[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.
____________________