[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 51 (Tuesday, May 3, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 HAITI

  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President today I once again rise to condemn the 
intransigence of the coup leaders in Haiti and the continued failure of 
the United States and the world community to restore democracy to that 
beleaguered country.
  Six months ago, I visited Haiti to meet with government officials and 
members of the military about the country's prospects for democracy. 
The mood in Port Au Prince in early October was one of growing despair.
  The U.S.S. Harlan County, a U.S. ship with military trainers, 
Seabees, and the Corps of Engineers was supposed to dock that day and 
facilitate Haiti's transition to democracy.
  But due to the failure of the Haitian military to meet its commitment 
to provide adequate security for our troops and dockage for the Harlan 
County, that single symbol of hope, sat helplessly off shore, while 
prospects for a peaceful restoration of President Jean Bertrand 
Aristide faded away.
  I met with several members of the civilian government during my 2-day 
visit, including Justice Minister Guy Malary and Prime Minister Robert 
Malval. Both were discouraged and rightfully so. Every hour brought new 
reports of terrorism.
  At dinner, my conversation with Malval was cut short by a call from 
his wife, who reported gun shots in the neighborhood and begged him to 
come home.
  Today, 6 months later, conditions in Haiti could not be worse. Malary 
is dead, killed 3 days after our dinner by armed thugs as he drove to 
work. Malval has submitted his resignation, unable to sustain the farce 
of a legitimate government while trapped in his home.
  And the military is in complete control, even more entrenched and 
recalcitrant than they were in October.
  Our country's policies continue to be impotent in restoring democracy 
to Haiti. The U.N. embargo is in reality a sieve, enriching the 
military at the expense of Haiti's already impoverished masses. Even 
the U.S. Embassy is relying on contraband gasoline, thereby 
unintentionally helping to sustain the military government.
  Finally, a week ago today, on Tuesday, April 26, President Clinton 
fired the United States special envoy to Haiti, Lawrence Pezzulo, in an 
effort to demonstrate United States resolve on the Haiti issue.
  Now the United States must choose. We can accept the status quo and 
leave Haiti at the mercy of its ruthless military, we can accept the 
nightly parade of corpses to which we have been assaulted through 
television in recent weeks, or we can fulfill our professed goal of the 
last 31 months and two administrations--restoring Haiti's 
democratically elected President, Jean Bertrand Aristide.
  Late last week, the administration announced that it would seek U.N. 
approval for a comprehensive embargo of Haiti, but stronger sanctions 
will not end up meaning a restoration of President Aristide. These 
sanctions will more likely mean more money, ill-gained from their 
failure to abide by their commitments, to the Haitian military. It will 
mean more suffering for the poor of Haiti, the entire population of 
that destitute nation, except for a small class of military and 
economic elites.
  I am convinced that we cannot achieve our goal without military 
force, without the threat and willingness to use credible military 
power. The Haitian military will never negotiate itself out of power 
without such a threat of force. And if we continue to delay 
intervention, our hand, the United States hand will be forced--forced 
by an overwhelming waive of refugees, by increased violence and chaos, 
or by domestic revulsion at our passivity in the light of flagrant 
human rights abuses and drug flow through Haiti.
  The only option remaining is a military option, preferably 
multilateral but unilateral if necessary. Military intervention is 
always the solution of last resort. But as the failed policies of the 
last 2\1/2\ years attest, unfortunately, it has become Haiti's only 
chance and our only means to accomplish an important national foreign 
policy objective.
  Military intervention should involve the following three steps:
  First, conveying to the Haitian military that they will be held 
strictly accountable for further violence in Haiti.
  Second, consulting with out hemispheric allies on assembling a 
multilateral military force. This force should have the following 
missions: separate the combatants, restore President Aristide to 
office, assist in the deployment of U.N. peacekeepers and then 
withdraw.
  Third, coordinating with the United Nations for the United Nations to 
provide peacekeepers who would remain in Haiti after the withdrawal of 
the United States-led multilateral force and until stability has been 
restored.
  This operation would be similar to the one successfully carried out 
in El Salvador, where the bulk of peacekeepers had completed their work 
and were out of the country within 2 years.
  The United States cannot be the world's police force. We must balance 
our interests and responsibilities to determine which world crises 
justify the risk of deploying American military forces.
  When diplomatic channels prove time and time again to be exercises in 
futility, however, the United States must examine the credible use of 
force to end totalitarian injustice, to protect our national interests 
particularly in our own hemisphere.
  Madam President, time is not on our side. The longer we acquiesce to 
brutal dictators the further we slide down the slope of world 
credibility. We are in a weaker position now than we were in September 
of 1991 immediately following the overthrow of President Aristide.
  We have witnessed two administrations, and their policies have 
achieved the same failed results. Once again I here an administration 
stressing a new tougher policy. The old adage rings as true today as it 
has throughout the history of diplomacy--diplomacy without the backing 
of credible force is almost without exception failed diplomacy.
  The other rule is that embargoes are very blunt instruments and are 
extremely difficult to enforce, a rule we are learning every day again 
in Haiti.
  And yet, the proposed changes in U.S. policy, announced last week, 
strongly resemble the failed policy of the past 2\1/2\ years. In 
September 1991, the overthrow of President Aristide resulted in the 
suspension of all aid to the Haitian Government from the United States, 
France, Canada, Venezuela, and the European Community.
  In addition the OAS imposed a trade embargo in early October 1991. On 
October 4, 1991, President Bush stated:

       I'd like to think that this mission by the Organization of 
     American States will do it. So, let's hope that that 
     (restoration of democracy) can be done without any kind of 
     force.

  This was followed on May 28, 1992, when President Bush issued a 
statement saying--

       In accordance with the recent OAS resolution, we are 
     examining other steps to tighten sanctions against the 
     illegal regime in Port au Prince.

  On November 24, 1992, the U.N. General Assembly adopted a resolution 
urging member states to institute the trade embargo on Haiti as called 
for by the OAS' existing embargo. Once again we assumed a little 
economic screw-tightening would restore President Aristide. Once again, 
we have been proven wrong.
  The Governor's Island Accord provided the framework and timetable for 
the restoration of President Aristide by October 30, 1993. It is 
important to note the successful implementation of the agreement would 
have marked the first time in Latin American history that a president 
ousted by violent means was restored through a negotiated process.
  Lawrence Pezzullo confidently states on July 26, 1993:

       With strong international support and the good faith 
     efforts of all Haitians, I am sure that the Governor's Island 
     Accord will succeed in restoring constitutional government 
     and returning President Aristide to office through a peaceful 
     transition.

  That was July 26, 1993.
  It should be as painfully obvious to the United States as it is to 
President Aristide that no policy can succeed that relies on the good 
faith efforts of the military leaders in Haiti.
  This brings us to the present U.S. incremental policy of tightening 
existing sanctions. This week President Clinton stated, ``We ought to 
change our policy. It hasn't worked.''
  Madam President, as history attests, any proposed policy that does 
not include the credible threat of force does not have much hope of 
achieving the United State goal of the restoration of democracy in 
Haiti.
  Many Americans are loath to commit United States forces to yet 
another troubled country after our experience in Somalia. But Haiti is 
not an isolated country halfway around the world. Haiti is our virtual 
next door neighbor, less than 800 miles off the coast of Florida. We 
cannot afford to walk away.
  First, the United States is responsible for democratic leadership, 
particularly in the Western Hemisphere. Bowing to the military leaders 
in Haiti will destroy American credibility both with the Haitians and 
with other would-be dictators. If we cannot stand up to military thugs 
in our own hemisphere how can we maintain international credibility?
  It sets a poor precedent in dealing with potentially trouble spots in 
Bosnia or North Korean or South America and the Caribbean.
  Since the coup in Haiti, there have been efforts to dislodge 
democracy in Venezuela, Peru, and Guatemala, Abandoning Haiti would 
send a dangerous message resonating throughout the Caribbean and Latin 
America--that our commitment to democracy is shallow, short-lived and 
ineffective, and should be tested.
  Second, the United States cannot stand by and watch the obliteration 
of human rights so close to its shores. An average of 40 political 
killings have been reported each month since 1993. Reports say the wave 
of savagery and terrorism under the military regime is even worse than 
under the Duvaliers. We cannot turn our backs on torture and suffering.
  Third, an economically and politically unstable Haiti means more 
refugees flowing into the United States. Having served as Governor of 
Florida during the Mariel boatlift, I remember all too well what a mass 
exodus to the United States can do to our local economies and law 
enforcement capabilities.
  Many communities continue to be challenged by the problems associated 
with illegal immigration, and the administration has faced strong 
pressure to tighten immigration laws, a fact well known to our 
Presiding Officer.
  The administration has faced strong pressure to tighten immigration 
laws. The most effective way to reduce illegal immigration from Haiti 
is to promote democracy and help the development of a stable economy. 
This is true in that country as it is throughout the Caribbean, Latin 
America, and around the world.
  Without decent lives and hope for the future, it is no wonder that 
Haitians will risk everything to escape their homeland.
  The United States also has a major interest in Haiti because of 
Haiti's role in the drug trade. Corrupt members of the military have 
allowed drugs to travel through Haiti, a transshipment point for 
illegal substances, which end up killing on the streets of America, 
from Florida to California.
  Finally, the United States would benefit economically from a 
democratic, prosperous Haiti, which would help solidify the momentum 
for democracy throughout the Caribbean and Latin America.
  A few days ago, in late April a boatload of 411 desperate Haitians 
left their homes, crammed themselves into a 65-foot boat and risked 
their lives for a chance at freedom. Those who made it arrived recently 
in Miami with only the belongings they could stuff into overnight bags.
  Many reported physical abuse by those in control of the boat. 
Fourteen passengers required medical attention; six others apparently 
died in route and were unceremoniously thrown overboard.
  As the lull between winter winds and the hurricane season takes hold 
in the Caribbean Sea, Haitians will continue to risk everything to 
escape from their oppressive lives. How many more Haitians will we turn 
back before we hear their tragic pleas?
  President Clinton, who campaigned for office criticizing the 
interdiction of Haitian refugees, has since justified turning these 
refugees back because of Haiti's substantive moves to restore 
democracy. That argument no longer stands, and the basis for 
interdiction has been shattered.
  How can we justify sending refugees back to a nation plagued by 
violence and bloodshed, when there is clearly little hope of a 
democratic future?
  Two-and-a-half years of sanctions have failed to achieve our 
objective. A new set of strengthened sanctions will cause more needless 
suffering, increase the incentive for Haitians to flee and further 
enrich and embolden the military.
  The time has come to solve Haiti's problems and provide a promising 
future for Haitians in their own homeland rather than in the United 
States. We must use every means available to restore President Aristide 
to office--and to restore America's credibility in foreign affairs.
  Thank you, Madam President.
  Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, thank you.

                          ____________________