[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 52 (Wednesday, May 4, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 4, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                     WHAT WE SHOULD DO ABOUT HAITI

  (Mr. BEREUTER asked as was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute and revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, it is with the utmost gravity that I must 
sound a warning to my colleagues: The Clinton administration is 
actively considering the unilateral invasion of Haiti.
  Certainly it is true that the administration's Haitian policy has 
been a total failure and has, predictably, brought great additional 
suffering to the Haitian people. We were told last December when the 
United Nations imposed an oil embargo on Haiti, sought by the United 
States, that the de facto regime in Haiti would be bought to their 
knees by the middle of January. Four months later the regime and the 
Haitian military are not worse off than they were last January. In 
fact, they are profiteering from the sale of gasoline at $10 per 
gallon. The new proposals for a stepped--up embargo will not work any 
better than the current ones because the border between Haiti and the 
Dominican Republic is a sieve; oil and goods continue to flow unimpeded 
from the Dominican Republic to Haiti. The suffering of the Haitian 
people and the level of violence that is inflicted upon them have only 
been increased by the embargo and by failures in United States foreign 
policy.
  These failures and, speaking frankly, domestic pressure and the 
concern about advancing a congressional agenda, now are strengthening 
the hand of invasion advocates within the administration. They argue 
for a unilateral invasion and the restoration of President Aristide to 
power, to take place after the inevitable failure of the increased 
sanctions now being proposed.
  Mr. Speaker, invading Haiti would be a terrible mistake. The 
administration reportedly is considering a plan that will commit 
American troops, but does not have a clearly defined military mission 
for them or a plan for extricating them. The protection duties and 
civil strife cause by returning Aristide, and resentment against 
American policy, would keep American troops there for years--and cost 
us tens of billions of dollars. We should all remember that the last 
time American troops invaded Haiti, the marines stayed there for 19 
years. Yes, 19 years, and the end result was the Duvalier regime. 
President Clinton and the Congress must weigh the cost of American 
lives and resources if the United States, by unilateral invasion, 
assumes the responsibility for restoring peace, governance, and 
economic stability to Haiti.
  What should the administration do? It should seek out the pragmatic 
individuals who do exist in Haiti in a serious effort to find a 
consensus for solutions to the current political crisis in Haiti. This 
search for solutions must not be hampered by a stubborn insistence that 
President Aristide be returned to office. That stance is a recipe for 
disaster.

  Again, Mr. Speaker, I wish to emphasize that before the United States 
seriously considers an invasion of Haiti, by whatever means or whatever 
name, we must examine all the options and insure that we have 
legitimate geopolitical and strategic interests at stake that justify 
the use of unilateral force and possible loss of American lives. Those 
interests and an extrication plan have not been clearly defined by the 
administration; nor has it exhausted all nonviolent options at its 
disposal. Mr. Speaker, an invasion would be a serious mistake which 
risks American lives, resources, and leadership prestige, at a time 
when the reputation of American foreign policy leadership could 
scarcely be lower.

                          ____________________