US Not Foolish to Sell F-16s to Pakistan
I would like to comment on the opinion-page article ``A Fool's Errand in S. Asia,'' March 30, regarding the Clinton administration's recent proposal to lift, on a one-time basis, the Pressler Amendment prohibitions on military sales and assistance to Pakistan.
The author argues that Pakistan's nuclear course is unlikely to be rolled back by the offer of 38 United States F-16 fighter planes. There is reasoning to the contrary, however. It is not implausible that Pakistan might one day agree to cap its nuclear program - as long as this does not mean the elimination of the weapons-grade material it has already accumulated. While the Clinton proposal is perhaps geared more toward arms control than proliferation prevention, there is considerable merit in attempting to stop a spiraling nuclear race in South Asia.
The author again correctly asserts that ``there is little evidence that [Pakistan's] military establishment has abandoned its nuclear quest.'' However, it is exactly this reticence that the F-16 proposal is attempting to address. Pakistan's Air Force already possesses a nuclear delivery system: older F-16s and other aircraft types. Pakistan's Army will also soon possess Chinese-assisted nuclear capable ballistic missiles with ranges of several hundred kilometers. Additional F-16s would not provide Pakistan with a significantly greater delivery capability, but perhaps would upgrade its conventional forces sufficiently to tempt Pakistan's generals into capping the production of bomb-making material and allowing necessary international inspections.
As for Pakistan's supposed unwillingness to cooperate with India, it is rather India's traditional unwillingness to view Pakistan as a strategic equal or to negotiate the issue of Kashmir, as well as India's own nuclear rivalry with China, that are more likely sources of Indo-Pakistani noncooperation. The present proposal helps to gain India's attention, offers a tangible reason for Pakistan's military to accept nuclear restraint, and could further US foreign-policy aims by forestalling a nuclear-arms race. Cameron Binkley, Stanford, Calif. Center for International Security and Arms Control, Stanford University
Campaign contributor's checklist
Regarding the opinion-page article ``The Low Art of the Thinly Disguised Bribe,'' March 10: Until the party leaders, Congress, and the president adopt meaningful political finance reforms - strict limits on contributions by individuals and organizations; non-deductibility and full taxation of all lobbying expenditures as well as political contributions; a reasonable amount of free and equitably divided television time for new candidates and incumbents, provided by broadcasters in return for their licenses; and a nonpartisan oversight commission with teeth to swiftly investigate and fine offenders, if necessary nullifying the election of an offender - I intend to make my political contributions to the League of Women Voters, Common Cause, and Public Citizen.
It makes no sense to send money to people who think in terms of collecting millions of dollars in bribes from special interests and giving much of the sum to the billion-dollar TV industry. Robert L. Tuck, Chapel Hill, N.C.
Hawaii's nonlocal school funding
With respect to the cover story ``States Seek Fairer School Funding,'' March 28: I am puzzled by the statement, ``New Hampshire has the highest level of local support at 89 percent and New Mexico the lowest level of local funding at 11.2 percent ....''
According to the map/chart, it seems that Hawaii, at 1.9 percent local funding would claim the lowest level.
As a former resident of Hawaii, I recall that all elmentary- and secondary-level public schooling was largely state-funded, and indeed, public-school teachers were considered state employees.
Would it not be worthwhile to examine the success of public education in Hawaii, which maintains a long-standing tradition of non-local funding for public schools? Becky Ikehara, North Brookfield, Mass.
* Editor's note: The map referred to above is correct. The article should have specified that New Mexico has the lowest level of local funding in the 48 contiguous states.