[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 43 (Tuesday, April 19, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: April 19, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                                 BOSNIA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Danner). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of February 11, 1994, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] 
is recognized during morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GINGRICH. Madam Speaker, appeasement, incompetence and failure, 
the Clinton policy on Bosnia. We need a thorough top to bottom revision 
of American policy in Bosnia. We have to recognize that there are three 
reasons for the Clinton administration failure in that country.
  First, the Clinton administration allowed the United Nations to 
replace the United States as the leading institution in foreign policy, 
and the United Nations has failed in Bosnia.
  Second, the Clinton administration has attempted again and again to 
appease an aggressor. The Reagan-Bush policy of peace through strength 
has been replaced by a Clinton policy of failure through appeasement.
  Third, the Clinton administration is now repeating the worst mistakes 
of Lyndon Johnson in micromanaging and misusing the U.S. military. For 
a great power to use two airplanes with three out of four bombs failing 
to work is simply pathetic. Let me expand on these three failures.
  First, the Clinton administration seems addicted to exaggerating and 
romanticizing the role of the United Nations. This addiction is 
dangerous because it misinforms the American people, and it leads 
people around the world to place a false hope that the United Nations 
will protect them. Given the recent record in Gorazde and elsewhere, 
how secure would you feel if you were told your neighborhood was going 
to be protected by the United Nations and how rapidly would you want to 
move to get away from their protection.
  But it is also dangerous here in America. I was shocked this morning 
to read the Vice President's statements at the GATT plenary meeting in 
Morocco last Thursday when he said, speaking of the Americans who died 
in northern Iraq, ``I want to extend condolences to the families of 
those who died in the service of the United Nations.''
  Let me say, I certainly hope, Mr. Vice President, that there is not 
going to be a blue United Nations flag on their coffin, and I certainly 
hope you will not explain to their children and their families that it 
was not America that they risks their lives serving but it was Boutros 
Boutros-Ghali and the United Nations.
  I can assure this administration that if its goal is to place 
Americans under the United Nations so they are in the service of the 
United Nations, I will oppose any effort on any part of this planet by 
this administration to have Americans risking their lives for the U.N. 
Secretariat.
  But the danger of appeasement is even deeper. Anthony Lewis, who 
normally has been a dove, who normally has criticized those of us who 
have advocated peace through strength, wrote a column yesterday of 
shocking power.

                              {time}  1110

  It is entitled, ``Peace At Any Price.'' He said:

       For 50 years American power, purpose, and resolve have kept 
     the peace in Europe. They faced down the severest challenges, 
     and prevented a third great war.
       That age is over now. So we have to conclude from the 
     humiliation in Bosnia. There the United States and NATO, the 
     most powerful military alliance in the world, have allowed 
     themselves to be intimidated by a minor force of ultra-
     nationalist Serbs under demagogic leadership.
       The reason for this seismic change in the balance of 
     effective power in the world is plain. The United States has 
     in office an administration that does not believe in the 
     commitment of American power, purpose and resolve to keep the 
     peace.

  Mr. Lewis goes on to say, of what he calls the Clinton doctrine.

       Bosnia is a dramatic demonstration of the loss of purpose 
     and resolve abroad. President Clinton has repeatedly seemed 
     to take on the mantle of leadership there, then wavered. As a 
     show of irresolution it might have been plotted by a 
     playwright.

  Finally, Mr. Lewis says,

       The public collapse of American will at Gorazde has gravely 
     injured the interests that just 10 days ago the President's 
     National Security Adviser, Anthony Lake, said were at stake 
     in Bosnia: ``NATO's credibility and our very vision of a 
     post-cold war Europe'' were at stake.

  Lewis goes on to say, ``It is a moral defeat, too: for resistance to 
genocide.''
  Even many of those who opposed American force in Bosnia thought that, 
if it was once employed, the United States should not retreat. That is 
the view, for example, of former Secretary of State Lawrence 
Eagleberger:

       In drawing back from the world, president Clinton might say 
     he is following the will of the American people. That may be. 
     Harry Truman had a different view of political leadership.

  Let me make clear, we were on an airplane back from Russia, on an 
official delegation, last Sunday. We were told the United States was 
committed to bombing near Gorazde. I said at the time, in my only 
advice, ``We must be strong. We must communicate that America's resolve 
is unshakable. Once you have crossed that decision point, you have to 
be prepared to win.''
  We met with the President last week. I said to him, ``We must be 
strong.'' Instead, we have had tragic weakness.

                          ____________________