[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 7 (Wednesday, February 2, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 2, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                     UNITED STATES POLICY IN BOSNIA

                                 ______


                          HON. STENY H. HOYER

                              of maryland

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, February 2, 1994

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I share the concern expressed in this room 
today regarding the United States policy--or, as it seems so often, the 
lack of a policy--regarding the ongoing war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. 
I think my views on this issue are, by now, fairly well known, as I 
have long called for the use of air strikes against those who continue 
to lay siege to Sarajevo and other civilian enclaves designated by the 
United Nations as safe havens as well as those who continue to block 
the delivery of vital humanitarian aid. I also advocate lifting the 
arms embargo which wrongfully denies Bosnia its right to self-defense 
as guaranteed by the U.N. Charter.
  The U.N. Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia is no substitute 
for this kind of action, action that could genuinely help bring this 
war to a close by putting the negotiating parties in Geneva on level 
ground in the field. But the tribunal does have the potential to make 
an important contribution to peace efforts in this region by holding 
personally accountable those who have sought this war and fought this 
war in violation of the norms of the civilized world. I am convinced 
that a lasting resolution of the war in the Balkans requires breaking 
the cycle of violence and vengeance that has racked this region for 
centuries and that goal can only be achieved through the administration 
of justice by an impartial, and in this case international, tribunal.
  A week ago, a staff member from the Helsinki Commission traveled to 
the Netherlands to meet with members of the court, to underscore the 
importance I and other Members of Congress attach to its work, and to 
learn more about the tribunal's challenges. In particular, I am anxious 
to ensure that the resources of the Conference on Security and 
Cooperation in Europe be utilized, if appropriate, in the formulation 
and implementation of a regime to which recourse can be made to execute 
the warrants for arrest, detention, surrender, or transfer of persons 
sought for trial by the tribunal.
  Establishing this tribunal has been no easy task, and I commend 
Ambassador Madeleine Albright for her tenacity in dealing with both 
reluctant members of the Security Council as well as the often 
unhelpful U.N. bureaucracy. And some important progress has already 
been made. The 11 judges of the court are now in their second session 
at The Hague. They are making serious progress on adopting their rules 
of evidence and procedure, a decisive task that will guide their work 
for the foreseeable future and a necessary step before trials can 
begin. And they are establishing the tribunal infrastructure to ensure 
the timely and effective administration of justice.
  But while the establishment of this tribunal constitutes a major 
victory, the struggles still ahead of this body are formidable. Even 
now, it appears that the tribunal is about to face a serious setback: 
having only held its inaugural session last November, and before 
receiving any indictments, it has been reported that the chief 
prosecutor, Venezuelan Attorney General Ramon Escovar Salom, is 
resigning his post to take a new position with the Venezuelan 
Government. In light of the fact that his candidacy was a third-choice 
compromise to begin with, his resignation stands as both a blow to the 
prestige of the court as well as disappointing delaying factor.

  The continued absence of a chief prosecutor, of course, could 
ultimately derail the work of the tribunal altogether. The United 
States must, therefore, move quickly to secure agreement in the 
Security Council on a new chief prosecutor. In addition, further 
consideration should given to the question of how the surrender of 
indicted criminals to the court is to achieved.
  As for the real parties to this conflict--Serbia, Croatia, and 
Bosnia--I would urge that any peace agreement among them achieved under 
U.N. auspices include enforcement provisions to ensure that they 
fulfill their obligation to surrender indicted persons. Any U.N. 
peacekeepers sent to those countries as a part of such an agreement 
should also be empowered to obtain custody of and transfer accused 
criminals.
  I realize the Congress will have a role to play in that process, 
including by passing the United States' own implementing legislation 
and I stand ready to work with the administration on this issue. It is 
unlikely that war criminals from the former Yugoslavia would seek 
refuge in or transit through our country. But it is not impossible, and 
if the United Sates is to demonstrate credibly its commitment to this 
criminal tribunal, we must certainly lead by example. No country must 
be permitted to become a safe haven for indicted war criminals.
  Mr. Speaker, we now have the form for accountability, but it must be 
matched in substance; we have a court for trials, but we need 
indictments; we have the victims, so let's bring the perpetrators to 
justice.

                          ____________________