[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 13 (Thursday, February 10, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
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]

 
                                 BOSNIA

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I will just say very briefly, with reference 
to the President's decision on Bosnia, the ultimatum issued to the 
Bosnian Serb forces that has been issued by NATO, as the New York Times 
points out this morning: It is a risky step because you cannot just 
continue to cry wolf, as I have said before, and not do anything. The 
same message is in the Washington Post lead editorial.
  I ask unanimous consent both these editorials be printed in the 
Record following my statement.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  ( See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. DOLE. ``Having issued the ultimatum--'' the New York Times said:

       --NATO should not step back. But it is up to the Clinton 
     Administration to make clear that this is a humanitarian 
     action that does not commit the United States to deeper 
     involvement in European diplomatic maneuvers or ground 
     peacekeeping operations. That will limit some of the risks 
     now undertaken.

  I just quote from the Washington Post:

       At least we hope this is what the American government is 
     doing. At this point in the dying of Bosnia, more talk policy 
     is an obscenity. If the government isn't conducting a serious 
     policy, it should just shut up.

  They talk about talk policy. We have had talk policy for over 22 
months, while over 200,000 innocent people have been slaughtered in 
Bosnia. I just suggest this: We should not be leaning on Bosnia, trying 
to force them into a bad peace settlement that is part of the plan 
suggested by President Clinton. However, I think that NATO's threat has 
to be followed through. I will support the President on whatever he 
does.
  There is one thing he should do right now--and not wait 10 days--that 
is, lift the U.S. arms embargo. Why wait the 10 days? We can do that on 
our own. NATO's decision is welcome even though in reality it amounts 
to a small step for Bosnia and a small step toward regaining NATO's 
credibility. NATO does not have a lot of credibility, and this may be 
an opportunity to regain a little of it if it carries out its decision.
  We need to make certain NATO follows through. As for the cease-fire, 
we have seen them broken many times before. The Washington Post again 
says in the editorial, when the Serbs say something it does not mean 
anything, `` . . . their word is worthless.'' Let us not forget that 
Sarajevo is not the only city under siege. There are five others that 
the United Nation has declared safe areas that are not safe.
  And there is the bigger issue of the Bosnian Government being denied 
the right to self-defense. The United Nations and some of our allies 
have treated Bosnia as a colony. It is an independent nation with 
rights under the U.N. Charter: Article 51 guarantees the right to self-
defense. Why do we not lift the arms embargo? Bosnia, the victim, has 
been under constant pressure to sign an agreement that leaves it with 
only one-third of its territory. The negotiators want to impose a 
settlement and leave a third of it to Bosnia. What would we do in our 
country if we were left with a third of it, and an aggressor took two-
thirds of it for themselves? That is going to be hard sell. It will be 
difficult to convince the American people we need to keep our forces 
there to keep that kind of peace imposed on this very small country.
  It seems to me we are responding now, finally. But lifting the arms 
embargo would give the Bosnians tremendous leverage at the negotiating 
table. We need to keep in mind also the talks in Geneva are not just 
about more land for the Bosnian Government, but also to ensure that 
what remains of Bosnia is survivable--economically, politically, and 
militarily.
  So, Mr. President, it seems to me we have taken a little step. We are 
going to have to follow through. The President can take another step 
today. He can lift the U.S. arms embargo. He does not need any U.N. 
approval. We can make certain we do not endanger the lives of any 
troops, whether they are British or Canadian. They can be removed.
  But it seems to me we have to get with it now. We have waited long 
enough. If something does not happen in 10 days, we better be prepared, 
NATO better be prepared, or they might as well close up shop and bring 
all the American troops over there home.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

                [From the New York Times, Feb. 10, 1994]

                           NATO's Risky Step

       Bosnian Serb forces are taking the latest NATO bombing 
     ultimatum seriously, and Americans should too.
       The Clinton Administration needs to assert more effective 
     U.S. leadership within NATO than it has until now on the 
     Bosnian issue; otherwise this emotionally satisfying riposte 
     to last Saturday afternoon's carnage in Sarajevo could lead 
     to costly and frustrating NATO ground involvement. It could 
     also perversely encourage coercion of the Bosnian Government 
     to accept an unjust European peace formula.
       In a momentous step, the Western military alliance, which 
     has never before taken any combat action, yesterday declared 
     that Bosnian Serb forces must withdraw their heavy guns to a 
     line 12\1/2\ miles outside Sarajevo by Feb. 20 or risk aerial 
     attack by NATO jets. Formally, it will be up to U.N. 
     Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali to order the first 
     strike.
       Even before the alliance voted in Brussels, Serbian forces 
     agreed to a cease-fire and offered to put their siege 
     artillery under U.N. control. It the Serbs keep their word 
     this time, the ultimatum will be judged a great success. But, 
     as President Clinton himself recognizes, NATO cannot afford 
     to make any more empty threats.
       If the Serbs do not comply with the terms of the ultimatum, 
     NATO will be under tremendous pressure to carry out its 
     bombing threat. Bombing Serbian artillery positions is likely 
     to poison Western relations with Moscow, which favors the 
     Serbs, and provoke anti-NATO sentiment in pro-Serbian Greece, 
     an alliance member. It is also unlikely it would end or even 
     slow the Bosnian war.
       The Bosnian Government's much smaller number of heavy guns 
     must also be turned over to U.N. monitors under the 
     ultimatum. If its forces try to exploit the neutralizing of 
     the Serbs' artillery advantage to push back the front lines 
     around Sarajevo, European governments would feel obliged to 
     find a way to restrain the Bosnians.
       Europe is already anxious about Bosnia's improving ability 
     to defend itself, and wants to enlist U.S. diplomatic 
     pressure on Bosnia to accept the partition maps drawn up by 
     Lord Owen and his U.N. counterpart, Thorvald Stoltenberg. 
     Washington has until now sympathized with Bosnian Government 
     claims that those maps deny it the territorial integrity and 
     transit corridors it needs to survive.
       Meanwhile the Serbs, if thwarted in Sarajevo, can be 
     expected to shift their efforts to another front, or to vent 
     their fury against the 13,000 U.N. peacekeepers stationed in 
     Bosnia. That would raise new cries for air strikes, and even 
     ground relief operations, to vindicate NATO's credibility.
       Having issued the ultimatum, NATO should not now step back. 
     But it is up to the Clinton Administration to make clear that 
     this is a humanitarian action that does not commit the United 
     States to deeper involvement in European diplomatic maneuvers 
     or ground peacekeeping operations. That will limit some of 
     the risks now undertaken.
       The surest way out for the long term is to assign the job 
     of defending Bosnian civilians where it belongs, to the 
     Bosnian Government. That will require an energetic U.S. 
     diplomatic campaign to lift the U.N. arms embargo that has 
     given the Serbs their present advantage in heavy weaponry. 
     Bosnia is not a ward of NATO or the U.N. but a violated 
     sovereign state. The best thing the world can do for it is to 
     get out of the way and let it defend itself.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, Feb. 10, 1994]

                              Talk Policy

       There is talk radio and there is, especially in respect to 
     Bosnia, talk policy: an interminable ventilation of alarms 
     and alibis, contingencies and conditions, threats and delays, 
     pledges and backdowns, all of which end up with new heaps of 
     Bosnian deal and deep sighs by the United States, its friends 
     in the United Nations and is allies in NATO. This has become 
     the predictable pattern of the 22-month Bosnian war. The 
     instant question is whether the shock generated by the most 
     recent Serb atrocity in Sarajevo will break this ignoble 
     mold.
       True, there is a new spate of diplomatic heavy breathing. 
     In the latest episode of a ping-pong game that began in 1992, 
     President Clinton has endorsed a United Nations call on NATO 
     to ``prepare'' (whatever that means) for bombing Serb heavy 
     weapons around Sarajevo. Yesterday NATO, which last August 
     had pledged to strike if the Serbs didn't end their 
     strangulation of the city, set a 10-day deadline for the 
     Serbs to comply or face strikes. Also yesterday the Serbs 
     agreed to pull back their siege guns from Sarajevo and to 
     park them, with the Bosnian government's guns, under U.N. 
     watch. The Serbs didn't sign anything, but that is of small 
     consequence since their word is worthless.
       It is American credibility that concerns us most. How 
     disappointing to observe that William Perry, who has been 
     secretary of defense only a few days, is already picking up 
     the Clinton administration's dilatory Bosnia style. The 
     press's emphasis on air strikes, he told reporters, was 
     ``entirely inappropriate,'' volunteering a primer on the 
     downside of such a tactic. How can it be that the Pentagon 
     needs to be reminded that there is an upside as well as a 
     downside and that its task is to find the best way to support 
     the president, who--repeating his wariness of empty threats--
     insists he now truly means to act.
       Smart policy requires, of course, not a mindless NATO 
     whack, as emotionally satisfying as that might briefly be. It 
     requires political thinking to link military acts to a 
     negotiated peace. Conceivably, the United States is finally 
     getting into this part of the act. It is not just hanging 
     back and saying no to the Europeans' idea of an imposed peace 
     that would leave the Muslims with an unviable enclave, it is 
     coming forward to promote its own idea to give them something 
     a face-saving bit bigger, better and more voluntary.
       At least we hope this is what the American government is 
     doing. At this point in the dying of Bosnia, more talk policy 
     is an obscenity. If the government isn't conducting a serious 
     policy, it should just shut up.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
of 9:30 having arrived, the time between 9:30 and 10 o'clock a.m. is 
under the control of the majority leader, or his designee.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The minority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I wonder, since I used my leader's time, if 
we can add an additional 10 minutes to our side after the distinguished 
Senator from Colorado speaks.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Colorado is recognized.

                          ____________________