[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 13 (Thursday, February 10, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 10, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]


                              {time}  1820
 
  CALLING FOR AN END TO AMERICAN TOLERANCE OF SERBIAN AGGRESSION AND 
                                GENOCIDE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Chapman). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McCloskey] is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. McCLOSKEY. Mr. Speaker, as we all know, it has been a week, or at 
least the last several days, 4 or 5 days, of great and ongoing tragedy 
in Bosnia, and to some degree, with the NATO events of recent days, a 
cause for more hope.
  Particularly, I would like to commend President Clinton on his 
increased resolve resulting in the NATO mandate on the Serbs to 
evacuate the heavy artillery from Sarajevo. It appears that the tragic 
event of last Saturday's market, in which some 200 people were killed, 
wounded, and maimed, has focused the world's attention, and I might 
say, I think that event alone has caused one of the most massive 
turnarounds in public opinion that I have ever seen in my public life, 
to the point that now a majority of the American people favor NATO 
bombing strikes, NATO air strikes to lift the siege of Sarajevo.
  Nevertheless, the present situation, I think, poses concern as to how 
it would be handled immediately and over the long run. I think a major 
concern is about Western resolve and our ultimate political and moral 
leadership. Are we going to use our good office for a reasonably just 
peace? Do we believe in a lift and strike option if necessary to stem 
this ongoing debacle? Or is Western policy ultimately going to be bluff 
and partition?
  I might note that anything close to the present radically unfair and 
most tragic and ugly, obscene partition of this sovereign state can 
only be the basis for ongoing disaster. Troops of no sort or troops of 
any country will not be able to do routine and positive peacekeeping 
there. It will continue to be a zone of war and strife.
  Particularly, it would seem that even now much of the European 
community seems unhinged about any improvement in the Bosnian 
Government's ability to defend its people, and they even regard the 
Bosnians as a guilty, rather than an aggrieved, party. We should stand 
for the principles and ideas of America, the U.N. Charter, and the 
rights of oppressed peoples everywhere.
  Particularly, the issue of arms embargo remains unsolved. I might 
say, I think it is illegal and immoral on its face for a people, a 
sovereign people, and I might note the people of a multi-ethnic 
society, Serb, Bosnian, Croat, Moslem, and so forth, including other 
nationalities, that they should be deprived of the basic inherent human 
right to defense.
  I would also like to note that I will include for the record a major 
statement from the Action Council for Peace in the Balkans released 
today, Mr. Speaker.
  Quoting partially from it, and I would note that Hodding Carter, 
chairman of the Action Council, said:

       NATO's ultimatum does not address the real issues and 
     problems at stake, including the direct causes of last 
     Saturday's brutal attack on Sarajevo's inhabitants. The 
     Serbian siege of Sarajevo will continue, the Serbs will keep 
     their weapons, the Bosnian government will remain gagged and 
     bound by the arms embargo, and the victims, not the 
     aggressors, are likely to be the ones to feel the ``full 
     weight'' of U.S. diplomacy at the negotiating table.''

  I think this is very important. There is such an ongoing mess and 
such an ongoing tragedy that is still far from being resolved; my 
particular words in that last sense, not from the Action Council's 
statement.

  Quoting from the Action Council's statement again, ``On the 
humanitarian side, `there appear to be no assurances from unrestricted 
access of humanitarian aid into Sarajevo, the other U.N.-mandated 
``safe havens,'' or other key areas of need, including Mostar,''' I 
might say that expert reports are that Mostar may be the most suffering 
community on the planet, particularly in the so-called Moslem east end. 
This was raised very well by Lionel Rosenblatt, president of Refugees 
International and a Council member:
  ``The plan also appears to actually disarm the Bosnian government, 
denying it the means to defend its own capital, actually increasing the 
overwhelming Serbian advantage and the Serbs' ability to continue the 
seige of Sarajevo indefinitely.''
  The statement also raises concerns: ``There will be no retaliation 
for last Saturday's attack, despite U.N. and NATO agreements last 
August to use air strikes to stop the strangulation of Sarajevo, and 
Serb forces can opt to retain control of their heavy weapons, which can 
be repositioned or redeployed to continue the bombardment of other 
Bosnian `safe havens'.
  ``The ultimatum calls for Serbian heavy artillery to be withdrawn 
only 12 to 13 miles from Sarajevo's center, despite the fact,'' and we 
all know this, the artillery has a range of 25 miles.
  ``There will be no withdrawal of Serbian forces that attack civilians 
on a daily basis, including snipers and those that use hand-held 
mortar.
  ``There will be no automatic response to future shelling of Sarajevo; 
initial authorization to launch air strikes rests, as before, with the 
U.N. Secretary General;
  ``The plan does not address the `strangulation' of other `Safe 
havens,' including Tuzla and Bihac, which were shelled on Wednesday;
  ``The ultimatum provides an exclusion for Serb forces in Pale, the 
`capital' of the Bosnian Serb forces; as a result, the aggressors can 
keep their heavy weaponry in their `capital' while the victims--the 
people and legitimate government of a U.N. member state, must surrender 
their meager means of defense.''
  Continuing the quote from the Action statement, ``The diplomatic 
emphasis is clearly on pressuring the victims--the Bosnian government--
to capitulate and sign the Serb-dictated partition plan.
  ``Current negotiations and mediators are part of the problems, not 
the solution.
  ``The current partition plan, even with slightly better 
redistribution of territories,'' and this is also very important, 
``will legitimize aggression and genocide and violates U.N. charter 
UNSC resolutions, and London Conference declaration.''
  Also, it still remains a fact that the Bosnian Government continues 
to be denied the right to defend itself and its citizens, and now is 
being denied the right to defend its besieged capital.
  I might say, as so many of us know, in conclusion, the problem is 
Serbian aggression and genocide. The problem is the ongoing tolerance 
by the Western world of Serbian aggression and genocide. Let us do the 
right thing and stop it now.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the full letter from the Action 
Council:

     Action Council Sounds Note of Caution Toward Clinton's Bosnia 
                               Initiative

       Washington.--Members of the Action Council for Peace in the 
     Balkans voiced skepticism and concern regarding President 
     Clinton's new initiative toward Bosnia. While Council members 
     welcomed President Clinton's personal involvement in finding 
     a solution to the two-year-old conflict, they voiced concerns 
     that the nature of the military and diplomatic approach he 
     has adopted falls well short of the steps necessary to end 
     the genocide and aggression.
       Hodding Carter, co-chairman of the Action Council, said, 
     ``NATO's ultimatum does not address the real issues and 
     problems at stake here, including the direct causes of last 
     Saturday's brutal attack on Sarajevo's inhabitants. The 
     Serbian siege of Sarajevo will continue, the Serbs will keep 
     their weapons, the Bosnian Government will remain gagged and 
     bound by the arms embargo, and the victims, not the 
     aggressors, are likely to be the ones to feel the ``full-
     weight'' of US diplomacy at the negotiating table.''
       ``This plan, as well as President Clinton's remarks this 
     week, treats the victim as harshly--perhaps more harshly--
     than the aggressor,'' Carter added.
       On the humanitarian side, ``There appear to be no 
     assurances for unrestricted access of humanitarian aid into 
     Sarajevo, the other UN-mandated ``safe havens,'' or other key 
     areas of need, including Mostar,'' noted Lionel Rosenblatt, 
     President of Refugees International and a Council member. 
     ``The plan also appears to actually disarm the Bosnian 
     Government, denying it the means to defend its own capital, 
     actually increasing the overwhelming Serbian advantage and 
     the Serbs' ability to continue the siege of Sarajevo 
     indefinitely,'' Rosenblatt added.
       The Clinton/NATO plan has several shortcomings, according 
     to the Action Council:
       There will be no retaliation for last Saturday's attack 
     despite UN and NATO agreements last August to use air strikes 
     to stop the strangulation of Sarajevo
       Serb forces can opt to retain control of their heavy 
     weapons, which can be repositioned or redeployed to 
     continue the bombardment of other Bosnian ``safe havens.''
       The ultimatum calls for Serbian heavy artillery to be 
     withdrawn only 12-13 miles from Sarajevo's center, despite 
     the fact that the artillery has a range of 25 miles.
       There will be no withdrawal of the Serbian forces that 
     attack civilians on a daily basis, including snipers and 
     those that use hand-held mortar.
       There will be no automatic response to future shelling of 
     Sarajevo; initial authorization to launch air strikes rests, 
     as before, with the UN Secretary General.
       The plan does not address the ``strangulation'' of other 
     ``safe havens,'' including Tuzla and Bihac, which were 
     shelled on Wednesday.
       The ultimatum provides an exclusion for Serb forces in 
     Pale, the ``capital'' of the Bosnian Serb forces; as a 
     result, the aggressors can keep their heavy weaponry in their 
     ``capital'' while the victims--the people and legitimate 
     government of a UN-member state--must surrender their meager 
     means of defense.
       The diplomatic emphasis is clearly on pressuring the 
     victims--the Bosnian Government--to capitulate and sign the 
     Serb-dictated partition plan.
       Current negotiations and mediators are part of the problem, 
     not the solution.
       The current partition plan, even with slightly better 
     redistribution of territories, would legitimize aggression 
     and genocide and violates UN Charter, UNSC resolutions, and 
     London Conference declaration.
       The Bosnian Government continues to be denied the right to 
     defend itself and its citizens and now is being denied the 
     right to defend its besieged capital.

                          ____________________