[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 33 (Tuesday, March 22, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 22, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                  A FUTURE FOR BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

 Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, it was heartening to see the 
weekend news from Sarajevo, which is no longer about daily killings. 
For the first time in about 2 years, the remaining residents of the 
besieged Bosnian capital were able to enjoy a soccer match, in which--
by the way--Sarajevo beat the United Nations 4 to 0. More important, in 
terms of survival, were the images of the first U.N. humanitarian 
relief convoy to arrive in the isolated enclave of Maglaj since last 
October.
  These developments demonstrate the truth of what many have said since 
the outbreak of hostilities in Bosnia and Herzegovina: that a credible 
use of force by the international community could bring the bloodshed 
to an end. To trigger such a force, it was critical that the United 
States take the lead, which, finally, it did. NATO issued an ultimatum 
for the withdrawal of heavy weapons around Sarajevo, and four Bosnian 
Serb aircraft were shot down for violating the ``no-fly zone.'' 
President Clinton initiated a process to bring the Croat population of 
Bosnia-Herzegovina back into the Bosnian fold. This led, last week, to 
a new Bosnian constitution creating a federation of cantons, a good 
first step despite the way in which it may undemocratically perpetuate 
the politics of ethnic division. It also led to a mutually advantageous 
economic confederation between Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia.
  These welcome developments are an indication of what can be done when 
members of the international community are determined to end aggression 
and warfare. They also illustrate the effectiveness of U.S. leadership 
in garnering the necessary political will in this regard. Frankly, I 
hope that those who viewed the aggression in Bosnia-Herzegovina as a 
civil war in which we should let them go ahead and kill each other, 
realize what such policies of inaction have done. In their toleration 
of genocide, and support for action only to the extent necessary to 
soothe public consciences, we failed to save at least 150,000 innocent, 
civilian lives. This puts a heavy responsibility on us to help give 
Bosnia and Herzegovina back its future, a future which we allowed to be 
stolen by war criminals, and I hope that those opposing preemptive 
action early on will now at least feel bound to support the more 
difficult challenges ahead. While the developments that have taken 
place are positive, they are far from complete, and the international 
community must further toughen its resolve to ensure that U.N. 
resolutions are carried out.
  In the short term, for example, the ultimatum regarding Sarajevo 
should be extended to all besieged enclaves, in particular the 
designated ``safe-havens'' and perhaps the entire country. Force should 
be used, if necessary, to ensure the delivery of humanitarian relief to 
isolated, starving and freezing populations.
  In the medium term, we should make it clear to the Serb militants 
that the Bosnians do not get anything less than is being suggested in 
the current deliberations on a Bosnian federation. Bosnia and 
Herzegovina stays united, and territory seized by force is to be 
returned. If the Serb response is not satisfactory, alternatives to 
continued mediation should be considered, including punitive airstrikes 
by NATO to negate the Serb militants' ability to sustain their 
aggression, or the lifting of the arms embargo on a Bosnian-Croatian 
alliance so that it can defend itself and save its people.
  In the longer term, if the Bosnian Serbs do come to terms, we must be 
prepared to preserve the peace, and support human rights, 
reconciliation and democratization in Bosnia and Herzegovina the best 
we can. This means, potentially, United States participation in 
peacekeeping in Bosnia and Herzegovina. I would support this if it were 
done under NATO auspices, if the peace plan respects the territorial 
integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina and other important principles, 
and, most importantly, if the peacekeepers were given the mandate to 
ensure the peace plan is implemented as agreed, unlike what has 
happened in neighboring Croatia. In any event, this also means the 
persistent pursuit and prompt prosecution of war criminals, wherever 
they are found.
  We will also need to make sure that peace in Bosnia does not mean 
that the war has simply moved somewhere else. Current preventive 
diplomacy measures--such as the CSCE mission in Macedonia and European 
missions in other neighboring countries, must be continued and 
reenforced, and Belgrade must feel pressure to agree to the 
reestablishment of the CSCE Missions in Kosovo, Sandzak, and Vojvodina, 
where the situation has worsened in the last year. Finally, we must not 
even think of lifting sanctions until we have seen deeds, not just more 
words, out of Belgrade. Sanctions should only be selectively lifted 
after the Serbs have come to the table, agreed to terms acceptable to 
their Bosnian counterparts, and begun to implement them in good faith.
  Political will, Mr. President, has started us on what may be the path 
toward peace in the Balkans. We must now have the resolve to see the 
process through, and not fall into the trap of believing that a peace 
agreement alone means peace, and that everything can return to normal 
in Bosnia-Herzegovina overnight. Our commitment to Bosnia and 
Herzegovina must be firm and long term. We have nothing less at stake 
than the principles upon which a peaceful and prosperous world order 
are based.

                          ____________________