[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 54 (Friday, May 6, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 6, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
              OPPOSITION TO BOSNIA ARMS EMBARGO AMENDMENT

  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, in January, the Senate voted to adopt a 
sense-of-the-Senate amendment to the State Department authorization 
bill calling on the President to lift the United States arms embargo 
against Bosnia. I was one of a few Members who voted against that 
provision, and I continue to hold to that position today as we consider 
a bill that actually directs the President to lift the arms embargo 
unilaterally.
  I listened to a great deal of the debate that occurred 2 weeks ago 
when Senators Dole and Lieberman originally offered this legislation 
and, in fact, found many of the arguments in favor of lifting the arms 
embargo to be quite compelling. I heard gripping testimony--including 
the messages that Senator Dole read from Bosnia's leaders--providing 
further evidence that the current situation is unjust.
  Clearly, the people of Bosnia are suffering greatly, and Bosnian 
Government forces are outgunned by the Bosnian Serb aggressors, as we 
saw most recently in Gorazde. Although the NATO ultimatum of April 22 
appears to have relieved the Serb bombing of Gorazde, regrettably, in 
other parts of Bosnia, the reckless violence against civilians 
continues.
  First, it would put the United States in the position of abrogating a 
U.N. Security Council resolution, and in essence, breaking 
international law. Second, it could begin a process of unilateral 
United States involvement in the Bosnia conflict--or as some Senators 
put it when we took up this issue 2 weeks ago--start us down the 
slippery slope to greater engagement in the crisis. Third, unilaterally 
lifting the arms embargo could actually leave the Bosnian Government 
forces vulnerable to further Serbian obstruction of humanitarian 
assistance and brutal attack. Fourth, lifting the embargo at this time 
could upset the delicate peace process that is underway.
  Many of my colleagues have made the point that the international 
community may be contributing to the problem by denying the Bosnian 
Government the right to defend itself. We have heard many times that we 
owe it to the people of Bosnia to level the playing field. Some of my 
colleagues have made powerful arguments to that effect. I believe, 
however, that if steps are to be taken, the United Nations, not the 
United States going it alone, should take them. The embargo is in place 
as a result of a binding U.N. Security Council resolution and can only 
be abrogated by a subsequent U.N. Security Council action. A unilateral 
lifting of the arms embargo would set a dangerous precedent. Other 
countries could choose to ignore Security Council resolutions that we 
consider important--such as the embargo against Iraq and sanctions 
against Libya.
  As many said in the previous discussion, U.S. integrity is on the 
line. I agree wholeheartedly. If the United States were to break the 
embargo on its own, we would destroy our credibility as a trustworthy 
leader in international affairs. A unilateral lifting of the arms 
embargo would undoubtedly strain our relations with Britain, France, 
Russia, and other countries with troops on the ground in Bosnia--and 
would undermine our trustworthiness in other international negotiations 
completely unrelated to the Balkans tragedy.
  I find myself in agreement with the sentiments expressed 2 weeks ago 
by Senators Kerry and Warner, among others, that a unilateral lifting 
of the arms embargo could be perceived as the beginning of a United 
States decision to go it alone in Bosnia. It is naive to think we can 
unilaterally lift the arms embargo, and then walk away. We instead 
would assume responsibility for Bosnia not only in terms of our moral 
obligation, but in terms of the logistics of getting the weapons into 
Bosnia--which would likely require sending in United States personnel. 
Granted, this legislation states that nothing should be construed as 
authorizing the deployment of United States forces to Bosnia and 
Herzegovina for any purpose. But I want to emphasize that this would be 
a U.S. decision to dismantle the embargo. It would not be a U.N. 
decision, not a NATO decision, not a decision made with the support of 
other countries with a stake in the conflict. I therefore do not see 
how we can lift the embargo on our own without sending in logistics and 
training personnel to carry out the policy.
  Lifting the embargo without international support would increase U.S. 
responsibility for the outcome of the conflict. As Senator Warner put 
it so well 2 weeks ago, if we take unilateral action, we will put a 
``Made in the USA'' stamp on the crisis. If we were to take the 
initiative and supply arms on our own, our allies, who I admit, have 
not always been the most cooperative, could step back even further and 
say, ``It may be our continent, but it is your job now to see this 
through; it is America's problem to solve.''
  Before we take any step that could lead to greater U.S. action--and I 
argue that unilaterally lifting the arms embargo would do just that--we 
need to answer some serious questions. A year ago this month, I wrote 
an op-ed piece in which I stated:

       Terrible human-rights abuses--torture, rape and slaughter--
     run rampant in Bosnia. But as horrible as the situation is 
     there, other parts of the world--Kashmir, Cambodia, Nagorno-
     Karabakh, Sudan, and Liberia--are also experiencing reckless 
     violence and grave abuses that breed instability.

  Sadly, in the year that has passed since I wrote those words, the 
carnage in Bosnia has continued, and other countries have been added to 
my list--Rwanda, Haiti, Algeria.
  A year ago, I asked: Why should we intervene in Bosnia? Why is Bosnia 
different from other places of conflict in the world? What are American 
interests in Bosnia? Regrettably, we are no closer to having answers to 
those questions today than we were a year ago. Without those answers, I 
cannot support any action that would launch us headlong into a military 
quagmire.
  I am concerned about the negative impact that lifting the arms 
embargo could have on the Bosnian people. I know that the Bosnian 
Government has asked that the arms embargo be lifted, and it may appear 
rather presumptuous for us to tell the Bosnian Government that we know 
what is best for it. But if the United States were to lift the embargo 
on our own, our allies with troops on the ground would very likely pull 
out of portions of Bosnia, leaving the Moslem enclaves even more 
vulnerable to Bosnian Serb attacks and the obstruction of the delivery 
of humanitarian relief supplies.
  There would likely be a lag time--anywhere from 6 weeks to 6 months 
by many estimates--for weapons to be delivered to Bosnia. During that 
lag time, in which the United Nations pulls out and the Bosnian 
Government awaits weapons delivery and training, the Serbs will 
undoubtedly move swiftly to crush Bosnian Government forces. Moreover, 
the United States will receive the brunt of the blame when hundreds, if 
not thousands, of Bosnians die from lack of basic supplies.
  Finally, a unilateral lifting of the embargo could endanger progress 
on the international negotiations underway and jeopardize the gains 
made to date through diplomacy. If we were to lift the arms embargo, 
all parties to the negotiations would lose incentive to reach a 
negotiated settlement. In characteristic fashion, the Bosnian Serbs 
would likely rush to grab even more land before arms could be delivered 
to the Bosnians; the Bosnian Government may take the lifting of the 
arms embargo as a signal that the United States intends to intervene, 
and may lose interest in a negotiated settlement; Croatia, currently in 
a fragile alliance with Bosnia, would either prevent the transit of the 
arms across its territory or insist upon its own cut, potentially 
upsetting the delicate negotiations occurring between Serbia and 
Croatia over the status of the United Nations protected areas in 
Croatia.
  Admittedly, the diplomatic process in the Balkans has not been 
perfect. There continue to be frustrations, but there also have been 
some important accomplishments, including the breaking of the siege of 
Sarajevo and the signing of a peace agreement between Moslems and 
Croats in Bosnia. If we build upon these and other accomplishments, we 
have the hope of a comprehensive peace. I for one, believe it unwise to 
upset the sensitive negotiation process now underway.
  While I oppose the legislation before us, I must say that I am 
encouraged by this exchange of views on the Senate floor. It is a 
debate--an honest and thorough examination of a tough issue--which is 
long overdue. I acknowledged earlier that I see merit in some of the 
arguments of the bill's proponents. This is an issue that knows no 
partisan boundaries, that cuts to the heart of issues related to U.S. 
influence and power abroad. There are serious and valid disagreements 
among us, and as public servants, we are called upon to exercise our 
best judgment on this very difficult issue. My own gut feelings, my own 
conscience tells me that unilaterally lifting the arms embargo is the 
wrong thing to do at this time and I therefore must oppose this bill.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Baucus). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is S. 2042.
  Mr. DOLE. Is that the Bosnia bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by the 
distinguished Senator from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, and 31 
additional Republican and Democrat cosponsors. We began the debate on 
this issue 2 weeks ago--on the eve of NATO's meeting on the catastrophe 
in Gorazde. At that time, there were several Senators who suggested 
that the Senate wait to vote on this legislation which would 
unilaterally lift the United States arms embargo on Bosnia until after 
NATO's political council met.
  Well, NATO made its decision to issue an ultimatum to the Bosnian 
Serbs and to authorize air strikes to protect Gorazde and the other 
safe havens. However, since that time, there have been no air strikes 
because the U.N. Special Representative, Yasushi Akashi, has refused to 
authorize them. Meanwhile, Serb violations of the NATO ultimatums are 
increasing daily, and Bosnian Serb forces are redeploying their tanks 
unbelievably with UNPROFOR assistance.
  On the diplomatic front, the United States has also joined with the 
British, French, Germans, and Russians to form a contact group to press 
for a ceasefire, and to press for a settlement which would leave the 
Bosnians with 51 percent of their country.
  In my view, this is hardly progress. We are no closer to a just and 
workable agreement than we were a year ago. With the exception of the 
recent Bosnian-Croat federation agreement, the international community 
is only recycling failed policies--changing a detail here and there.
  The war in Bosnia has gone on for 25 months. For 25 months the 
Bosnians have been subjected to the most brutal aggression and denied 
the ability to defend themselves. It is high time for the United States 
to lead the way and lift the United States arms embargo on Bosnia--no 
more speeches, no more excuses, no more handwringing.
  The facts are clear: The arms embargo is illegal and unjust; 
UNPROFOR, the U.N. protection forces, are not protecting Bosnians; and 
U.N. authority over NATO airstrikes has rendered the threat virtually 
meaningless. And more importantly, the Bosnians do not want American 
troops--they merely ask for the weapons to defend themselves, their 
families, and their homes. What is needed is United States leadership 
to turn the corner--away from ill-conceived U.N.-driven policies and 
toward a policy that reflects United States interests and restores 
Bosnia's rights. I hope that my colleagues will support this measure.
  As we get into the debate again on next Tuesday, hopefully, we will 
work out some arrangement. I understand the distinguished majority 
leader may have a substitute. Maybe we can have separate votes--one on 
his and one on ours--and we will see what happens.
  I think it is time we take the high moral ground. Bosnia is an 
independent nation. They are a member of United Nations. Article 51 of 
the U.N. Charter says they have a right to self-defense. They are not 
looking for offensive weapons. They want only defensive weapons, 
antitank weapons. I think if we fail to do this, we miss the 
opportunity to redeem ourselves in the eyes of the world.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. METZENBAUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.

                          ____________________