Repeatedly the State Department has said that "no military items have been provided to the Government Or Pakistan or its agents since the outbreak of fighting in East Pakistan March 25 and nothing is now scheduled for such delivery." Many Americans-naive souls-took that to mean that the American government had embargoed arms shipments to Pakistan, whose bloody repression of the autonomy movement in East Pakistan shocked even the Russians. But no. It turns out that at least two shiploads of arms have left American ports for Pakistan, one on May 8 and the other yesterday. flow can this be?

The first part of the answer is that the bureaucracy was being very slippery and misleading. When the State Department said no military items were being provided, it hedged: it said it had been so "informed" by the Defense Department. When it said no such Items had been "provided" since March 25, it was excluding weapons and equipment which had already passed a certain point in the pipeline. So shocked were many Americans by the spectacle of Pakistan's using American-supplied arms against its own citizens that they read State's words too quickly. They did not realize that the Department, far from trying to close loopholes, was trying to keep them open.

And why? The speck answer is contained in the Department's letter of May 6 to Senator Fulbright. It repeated earner language about new sales and deliveries, and it went on: "The continuing military supply program . . . continues to be an important element in our overall bilateral relationship with Pakistan." And: "It would, therefore appear desirable for the U.S. to be able to continue to supply limited quantities of military Items to Pakistan to enable us both to maintain a constructive bilateral political dialogue and to help ensure that Pakistan is not compelled to rely increasingly on other sources of supply." in other words. business as usual.

Well, from what is known so far, the United States is entitled to claim some success in its policy. Doubtless continued arms deliveries have contributed to a "dialogue" with Pakistan and kept it from straying to other suppliers. But this is, of course, to ignore the shame of helping a military regime suppress a democratic autonomy movement. Why is it so important to be cozy with Karachi? Would it not be just as well to let a few signs of coolness and disapproval enter into official American-Pakistani relations? Senator Church suggests that the United States halt the second arms ship, which is due to touch at Baltimore on Its way from New York to Pakistan. That's a good idea.