[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.
____________________