the 

other provinces in Pakistan, with the perhaps exception of FATA. 

In addition to that, as you note in your opening statement, Baluchistan is actually a very large producer of resources. Yet, ironically, even though Baluchistan produces about 40 percent of the 

country’s gas, very few Baluch actually take advantage of that gas 

because there is no infrastructure for them to do so. So when you 

meet with folks from Baluchistan, they will tell you the only time 

they get gas or electricity hook-ups is when a cantonment comes 

to town. The army will counter that it is very hard to spread that 

infrastructure throughout a province which accounts for about 5 

percent of Pakistan’s population but about 40 percent of the terrain. So they will know that there are logistical challenges. Obviously, the truth lies somewhere in between. 

Baluchistan’s appalling human rights record also stands before 

us. We have Human Rights Watch here. We have Amnesty International. Everyone knows about the forced abductions that are 

going on. Everyone knows that Baluchistan has been a very restive 

province from day one. Many Baluch didn’t even want to join the 

union of Pakistan. 

In that sense, it shares a lot of similarities to Kashmir. Kashmir 

was also forcibly annexed, and many of the challenges that we see 

happening in Pakistan vis—vis Baluchistan could also, I think, be 

said in some measure about the situation in Kashmir. 

Curiously, what I find very puzzling about Pakistan is that over 

the last—well, since 2004, the state has been waging a pretty vicious counterinsurgency campaign against elements of the so-called 

Pakistan Taliban, and it has generated quite a bit of outrage 

among Pakistanis. Yet the last six decades of episodic military use 

of force against Baluch insurgents doesn’t really cause that kind of 

outrage at all. 

In fact, in my written statement, I provided a link to a very fascinating BBC documentary that was called Ko Jaanta Hai, Who 

Knows Baluchistan? They went around Lahore and they asked 

folks, do you know what Baluchistan is? Can you name a city? And 

it was actually appalling how few people knew where the province 

was, that there was an insurgency, that people couldn’t even name 

the major city of Gwadar. 

So you have this very interesting combination of the ability of lethal force but yet you have very few people in Pakistan who know 

about it. 

A second related problem is that, because it has so few people 

and because the representation in the National Assembly is based 

upon population, it means that Baluchistan can never have any 

heft in the National Assembly. While it has equal representation 

in the Senate, as I am sure you know in Pakistan the Senate has 

very little power. 

Now, while we focus upon the abductions and the state-sponsored 

human rights abuses, which are numerous, I do want to point out, 

though, that this isn’t the only kind of violence which is happening 

in Pakistan or in Baluchistan. So the forced disappearances I am 

sure my colleagues from Amnesty and from Human Rights Watch 

11

will dilate upon them. But there are also targeted killings that are 

unfortunately done by some Baluch. 

I understand the sentiment that there is this perception that 

they are being colonized by the Punjab, but, unfortunately, there 

is a past dependency problem. Baluchistan has a massive problem 

with education, right? So how do you produce teachers from a province that doesn’t have, on the main, people who are adequately 

educated to produce the folks who can subsequently become teachers? So there is a need for teachers to come from other provinces 

in Baluchistan, but—I am sure Human Rights Watch have written 

an entire report about this—many of those teachers have been singled out because they are Punjabi. It is not just teachers. It is also 

providers of other human services. Police in particular are very vulnerable. 

So I only—I don’t only want to draw attention to the targeted 

killing of one community by state forces, but in fact we have a lot 

of acts of violence converging in Baluchistan. 

Another one that doesn’t get a lot of attention is also the sectarian violence. Shia have paid a heavy price in Pakistan, and we 

can continue to see this kind of violence happening in Baluchistan. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I am afraid your 5 minutes is gone. 

Ms. FAIR. There we go. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. We will come back. Hopefully, we will have 

time for some questions and answers. 

And I would also suggest, if the panel would like to, during their 

5 minutes, express something about what has already been said, 

please feel free. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Fair follows:]

12


72791a-1.eps
13


72791a-2.eps
14


72791a-3.eps
15


72791a-4.eps
16


72791a-5.eps
17


72791a-6.eps
18


72791a-7.eps
19


72791a-8.eps
20


72791a-9.eps
21


72791a-10.eps
22


72791a-11.eps
23


72791a-12.eps
24


72791a-13.eps
25


72791a-14.eps
26


72791a-15.eps
27


72791a-16.eps
28


72791a-17.eps
29


72791a-18.eps
30


72791a-19.eps
31

Mr. ROHRABACHER. We have with us Ralph Peters, a writer, 

strategist, media commentator, retired military officer. He is the 

author of 28 books and approximately 1,000 columns, articles, and 

essays. Being a writer, I can appreciate that, admire that. 

He served in the U.S. Army for 22 years as an American—we are 

grateful for that service—first as an enlisted man, then as an officer, retiring shortly after his promotion to lieutenant colonel. As a 

soldier, Ralph served in the infantry and military intelligence units 

before becoming a foreign area officer specializing in Russia and 

surrounding states. 

He also served in the Executive Office of the President. Special 

assignments took him to Southeast Asia, Central Asia, to the 

Caucasus, to Pakistan, and Burma. He has traveled extensively in 

the Muslim world as well as studying in India, sub-Saharan Africa, 

and Indonesia. He has reported from various conflict zones, including Iraq, Israel, and sub-Saharan Africa. 

Mr. Peters, you have 5 minutes, and we look forward to hearing 

your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF MR. RALPH PETERS, MILITARY ANALYST AND 

AUTHOR 

Mr. PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this opportunity, and I am sure you will agree with me, as will Congressman 

Carnahan, that such an important problem cannot be approached 

in a partisan manner, and we ought to act as Americans with our 

American values and bring those to bear, not an ideology of any 

kind. 

Let us start with the incontrovertible fact and that is that Baluchistan is occupied territory. It never willingly acceded to Pakistan, 

does not now wish to be part of Pakistan. If a plebiscite or referendum were held tomorrow, it would vote to leave Pakistan, as 

would every province and territory west of the Indus River. 

We have a fundamental problem in that we refuse to see Pakistan for what it is. We imagine or pretend that it is a legitimate 

state, really in our own image, a democracy, but it is a democracy 

only as long as its military rulers allow it to be a democracy. 

It is, in fact, a miniature empire, a last artifact, along with a few 

other countries around the world, of the imperial age, with artificial borders which we defend, as we do elsewhere, and I find it a 

travesty that our State Department obsesses on the inviolability of 

borders around the world drawn at Versailles or in Berlin in the 

1880s or in the late 1940s. 

How is it in the year of our Lord 2012 we send our troops to 

bleed or die to defend the residue of the European world order? 

And let me be clear. I do not argue that we should actively campaign militarily to change every border in the world. I argue that 

when the train is coming down the tracks toward you, you are wise 

to step off the tracks. 

In the last two decades since the end of the Cold War, the United 

States of America, the greatest force for freedom in human history, 

every war and conflict in which we have engaged has been triggered by or exacerbated by these flawed European borders. How 

can we send our soldiers and Marines and Navy corpsmen to die 

for that? That is not who we are. 

32

What is Pakistan? Pakistan is bisected by the Indus River. To 

the east of the Indus River is metropolitan, core Pakistan, the Punjab, and to a great extent the province of Sindh. It is the world of 

the subcontinent. It is a different civilization from that west of the 

Indus River. 

West of the Indus River in the occupied territories you have the 

culture of central and mid Asia. When you cross the Indus River 

either way, even the food is different. And we look at this occupied 

territory of Baluchistan specifically where people who simply yearn 

for fundamental freedoms, for the right to determine their own future, whether or not they have a battery of qualified teachers ready 

to go. We must admire their determination to sacrifice everything 

against enormous odds in Pakistan and Iran for the simple right 

to say, I am a Baluch; I will decide my own future. 

Instead, we face—we support Pakistan, their oppressor, a state 

that actively supports and arms terrorists and insurgent movements in Afghanistan that kill and maim our own soldiers. The 

Pakistani Government is not our friend. It is not the friend of the 

Baluch or the other subjugated peoples west of the Indus River. 

The Durand line, of course, which divides Pakistan and Afghanistan is artificial. It divides people who want to be together. 

Mr. Chairman, my time is running out, so let me simply say this 

last thing. 

Two hundred years ago, one of our greatest Presidents faced a 

problem. The Barbary pirates refused to let our ships pass in 

peace, so we paid tribute money to let our goods pass. Thomas Jefferson put a stop to that. 

Today, we are paying tribute money again, this time to the Pakistani pirates to let our goods pass to Afghanistan. Mr. Chairman, 

I am looking for a Thomas Jefferson. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Peters follows:]

33


72791b-1.eps
34


72791b-2.eps
35


72791b-3.eps
36


72791b-4.eps
37


72791b-5.eps
38


72791b-6.eps
39


72791b-7.eps
40


72791b-8.eps
41

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, and I am looking for 

William Eaton myself. That was pretty deep there. 

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I am trying to be——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. Thank you very much. I appreciate 

you softening your remarks and making them so nobody really 

knows where you are coming from. Great. 

Both of our witnesses have been very tough, and that is the way 

you want to be. You want to be up front. Because if people are hiding what their real beliefs are, trying to couch it, we are never 

going to—people aren’t going to understand what the reality is if 

we are trying to not make other people angry, but we want to make 

sure all of us are educated to that. 

The next witness is Mr. T. Kumar. Mr. T. Kumar, who I know 

very well, an advocacy director for Asia Pacific, for Amnesty International, who is a persona here on the Hill and a champion of 

human rights. He has worked in several Asian and African countries and served as a human rights monitor in many Asian countries as well as Bosnia, Haiti, Guatemala, South Africa. 

Kumar is frequently lecturing at the Foreign Service Institute 

where U.S. diplomats are trained and often testifies before the 

United States Senate and House of Representatives. He holds an 

advanced degree in law from the University of Pennsylvania Law 

School, and you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF MR. T. KUMAR, DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL 

ADVOCACY, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL USA 

Mr. KUMAR. Thank you very much, Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of Congress, when I saw the announcement about having a hearing on Baluchistan, it came back 

to Afghanistan during the time when Afghanistan was forgotten by 

the entire world. Chairman, you understand what happened after 

the collapse of Soviet Union. 

The people of Baluchistan were going through nightmare for the 

years, torture, disappearances, extra-judicial executions, but the 

world refused to look at them. Leave alone Pakistanis. Even the 

Pakistani civil society was limited—there were some exceptions—

did not speak up about the plight of Baluchis that they wound up 

going—massive disappearances. Disappearance means to kidnap 

people or arrest people and never be heard again. 

Hundreds disappeared. We have documented recently—we are 

talking about after the so-called democracy came to Pakistan—almost 250 disappearances in a year’s time. And extra-judicial executions, torture. 

So the brutality was continuing in Baluchistan, despite the fact 

that it is just next door to Afghanistan, where U.S. has enormous 

interest and Pakistan, again, enormous interest. So on that note, 

we are pleased and honored that you are holding this hearing to 

bring attention to the plight of Baluchistan. 

What’s happening to Baluch people? It is a kill and dump operation. It is a terror mechanism that the Pakistani military and the 

intelligence officers who use to terrorize the local population. It 

may be for a political reason because some people, maybe a majority of Baluch, may be asking for independence. 

42

By the way, on that note, Amnesty International, as a human 

rights organization, does not take position on whether a country is 

independent or not. 

But, having said that, they brutalize the population because the 

population wanted some opening in their political aspirations. Then 

when people speak up, the weapons that were used against them 

were, unfortunately, manufactured in the U.S. and given to by the 

U.S. 

A couple of years ago when the disappearance was high rocketing 

in Baluchistan, the Baluchistan Governor was here. So I asked him 

actually at USIP, I asked him where the—whose weapons are you 

using? He said, oh, it is American weapons. The reason is no conditions were put on it. 

So it is a matter of principle that Congress can put some requirement that no U.S. weapons should be used in Baluchistan in abusing its own citizens. That is something you can do. You won’t get 

permission from the State Department. 

Speaking about State Department, they were in sleep for years, 

not only now, earlier on as well. When Senator Baloch, Sana 

Baloch, was invited again to USIP, they refused to give him visa 

to come and testify. He is a Senator, elected Senate. So there are 

concerns that even U.S. over the years have ignored for different 

political reasons. 

So now the time has come through this hearing and through 

other mechanisms. We hope the State will also—the administration 

will also change its policy, not about any political questions there 

but primarily talking about the plight of Baluchis and how to stop 

abuses that are happening against them. 

There are also other people who are involved in abusing the 

human rights in that area. One group is, obviously, the group that 

fight for independence. These are Baluch nationalists. They were 

the prime victims of abuse. At the same time, there are reports 

that they also targeted killing of Punjabis and others. 

So it is a time that Baluch population examined themselves, that 

since you have been abused, you know the value of human rights. 

You should speak up and to stop the abuses against anyone. It 

could be anyone. 

I know my time is up. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kumar follows:]

43


72791c-1.eps
44


72791c-2.eps
45


72791c-3.eps
46


72791c-4.eps
47


72791c-5.eps
48


72791c-6.eps
49


72791c-7.eps
50


72791c-8.eps
51

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Your time is up. That was left on a good 

note—no, no, don’t applaud—because challenging people who want 

to have their human rights respected, challenging them to respect 

human rights of others is a really important point, and you just 

made that. 

We have two other witnesses, and then we will go into our questions and answers. 

We are joined, in the meantime, by another Member of Congress, 

a champion of American commitment to freedom and democracy, a 

real patriot from Texas, and a man of the law, Judge Poe. In fact, 

both Congressman Gohmert and Judge Poe are both former judges, 

and so when we talk about the law and the violations of human 

rights, they shine out with their expertise as well as their passion. 

So we are very happy to have you join us, Your Honor, and we will 

proceed with the witnesses right now so we can get through this 

and then go on to questions and answers. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. We have Dr. Hossein Bor, a lawyer active in 

facilitating trade, investment, and project development between 

American corporations and their counterparts from Gulf countries. 

Dr. Bor previously served as an adjunct professor of law at the 

Catholic University of America and was the energy and economic 

adviser to the Embassy of Qatar in Washington, DC, from 1982 to 

1998. He has written extensively on various issues relating to the 

Middle East, including a treatise on Iran and nationalities. He 

holds a Ph.D. and degrees from both American University and 

Washington University. 

And you may proceed, Dr. Bor. 

STATEMENT OF M. HOSSEIN BOR, PH.D., COUNSEL, 

ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI, LLP 

Mr. BOR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This is a great 

honor and pleasure to speak on behalf of the Baluch. I am of course 

an American Baluch myself, and thank you for the opportunity. 

As you know, Baluchistan is the most really—the Baluch people 

are the most persecuted, oppressed, and neglected peoples in the 

Middle East and South Asia; and of course you, Mr. Chairman, 

gave a very good overview of Baluch history. The only thing I can 

add, Baluch look at their history in one term. Baluch era or Baluch 

Doura means the era when the Baluch ruled themselves, and their 

institutions and values were supreme in Baluchistan, and the postBaluch era, which is the era of colonialism and, of course, the subsequent division and forceful incorporation into Iran and Afghanistan and, of course, Pakistan. 

And, of course, before the advent of colonialism you should also 

notice that the Baluch were independent. Like Europe, there were 

several feudal states, and in many eras also in the 14th, 15th century you had a large confederacy of Baluchi state and Durand, extending from Kirman in the east, in Persia, to the Indus Valley, 

and that is also the current boundaries of Baluchistan as a whole. 

And, of course, as you well know, Baluchistan was divided by the 

British into three parts. Goldsmid Line, drawn in 1871 by the British colonial officers, divided Baluchistan between Iran and British 

India; and of course the Durand Line, drawn also by the British in 

1894, divided Baluchistan between British India and Afghanistan. 

52

And of course Baluch, ever since, they have been struggling to regain their lost freedom to reassert the Baluch control over their 

homeland, Baluchistan, and to preserve their language and culture. 

And the Baluch have never accepted or recognized either the 

Goldsmid Line, dividing the Baluch between Iran and Pakistan, 

nor the Durand Line, separating north and Baluchistan. This is reflected in four insurrections by the Baluch against Pakistan in 

1948, 1958, 1973, and 2005 insurgency, which is continuing and 

growing in strength each day. Like Baluch, Afghanistan and nationalist Pashtuns in Pakistan also do not recognize the Durand 

Line. 

Of course, my colleagues, they well articulated the plight of 

human rights in Baluchistan and the egregious violation of Baluch 

human rights by Pakistani army and the Pakistani Government. 

The only thing I can add, according to a report published by the 

Asian Human Rights Commission on January 31st last month, it 

says that the extrajudicial killings of disappeared persons in Baluchistan include 23 bullet-riddled bodies found during the first 

month of this year, during January, 56 mutilated bodies during the 

last 6 months, and 271 bodies since July, 2010. That tells you 

about the extent of the brutality. And according, of course, to 

Baluch sources, the figures are much higher, and since 2001 about 

4,000 Baluch have been—have disappeared, and this is a continuing problem, and that is one of the main reasons that the 

Baluch——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Excuse me, you said from 2001 to the present 

date how many? 

Mr. BOR. 4,000. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. 4,000 people have disappeared. 

Mr. BOR. Yes, sir. 

And, of course, this is one of the main impediments to Baluch 

leaders negotiating with weak civilian government in Pakistan. 

Until these issues are resolved to the satisfaction of the aggrieved 

Baluch families, no Baluch leader would dare to negotiate with the 

Pakistani Government. 

And of course they also—as they stated, Baluchistan is one of the 

most richest lands in the world—oil, aluminum, gold, coal—but it 

is exploited for the benefit of non-Baluch in Punjab. And even 

though the Baluchistan account for 30 percent of the natural gas 

exploited in Pakistan, Baluchistan saves only 17 percent. The rest, 

even the British colonialists were not so greedy and brutal, and 

that is why the Baluchistan remain the most—the least developed 

region in Pakistan. There is no really basic industries to talk 

about. And of course that is one of the main reasons for the ongoing insurgency in Baluchistan. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bor follows:]

53


72791d-1.eps
54


72791d-2.eps
55


72791d-3.eps
56


72791d-4.eps
57


72791d-5.eps
58


72791d-6.eps
59


72791d-7.eps
60


72791d-8.eps
61


72791d-9.eps
62


72791d-10.eps
63


72791d-11.eps
64


72791d-12.eps
65


72791d-13.eps
66


72791d-14.eps
67


72791d-15.eps
68

Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is the end of your 5 minutes right now, 

so we will have to move on during the questions and answers. 

By the way, all of—with unanimous consent, the entire—your entire statements will be put into the record. So when you get a 

record of the hearing, your entire statement will be in the record. 

We now turn to Ali Dayan Hasan. He is the Pakistan director 

of Asia division of Human Rights Watch. Before taking over as 

Pakistan director, he served as Human Rights Watch for south 

Asia as a researcher and that he did since 2003 and specialized in 

Pakistan. 

Before joining the Human Rights Watch, Hasan was a senior editor at Pakistan’s premier independent political news monthly, the 

Herald; and during 2006–2007 he was also a visiting scholar from 

Oxford, University of Oxford, and has a BA from the London School 

of Economics and a master’s degree from St. Antony’s College in 

Oxford. 

And we welcome you, and you have 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF MR. ALI DAYAN HASAN, PAKISTAN DIRECTOR, 

ASIA DIVISION, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH 

Mr. HASAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me this opportunity. 

I have listened with care to what my colleagues—fellow witnesses have had to say. I would like to clarify at the outset that 

my testimony is based on my experiences as someone who has researched extensively on human rights abuses in Baluchistan, often 

on the ground in the province itself. 

Now, at the outset, because there has been this question of independence that has been raised, I want to clarify that Human 

Rights Watch, as an international human rights organization, 

takes no position on this particular issue of independence. We understand that Baluchistan is an internationally recognized part of 

Pakistan, and we expect the Pakistani Government to adhere to all 

human rights protections within the Pakistani Constitution and as 

mandated by international law. 

We have also found the Pakistani state, particularly the military, 

entirely lacking in this department. Baluchistan presents a hydraheaded conflict situation. There are multiple actors perpetrating violence in there, but the engine of human rights abuse, no doubt, 

is the Pakistani military, paramilitaries, and intelligence agencies. 

They have run, particularly since 2004, a campaign of enforced disappearances where at least hundreds of Baluch nationalists have 

disappeared. 

In the last 11⁄2 years, we have seen targeted killings increase, 

and something between 200 and 300 Baluch opponents of the Pakistani state have been found killed, and of course torture and illegal 

detention by the military and paramilitaries and intelligence agencies are commonplace. This is an absolutely appalling situation, 

even by Pakistani standards, and certainly when you are operating 

in Baluchistan you do see that the military in many ways behaves 

like a brutal occupying military. That is its behavior. 

All of this is a very serious problem. I would, however, point out 

that in the latest spike, the issue of disappearances became commonplace in Pakistan, and in Baluchistan in particular, because of 

69

the license provided by the U.S., the U.K., and other powers in the 

context of the war on terror where the disappearance and legal detention of Taliban and Al Qaeda suspects was green-lighted effectively by the U.S. This gave the Pakistani military carte blanche, 

if you will, to extend such abusive operations to its own political 

opponents, which include Baluch nationalists. 

Having said that, there are also multiple abuses—though of 

course I must clarify that there is no comparison between the 

abuses perpetrated by the state and other actors—but there are 

abuses that we have documented by Baluch nationalist militants, 

particularly attacks against education personnel and against other 

non-Baluch residents of the province. 

Now, non-Baluch residents of the province are not a small minority. We are talking of—although there is contentious figures because of a lack of census—something about 40 percent at least of 

the population of Baluch. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Did you say 40 or 14? 

Mr. HASAN. Four-zero. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Four-zero. 

Mr. HASAN. Four-zero percent of the population of Baluchistan—

this is an approximation—are non-Baluch at least. So this is a 

very, very complex situation now. Non-Baluch, particularly Punjabi 

settlers and Urdu-speaking settlers in Baluchistan, are living 

equally in fear of their lives because of fear of attack from Baluch 

nationalists. 

Finally, there is the issue of religious militant groups, particularly Sunni militant groups, that are attacking the Shia, largely 

Hazara, but Shia in general. And these militant groups often do 

act, it is alleged and widely believed, at—in conjunction with or at 

the behest of the Pakistani military, but they also act independently. The basic problem is that if the Pakistani state takes Baluchistan seriously, it must enforce rights respecting rule of law in 

the province. It has abjectly failed to do so, and this is creating a 

human rights crisis across Baluchistan. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hasan follows:]

70


72791e-1.eps
71


72791e-2.eps
72


72791e-3.eps
73


72791e-4.eps
74


72791e-5.eps
75


72791e-6.eps
76


72791e-7.eps
77


72791e-8.eps
78


72791e-9.eps
79


72791e-10.eps
80


72791e-11.eps
81


72791e-12.eps
82


72791e-13.eps
83


72791e-14.eps
84


72791e-15.eps
85


72791e-16.eps
86


72791e-17.eps
87


72791e-18.eps
88


72791e-19.eps
89


72791e-20.eps
90


72791e-21.eps
91

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Good. That is a good point to end your testimony on. 

I want to thank all of you for participating today. There will be 

votes coming up soon, so we want to try to get involved with some 

questions right away. I will just do a few, and the ranking member, 

and we will make sure that other congressmen get a chance as 

well. 

I think one point, I like to read history. I mean, I like to read 

history, and Mr. Peters was expressing—was talking about Thomas 

Jefferson and such. I agree with you, Dr. Peters, or Mr. Peters, I 

should say, or Colonel Peters. I think that our Founding Fathers 

and most of the people who built this country would be turning 

over in their grave if they found out that we were sending American military personnel in order to maintain the colonial boundaries that were established by the people we had to fight in order 

to become independent. 

And many of the conflicts that we have throughout the world 

today—I agree with you, Colonel Peters—that can be traced right 

back to the colonial era with decisions that were made by colonial 

powers. And then we end up in conflicts like this, and especially 

if the United States intervenes in order to maintain a status quo 

of borderlines, which is what we seem to be doing. This is not consistent with our national interests or our traditions at all, and I 

think America needs to reexamine this issue and have a heartfelt 

debate internally about what should motivate America to get involved. 

But one thing is for sure. When someone is helping kill Americans or threatening to set up some sort of dictatorship over—for 

whatever cause, Americans, we should not be on their side in helping them. And I think that what broke—the straw that broke the 

camel’s back was when we found out that not only has Pakistan 

been arming those Taliban and other radicals that have been murdering American soldiers in Afghanistan, but they have given aid 

and comfort and safe haven to the man who masterminded the 

slaughter of 3,000 Americans. And anybody who doesn’t believe 

that they did that is an irrational optimist about what is going on 

down there. 

I think that at that point we need to understand that we cannot 

back up everything that Pakistan does simply because something 

might disturb the lines that were drawn so long ago and that 

would create instability. With that said, thank you. 

Would you like to comment on that? 

Mr. PETERS. If I may. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. But you only have about 20 seconds to do it. 

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, you like to read history. Today, you 

are making history. 

Not only does Pakistan facilitate terrorism in Afghanistan while 

playing triple and quadruple games, but we shouldn’t lose sight of 

the fact that Pakistan has made us complicit in terrorism against 

India. Because Pakistan, using the nuclear red herring, knows that 

they have been able to sponsor attacks against New Delhi, against 

Mumbai, and knowing we will step in and stop India from retaliating. Imagine how different it would be if the Pakistanis didn’t 

think they could count on us to run interference. 

92

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I think that is a good point. 

Let me just end my questions and answers with this thought, 

and it has been expressed by our witnesses. If we are going to be 

taken seriously when we talk like this we have to be consistent and 

we have to be honest. 

And I certainly—whether it is the Sindh Province or Baluchistan 

or what is going on in the Baluch Province in Iran or what is going 

on in the Baluch Province in Pakistan, people have a right to their 

self-determination, which is what is being testified today. Let’s 

note, I think that people of Kashmir also have a right to their selfdetermination, and I think Dr. Fair might want to comment on 

that. 

Ms. FAIR. I am going to focus my comments upon our relationship with Pakistan. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. 30 seconds, then we have got to move on. 

Ms. FAIR. But I do want to say one thing. The Leahy amendment. For the last several years, I have been looking at our relationship with Pakistan; and we have been very negligent in taking 

the Leahy amendment seriously. Whether we are looking at Pakistan abuses in FATA or Swat, talking to officials, we don’t even 

populate the Leahy database or we have begun doing so quite late 

in the game. 

But the problem goes back to what Ali Dayan was saying, is 

that, in many ways, Pakistan’s abuse of human rights served our 

interest. And so we are kind of coming to this late in the game, 

that we are trying to ask the Pakistanis to clean up their act after 

we have given them a blank check for about a decade, literally a 

blank check for about a decade. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is correct. I think we have been manipulated for a longer than that. 

We have about 8 minutes before we have to be on the floor for 

a vote. Would you like to ask a couple of questions? 

Mr. CARNAHAN. I have a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I 

will do this very quickly to try to get some other people in as well. 

I wanted to go to Dr. Bor. In 2008, in written testimony before 

Congress, you wrote about the political, cultural, and economic oppression of the Baluch people at the hands of the Iranian regime. 

I am interested in hearing what, if anything, has changed in the 

past 4 years; and, secondly, with regard to the Baluchistan areas 

in Iran, how do you see their sentiment in terms of being open to 

working with the West? 

Mr. BOR. I think Baluch in general, whether in Iran or in Pakistan, they are very open-hearted. They have welcomed U.S. support 

with open arm. And they have also expressed their desire that if 

Baluchistan become independent to provide the U.S. with bases in 

Gwadar. And, of course, as you know, Baluchistan strategically 

probably is the most important piece of the land in the world now, 

stretching from the Strait of Hormuz to Karachi; and that is where 

40 percent of the world oil passes. 

Unfortunately, the Chinese are building a naval base or they are 

building Gwadar. And even more dangerous for the U.S. strategy 

interest is connecting the overland Karakoram Highway to 

Gwadar, so that instead of being through U.S. Navy in Pacific and 

in Indian Oceans through the Indian Navy so they can come diVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:03 Mar 27, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\OI\020812\72791 HFA PsN: SHIRL
93

rectly there, and that is the choke Strait of Hormuz. So the Baluch 

have—historically, in fact they have been searching. 

And of course I notice a perfect coincidence of interest between 

Baluch and the U.S. Because Baluch, they don’t want the pipeline 

to go from Iran to Pakistan in violation of U.S. sanction. The 

Baluch, of course, they are secular. They are against a PakistanTaliban alliance because they are secular, and they want to fight 

Taliban. If the U.S. supported Baluch they can stop Taliban shelter 

by ISI and Pakistani Government in Baluchistan. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. We have time, and I apologize, but 

you never know when votes are going to be called. We have about 

3 more minutes worth of questions and answers, and I am going 

to grant Louie Gohmert 1 minute. You came in first, Louie, so you 

are first. 

Oh, the Judge has something he has to say. Judge Poe has 1 

minute and then Louie Gohmert. 

Mr. POE. Thank you for being here. 

I want to say this. I am a great believer in self-determination for 

people who believe in it as well. Baluchistan I think fits that category. Somebody over there in Baluchistan has been reading the 

Declaration of Independence that gives a justification on a moral 

and legal reason why people can separate themselves from abusive 

governments. So we will see how that plays out. 

As far as Pakistan goes, they are the Benedict Arnold in the rela- tionship with the United States. Ten years and $20 billion later, 

we are still paying them to not look out after our interests. 

They persecuted the informant that gave us the information 

about Osama Bin Laden and charged him with treason. I mean, 

how long is it going to take before we get the point? 

We don’t need to continue to give American money to Pakistan 

at all, not a dime. And they have proven they don’t deserve it, and 

it is not in our national interest. 

And the third comment is the United States, as one of you all 

has said, needs to look to India as a supporter and as an ally on 

not just the economic front but the war on terror as well. 

And, lastly, Mr. Peters, you will never make it as a diplomat in 

the State Department. 

Mr. PETERS. Congressman, I am proud to be a soldier, not a diplomat. 

Mr. POE. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. See, it is always great to have Texans 

around. They just step right up. 

And here is another one, Louie Gohmert. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, and I couldn’t agree with my fellow 

former judge from Texas more. 

It is greatly disturbing to hear that weapons that we have provided to Pakistan have been utilized to create human rights’ violations. That is particularly disturbing. That is not what this Nation 

is about. And it would seem to me that since we are trying to get 

out of Afghanistan and turn that country over to them, the quicker 

we could stop assisting Pakistan in funding the Taliban that we 

are trying to fight, which is also creating human rights’ violations 

against Baluchistan, it sounds like we could create a real win for 

94

the United States, Baluchistan, Baluchs, for people of Afghanistan 

if we just quit helping Pakistan help all of our enemies. 

So I appreciate your testimony. I look forward to anything additionally they may have to submit. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. We have 3 minutes before we have to be on 

the floor to vote, so I will give a 30-second summary. 

First of all, thank you to the witnesses. There was a lot of trepidation by people before we held this hearing. I got so many emails 

threatening all sorts of crazy things and worrying that some people 

would be represented. We learned a lot by this hearing. We put a 

lot of stuff on the record. 

This is not to plot out some sort of conspiracy. What we are here 

to discuss is start a national dialogue in the open about what 

America’s policy should be in this very volatile part of the world 

and where our ideals for human dignity and freedom and justice 

and self-determination, where they fit into our policies in that part 

of the world. 

So we have started the discussion today. I think this hearing was 

a first good step, and it was certainly not a stunt on anybody’s 

part. We honestly really were going to try to get into these issues. 

So I want to thank you all for coming, and I am sorry we do have 

to run off for our votes right now. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(95)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

96

f


72791n.eps
97

Æ


72791m.eps