[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 45 (Thursday, April 21, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: April 21, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                   PRESIDENT CLINTON'S FOREIGN POLICY

  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I rise out of concern for the current 
drift of our foreign policy. Certainly no one would claim that managing 
the country's foreign affairs is easy. No one would claim it is without 
difficult challenges, perhaps even challenges with ``no-win'' 
solutions.
  By rising to express concern, I do not rise in the sense that anyone 
would find it easy going, or the challenges we face as a country are 
easily overcome. But I do believe in the last several years the 
policies we followed have often shifted with the sands rather than 
having set a clear course and clear objectives. At times we have seemed 
to drift in the wind. I want to be very specific because I think this 
is a serious charge.
  In Haiti, originally we decided to return to Haiti Haitians who 
would, in effect, be illegal immigrants to this country. President Bush 
had announced that policy and his opponent, later to be President-elect 
Clinton, had criticized it. His words were these: ``I think sending 
them back to Haiti was an error, and so I will modify the process.'' 
President Clinton in the campaign had clearly indicated that he would 
not send them back.
  Once he came into office the policy changed 180 degrees. One week 
before his inauguration, President-elect Clinton stated:
       The practice of returning those who fled Haiti by boat will 
     continue for the time being after I become President. Those 
     who do leave Haiti by boat will be stopped and directly 
     returned by the U.S. Coast Guard.

  Madam President, there are good arguments on both sides of the issue. 
Our hearts go out to people who flee from the terror of Haiti. At the 
same time we have a responsibility to admit people only under our laws. 
So I understand the difficult crisis and the difficult thought pattern 
the President went through in this regard. But the problem is President 
Clinton's foreign policy flip-flop. The problem is the failure to set a 
clear course and to follow it, rather than to announce one policy with 
regard to Haiti and then do the opposite. This is not the first or the 
last time it has happened.
  There was the decision to send United States troops to Haiti. They 
were loaded on ships like the U.S.S. Harlan County and sent to Haiti. 
The Secretary of State commented on October 16, 1993, ``We had every 
reason to believe they would be well received. We thought there was 
going to be a greeting party.''
  Of course, in fact what happened is there were angry mobs 
demonstrating against our troops. Faced with that difficulty, we again 
flip-flopped our policy and withdrew the troops.
  I must say I was one who thought sending troops to Haiti was a 
mistake. But the problem, again, is a President and an administration 
that do not set a clear course of action and follow it: Deciding to 
send troops, deciding not to send troops; deciding to take the 
refugees, deciding not to take the refugees. The message we have sent 
to the world is that our foreign policy is a function of which way the 
wind blows. That is a disaster. It is a disaster not just because of 
the quality of the decisions. It is a disaster because it gives the 
impression to the world that the very country they look to for 
leadership is vacillating.
  Somalia represented a similar experience, but perhaps even more 
tragic. President Bush had originally sent troops in to help restore 
order and feed the hungry. I was one who was concerned about that and 
spoke out against President Bush's actions. I thought he had not 
clearly defined when the troops would leave and had not defined a clear 
mission for them. But indeed, in January that year when he left office, 
he announced the withdrawal of the troops, they having accomplished 
their mission.
  But that policy was changed. I do not criticize the President for it. 
While I did not agree with leaving the troops in Somalia for an 
extended mission, the President is entitled to change the policies of 
his predecessor administration.
  Not only did the new administration decide not to continue 
withdrawing American forces, they changed the mission as well. The new 
mission won approval in the United Nations on March 26 for a nation-
building role in Somalia, dramatically different from President Bush's 
plan. Instead of simply feeding the hungry, opening up supply routes 
and restoring order, the new nation-building role was an effort, almost 
unprecedented in scope, to rebuild an entire nation. Our distinguished 
Ambassador to the United Nations, Madeleine Albright, described it as, 
quote:

       An unprecedented enterprise aimed at nothing less than the 
     restoration of an entire country as a proud, functioning and 
     viable member of the community of nations.

  One could agree or disagree. I thought it was a mistake. U.S. troops 
are not necessarily designed for, trained for, or equipped to rebuild 
nations. That does not mean they cannot try. That does not mean we 
should not make our best effort. But putting U.S. troops into a 
situation where they are subject to hostile action without an ability 
to defend themselves I felt was a mistake.
  Indeed, we set a new course there. The United States committed itself 
to nation-building. At first, when the new mission ran into problems 
from Somali warlord Aideed, we went after him. After a skirmish on June 
5, 1993, we increased our efforts to retaliate against this Somali 
general. The United States spelled out a clear mission and clear 
objectives in this case, nothing less than the arrest of President 
Aideed. President Clinton noted that, a warrant was issued for his 
arrest, and our soldiers were tasked with the responsibility to get 
him.
  To fulfill that task, our military leaders asked for heavier 
equipment. That request has been clearly documented. Included in the 
request were armored personnel carriers to make it possible to move 
safely through the confines of Mogadishu. That request was denied. It 
was denied at the highest levels of our Government.
  The Secretary of Defense, aware of the request, seeing the request of 
his military commanders, knowing their feeling that equipment was 
essential to carry forth their duty, turned down the request for fear, 
according to press accounts that it would send the wrong signal. So the 
safety of American troops was jeopardized because giving them the 
proper equipment might send the wrong signal.
  We have talked about that at length in this Chamber. I will not dwell 
on it. But what happened next I think all Americans know about. During 
a raid on Aideed's headquarters in fulfillment of the presidential 
arrest warrant, a U.S. helicopter was shot down. Troops were sent in to 
help rescue the victims. They were prevented by snipers from reaching 
the victims because they did not have the equipment that their 
commander had requested from Washington.
  Incredibly--incredibly, after that tragedy, the United States flip-
flopped its policies again. Instead of arresting Aideed, we agreed not 
to arrest him. But the changes in policy did not even stop there. 
Ironically, later in the year the United States escorted President 
Aideed to the airport in Mogadishu to visit Ethiopia for a peace 
conference. One of course could make a fine distinction in a statement 
or justification of the need for Aideed to visit Ethiopia. But the 
incredible irony is that Aideed was escorted to the airport in an 
armored personnel carrier, the very equipment our administration had 
denied our own troops. The very equipment that would have saved 
American lives when they were under attack by Aideed's forces.
  Madam President, I am concerned about these flip-flops because they 
indicate an inability to set a clear course with clear objectives and 
to follow through on them.
  We are now involved in conflicts in Bosnia. We have American pilots 
flying U.S. aircraft, subject to ground fire in Bosnia. At the same 
time, this country has joined an embargo against sending arms to 
Bosnia. Literally, we are saying it is improper for Bosnians to have 
arms to defend themselves. Not only will this country not sell them 
arms, but we are actively using our Army and our Navy and our Air Force 
to physically stop those who are willing to give arms to Bosnia to 
defend itself. This, at the same time that we have been willing to 
commit the lives of American service personnel to defend the Bosnians. 
It is a paternalistic policy of the first order, and I believe another 
tragedy in the making.
  The President now says he has always been--always been opposed to the 
arms embargo. But that simply is not accurate. The fact is, this 
President, far from being opposed to the arms embargo, has long 
embraced it. The fact is, the President, the Commander in Chief, has 
ordered our troops to enforce it. The fact is, the President has 
prevented people from this country from supplying arms. To suggest he 
is opposed to the arms embargo and always has been is simply not 
accurate.
  It goes at cross-purposes to what we are doing right now in Bosnia. 
Incredibly, we are denying them the ability to defend themselves but 
are willing to risk American lives in a half-hearted defense. One could 
question, as I have, the advisability of supposing that air power can 
do the job alone. I know of no military leader that believes you can 
win a conflict only with air power. It simply is not possible. To 
suggest we are going to follow a course in Bosnia that will lead to 
defeat and tragedy is a sad commentary on United States foreign policy.
  We have adopted a policy with regard to air power that cannot lead us 
to victory. We have adopted a policy with regard to an arms embargo 
that simply condemns the Bosnians to be innocent victims, slaughtered 
at the will of Bosnian Serbs inside Bosnia and infiltrators from Serbia 
itself.
  One side has arms left over from the former Yugoslavian army and, to 
some extent, supplied by supporters from within the former Soviet 
Union. The Bosnians have few arms and the allies have cut off any 
additional supplies.
  Our policy is at cross-purposes. Our policies are working in opposite 
directions. Madam President, I think it would be a tragic mistake for 
the United States to make another halfhearted commitment in Bosnia. 
Either we ought to make a full commitment with a complete declaration 
of our intention, with clear objectives and go out and get it done, or 
we ought to get out. To make halfhearted commitments that are doomed to 
failure will be a tragedy for Americans who lose their lives in that 
conflict and a tragedy for this country.
  What we need is leadership--leadership that sets a clear course and 
then works to achieve it. One can debate whether or not we ought to 
turn back Haitian refugees. One can debate whether or not we ought to 
have United States Forces in Haiti. One can debate whether or not we 
ought to rebuild the nation of Somalia. One can debate whether or not 
we ought to arrest Aideed. One can debate whether we should supply arms 
or allow arms to be supplied to Bosnia. But for Heaven's sake, why 
should this country's foreign policy be its own debating partner? The 
fact is, our Nation stood on both sides of each issue in turn. It is 
indecision; it is vacillating; and it is a flip-flopping foreign policy 
that has had tragic results.
  Before a large number of Americans lose their lives in Bosnia, let us 
hope we set a clear course with clear objectives. The men and women who 
serve this country in the armed services are willing to go anywhere at 
any time and do what their commanders ask. They are willing to risk 
their very lives. They are willing even to give up their lives for the 
flag of this country and for the spirit of freedom and democracy that 
it represents.
  Before we ask them to surrender their lives again, we ought to make 
sure it is in a cause that is not going to change when the wind blows 
in a different direction. We ought to make sure they have clear 
direction, clear objectives and strong, clear leadership.
  The men and women who represent this country in our Armed Forces have 
a right to expect that. They have a right to expect that we follow up 
on our goals and honor our commitments. And they have a right to expect 
that, once we chart a course, we see it through. They have a right to 
expect that, when their lives are put on the line, we will stand behind 
them, that we will not flip-flop, that we will not turn around when the 
going gets tough. They have a right to expect that, before we commit 
them to combat, we will make a decision as to whether or not the 
conflict is worth winning. They have a right to expect that, if the 
conflict is not worth winning, we will not throw away their lives in a 
senseless sacrifice.
  Madam President, I rise because I fear the leadership of this Nation 
has begun to think of those who serve our country in the Armed Forces 
as simply pawns in the chess game, ones to be sacrificed without great 
remorse, ones to be offered up in case there is a strategic move or a 
political signal to be sent. Their lives, their commitment and their 
devotion to this country are much more important than that. They have 
obligations to us that extend even to the point of giving their lives 
for this Nation, but we have obligations to them to make sure that 
their sacrifices are not made in vain, are not wasted and are not 
carelessly thrown away.
  This Nation, in the last year and a half, has had a foreign policy 
that has vacillated, flip-flopped and blown in the wind. What we need 
more than anything is not better aircraft or devoted public servants or 
the commitment of the people who wear the uniform, but leadership that 
sets a clear course and clear objectives and accomplishes them.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Indiana is 
recognized.

                          ____________________