[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 47 (Tuesday, April 26, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: April 26, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                    LIFT THE ARMS EMBARGO ON BOSNIA

                                 ______


                        HON. GERALD B.H. SOLOMON

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, April 26, 1994

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring an article written by 
Jeane Kirkpatrick and Morton Abramowitz entitled ``Lift the Embargo,'' 
to the attention of my colleagues.
  The human rights violations against the innocent people of Bosnia are 
egregious. We cannot sit back while the Serbian regime and its allies 
continue to decimate civilian populations with their policy of ethnic 
cleansing. This article corroborates the position that we ought to be 
helping the Bosnians by lifting the arms embargo so they can at least 
have a chance to fight for their lives.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to read this informative article.

                            Lift the Embargo

           (By Jeane J. Kirkpatrick and Morton I. Abramowitz)

       Washington, DC.--Just last month, the United States 
     presided at the creation of a new Bosnian Federation. Today, 
     we are presiding at its destruction. Our lack of resolve and 
     loss of credibility make us accomplices to a Serbian 
     conquest, not architects of a better settlement. The peace 
     process begun with hope in Washington is about to go to hell 
     in Gorazde.
       In the face of fresh Serbian outrages against civilians and 
     United Nations peacekeepers, President Clinton has steered a 
     neutral course among the ``warring parties.'' The results are 
     morally, politically and militarily indefensible, with 
     disastrous consequences not just for Bosnia but for a stable, 
     democratic Europe and the viability of NATO and the U.N. 
     (Yesterday there were indications that he was reconsidering 
     this course.)
       When confronted with the complexities of the war in Bosnia 
     and brazen Serbian violence, the U.S. has simply retreated. 
     It pursues negotiations at any price rather than creating the 
     conditions for a workable peace agreement. Incredibly, we 
     maintain the crippling arms embargo against Bosnia even as we 
     talk of easing the trade embargo against Yugoslavia. 
     Everybody but the Serbs has fallen hostage to the U.S. peace 
     process, because we didn't back it with enough force to 
     convince the Serbs that more war gives them more pain than 
     gain.
       For two years, Bosnia has appealed for means to defend 
     itself. But instead, we gave it unenforced U.N. resolutions, 
     unchecked genocide, impotent mediators, lectures on 
     realpolitik, unsafe ``safe havens,'' peacekeepers who can 
     barely protect themselves, and now an unconsummated marriage 
     of force and diplomacy.
       Let us drop the pretense that we can do better, or at least 
     that we will. If we are unwilling to give the Bosnian Serbs 
     (and Belgrade) an ultimatum to withdraw from their sieges or 
     endure punishing air bombardment, then NATO and the U.N. 
     should get out of the way and give the Bosnians the arms to 
     fight for their own country and their own lives.
       Mr. Clinton, who has halfheartedly supported lifting the 
     arms embargo, recently said it was not clear under 
     international law whether it could be ended unilaterally. It 
     can be. The embargo is inherently illegal and invalid with 
     respect to Bosnia.
       The embargo was originally imposed on all of the former 
     Yugoslavia in 1991. But Bosnia is now a U.N. member in its 
     own right, fully entitled to defend itself against aggression 
     under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter.
       Neither Bosnia nor anyone else is bound by an embargo that 
     contravenes this fundamental precept of international law. 
     Belgrade certainly has no compunctions about arming the 
     Bosnian Serbs in violation of the embargo. The right to self-
     defense cannot be superseded by any U.N. resolution unless 
     the Security Council itself undertakes to insure 
     international peace and order, a task it has utterly failed 
     to fulfill in Bosnia.
       The embargo is not just illegal. It has protected the 
     Serbs' advantage in heavy weapons. It has enabled the Serbs 
     to conquer 70 percent of sovereign Bosnian territory and 
     drive two million people from their homes. And it flies in 
     the face of U.N. resolutions authorizing ``all necessary 
     means'' to insure delivery of humanitarian relief and protect 
     safe havens.
       If the embargo cannot be removed by the Security Council 
     because of Russia's veto, it must be removed by individual 
     nations, beginning with the United States. Our European 
     allies may balk, but in the end they need to worry more about 
     our deserting them than we need to worry about their 
     deserting us. Also misplaced are fears that unilaterally 
     lifting the arms embargo for Bosnia would lead nations to 
     abrogate the embargo against Serbia or Iraq. The cases are 
     not analogous. Belgrade and Baghdad are proven aggressors. 
     Their self-defense is not an issue.
       A U.S. move to lift the embargo and encourage other 
     countries to do the same would be welcomed by an overwhelming 
     majority in the U.N. Indeed, a majority has gone on record 
     against its validity. And now that Russia's diplomacy has 
     failed with the Serbs, it would save Moscow the added 
     embarrassment of a veto.
       Granted, a phased withdrawal of U.N. forces under U.S. air 
     cover and a steady arming of the Bosnians could make matters 
     worse before they get better. But that is a price the 
     Bosnians are willing to pay, and we should be no less 
     willing. It would initially lead to more killing, but the 
     killing has been going on for two years and almost all the 
     dead are innocent Muslims. It would put U.N. forces and 
     humanitarian workers in jeopardy. But they are already in the 
     Serbian cross hairs. Their alternative is to keep standing 
     by, tabulating the carnage and treating the casualties, while 
     CNN records it all in living color.
       Humanitarian aid from the West would still be necessary, 
     but the new Bosnian-Croatian Federation would bear the brunt 
     of insuring the delivery of relief. The armed Bosnian forces 
     might suffer some early reversals, but the federation will 
     make it easier for us to deliver needed weapons.
       Bosnia should be given the chance to work out a better 
     solution than acquiescing to its own destruction. The Bosnian 
     Army has will, discipline and manpower. If we lift the arms 
     embargo now, we give the Bosnians a chance to do more than go 
     down fighting. We give them a lease on life and a basis on 
     which to build a viable peace--a peace that they, not we, 
     will have the means and the duty to keep.

                          ____________________