[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 58 (Thursday, May 12, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 12, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
           LIFTING THE ARMS EMBARGO ON BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
now resume consideration of S. 2042, which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2042) to remove the United States arms embargo 
     of the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  Pending:

       (1) Dole amendment No. 1695, to provide for the termination 
     of the U.S. arms embargo of the Government of Bosnia and 
     Herzegovina.
       (2) Mitchell amendment No. 1696, to approve and authorize 
     the use of United States airpower to implement the North 
     Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO] exclusion zones around 
     the U.N. designated safe areas in Bosnia and Herzegovina, to 
     protect UNPROFOR forces, and to seek the removal of the arms 
     embargo of the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

  Mr. MITCHELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
for debate on the two Bosnia amendments be controlled as follows: That 
Senator Mitchell control the last 5 minutes of his time before the 
vote; Senator Dole the last 5 minutes of his time just prior to Senator 
Mitchell; and that Senator Nunn control 7 minutes of Senator Mitchell's 
time just prior to Senator Dole's time.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  There will now be 1 hour for debate on amendments No. 1695 and No. 
1696, offered by the Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole], and the Senator 
from Maine [Mr. Mitchell], respectively.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Kansas.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] 
is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, today I rise in opposition to both 
amendments that have been offered by the distinguished leadership of 
the U.S. Senate, both Senator Dole and Senator Mitchell. I do so 
reluctantly because I support elements of both amendments, but as the 
Congress speaks on this important and difficult issue, we must do so 
with great care and deliberation.
  I first want to express my deep dissatisfaction with the 
administration's Bosnia policy. For the past 2 years, America and its 
NATO allies have dithered on the doorstep of Bosnia. We have been 
unwilling to force our way in and unable to walk away. Instead, we have 
sent in food for the hostages, muttered angry threats, and lobbed an 
occasional bomb at Serb tanks.
  Mr. President, despite my serious concerns about the status quo, I do 
not believe that either the Dole or Mitchell resolutions offer an 
improved course of action. Both amendments urge a policy which is 
unwise at best--and dangerous at worst.
  The Dole amendment mandates that the United States immediately and 
unilaterally left the arms embargo. While I strongly support lifting 
the embargo multilaterally, unilateral action is, I believe, a serious 
mistake. A number of other Senators, particularly my colleague from 
Virginia, Senator Warner, have set forth some compelling arguments 
against the Dole amendment. I would like to take just a moment to 
detail my worst fears about lifting the embargo unilaterally.
  First, I strongly believe that unilateral action on the embargo would 
set a very dangerous precedent. The United States--which has a veto in 
the Security Council--voted in favor of the embargo against what was 
then Yugoslavia. The Council subsequently reaffirmed the arms embargo.
  The supporters of the Dole amendment argue that the right to self-
defense under article 51 of the U.N. Charter takes precedence over a 
Security Council resolution. Others, including the State Department, 
take a contrary view. Whatever the legalities of this issue, I am 
concerned about the practical consequences of unilaterally lifting the 
embargo.
  I have little doubt that the U.S. abrogation of a U.N. Security 
Council resolution would undermine other U.N. embargoes around the 
world. The most obvious example is Iraq, where a number of U.N. members 
support lifting the embargo. But in that case, the United States has 
argued forcefully, and correctly, that the U.N. embargo must stay in 
place.
  A strong and muscular United Nations Security Council regime clearly 
serves United States interests--from Iraq to North Korea to Serbia. If 
we take unilateral action, I fear that we will regret that decision for 
years to come.
  Second, unilaterally lifting the arms embargo would lead to a serious 
rift with our NATO allies. I recently met with a number of 
parliamentarians from Great Britain who raised a number of concerns 
about United States action. They believe, for example, that lifting the 
embargo would undermine the prospects for a political settlement.
  Many of our NATO allies have troops on the ground as part of the 
United Nations peacekeeping force. To take unilateral action--in direct 
opposition to the wishes of our allies who have troops on the ground--
is terribly irresponsible. It could, for example, endanger the lives of 
their forces.
  With the end of the cold war, NATO is undergoing a fundamental 
reevaluation of its role in this new era. Questions such as how to deal 
with the nations of Eastern Europe have already strained the alliance. 
At this delicate moment, unilateral United States action would damage 
the cohesion and strength of the NATO alliance.
  I make no apologies for the Europeans on the Bosnia question. Their 
leadership has been abysmal. But I continue to believe that we must 
work in concert with our allies. I agree with Senator Dole that we must 
lead--but responsible leadership, not thoughtless, hasty and 
counterproductive unilateral action.
  Finally, lifting the embargo unilaterally means that we take on the 
responsibility for arming and supporting the Bosnian Government. To 
think otherwise is naive.
  This leads to a whole series of practical questions: How will the 
Bosnians get the arms? What type of arms will we send? If we are 
serious, do we need to send trainers? These are just a few of the many 
complicated questions that have not been answered. Before we head down 
this course of lifting the embargo alone, we must understand the full 
consequences.
  The Mitchell amendment takes a much more responsible approach to the 
arms embargo issue--calling for the President to seek the multilateral 
lifting of the embargo at the United Nations. But, that is not all: The 
Mitchell amendment explicitly endorses air strikes in Bosnia.
  It embraces the status quo policy--muddling along, issuing threats, 
launching occasional air strikes, and hoping somehow that the Serbs 
will tire of their handiwork and come to the negotiating table.
  I, for one, believe this is a dangerous course. It allows us to be 
drawn deeper into commitments we have not made to a goal we have not 
set. In foreign policy, hoping for the best often guarantees the worst.
  Mr. President, we are all searching for a more effective and just 
Bosnia policy. I share the frustrations of those supporting the Dole 
amendment who want to help even the playing field. I also sympathize 
with the cosponsors of the Mitchell amendment who believe that air 
strikes will help protect the United Nations safe havens, where 
thousands of civilians are trapped.
  But we must judge the advantages and disadvantages of each proposal. 
I do not believe that either amendment offers an effective and wise 
policy at this stage, and I will oppose both.
  Mr. President, I suggest it is a very serious consideration and one 
of the reasons I will strongly oppose the amendment by Senator Dole.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Rhode Island, the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations 
Committee.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Pell] 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, earlier this week I spoke in depth about my 
opposition to the Dole-Lieberman legislation that would direct the 
President to lift the arms embargo unilaterally. As I said, lifting the 
arms embargo may seem like an easy, cost-free solution. Lifting the 
arms embargo may make us feel better, but I believe it is bad policy 
that could yield disastrous results.
  I would like to review briefly some of the reasons I believe it would 
be costly to lift the embargo unilaterally. The United States would be 
abrogating a U.N. Security Council resolution, setting a dangerous 
precedent which others could follow in breaking international embargoes 
such as those on Iraq and Libya. We would undermine our credibility as 
a trustworthy and responsible international partner and damage our 
relations in NATO, with Russia, and with other countries with troops on 
the ground in Bosnia. If we go it alone in lifting the arms embargo, we 
would take on a greater responsibility for the outcome of war. We could 
start down the slippery slope of greater U.S. engagement in the crisis. 
Lifting the arms embargo could have a terrible impact on the Bosnian 
people--leaving them vulnerable to further Siberian obstruction of 
humanitarian assistance and to brutal attack. Finally, lifting the arms 
embargo could upset the delicate peace process now underway.
  There is a groundswell of support for taking some congressional 
action on Bosnia, but I do not believe that legislation mandating a 
lifting on the arms embargo, the Dole-Lieberman approach, need be the 
only outlet for congressional action. Accordingly, the majority leader 
has put forth legislation, of which I am a cosponsor, as an alternative 
to the Dole-Lieberman legislation.
  Senator Mitchell's amendment instructs the President to seek NATO and 
U.N. agreement to lift the arms embargo. I, for one, am not completely 
comfortable with the United States seizing the lead in lifting the 
embargo multilaterally. However, I am steadfast in my opposition to a 
unilateral lifting of the embargo, and accordingly, I view the majority 
leader's amendment as a helpful alternative to the Dole-Lieberman 
legislation.
  I agreed to cosponsor this legislation for these main reasons: it 
offers an alternative to the Dole-Lieberman legislation; it endorses a 
multilateral approach to ending the conflict in Bosnia; and it signals 
that Congress intends and expects to be involved in authorizing further 
United States military activity in Bosnia. I would urge my colleagues 
to join me in voting for this legislation.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Delaware.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden] is 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, it has been over 2 years, since the spring 
of 1992, during which the outside world has stood largely idle as the 
Republic of Bosnia--a nation of Europe recognized by the United 
Nations--has been attacked, raped, and dismembered by forces under the 
control and direction of a neighboring government.
  Decades from now, historians will reflect on the Bosnian tragedy and 
wonder what compelled Western leaders to stand inert in the face of a 
challenge that so clearly threatened Western interests and Western 
values.
  Equally mysterious will be the language utilized to obfuscate Western 
inaction:
  We are told that the Bosnian crisis is a ``difficult diplomatic 
problem''--as if any foreign policy challenge were simple.
  We are told that we are doing all we can ``consistent with our 
national interest''--an articulation meant to imply that some larger 
strategic rationale requires us to be morally comatose.
  We are told that the genocide in Bosnia is a civil war, when it was 
obvious to all that the government in Belgrade was culpable in 
instigating the conflict.
  We have heard the Bosnian Government labeled ``the Moslems''--a 
choice of words designed to conjure up the frightful image of an 
Islamic tide sweeping across Europe--when it was well understood that 
the Sarajevo government was multiethnic in character.
  We have designated safe areas, which have, until recently, been safe 
only for Serb gunners.
  We have deployed a United Nations protection force that, although 
equipped with ample supplies of courage, has barely been empowered to 
protect itself.
  We have delivered ultimatums that, when implemented by U.N. 
bureaucrats, became not firm dictates, but negotiable instruments of 
diplomacy.
  We have purported to be neutral, while imposing an economic embargo 
against the aggressor and an arms embargo against the victim.
  And to demonstrate their evenhand- edness--some U.N. commanders and 
European diplomats have gone so far as to accuse Bosnian forces of 
perpetuating the fighting--a perverse form of moral relativism that 
equates Bosnian efforts in self-defense with illegal Serb aggression.
  The most recent display of neutrality by United Nations officials in 
Bosnia demonstrates that in fact they are not neutral at all--but are 
willing to provide aid and comfort to the Serbs.
  Last week, the United Nations special envoy, Mr. Akashi, made an 
astonishing concession to the Bosnian Serbs: He granted them permission 
to transport tanks across Sarajevo.
  This, despite a NATO ultimatum, issued last February, barring the 
presence of any such weapons inside a zone extending 20 kilometers 
around Sarajevo.
  It would be comical if it were not so tragic.
  Tomorrow, foreign ministers from the leading powers will gather in 
Geneva in hope of forging a joint approach to bring a negotiated 
settlement to the Bosnian war.
  As before, we will witness the sorry spectacle of our European allies 
pressing for an imposed settlement on the parties.
  I do not disagree that a negotiated settlement is the only way to end 
the Bosnia crisis. But an honorable--and more importantly--enduring 
settlement can only result with a shift in the balance of power on the 
ground.
  An imposed peace might bring a temporary cessation of hostilities, 
but I fear that it would result in disastrous long-term consequences--
an unjust partition policed by United States and European soldiers who 
would quickly be transformed from peacekeepers to apartheid cops.
  It is said that a termination of the arms embargo would come too late 
for Bosnia. I do not agree.
  The war is now at a critical stage. Although the guns have fallen 
silent in Sarajevo and around the other safe areas, Bosnian Serb troops 
are on the march elsewhere in the countryside.
  Having achieved most of their territorial aims, Serbia and the 
Bosnian Serbs seek to consolidate their conquests by expanding 
corridors which will assure the viability of a greater Serbia.
  Thus, after the siege of Gorazde assured the vitality of a route to 
the Adriatic, Serb forces are now converging in the northeast of 
Bosnia, poised to widen the corridor near Brcko that links Serbia with 
Serb-held areas in Croatia.
  Further to the south, Bosnian Serb forces are also massing near the 
town of Olovo, and are poised to squeeze government-held territory, 
centered on Tuzla, from two directions.
  Horrible atrocities and ethnic cleansing continue elsewhere in the 
country, outside the eye of U.N. observers and international media.
  In this context, lifting the arms embargo is the only feasible option 
that will permit the Bosnian Government the opportunity to defend 
itself against the Serb irregulars, who are well armed with the legacy 
of Tito's legions.
  I have been urging this course since the summer of 1992, and I have 
no illusions that it will be simple or without risk.
  In August of that year, the Senate approved a resolution that urged 
the use of all necessary means to ensure delivery of humanitarian 
relief in Bosnia.
  The following month, I added an amendment to the Foreign Operations 
Appropriations Act that urged the termination of the embargo as it 
applied to Bosnia, and authorized the transfer of $50 million in United 
States military equipment--off the shelf--to the Government of Bosnia.
  Last spring, I traveled to the region and met with the leaders of 
Bosnia, Croatia, and Serbia. Upon my return, I pressed for the so-
called lift and strike option that was later embraced by the Clinton 
administration.
  Many of those who have opposed my position in the past are now 
supporting of the Dole resolution. I welcome their change of heart.
  But let us all understand--as I know the minority leader does--that 
it will not be enough merely to lift the embargo.
  Lifting the embargo, whether unilaterally or in the United Nations, 
also requires the following steps:
  The provision of air power to prevent the Serbs from overrunning 
Bosnian forces before military supplies can be provided.
  The provision of weaponry and ammunition, including the $50 million 
in supplies authorized in the Biden amendment.
  It is also possible that UNPROFOR forces will have to be withdrawn, 
and in the short term, the humanitarian consequences will be grave.
  We should also understand that any pretense of neutrality will be 
dissolved--we will have taken sides with the Bosnian Government.
  My only disagreement with the Republican leader today is about the 
means, not about the ends.
  Given the opposition of our European allies to ending the embargo, I 
admit that the concept of unilateral termination has great appeal. 
Moreover, I am persuaded that there are legitimate legal and moral 
reasons to unilaterally lift the embargo.
  Legally, the right of self-defense--an inherent right codified in 
article 51 of the United Nations Charter--may only be circumscribed if 
the U.N. Security Council has taken ``measures necessary to maintain 
international peace and security.''
  Who would dispute that the Security Council has not taken the 
measures necessary to maintain international peace and security in 
Bosnia?
  Morally, it cannot be denied that the people of Bosnia have a right--
as stated so profoundly by Bosnian Prime Minister Haris Silajdzic--to 
choose how they wish to die.
  If the people of Bosnia choose weapons over food, it would be the 
height of arrogance for the international community to second-guess 
them.
  My position is simple and straightforward: We should lift the arms 
embargo, but we should first make one more attempt, in good faith, to 
end it where it began--in the U.N. Security Council.
  It is said that the allies will never agree to lifting the arms 
embargo because their forces constitute the bulk of UNPROFOR forces on 
the ground. Or that Russia will not agree.
  But the proposition has never been fully tested.
  To be sure, the Secretary of State consulted with the allies during 
his ill-fated mission a year ago. They gave him the cold shoulder. But 
when in the history of the alliance have our European friends agreed to 
anything unless we showed them the way?
  Whether or not the allies agree with us, I believe that we should 
proceed to the Security Council, and table a resolution to lift the 
embargo.
  On this occasion, we should bring the full weight of American 
diplomacy to bear.
  My agreement to go with this amendment and not to go with the 
minority leader's amendment today is conditioned upon the commitment of 
the administration to make a genuine effort at the United Nations to in 
fact lift the embargo, and to table, if this amendment passes, a 
resolution in the U.N. Security Council seeking the lifting of the 
embargo.
  It is not enough to suggest in my view that if this Mitchell 
amendment becomes law that they just vote with such an effort to lift 
the embargo.
  Once the resolution is tabled, then let the member states stand up 
and be counted. At the end of the day, I do not believe that the 
permanent members will have the courage to veto such a resolution. But 
we will never know until we try.
  If the Council fails to pass a resolution, then, and only then, 
should we consider unilateral action. This is exactly the course set 
forth in the Mitchell amendment.
  Under the Mitchell amendment, the President must take the following 
steps:
  The President must consult with the allies about lifting the embargo;
  He must then promptly propose or support a resolution in the U.N. 
Security Council to terminate the arms embargo; if that fails, the 
President must promptly consult with Congress regarding unilateral 
termination of the embargo.
  In my judgment, this is the only realistic course available to us.
  When the arms embargo was imposed by the Security Council in 
September 1991, it was passed with the full participation and support 
of the United States.
  The other members of the Council will surely question our commitment 
to future U.N. actions if we walk away from this resolution without 
attempting to do it by the rules first, going to the United Nations and 
seeking it being lifted.

  If we are unsuccessful in the Council, it is my hope and expectation 
that the President will come to us with a strategy for unilaterally 
lifting the embargo.
  Madam President, we signed on to this embargo--an ill-fated decision 
by President Bush. We did it under the rules. We should now go back 
under the rules. The President should commit to us, as he does in this 
amendment if it passes, that he will push for lifting that embargo, and 
table a resolution.
  Therefore, I will vote for the Mitchell amendment and against the 
Dole amendment, notwithstanding the fact that I think I was the first 
one on this floor to call for the lifting of this embargo.
  Mr. SMITH addressed the Chair.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I understand that Senator Smith is 
about to take time from Senator Dole's time.
  Mr. SMITH. That is correct.
  Madam President, I yield myself 3 minutes under the time controlled 
by the Republican leader, not under the leader's time, but under the 
time controlled by the leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I rise today in strong support of the 
Dole-Lieberman legislation to lift the arms embargo against the Bosnian 
Moslems.
  I want to commend Senator Lieberman and Senator Dole for their 
leadership in this debate.
  This is the kind of thing we are going to look back on several year 
from now, depending on how the outcome is, and either regret very much 
what we did or be very glad that we did what we did, depending on the 
outcome.
  I believe that the administration's foreign policy is in a shambles. 
And in Bosnia the President is now leading us across a Rubicon from 
which there is no return. We are on a course for catastrophe. We have 
no strategic interests at stake. We have no military objective. We have 
no established rules of engagement. We have no effective command 
structure, no definition of, or timetable, to achieve success, and no 
consensus for support among the American people.
  Under these circumstances, it is unconscionable to risk the lives of 
the American military men and women merely to advance the cause of 
multilateralism and some grand vision of the United Nations. It is 
unconscionable to do that. When are we going to learn?
  The only reasonable strategy is for America to terminate further 
escalation of military involvement and to immediately lift the arms 
embargo against the Bosnian Moslems, and, yes, unilaterally if the 
President does not exercise leadership to get the other members of the 
United Nations or NATO to join us.
  Let those who are being persecuted meet destiny on their own terms 
from behind their own weapons, not cowering in the ruins of some unsafe 
haven. We have neither the legal nor the moral authority to play 
policeman in this centuries-old civil war. Let us step back and allow 
the Bosnian Moslems the dignity and the capability to defend 
themselves. This is exactly what the Dole-Lieberman resolution does. It 
terminates the American arms embargo against the Government of Bosnia 
and allows them to exercise their right of self-defense under article 
51 of the U.N. Charter.
  Madam President, the only route to legitimate, lasting peace in the 
former Yugoslavia is through meaningful negotiation and compromise. The 
inhabitants of the former Yugoslavia alone hold the key to their 
future. The United States and the international community at large can 
and should encourage and support the peace process. But reconciliation 
cannot be imposed. It must be negotiated and accepted. This is 
something that the citizens of the former Yugoslavia and they alone 
must determine. At present, the military equation in Bosnia is 
completely one-sided. The Dole amendment will enable the Moslem forces 
to better defend themselves and level the playing field until a 
mutually acceptable peace settlement can be reached.
  I support this amendment and urge its adoption.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SMITH. If no one wishes to speak on the other side, Madam 
President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Wisconsin from the 
time controlled by Senator Dole.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for three minutes.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I once again rise in support of the 
bill to lift the U.N. arms embargo that continues to tie the hands of 
the sovereign Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. As my colleagues 
know, I have been steadfast in my call for this critical action since I 
came to this body 18 months ago. In March 1993, I introduced Senate 
Resolution 79 and joined a few other colleagues in warning that this 
arms embargo, imposed in 1991 upon a now defunct Yugoslavia, would 
legitimize a disparity in the military balance among the warring 
factions. Moreover, it would deny the most fundamental assistance to 
the Bosnian people who were, then as now, under a brutal siege by those 
calling for ``ethnic cleansing'' in the name of a Greater Serbia.
  I urged then that the embargo be lifted in collaboration with our 
allies, but I have found the arguments to lift the embargo unilaterally 
are growing more and more compelling. I also believe that now that 
Bosnia and Croatia have agreed to join in a confederation that we 
should be debating lifting the embargo against the Republic of Croatia 
as well.
  Opponents of this bill say this is not the time to act unilaterally 
and risk the loss of allied support in future multilateral actions of 
interest to the United States. Well, I say this is the time to stop 
squandering our energies on the vagaries of hypothetical future 
actions. The issue before us today is a concrete reality, the reality 
of an obsolete measure of questionable contemporary legality that is 
doing unquestionable harm to those whom we claim are already victims. 
Of course, we must consider the collateral consequences of our 
decisions, but let's put it in perspective.
  Do we really think that a unilateral United States action to lift 
this arms embargo will determine the positions of Security Council 
members such as China or Russia on future questions like North Korea or 
even Libya? Conversely, do we really think that if we vote down this 
measure that Ambassador Albright will somehow be better able to carry 
some future U.N. debate by reminding the Security Council members how 
we toed their line on this perverse embargo?
  Let us not flatter ourselves by thinking that our actions will so 
easily eclipse the self-interests of other nations; let us also not 
insult the intelligence of our allies by suggesting that all embargoes 
are equivalent and that their votes are somehow fungible commodities to 
be traded at the U.N. marketplace. U.N. members vote and act according 
to their national values and self-interests; we must do the same and 
this arms embargo is neither consistent with our values nor in our 
self-interest.
  While the situation in Bosnia has changed considerably, the essential 
rationale for lifting the embargo has remained unchanged since early 
1992. When the United Nations admitted Bosnia as a member state, it 
afforded it all of the rights of membership, including the right to 
self-defense, recognized around the world and--yes--codified in article 
51 of the U.N. Charter. That article clearly states that nothing in the 
Charter shall impair the inherent right of self-defense in the face of 
an armed attack until the Security Council has restored peace and 
security. Last month it was suggested that the second part of article 
51 limits our ability to lift the embargo unilaterally. I respectfully 
disagree. The rest of article 51 simply stipulates that self-defense 
measures taken by member-states shall not affect the authority and the 
responsibility of the Security Council to take other actions to restore 
peace and security. This stipulation pertains to the member nation who 
is defending itself, in this case Bosnia, not to other members who 
persist in their embargo of Bosnia.

  Madam President, some very distinguished Senators have suggested that 
our unilateral action will risk putting a ``Made in the U.S.A.'' stamp 
on solutions to the Bosnia problem. Last month we pondered the 
possibility that, to quote the Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner]:

       The U.S.A. becomes responsible from this moment on and our 
     allies step back and say, ``You took an action. We did not 
     agree to it. It is your conflict. You supply the arms. You 
     manage it. You take sides.''

  I find it curious that we do not hear this argument when we approve 
arms transfers to any other conflicted region of the world. But I, too, 
am very concerned about that prospect; we cannot be the world's 
policeman. By imposing the embargo we have already taken sides--the 
side of the Serbs. Lifting this arms embargo will put this conflict 
more in the hands of the Bosnians while giving the international 
community an opportunity to regroup on a more level playing field. 
Lifting the embargo will diminish the notion that Bosnia is an American 
problem to solve--not increase it. After all, the future of Bosnia is 
an interest first and foremost to Bosnians, then to the countries in 
the region, and finally to the United States as an ally and a world 
leader. Nothing we do or fail to do will change that geopolitical 
reality.
  The question for us and for everyone in the world community is how to 
respond within that reality. Mr. President, as to the notion that our 
actions will be seen as taking sides, I do not advocate taking sides in 
this conflict. I do not believe this bill is about the United States 
siding with the Bosnian Moslems.
  On the contrary, I also believe that we should lift the same embargo 
in place on the Republic of Croatia as well. To Serbia I would say that 
the evidence is overwhelming that you have engaged in cross-border 
aggression and atrocities in Bosnia; until you stop, we should use 
every possible measure to tighten the arms embargo on your republic. If 
that is taken sides, it is on the side of humanity and the rule of law.
  Madam President, we have all watched the diplomatic events of recent 
weeks with continued hope that the world community will finally respond 
in a coherent manner. I am convinced that our leadership in lifting the 
embargo can provide a solid foundation for future diplomatic progress, 
for no diplomatic solution built upon this flawed arms embargo can 
withstand the test of time. Suppose, for instance, that a fragile peace 
emerges in Bosnia. Will that be the time to lift the arms embargo on 
Bosnia and Croatia? Would that not disrupt the balance? And if it is 
not lifted, are these nations supposed to be unarmed, without a 
military? If so, then do they become wards of the U.N. Security 
Council, a U.N. protectorate or trusteeship? What does that imply for 
future levels of U.N. operations and U.S. support in the Balkans and 
elsewhere?

  My colleague from Virginia again has spoken eloquently on this matter 
with the command of the details for which he has become known in such 
debates. He pondered a wide range of very serious technical 
considerations which need to be addressed before the United States 
actually provides arms to Bosnia. I share his concerns but I do not 
believe that they are the proper domain for Senate debate here today.
  Let us permit the President to be President and leave to his 
administration those details which could be best described as the 
execution of policy. All our vote today will do is give the President 
the unfettered authority to provide arms support to Bosnia and 
strengthen his hand to do what he wants to do: lift the embargo. As in 
the case of most other authorizations, the President has considerable 
latitude to determine exactly how when to act.
  In any case, it seems to me that this authorization places the 
administration in a stronger position to bring positive and fresh 
leadership to the diplomatic table in the weeks ahead.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I yield 2 minutes from the time controlled by Senator 
Dole to the Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison].
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I rise to speak in favor of the 
Dole-McCain bill.
  Like Somalia before it, United States policy with respect to Bosnia 
is ``a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.'' When Winston 
Churchill used that phrase, he was referring to Russia, and he went on 
to say that the key to the riddle was Russian national interest. We 
must find the key to our predicament with regard to the 
administration's foreign policy. The question that we must answer for 
ourselves is, ``What U.S. national security interests are at stake in 
Bosnia, and if no vital national security interests are at stake, do we 
then have a moral obligation to support the Bosnians?''
  It is clear that the United States has no strategic interests in 
Bosnia. Therefore, I feel it is not in our interest to place U.S. 
ground troops in harms way.
  We do, however, have a moral obligation to follow declared U.S. 
doctrine, as enunciated by U.S. Presidents from John F. Kennedy to 
George Bush in that we will lend our support to oppressed people who 
are willing to fight for the freedom.
  It is not always our responsibility to fight for them, but we must be 
willing to support them. The issue is American leadership and resolve. 
There are despots in the world who may mistakenly be tempted into 
challenging our vital interests if we are perceived as weak.
  Three years ago, the United States formed and led a coalition of 
diverse nations to a stunning victory in operation Desert Storm. At 
that time, the United States was the unquestioned leader of the world. 
Are we now perceived as simply a member of the community of nations 
rather than its leader? The danger lies in the false sense of security 
that leadership in some way will evolve from consensus.
  Nothing could be further from the truth. Consensus follows 
leadership--leadership does not, not will it ever, evolve from 
consensus. It is up to us to provide that leadership.
  There is an old adage that it is preferable to die fighting on your 
feet than to live begging on your knees. It is clear that the Bosnians 
have made their choice, and it is to fight on their feet.
  We must allow them to do that. I urge support of the Dole-McCain 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from 
Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. Madam President, I just heard our colleague from Texas 
say--and I have heard it two or three times today--that we have no 
strategic interest.
  We do have strategic interests. The interest is in maintaining 
stability. Frankly, our policy has been anemic in Bosnia. On the 700th 
day of the artillery shelling of Sarajevo, we said, ``If you do not 
stop it, we are going to have airstrikes,'' and then the airstrikes 
stop. It should not have been the 700th day; it should have been the 2d 
or 7th day.
  Right now, we face a choice of the Mitchell amendment or the Dole 
amendment. I am going to vote for the Mitchell amendment and against 
the Dole amendment today. But I have to say time is running out. If we 
do not get action in 15 or 20 days--and I do not want to set an 
absolute deadline, but very, very shortly--I am going to be voting for 
a Dole-type of amendment. I do not like to see us do that unilaterally. 
We should not be a ``Lone Ranger" in the world. You have to work with 
the community of nations. But the administration has to understand that 
we feel their policy has been anemic; it has not been strong, and we 
have to do better. If we adopt the Mitchell amendment and should defeat 
the Dole amendment, that does not mean that this issue is settled. The 
administration has to lead, or I am ready to vote for a Dole-type of 
amendment.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, the distinguished chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee has a question, and I am prepared to yield him 
time for his question and for my response.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished majority leader.
  Madam President, may I say to my leader that it is not my intention 
to vote for the amendment by Mr. Dole. I hope that I can vote for the 
amendment by the majority leader. I have a question regarding the 
language, however, that is in paragraph 2. This is the language:

       Upon termination of the international embargo, the 
     President shall ensure that appropriate military assistance 
     be provided expeditiously to Bosnia and Herzegovina upon 
     receipt from that government of such a request in exercising 
     its right of self-defense.

  My question goes to the definition of the words ``appropriate 
military assistance.'' Are these words to be interpreted to mean 
manpower, training capability, or to weaponry only? If so, if it only 
applies to weapons, what is there to ensure that this will not be seen 
as an open-ended authorization, which the President can interpret to 
mean that, regardless of the appropriations and costs, or whatever, he 
is being authorized by the Congress to proceed in such a manner as he 
deems fit--in other words, in an open ended way?
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, it does not include anything other 
than equipment. Stated another way, it is not intended to cover 
personnel in any form.
  Second, to respond to the second part of the chairman's question, it 
is my intention to seek to add to the language the words ``subject to 
the regular notification procedures,'' which would directly involve the 
Congress in those decisions.
  Mr. BYRD. Does the majority leader intend to refer to the appropriate 
congressional committees in that language?
  Mr. MITCHELL. That is correct.
  Mr. BYRD. The courts are increasingly looking to the four corners of 
the law, rather than to legislative history as expressed on the Senate 
floor. I know the majority leader's intentions are what he said they 
were, namely, that this term ``appropriate military assistance'' would 
mean only equipment, weapons, supplies as I understood him.
  Mr. MITCHELL. That is correct. I will seek to gain consent to modify 
it as I have stated. And if it is not approved by the Senate, I will 
offer an amendment at a later time in the deliberations of another 
measure.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished majority leader for his 
consideration. I hope that in conference every effort will be made to 
tie this language down to mean weapons or equipment only, and to 
exclude manpower in any way.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I am prepared to give the Senator my full assurance in 
that regard.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished majority leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, from the time allocated to Senator 
Dole, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch].
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. HATCH. I thank the colleague from Connecticut.
  Madam President, I rise as a cosponsor of S. 2042. More than 2 years 
ago, I called for the lifting of the arms embargo for the victims of 
Serbian aggression. The need for this action was clear then, and it is 
even more clear now: Only by creating a balance of power on the ground 
will Serbia accept a just, negotiated settlement.
  American policy in the former Yugoslavia has been morally and 
politically bankrupt. We have been an active partner in a policy of 
deference to the aggressor and indifference to the victims of 
aggression.
  The decision to impose an arms embargo was motivated by the 
understandable intent to try to restrain the conflict by cutting off 
the supply of weapons to the combatants. However, that concept was 
tragically flawed. Serbia and its allies in Croatia and Bosnia 
controlled the vast majority of the weapons from the arsenals of the 
former Yugolsavia and the bulk of the former Yugoslavia's arms and 
munitions factories.
  In theory, the arms embargo appeared even-handed. In reality, it 
fundamentally favored Serbia and enabled Serbia to launch its war of 
aggression at minimal cost and risk.
  Madam President, the Croatian and Bosnian people do not need our 
pity, they need our weapons. The world disarmed these peoples. The 
world told these peoples to put their faith in the international 
community. The result has been ethnic cleansing and unspeakable 
violence and atrocities.
  This bizzare policy has been supported by the United States. In 
consonance with our European allies and Russia, we have kept the 
victims of Serbian aggression grossly handicapped in defending 
themselves.
  Those who claim that lifting the embargo means the United States will 
take sides in the conflict are misguided. We have already been 
intervening in the conflict through the arms embargo, but we have been 
intervening on the wrong side. This policy has aided and abetted 
Serbian aggression. It is time to end it.
  If the Security Council will not repeal the embargo, the United 
States should do so unilaterally. If the other members of the Security 
Council are willing to stand by while genocide takes place, the United 
States should not join them.
  Article 51 of the United Nations Charter states that nothing in the 
charter overrules the inherent right of a state for individual and 
collective self-defense. No Security Council resolution--including the 
one establishing this arms embargo--can negate the right of self-
defense.
  The opponents of this bill will argue that article 51 only 
operates until the United Nations has acted to establish peace and 
stability. But the fact is that the United Nations has yet to do 
anything to establish peace and stability.

  It has imposed the arms embargo, but that has only assisted the 
aggressors.
  It has sent so-called peacekeepers. But they have not kept the peace 
and have hardly been able to defend themselves. They have watched the 
Serbs perpetrate war crimes--the same crimes we have watched on 
television night after night.
  The United Nations has sent negotiators. But they have failed time 
after time. The Serbs are no closer to accepting a just settlement than 
they were 2 years ago.
  Let us face facts. The United Nations has no intention of taking 
strong military action to restore peace and stability. Consequently, 
there are no grounds to restrict Bosnia's article 51 right of 
individual and collective self-defense.
  Given the present balance of power, the Serbs will only accept an 
agreement that ratifies the gains of their aggression. Only if we 
change the balance of power will the Serbs accept a just peace that 
involves the return of territories seized by force and ethnically 
cleansed. We will only end the war if the Serbs understand that further 
aggression will be too costly.
  What needs to be done is simple: Remove U.N. peacekeepers from the 
region, lift the arms embargo, and use NATO to conduct selected air 
strikes against strategic Serbian targets, such as supply lines, 
depots, and command and control centers.
  Current administrations policy depends totally on the use of air 
strikes. But air strikes alone will not work. Even President Clinton 
admitted on April 20 that ``NATO's air power alone cannot prevent 
further Serb aggressions or advances or silence every gun.'' It makes 
no sense to adopt a policy that you know in advance will not work.
  We are committed to defending the safe haven around six Bosnian 
towns. In this respect, I want to pose several questions for the 
supporters of the administration's policy:
  Will NATO air forces respond to all future Serbian attacks on these 
six cities, including low-level infantry and mortar attacks? If not, we 
have no policy to deal with those kind of attacks, which have been 
continuing around Gorazde and other cities.
  Will NATO air forces respond to Serbian attacks along fronts other 
than the six cities? If not, we have no policy to stop Serbian 
aggression in general.
  Will NATO air forces be used to give Serbia a real incentive to pull 
out of territory already acquired by force? If not, we have no policy 
to compel Serbia to accept and to implement a just settlement.
  The fact is that we have no policy on any of these points. Token 
gestures and occasional threats of air strikes will not solve the 
problem.
  Madam President, the Senate has an opportunity to begin to rectify 
the failure of United States policy in the former Yugoslavia. We have a 
moral responsibility to do so.
  There is a wider moral issue at stake in this vote. The arms embargo 
deprives Bosnia of the ability to defend itself. If the United States 
continues to uphold the embargo--if the Senate fails to vote to repeal 
the embargo--than the United States takes upon itself the moral 
responsibility for what happens to Bosnia.
  Let me restate that point. If we allow Bosnia to defend itself by 
repealing the embargo, the Bosnian Government is morally responsible 
for its survival and future. If we deprive Bosnia of its right of self-
defense, the United States becomes morally responsible for Bosnia's 
survival.
  The United States has been in a similar position before. It was in 
1963 in a place called South Vietnam. When the Kennedy administration 
backed the coup against President Diem, it destabilized the country and 
triggered a chain reaction of events that led to the deployment of 
500,000 U.S. troops.
  By arrogating to itself the right to determine who ruled in Saigon, 
the Kennedy administration made the United States morally responsible 
for South Vietnam's fate.
  We must not make a similar mistake in Bosnia. We must let the Bosnian 
people carry the responsibility for their own future. We should not 
arrogate to ourselves the right to determine whether or not they will 
survive.
  If we keep the embargo in place, make no mistake about it: We are 
also accepting the moral burden for what happens in Bosnia. And, if we 
do so, we could well be forced to carry out our moral responsibility at 
the price of American blood.
  Supporters of the administration policy argue that negotiations can 
still work. I ask them to look down the road on which they urge us to 
travel.
  That road will lead to the deployment of tens of thousands of U.S. 
troops as peacekeepers to enforce whatever settlement is reached. The 
Clinton administration makes no bones about the fact that if a 
settlement is negotiated, the United States will deploy 20,000 or more 
troops to Bosnia.
  I do not want to see American ground troops sent to enforce a 
settlement in Bosnia. I want the Bosnians to be strong enough to 
enforce their side of the settlement on their own. That can only happen 
if we lift the embargo.
  I will predict today that if we send peacekeepers to enforce a 
settlement in Bosnia, there will be significant casualties. It will 
lead to another Somalia or another Lebanon as surely as night follows 
day. We need not take that road if we create a military offset against 
the Serbs by arming the Croatians and the Bosnians.
  Madam President, our focus must, above all, be the interests of the 
United States. That is our first responsibility. It is not in our 
interest to play eternal referee in the conflicts within the former 
Yugoslavia. We should not expend the lives of our sons and daughters by 
putting them in the line of fire of Serbian forces who have studied the 
lessons of our experience in Somalia and Lebanon.
  History shows that until a balance of power exists among 
belligerents, conflict will continue. There is no such balance of power 
in the former Yugoslavia. The Serbs have the big stick. They have 
overwhelming superiority in arms and materiel. Until equilibrium in 
armaments is attained between the Croats and Bosnians on the one hand 
and the Serbs on the other, the war will continue.
  I hope all Members will reflect on the course this administration is 
taking. No settlement can endure without military equilibrium. Any 
settlement we broker that requires the Serbs to give up land will cause 
the Serbs to view us as an adversary or enemy. In that context, the 
United States must not make the mistake of embroiling its ground forces 
in the role of referee in terrain favoring guerrilla warfare and 
against Serbian forces who have no intention of forgiving or 
forgetting.
  Madam President, the sine qua non of successful resolution of the 
conflict in the former Yugoslavia is the repeal of the arms embargo. I 
urge support for S. 2042.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from 
Michigan [Mr. Levin].
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized for 3 
minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I support the resolution of Senators 
Dole, Lieberman, and others.
  To those who say it makes no sense to allow Bosnians to defend 
themselves because that will result in more arms flowing into the 
region, I agree that is not the world's first choice. We and the 
nations of the world, acting through the United Nations, are unwilling 
to take actions necessary to protect the civilians in Bosnia against 
ethnic cleansing and aggression. So the fire continues to burn, 
primarily in one direction, against the Bosnian Government.
  If we are not willing to defend them, we must surely allow the 
primary victims of aggression to defend themselves, a guarantee that is 
in the U.N. Charter.
  Some have argued that our allies and other nations have personnel on 
the ground in Bosnia assisting in humanitarian relief efforts, and 
these forces would be endangered if more arms flowed into the region. 
They might then decide to withdraw forces and humanitarian relief might 
be interrupted.
  But the Bosnian Government has consistently appealed for the end of 
the embargo and said many times that if it is a choice between being 
allowed to defend themselves without one of their hands tied behind 
their back, or receiving humanitarian relief from UNPROFOR on the 
ground, they would prefer to defend themselves and not become 
casualties and victims for humanitarian relief workers to care for.
  The arms embargo is preserving a disparity that allows the Bosnian 
Serbs a continuing advantage in weaponry and has proven to be a 
counter-incentive toward a fair settlement.
  Of course, we should seek allied support for exempting Bosnia from 
the arms embargo. Of course, we should seek Security Council agreement 
on lifting that embargo. But those efforts have failed. We know they 
are going to fail again.
  There is not a shred of evidence that an effort at the U.N. Security 
Council to lift the arms embargo multilaterally is going to succeed. It 
is immoral for the world--particularly for Europe, but the world as a 
whole--to not have taken the risk sooner to defend Bosnia against 
ethnic cleansing. It is incredible not to let the Bosnians defend 
themselves. It is unconscionable to keep the embargo on arms going to 
Bosnia when the other side has them in quantity.
  Even though the allies are not persuaded, and will not be persuaded, 
to lift the embargo, we should act. The alternative is either no 
settlement, or a settlement so one sided in its imposed terms, that it 
will spawn continuous war in retribution. A settlement will come only 
after the parties want it, and that will happen only if the parties 
have some parity in the military equation.
  I thank my friend from Connecticut, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Arizona [Mr. McCain].
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, in a little while the Senate will make a 
very important determination: whether we should defend the sovereignty 
of a nation where our vital national interests are not at stake or 
whether we should allow that nation the opportunity to provide for its 
own defense. That is, in essence, what this choice between the 
legislation offered by Senators Dole and Lieberman and the amendment 
offered by Senator Mitchell will resolve.
  I believe Senators Dole and Lieberman and all those Senators 
supporting this bill have adequately refuted the many arguments posed 
against it. The unlawfulness of the embargo has been well established. 
Those who fear that other embargoes will be undermined should we act 
unilaterally should remember that as the sole superpower left in the 
world, as the leading nation in NATO, and as the greatest force for 
good on earth, the United States should have sufficient influence left 
to discourage our closest allies from breaking international law and 
acting against our and their best interests. All the logistic questions 
raised against lifting the embargo were raised against our support for 
the Afghan resistance. Those problems were overcome then, and they can 
be overcome in this situation.
  In the end, the Dole-Lieberman legislation is a matter of simple 
justice. I do not know if it will shorten or lengthen the war. I do not 
know if the Bosnian Government can prevail in this conflict. I do not 
know if they can win back sufficient territory to make a settlement 
more equitable. But they have the inalienable right to defend 
themselves, and no nation, certainly not the leader of the free world, 
should deny them that right unless we are prepared to defend Bosnia 
ourselves.
  The distinguished majority leader's amendment, in effect, asks us to 
authorize the U.S. assumption of the responsibility to defend Bosnia. 
As I made clear in my statement the other day, I believe that is a 
profound mistake.
  Further, Senator Mitchell's amendment does not require the President 
to lift the embargo--multilaterally if possible, unilaterally, if 
necessary. It does instruct the President to immediately seek NATO 
agreement to end the embargo, and upon such agreement to propose that 
the Security Council terminate this unjust interference with Bosnia's 
inherent right to self defense.
  That would be an improvement over current circumstances, Mr. 
President. That the President needs to be instructed to take such 
action is a rather sad commentary on the administration. For as often 
as the President has declared his support for ending the embargo, we 
have no evidence that his administration has taken the first step in 
the United Nations or in NATO to achieve that laudable goal. It is the 
administration's failure to act that made it necessary for the 
distinguished minority leader and Senator Lieberman to offer their 
legislation.
  Unfortunately, given the intensity of the administration's opposition 
to the Dole-Lieberman legislation, and their record of nonsupport in 
the past, I have no confidence that if the administration encounters 
the least opposition from NATO or the Security Council that it will 
seriously try to overcome that opposition or to act unilaterally if 
necessary.
  By actively opposing this legislation to lift the unlawful arms 
embargo against Bosnia, the administration has revealed once again the 
abject poverty of its foreign policy commitments. With their typical 
resort to obfuscation, the administration has yet again sought to climb 
down from another frequently expressed promise to act.
  Time and again, the President has voiced his support for lifting the 
embargo. What has the administration done to give force to his support? 
Absolutely nothing. And it will do nothing tomorrow or the next day or 
the day after that. Instead, the administration will once again attempt 
to fill the great yawning abyss between its rhetoric and its action 
with cynical and specious arguments that are intended, as is so much of 
their diplomacy, to transfer the responsibilities and the authority of 
the world's only superpower to any other nation or nations willing to 
relieve them of the burden.
  We are rapidly approaching the point, Madam President, when the word 
of the United States, purchased over the years with so much blood and 
treasure, is no longer worth the television time the administration 
uses to make their faithless promises. It is time, Madam President, for 
the Congress to step in and restore some credibility to American 
foreign policy. It is time for Congress to assume the responsibilities 
which the administration has abrogated, and make the word of the United 
States stand for something greater than the clatter of broken promises.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote against delaying simple justice 
for Bosnians any longer, to vote against authorizing the use of 
American force in a conflict which we are not prepared to win, and 
where our own vital national interests are not threatened. I urge all 
of my colleagues to support the just and necessary legislation offered 
by Senator Dole and Senator Lieberman, and lift the arms embargo 
against Bosnia now.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from 
Virginia [Mr. Warner].
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized for 3 
minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, at this very moment, the Senate Armed 
Services Committee is conducting a hearing on Somalia. One of the 
witnesses is a father who lost a son.
  I read from that father's testimony:

       We should also let everyone, especially the policymakers, 
     know the consequences of foreign policy that is developed 
     haphazardly and implemented by amateurs. Too frequently, 
     policymakers are insulated from the misery they create. If 
     they could be with the chaplain who rings a doorbell at 6:20 
     in the morning to tell a 22-year-old woman she is now a 
     widow, they would develop their policies more carefully.

  Madam President, I most respectfully say to both of my leaders, I do 
not think we have conducted this debate in a manner that is adequate to 
the gravity of the decision about to be made.
  I spoke on Monday and laid out a series of questions in opposition to 
both Leader Dole's amendment and Leader Mitchell's amendment. I stand 
today in opposition to both, and I offer these questions: Has the 
Senate considered this resolution in committee? No; neither one. Has it 
conducted briefings directed specifically at the issues in the 
resolution? No. Yet, we are about to make a decision which could result 
in a subsequent hearing of the Armed Services Committee or other 
committees which would require that we look squarely into the eyes of 
parents and families who have lost sons and daughters in this region of 
the world.
  I say to the Mitchell resolution--and forgive me for rushing, because 
I have but a minute left--technically, I would say this resolution can 
be interpreted as much like the Dole resolution. It is a unilateral 
lifting.
  Yes, we go to the United Nations, but it does not speak to whether 
the United Nations supports or rejects. It implies that once that 
action is taken, then we begin, as the distinguished Senator from West 
Virginia put it, to send in supplies. Are we sending in supplies 
without personnel to explain or train how to use them, to maintain 
them? I say that much is left to be answered.
  Second, the Mitchell resolution says ``to protect the UNPROFOR.'' 
UNPROFOR would have to pull out, in my judgment, and the judgment of 
many in the administration, if the embargo is lifted.
  The resolution does not speak to what use of air power is then made 
if UNPROFOR is pulled out, and the Bosnian Government is rearmed. It 
speaks to only isolated areas in that region of tragic conflict as to 
what air power can do.
  Is there any limitation on the Bosnian Government to utilize this new 
military equipment to regain what they have lost? It is silent as to 
that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, the Mitchell resolution speaks to the 
fact that we should come back if there is a further question of ground 
troops.
  Why is there silence to other Americans who are flying, who are at 
sea? Are they entitled to less protection than those that may be 
involved on ground?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. WARNER. Yes, regrettably the time of 3 minutes on this tragic 
thing has expired. I regret that. The opposition has not been given, in 
my judgment, a fair opportunity to reply.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I just wanted to say that this matter 
was before the Senate 2 days ago. Any Senator who wanted to speak had 
the opportunity to speak for as long as he or she wanted to. We stayed 
in session for as long as any Senator wanted to speak.
  The Senator from Virginia availed himself of that opportunity. He 
spoke at length. Others chose not to do so. I can make it possible for 
any Senator who wants to speak to do so, but I cannot force a Senator 
to speak on the subject if he or she chooses not to do so.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the distinguished leader. I did speak for the 
better part of an hour on Monday, and indicated my desire to speak for 
10 minutes as part of any time agreement in opposition to both 
resolutions. I have to accept the responsibility that that request went 
astray.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Georgia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized for 7 
minutes.
  Mr. NUNN. Madam President, my bottom line is, I support the Mitchell 
resolution and oppose the Dole resolution. But I do have a lot of 
caveats about it. The largest caveat about the whole debate is that we 
are in real danger in this country, not simply in the Senate. We are in 
real danger of concentrating so much on interests that are humanitarian 
and important that we do not focus on what is truly vital.
  What we do here today may very well have a bearing on one of our 
vital interests where tens of thousands of Americans are at risk, and 
that is Korea. I think everyone ought to keep that in mind.
  It is hard for me to conceive of a unilateral lifting of an embargo 
that has gone through the Security Council at the same time we are on 
the verge of having to request that same Security Council to put an 
embargo on Korea.
  We move against one that we voted for and say we are going to take 
this action unilaterally and, at the same time, we go to China and 
Russia and others on the Security Council and say, ``Now, go along with 
us on Korea, because we believe that is vital.''
  We are in real danger of losing sight of the difference between 
important and humanitarian, and vital.
  America has a tremendous stake in Korea. If that one goes wrong, we 
will lose an awful lot of people. And I do agree with that part of what 
Senator Warner said a few minutes ago.
  The second thing that I think is important to keep in perspective is 
whether we go into a lifting of the embargo or whether we go into a 
massive bombing campaign, which we have already threatened at some 
point we may have to carry out. And, in my view, there should be 
sanctuaries if we begin that process. Either of those steps is 
incompatible, with tens of thousands of U.N. relief workers and 
humanitarian workers and military forces who are lightly armed still 
being under the gun of the Bosnian Serbs.
  Whatever we do here has to be done in concert with our allies, 
because they have people on the ground. In spite of our disagreements--
and I have profound disagreements with our allies on this one--I 
believe the embargo should have been lifted a long time ago. I still 
believe it ought to be lifted.
  But, in spite of that, to do it unilaterally when they have the 
forces at risk is to ask for the beginning of, I think, a 
disintegration of the alliance itself, and I mean by that the NATO 
alliance.
  I am not saying this would be the fatal blow, but this would be the 
beginning of the unraveling of the kind of collective security we have 
had since World War II.
  I understand where the proponents of the Dole resolution are coming 
from. I identify with those instincts to the bottom of my heart. But I 
do not believe this is the way to do it.
  I would have to add that I think the embargo is counterproductive. I 
think the embargo is, in many aspects, immoral. And I think we are in 
grave danger--``we'' being the entire United Nations and the NATO 
alliance--of reversing what some people have probably forgotten, but it 
was a pretty good doctrine, called the Nixon Doctrine, which says the 
first thing we do is help other people by arming them, letting them 
fight for themselves when they are willing, and the last thing we do is 
use our own military forces. That came out of Vietnam.
  Collectively, NATO and the United Nations are reversing that 
doctrine.
  Madam President, I believe it is enormously important that we 
coordinate whatever we do, as frustrating as it may be. It will require 
very strong American leadership. It will require the President of the 
United States being personally involved. It will require, if we are 
going to have a lifting of the embargo or any other kind of decisive 
collective action by our allies, more leadership than has thus far been 
exerted on behalf of our own country, as well as on behalf of other 
countries. But we should not do it unilaterally.
  Madam President, I want to throw out just one example of something 
that I believe should be considered, but it could not be considered 
unless we do it collectively. It would be impossible. The debate on 
lifting the embargo is all involved in either lifting it or not lifting 
it. There is a way to calibrate a lifting of the embargo that has not 
really been explored with our allies. But it would require exploring 
with our allies--and not only our allies, it would require the 
Croatians to be involved--and that is, first of all, for the Security 
Council to authorize the lifting of the embargo on Bosnia to permit the 
controlled entry of selected defensive weapons to meet the needs of 
Bosnian defenders if further Serbian attacks take place on the safe 
havens.

  No. 2, that an international screening body be set up by the United 
Nations to ensure that the weapons to be provided are the type and the 
quality and the quantity suitable for defensive action and calibrated 
to enable a defense rather than a sustained offensive action. That is 
why our allies are opposed to lifting the embargo. They fear a 
sustained kind of Bosnian Moslem or Bosnian Government offensive action 
which would just spread the war and have tremendous bloodshed. We 
cannot dismiss that as simply a frivolous fear.
  The third thing that I would suggest is that we seek to involve--with 
our NATO allies--the Russians as well as the East Europeans, where they 
have stockpiled defensive weapons, where those in former Yugoslavia 
have already known how to operate those weapons because some of them 
were in the Yugoslavian Army; that we have some of those weapons be 
included and that we involve the Russians, here, in helping to select 
the kind of weapons that would be provided. I have in mind, certainly, 
antitank missiles. There is absolutely no excuse anyone can offer for 
denying antitank weapons for people who are being victimized and run 
over by tanks. But we cannot do it unilaterally.
  The fourth step is that such weapons and equipment be earmarked for 
the safe areas and other populated areas and that we tell the Bosnian 
Serbs in advance, ``We are going to release this equipment if you 
continue your attack.'' This would give us, in my opinion, a bigger 
lever than the threat of bombing, because this lever could be done with 
somewhat less risk to the collateral damage that we would have from 
bombing.
  The fifth step, the Bosnian Moslem forces located in and around these 
safe areas, that some of them be provided training now; that we begin 
to train them on these weapons now so that would let the Bosnian Serbs 
and others know that this kind of defensive package is coming if they 
resume their attacks.
  The sixth step, the sixth part of this, would be to have Croatia 
agree to let the arms flow across Croatia, which is necessary.
  Seventh, that the United States and our allies be prepared to air 
drop these kinds of weapons in after appropriate training. And I am not 
one of those who think training is going to take 6 or 8 months. I think 
it could be done much sooner than that.
  Last but of tremendous importance to our allies--and I repeat what I 
said earlier, that we have to understand that although we would like to 
have it in every direction, we would like to be able to lift the 
embargo, continue the humanitarian aid, or start a big bombing campaign 
in response to an attack and then still continue humanitarian aid, at 
some point we have to understand these missions are incompatible. We 
have heard over in the Armed Services Committee this morning about 
incompatible missions. In Somalia we saw what that led to. If we 
continue to have this kind of lack of dialog and lack of understanding 
with our allies, at some point if aggression is resumed we are going to 
have a humanitarian disaster to the U.N. personnel or to the lightly 
armed forces in that country. And everybody is going to say why did it 
happen? Why did it happen? We will have a postmortem investigation. But 
it is predictable now. If we continue to have debate with our allies 
and no agreement with our allies and continue to debate this in a 
vacuum not considering the effect of our action on those people who 
already are in harm's way on the ground in Bosnia, we are going to have 
some kind of real tragedy.
  So, I regret that I have to oppose the Dole-Lieberman amendment, but 
doing this unilaterally is not the way to do it. It will haunt us all 
over the world. It will begin to haunt us in areas where we have truly 
vital interests and where a huge number of Americans are in harm's way. 
And I talked specifically about Korea.
  Without the cooperation of China and Russia and Japan and of course 
South Korea and others including Britain and France, we will not solve 
the Korean problem and that problem is of tremendous and vital interest 
to the United States. So we have to consider this in a broader context 
than our natural instincts on both humanitarian concerns, on the 
tragedy, on the atrocities that have been committed, and on our concern 
for that area. We have to begin to look at American foreign policy in a 
broader context. We cannot debate every single element of American 
foreign policy as if there is nothing else in the world that exists. 
That is what we are doing here on the floor today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kohl). The time of the Senator has 
expired.
  Mr. NUNN. I yield the floor.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from 
California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator California is recognized for 1 
minute.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, if I might ask the majority leader to comment, on the 
completion of my thoughts? I have been very tortured about how I was 
going to vote on this. I feel that Senator Dole and Senator Lieberman 
and others have made an extremely important point through this debate, 
and that they have moved in fact the resolution that the majority 
leader is offering. I want to make sure I understand it completely.
  My own view is that, as I believe most have said today, that the 
embargo should be lifted. My further view is that the best thing is if 
it is lifted by all the nations and done through the United Nations. 
That would be my preference. And if that does not happen, I believe we 
need to then move expeditiously in a unilateral way.
  Mr. President, it is my understanding that is exactly what the 
majority leader has said here. On page 2, on No. 2 where the majority 
leader says, ``The Congress favors the termination of the arms embargo 
against the Government of Bosnia.'' And further down ``If the Security 
Council fails to pass such a resolution the President shall''--and you 
have added ``within 5 days''--``consult with Congress regarding 
unilateral termination of the arms embargo.''
  It is my understanding that at that time either the majority leader, 
or Senator Lieberman or Senator Dole could in fact offer this 
unilateral lifting--at that time. Am I correct in that assumption?
  Mr. MITCHELL. The Senator is correct. And of course we should know 
that that could happen at any time in any event.
  Mrs. BOXER. Exactly. So nothing in the majority leader's resolution 
precludes such a unilateral resolution?
  Mr. MITCHELL. That is right.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the leader for clarifying that.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Could I just ask the leader a question on that in 30 
seconds?
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President--yes.
  Mr. CHAFEE. OK. Can the administration lift the embargo without any 
resolution of Congress anytime it wants?
  Mr. MITCHELL. That is a matter of some dispute. Some contend the 
administration does have the power to do so, and so that event could 
occur.
  Mr. CHAFEE. What does the majority leader contend?
  Mr. MITCHELL. I am not making that contention in that argument.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Thanks for the guidance.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the violence that has pervaded the former 
Yugoslavian Republic has resulted in the loss of thousands of lives and 
more than 1 million refugees. The Balkan conflict has not only seized 
those involved; people around the world have watched in horror as this 
conflict has progressed.
  Here in the United States emotions and reactions to the conflict have 
ranged from frustration to devastation. The concerns of my fellow 
Idahoans, as well as my own concerns, have also run that course of 
feelings.
  The situation in Bosnia at present is quiet and somewhat stable. But 
this conflict has taught us one thing; peace agreements are difficult 
to obtain and when they are secured they are short lived. Therefore, 
this conflict is far from over and, unfortunately, few policy options 
remain.
  The proposal being debated today would lift the United States arms 
embargo on the former Yugoslavia, as it applies to Bosnian Moslems. 
This policy option is not without some flaws, which concerns me. For 
example, I am concerned about the safety of U.N. peacekeeping troops 
that are presently on the ground in the region. Their safety needs to 
be kept in mind in carrying out this or any other policy option.
  In addition, I am concerned about the potential escalation of the 
conflict. After all, we are not alone in our involvement in this 
situation. The conflict is in Europe, and that is where the 
repercussions of an escalation in the fighting will be felt. And, 
containment of this policy suits the interests of the United States, as 
well as Europe.
  However, having said that, the positive aspects of lifting the arms 
embargo on Bosnia outweigh my concerns.
  As a firm supporter of second amendment rights in the United States, 
I also believe that the Bosnian Moslems have the right to protect 
themselves from Serbian aggression. We have seen these people brutally 
slaughtered as this conflict has progressed, and all without the 
ability to protect themselves.
  Lifting the arms embargo and allowing the Bosnian Moslems to protect 
themselves is far more acceptable than an alternative such as the 
introduction of U.S. ground troops. I am concerned about the potential 
direction that other policy options may take, which would lead toward 
the involvement of U.S. ground forces. I do not support the use of U.S. 
forces in this conflict at this time.
  In addition, lifting the arms embargo provides an opportunity to 
bring some balance to this conflict that will force the involved 
parties to the negotiating table. That is an important point, Mr. 
President, because the roots of this conflict run deep and the desire 
to be the winner is very strong. Therefore, both sides to the conflict 
need to see that getting to the negotiating table is in their best 
interest. Then a lasting cease-fire or peace agreement can be achieved.
  Therefore, Mr. President, I will be supporting Senator Dole's bill, 
S. 2042.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, with the indulgence of the Senator from 
Kansas I am going to just make a brief statement relative to the issue 
that will be before us upon the vote on the current issue, and that is 
the lifting of the arms embargo on Bosnia and Herzegovina.
  A wise man once said, ``The success of a policy is measured by the 
catastrophes that do not ensue.''
  Mr. President, the catastrophe that we call Bosnia is worse than the 
result of a policy that has failed. It is the result of no policy at 
all.
  In Bosnia, as in Haiti, Somalia, North Korea, and elsewhere, this 
administration's action has not been characterized by the insightful 
analysis, decisive action, or strategic vision that is required and 
necessary in the conduct of foreign policy.
  Rather than a plan to guide international relationships and to 
protect America's vital interests abroad, this administration's foreign 
policy goals seem to be the abrogation of America's right to act as a 
sovereign nation, and the subrogation of its treasure, resources and 
the lives of its young men and women in uniform to the whims and 
aspirations of the United Nations.
  In his own statements, the President has declared that ``economic 
progress is at the center of our policy abroad.'' And he says his 
primary goals are to ``foster new democracies or restore them where 
overthrown.''
  Mr. President, while those are noble motives, they do not constitute 
a foreign policy.
  As President Kennedy once so aptly observed, ``The purpose of foreign 
policy is not to provide an outlet for our own sentiments of hope or 
indignation; it is to shape real events in a real world.''
  Mr. President, we are operating in a vacuum of Presidential 
leadership, and we now find ourselves in a situation in Bosnia with 
few, if any, viable options.
  Yet something must be done to break the stalemate. Something must be 
done to prevent a deepening of our commitment to the conflict. And 
something must be done to provide the Bosnians with a measure of 
defense against an intractable enemy that now strikes with impunity.
  Therefore, Mr. President, with considerable reservation, I will 
support a lifting of the arms embargo against Bosnia and Herzegovina.
  What I do not support is further U.S. involvement in this war.
  I harbor no illusions that lifting the embargo will somehow effect 
the result, but if lifting the embargo will allow the United States to 
exit this conflict with some sense that it has not left the Moslems in 
a defenseless status caused by our own misguided policy decisions, then 
such a decision is probably worth supporting. The fact of the matter is 
it is highly unlikely that we have any intention of providing more 
effective assistance to the Moslems. To pretend otherwise is to hold up 
the mistaken hope that the United States will intervene in this 
conflict in such a manner as to advance the Moslem interest.
  But our intervention will not be in a manner that can effectively 
achieve the desired Moslem goal of recapturing lost territory, nor will 
it effect a meaningful settlement of the conflict. Such a result cannot 
be achieved by threat, as the administration has learned or, hopefully, 
has learned.
  It cannot be achieved by a so-called and entirely misnamed U.N. 
peacekeeping operation. It cannot be achieved by air strikes as any 
military commander will tell you, and as we have already learned. It 
can only be achieved by massive infusion of United States ground 
forces, which we should not, and hopefully will not, support. After 
listening to Member after Member of this body come here and say we will 
not commit U.S. ground forces on the ground in this area of the world, 
I doubt that Congress will authorize that.
  We will not authorize U.S. forces because this administration has not 
defined what vital strategic U.S. interest lies at the heart of this 
policy. We have not defined a strategy. We have not defined a mission. 
We have not defined how once having inserted U.S. troops we can safely 
ensure they can accomplish their mission and we can bring them back 
out. And we have not, obviously, secured the support of this Congress 
or the American people.
  Mr. President, the burgeoning economic conflicts erupting throughout 
the world make it more likely that, in the future, we will be facing 
challenges that look a lot more like Bosnia than Desert Storm.
  But until we have a President who understands that foreign policy is 
more than just another item to be successfully navigated in daily press 
briefings, or avoided by holding a summit, or abdicated by passing it 
off to the United Nations, many more such catastrophes will ensue.
  While Bosnia is a terrible problem, it is just one small part of a 
much larger problem that must be addressed--our lack of any coherent, 
consistent foreign policy. I intend to address that issue at length at 
a later time.
  Mr. President, as we look to the vote which will be occurring shortly 
on lifting the arms embargo, I trust that it can be a means of 
expressing a way out of this conflict, not a further step into this 
conflict. We can then say with, I think, ample justification that we 
are providing an opportunity for the Bosnian people to defend their 
territory, but that the United States simply will not be engaged in 
standing by their side in this conflict and achieving some very dubious 
ends.
  Mr. President, with that I yield back whatever time I have remaining 
and again thank the Senator from Kansas for her patience in allowing me 
to address both of these subjects.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, Senator Dole is right on target. We are 
witnessing wholesale slaughter of the Bosnian people, yet the United 
Nations will not allow them to defend themselves. So, what Senator Dole 
and I, and many others, have said many times before, we are saying 
again: Lift the arms embargo on the people of Bosnia.
  Reminders of Vietnam are inevitable: No strategy, no commitment, no 
leadership. Timidity and vacillation are unbecoming to the United 
States of America. Let's disassociate the United States from the 
embargo. Above all, let us not kow-tow to our allies or to the United 
Nations. Let them do as they wish. Let us do what is right.
  The time is long past due for President Clinton to make a decision 
and stick by it. He must not again talk about air strikes and then 
declare that he doesn't know what he means by airstrikes. He must let 
the American people know what he's considering: Missile attacks? 
Pinprick bombing raids? Will U.S. fliers be exposed to antiaircraft 
fire? Will U.S. forward observation units be on the ground?
  Who can answer those questions? Who's calling the shots? Will the 
United Nations order U.S. pilots to make air strikes? Will the United 
States support handing off authority over NATO aircraft to the United 
Nations?
  The State Department and the White House can't answer those 
questions. It is clear that they don't have a policy.
  I don't support airstrikes--for the time being, at least--but I do 
support, in the name of decency, the United States lifting the arms 
embargo on Bosnia and letting those pitiful people proceed with 
defending themselves.
  One last point, Mr. President: It is heartbreaking to note the murder 
in Bosnia, but in the long term, the price the world will pay will be 
higher still. With empty threats, hollow ultimatums, and embarrassing 
flip-flops, the credibility of the United States has been whittled 
away.
  It is not only the Serbs who are thumbing their noses at the United 
States; North Korea, Haiti, and other tin-pot dictatorships are 
ridiculing America. If this does not stop, the debate one day will not 
be about who lost Bosnia. It will be about who lost America.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to state my intention to vote 
against Senate bill 2042. This bill would lift the arms embargo against 
the Bosnian Government.
  I think we can all agree that the bloodshed in the former Yugoslavia 
has got to stop. We cannot afford to let this situation drag on. It is 
destroying this once fine country and its people. And the longer it 
continues, the more of a threat it is to its neighbors, U.N. 
peacekeepers, NATO troops, and all of the world.
  As we look at this tragic situation, we have to keep this in 
perspective, pick through all the conflicting messages and come to a 
reasoned decision. And I mean reasoned--not one based on flip-flop 
policies or on media coverage. We have to keep in mind that this is 
just one outburst out of many, many outbursts in this area of the 
world. This region has bickered over its borders for hundreds of 
centuries.
  This region is a powder keg ready to explode. Throwing more weapons 
into the arena is like throwing gasoline on a burning fire. I do not 
see how arming the Bosnians is going to do anything but fan the flames. 
We have to put this fire out and get all sides to the negotiating 
table.
  Too many times when all sides are at the table, the Bosnians see a 
sign from the West and grab onto it like a last straw. I am concerned 
that lifting the arms embargo will only give the Bosnians a signal, 
encouraging them to launch offensive actions. The last thing we want to 
do is to send a signal that we may just possibly get deeper involved in 
this situation than we already are.
  NATO is already carrying out air strikes under the authorization of 
the United Nations. There are lightly armed U.N. peackeeping troops and 
NATO warplanes and troops in the area. They are in the middle of the 
violence. We have to be mindful of their position when we seek to 
change direction in our policy. The United Nations decided to put an 
arms embargo on the country. I am not arguing whether that should have 
happened under the United Nations Charter, I am just saying that there 
are now other players in the area that will be affected by our 
decision.
  We have to take all sides of this issue into consideration. Great 
Britain and France are considering removing their troops from Bosnia 
and Herzegovina. The United Nations will have lost its position in the 
area and all of our humanitarian efforts will be lost. This vote is a 
vote on our role in this region.
  There is more at stake than whether to lift the arms embargo. It will 
stake our new course, setting the wheels in motion for our future role, 
and that of our allies.
  We are in this as a multilateral effort. This effort tends to weave 
and bob, but it is a concerted effort nonetheless. The United States is 
losing credibility in foreign affairs. We need to either take the lead 
or get in line with our NATO and U.N. partners. Lifting the arms 
embargo is only one step. What is the next step? Without a distinct 
plan, I am afraid that this little step will only be one more twist in 
this tangled web of a policy in this region.
  In short, I cannot support this bill. There are too many questions 
left dangling. We need a coherent policy, not a garbled message. And 
after looking at it from every side, I just do not see that it makes 
sense.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to make several comments 
about the pending legislation on Bosnia, which has been offered by 
Senator Dole.
  First of all, I share the outrage of all Americans about the terrible 
situation in the former Yugoslavia. I have received hundreds of letters 
and phone calls from Rhode Islanders who are absolutely sickened by the 
conflict in Bosnia.
  For nearly 2 years, reports from the war have been broadcast around 
the world: about ethnic cleansing, about the siege of Sarajevo, and 
most recently about the bombardment of innocent civilians in the so-
called safe city of Gorazde. The war has revealed the Serbian 
combatants to be ruthless aggressors in this conflict.
  Americans want the slaughter stopped. Clearly, lifting the arms 
embargo would send a strong signal to the Serbian government, and 
possibly help force the Serbians to the peace table. Senator Dole has 
proposed that the arms embargo be lifted, and further that the United 
States should lift it unilaterally. The question presented by the Dole 
legislation is as follows: ``What approach is in the best interests of 
the United States of America: unilaterally lifting the arms embargo or 
a multinational initiative?''
  I am convinced that multilateral action--in connection with our 
allies and the United Nations--is the Nation's best course of action in 
Bosnia. Accordingly, I plan to oppose the pending Dole legislation.
  Throughout nearly 24 months of conflict in Bosnia, two principles 
have guided our policy toward Bosnia. First, the United States should 
not inject ground troops into the conflict, and second, efforts to 
secure a lasting peace in Bosnia must be led by a multinational 
coalition. I see no good reason to depart from these principles at this 
time.
  Let us now examine the specific problems of the pending legislation:
  First, the senior Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] has made the 
persuasive argument that unilateral action would send a clear signal to 
our allies, and the world, that the United States is prepared to go it 
alone in Bosnia. In short, it would Americanize the conflict.
  The implications of an Americanized war are extremely troubling. 
Would the United States deliver weapons throughout the country? Would 
we train the Bosnians? Would that training be done in Bosnia by our 
forces?
  These questions all point toward a major escalation of United States 
involvement in Bosnia. I don't think that the American people would 
support such military involvement, involvement that could lead the 
United States into a military and political quagmire.
  Second, I am troubled by the precedent of unilateral action to 
violate a U.N. resolution, a resolution that reflects the will of the 
Security Council and binds all member nations. The United Nations 
currently has sanctions on a number of nations around the world, 
including Iraq, Libya, and Haiti. If the United States ignores the 
United Nations on Bosnia, it would send a dangerous signal to other 
nations that it is free to violate U.N. decisions as well.
  For instance, the U.N. embargo on Iraq is of critical importance to 
the United States. Other nations, notably the French, have been 
unenthusiastic about abiding by the embargo. Unilateral United States 
action in Bosnia could lead to a total breakdown of the United Nations 
ability to enforce sanctions on Iraq. Furthermore, it could completely 
undermine the United Nation's ability to affect international behavior 
through binding resolutions.
  Third, it is important to remember that our allies--in particular, 
the British and the French--have troops on the ground in Bosnia. These 
nations do not want the United States to take unilateral action in that 
country; it could imperil the lives of their troops. Moreover, lifting 
the ban unilaterally would almost certainly disrupt the important 
United Nations humanitarian relief efforts that the peacekeeping troops 
are coordinating in Bosnia.
  Finally, I fear that unilateral action would undermine the fragile 
peace negotiations that are underway between the United States, the 
United Nations, and the Russians. We must all remember that the 
ultimate goal in the former Yugoslavia is peace. Unilateral action 
could well prolong the conflict and delay a peaceful settlement in 
Bosnia.
  Mr. President, I believe that the United States needs to work with 
the United Nations--especially our allies in Europe--to stop Serbian 
aggression. American leadership can best be demonstrated by leading a 
multinational effort to end the conflict.
  Unilateral action is the wrong approach.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I intend to vote for both amendments.
  This is not a debate about whether to lift the arms embargo. It is a 
debate about how we can best do it.
  I believe the arms embargo against the Bosnian Moslem's should be 
lifted. Thousands of innocent Bosnian Moslems have been slaughtered 
before our eyes as the world has debated the proper way to provide them 
with the means to defend themselves. The international community has 
left the Bosnian Moslems defenseless, forced them to fight their 
Serbian aggressors with both hands tied behind their backs, contributed 
to their slaughter. I am a cosponsor of the Dole-Lieberman amendment 
because I believe the arms embargo should be lifted. I will vote for 
that amendment.
  However, I also intend to vote for the Mitchell amendment. I prefer 
international consensus through the United Nations. The President has 
asked for more time to seek the agreement of our allies. I want to 
empower the President in his efforts to prevail up on the allies to 
lift the arms embargo. But I am not willing to give him forever.
  Lifting the arms embargo to ensure that the Bosnian Moslems will be 
able to defend themselves is the right thing to do. The United States 
should lift it, and so should the international community.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, as I stated on the floor yesterday, this 
is an extremely difficult issue. Unilateral lifting of the Bosnian arms 
embargo gives me no pleasure. No doubt it is preferable for the United 
Nations Security Council to agree to fulfill its responsibilities and 
to lift the arms embargo. Better for Bosnia. Better for the Security 
Council.
  I find it significant that Senator Biden--an early supporter of 
lifting the embargo--is supporting the Mitchell amendment because he 
received a commitment from the administration that the United States 
will table a resolution in the Security Council to lift the embargo. In 
addition, the majority leader makes a powerful argument concerning the 
safety of the gallant U.N. peacekeepers and aid workers in Bosnia.
  I find elements of both proposals compelling. This is particularly 
true because I disagree with some of the proponents of the Dole 
amendment when they say that the United States has no stake in this 
contest, and when they oppose Senator Mitchell's endorsement of NATO 
involvement. Some who support Senator Dole's amendment say we should 
lift the embargo and then wash our hands of Bosnia. I disagree. In 
fact, if we are to lift the embargo we should be prepared to support 
the implementation of that policy with air power.
  Taken together, the two amendments constitute the strongest position. 
A unilateral lifting of the arms embargo, combined with multilateral 
air strikes. I hope that it will be understood by the administration 
that there were those in the Senate who supported both. And that it 
will be understood that many who voted only for the Mitchell amendment 
did so as the very last step short of unilateral action.
  Mr. President, the credibility of the United Nations guarantee of a 
collective response to aggression is at stake in Bosnia. If the United 
Nations Security Council fails in its responsibility to provide a 
collective response to aggression and at the same time purport to 
forbid other countries from assisting Bosnia, then the credibility of 
the Charter itself will be at stake in Bosnia.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, there are remarkably circular arguments 
at work in this debate.
  With very few exceptions, even opponents of the Dole bill claim they 
want the embargo lifted, but it should be done in concert with our 
allies.
  The President joins this chorus. He says he wants the embargo lifted, 
but he is powerless to make that decision, or affect that change.
  Unfortunately, if we don't demonstrate American resolve, the United 
Nations and Europe will not move--the fact that the international 
community is paralyzed, in turn, has become the excuse the 
administration uses for not acting.
  American policy is caught in an endless circle of accusation, blame 
and counter-accusation.
  Frankly, what's missing is American leadership. I had hoped that in 
the weeks since this measure was first brought to the floor that the 
State Department and Ambassador Albright, at a minimum would have tried 
to establish in the Security Council that the embargo did not apply to 
Bosnia.
  Obviously, many of us hoped that the President would go further and 
take advantage of the time since the legislation was introduced to 
press the case with our allies to lift the embargo entirely.
  Instead, no effort has been made. The President keeps saying he 
thinks it ought to be lifted, yet there is no evidence that he is 
matching words with diplomatic action.
  So, the Senate is left with the obligation to take the initiative.
  The fact of the matter is the vote today is much a message of support 
to the Bosnian Moslems as it is a last gasp attempt to motivate the 
administration to do what needed to be done a long time ago--define and 
defend American interests.
  The vote today will not end the embargo. In all likelihood this bill 
will never see the light of day in the House--House rules and the 
administration will make sure of it.
  We should accept that what we are doing is largely symbolic, and, as 
such, represents the enormous collective frustration we share as we 
watch America's credibility erode and our interests subcontracted out 
to the United Nations.
  Earlier in the week, I defined this as a debate about 
American leadership.

  I am convinced the United Nations and our allies in Europe will 
continue to stand on the sidelines and wring their hands unless they 
are presented with decisions and firm direction from the leader of our 
great Nation.
  Sadly, the United States of America has joined the ranks of hand 
wringers.
  A year ago, I was uncomfortable telling a new administration how to 
conduct the foreign policy business of this Nation.
  But, after a year of administration missteps, misquotes and missed 
opportunities, it is time for the Senate to act to fill the foreign 
policy vacuum.
  We cannot schedule the President's day. We cannot force the men on 
the President's national security team to make decisions.
  In fact, I am not persuaded they ever will make the tough choices--I 
am not confident the administration wants to define our goals and be 
forced to bear responsibility for a sustained commitment to a strategy.
  It seems the best the Administration can do is plead with the 
Majority Leader for more time. The alternative to Senator Dole's 
measure declares our support for the status quo urging the President to 
promptly seek the support of our allies and the United Nations in 
lifting the embargo.
  I suppose the proponents of this strategy set some stock in telling 
the President to act promptly.
  But, let's remember, this legislation was the pending business of the 
Senate April 21. The administration has had three weeks to act promptly 
and they have done absolutely nothing.
  I don't think this debate should be about 2 more days or 22 more 
days. What the Senate needs to address is the pattern of indecision 
which jeopardizes American credibility and only guarantees more pain, 
more losses and prospects for peace in Bosnia.
  As days lapse into months, the Serbs have come to understand that our 
tough talk is not followed by decisive action. They have and will 
continue to take advantage of the administration's wobbling and 
inconsistency.
  The Bosnian Moslems should not have to continue to pay a price for 
the failure of American leadership. The embargo should be lifted. Let 
us not compound our failure with half hearted attempts to buy time. I 
urge my colleagues to support the Dole-Lieberman legislation.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise in support of the pending amendment 
by the distinguished majority leader, Senator Mitchell. I want to 
commend him for his work in putting together this important piece of 
legislation and for bringing this crucial matter to the attention of 
the Senate.
  I also want to commend the distinguished chairman of the Foreign 
Relations Committee, Senator Pell, and the distinguished chairman of 
the Armed Services Committee, Senator Nunn, for their contribution to 
this amendment.
  Let me take this opportunity as well to commend the distinguished 
minority leader, Senator Dole, along with my colleague from 
Connecticut, Senator Lieberman. Senator Dole and Senator Lieberman have 
played an instrumental role in the debate and the dialog over this 
issue for the better part of a year. Their efforts have helped to keep 
the issue of Bosnia and the plight of the Bosnian people firmly in the 
center of the American foreign policy agenda.
  Mr. President, the amendment that has been proposed by Senator Dole 
and Senator Lieberman raises important and complex questions that 
deserve very careful consideration by every Member of this body. In all 
candor, I must say that I find myself in sympathy with much of what 
this legislation seeks to do.
  Like the sponsors of the Dole amendment, I too am deeply troubled by 
the arms embargo against the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina, an 
embargo that in my view has needlessly contributed to the suffering of 
the Bosnian Moslem population. And I must admit that there is a certain 
emotional appeal to the solution this legislation proposes, which is to 
lift the embargo now and to provide arms to the Bosnian Moslem faction.
  But however much I may be in sympathy with the Dole-Lieberman 
language, and however strong the appeal of this legislation may be, I 
cannot lend my support to the solution this amendment would propose. 
This legislation would require the administration to take an action 
that flies directly in the face of our commitments to our allies and to 
the rest of the international community. As much as I would like to see 
an end to the embargo against Bosnia, that is a course of action I 
cannot support at the present juncture.
  Mr. President, I would remind my colleagues that the U.N. arms 
embargo was imposed by a binding resolution in the Security Council. I 
would remind my colleagues that the United States voted for this 
resolution and pledged to abide by its terms. Just as we would insist 
that our allies adhere to Security Council resolutions, even those they 
might later find inconvenient or distasteful, so must we apply that 
standard to ourselves.

  It has been argued by the proponents of the Dole amendment that the 
U.N. arms embargo is politically and morally wrong, and that the 
embargo may in fact be contrary to law. It has been argued that the 
embargo is a violation of article 51 of the U.N. Charter, which 
guarantees every nation the right to self defense. This is an important 
question, and one on which I think it is safe to say the international 
legal community has been greatly divided.
  Unfortunately, while the Dole amendment raises this and other 
important questions, it also attempts to answer these questions, and to 
do so in a manner that in my view may be premature. In truth, this 
legislation asks us to simply declare that our view is the right view, 
and that since we are right and the Security Council is wrong we should 
no longer consider ourselves bound by the Security Council's judgments.
  Make no mistake, Mr. President: What this legislation would ask us to 
do is to serve as judge and jury over the actions of the United 
Nations. I am not certain that this is the kind of international order 
our allies and partners around the world have in mind, nor do I believe 
this is the kind of international order that will serve our own 
interests in the long run.
  Just imagine for a second, Mr. President, the kind of pandora's box 
such an action would open. What if Great Britain, or Greece, or Turkey, 
were to decide that the U.N. arms embargo against Iraq was no longer in 
their interest? Perhaps they might even come up with some provision of 
the U.N. charter that in their view nullified it or rendered it 
illegal. Would that give them the unilateral right to ignore the arms 
embargo?
  What if Canada, or Venezuela, were to decide that they no longer felt 
themselves bound by the United Nations trade embargo against Haiti? 
Would it be acceptable for them to ignore that embargo as well? These 
are questions we need to ask ourselves before proceeding with this 
legislation today.
  Moreover, Mr. President, it is unclear whether a unilateral lifting 
of the arms embargo would ultimately even benefit the people of Bosnia 
and Herzegovina. One can argue, of course, that the provision of U.S. 
arms and supplies to the Moslem faction in Bosnia might help them gain 
an equal footing in the conflict, and perhaps even hasten the war's 
end.
  But there would be a cost to such unilateral action as well, Mr. 
President, and the cost might be very steep indeed. Over the 3 years 
that this conflict has been fought, the international community has 
taken a number of steps to limit the spread of the fighting and to 
limit the impact on innocent civilians. If the United States were to 
decide to lift the embargo unilaterally, these important efforts could 
be put at risk.

  In Croatia, some 14,000 U.N. peacekeepers have been in place since 
the early part of 1992, helping to enforce a truce between Serbian and 
Croatian forces. In the former Republic of Macedonia, U.N. peackeepers 
have been deployed in order to keep the war from spreading. And in 
Bosnia, U.N. peacekeepers have secured the Sarajevo airport and have 
been using that airport to carry out airlifts of humanitarian 
assistance. That effort has now been under way for nearly 2 years, 
longer even than the famed Berlin airlift of 1948-49.
  The international community has also had some success, I might add, 
in deterring certain instances of aggression by Serbian forces. This 
past February, after a mortar attack against an open-air market in 
Sarajevo, the United Nations and NATO issued an ultimatum banning any 
Serb heavy artillery from within 20 kilometers of the city. Last month, 
this ultimatum was extended to cover the Bosnian city of Gorazde as 
well. While there have been violations of these ultimatums, Serbian 
forces have for the most part adhered to the NATO mandates.
  Mr. President, I do not mean to imply that the international 
community has done everything it can in the former Yugoslavia. Clearly 
there is more that the United Nations and other international 
organizations can and should be doing to bring a halt to the aggression 
by Serbian forces. But if we lift the embargo now, if we blatantly 
ignore our obligations under the U.N. Security Council, then we run the 
risk of undoing all of the cooperation that has been enjoyed to this 
date.
  Do that, Mr. President, and we inject the United States into this 
conflict in a way that we have never been before. Do not think that we 
will continue to gain the cooperation of the British, or the French, 
far less the Russians. No, what we will have is an American conflict, 
with an American agenda and an American role. That is not in the 
interest of America. That is not in the interest of the international 
community. And ultimately, Mr. President, that is not in the interest 
of the people of Bosnia.
  Mr. President, fortunately there is an alternative to a unilateral 
lifting of the embargo and that is contained in the amendment by the 
distinguished majority leader, Senator Mitchell. The proposal he has 
put forth is a carefully crafted measure that would strengthen the hand 
of the United Nations and NATO in dealing with the Serbian aggression, 
while at the same time preserving our obligations to the international 
community.
  This amendment would lend specific congressional approval to the use 
of NATO air strikes in order to enforce the exclusion zones around 
Sarajevo, Gorazde, and other U.N.-designated safe havens. This will 
give the President a free hand to back up these important NATO mandates 
with all necessary military force.

  At the same time, Mr. President, this legislation also makes very 
clear that before any United States troops can be sent to Bosnia in 
order to enforce an overall peace agreement, the President shall be 
required to seek prior congressional approval. This approach represents 
a careful and judicious balance between the rights of the executive and 
the legitimate interests and responsibilities of the Congress.
  But the most important part of the Mitchell substitute, in my view, 
is the section pertaining to the United Nations arms embargo. Mr. 
President, no matter what one things of the issue of multilateral or 
unilateral action, it is quite clear that as a matter of policy, the 
U.N. arms embargo has been a failure. In fact, in the 2\1/2\ years 
since the U.N. arms embargo was imposed, Serbian forces have been able 
to victimize the Bosnian population with almost complete and total 
impunity.
  With thousands of innocent people killed and countless wounded in 
aggression that continues to the present day, I believe it is time for 
us to see the arms embargo for what it is: An anachronism, a failure, 
and one that should be relegated to the ash heap of history as quickly 
as possible.
  That is very clearly the view that is represented in the majority 
leader's amendment. The amendment says, and I quote, ``The Senate 
favors the termination of the arms embargo against the Government of 
Bosnia and Herzegovina.'' The amendment goes on to insist that the 
President seek immediately the agreement of NATO allies to terminate 
the embargo, and that it promptly lend its support to a resolution in 
the U.N. Security Council to achieve this very objective.
  Mr. President, the importance of this last provision cannot be 
overstated. One year ago, in May 1993, the Clinton administration 
attempted to gain the consent of our European allies to lift the arms 
embargo against Bosnia. Those efforts were unsuccessful, and there were 
some observers at the time who believed the administration could have 
done a more forceful job of pressing its case.
  Mr. President, I do not presume to judge what the administration can 
and cannot achieve in the course of negotiations with our allies. But I 
do know this: Now is the time for the administration to make every 
effort--and to spend the political capital needed--to bring our allies 
in line with our own policy objectives. Those objectives include, and 
should continue to include, a lifting of the arms embargo on the 
Bosnian people.
  Mr. President, in the former Yugoslavia today, the people of Bosnia 
are crying out for our help. The least we can do is to give them the 
means to defend themselves. But if by doing so we shatter the fragile 
international coalition that we have worked so hard to build, then we 
will have done the Bosnian people, not to mention ourselves, more harm 
then good.
  Yes, Mr. President, we should lift the arms embargo. If we are a 
humanitarian society, we must lift the arms embargo. But if we value 
the rule of law among nations, and if we value the future of 
multilateral cooperation, then we should not--and must not--do so on 
our own.
  For these reasons, Mr. President, I will vote for the Mitchell 
amendment, and I urge its adoption by my colleagues.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have listened with great interest to 
this debate, and I have decided, after much deliberation to vote in 
favor of the amendment offered by the majority leader, Senator 
Mitchell, and against the amendment offered by Senator Dole.
  I believe that the Bosnian people have a fundamental right to defend 
themselves and that the current arms embargo deprives them of the 
right. I voted earlier this year with 86 of my colleagues to urge the 
President to lift the Bosnian arms embargo.
  The arms embargo is a failed policy, with terrible consequences for 
both Bosnia and the United States. For the Bosnians, the embargo means 
that their army remains outgunned, their land overrun, and their people 
murdered. For the United States and its allies, continuation of the 
embargo makes us tacit collaborators in maintaining the Serbian 
military advantage, which if left unchallenged, will lead to additional 
deaths, and the eventual destruction of the Government of Bosnia and 
Herzegovina. If at all possible, the arms embargo should be terminated 
where it originated--in the U.N. Security Council. The amendment by the 
majority leader requires the administration to propose or support a 
resolution in the Security Council to repeal the embargo. When faced 
with such a resolution, I hope that our allies will see the wisdom of 
our position and will not exercise their veto authority.
  However, I want to be perfectly clear on this point: Should the 
United Nations fail to repeal the arms embargo, I will support lifting 
it unilaterally. The Mitchell amendment requires that within 5 days of 
the Security Council failing to approve such a repeal, the President 
must consult with Congress about acting alone. This means that in a 
worst-case scenario--if our NATO allies the United Nations flatly 
reject our efforts to lift the embargo--we will be back on the Senate 
floor debating another amendment to lift the arms embargo. And if we 
are forced to debate a similar amendment in the future, I believe that 
it will pass by a wide margin.
  Mr. President, innocent people are being slaughtered in Bosnia and we 
are not doing enough to stop it. I believe that our Nation has a moral 
obligation to help the Bosnian people defend themselves and stop this 
horrifying genocide. However, the best way to accomplish this goal is 
to work with our allies through the United Nation. If absolutely 
necessary, I will support unilateral action. However, before taking 
such drastic action, I believe that the administration should resolve 
this issue through the United Nations.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, today, I will vote in favor of the 
Dole amendment. I do so because I do not believe that we can continue 
to impose against the people of Bosnia an arms embargo that denies them 
the right to self-defense.
  I have long supported, and often spoken in favor of, efforts to lift 
the arms embargo on Bosnia because I believe the current arms embargo 
does not achieve its objective. Since it is primarily the Serbians who 
now have arms we have created an imbalance which favors the Serbs over 
other combatants.
  At the same time, I want to take this opportunity to stress my 
support for efforts to lift the arms embargo in concert with our 
allies. I hope the United States will not have to go it alone in this 
action because it is undeniable that cooperative action with our allies 
is preferable. But, the United States has often been called upon to 
lead in world affairs, and one of the burdens of leadership is 
sometimes loneliness. The bottom line is that the embargo must be 
lifted and by our act we now can and must encourage our allies to join 
us.
  Thank you Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I would like to clarify that my vote 
against the amendment offered by the distinguished majority leader does 
not imply any lack of support for NATO airstrikes as described in the 
amendment. I fully support the use of air power, provided it is part of 
a comprehensive strategy toward ending the fighting in Bosnia. Indeed, 
I believe the use of airpower has, to date, been too little and too 
late.
  I will vote against the majority leader's amendment because I believe 
it is time to send a clear signal to the administration that the arms 
embargo against Bosnia must be lifted. The Bosnian Government must be 
allowed the means to defend itself. In the absence of countervailing 
force, or the prospect of countervailing force, the Bosnian Serbs have 
no incentive to end their land grabs and ethnic cleansing. It is clear 
that the United Nations and NATO will not provide that countervailing 
force. We owe it to the Bosnian Government to permit it to try.
  The Senate has voted before in support of lifting the embargo. 
However, given the nonbinding nature of previous Senate action, the 
administration has been free to ignore Senate sentiment.
  The Dole-Lieberman amendment will at least force the administration 
to come clean. It will set the clock ticking for administration action, 
either to negotiate a lifting of the arms embargo by the time the bill 
passes both Houses and reaches the President's desk, or openly to 
oppose lifting the embargo and, if necessary, veto the legislation. 
Only an unambiguous signal from the Senate--approval of Dole-Lieberman 
and rejection of Mitchell--can end the ambiguity and force the 
administration to decide its policy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader has 7 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the Republican leader.
  Mr. DOLE. I yield the 7 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. President, we come once again to a crossroads. In the two votes 
that we will cast in a short while, we will make a fateful decision for 
the war-torn people of Bosnia and also for our own people, as we 
consider what part we shall play in the post-cold-war world. How shall 
we protect our security and uphold our principles?
  The decision we have is not to express whether we care about the 
slaughter and suffering in Bosnia. I know that all Members of the 
Senate care. The question is, what are we going to do about it? Will we 
lead or will we follow? Will the trumpet we sound be strong and 
certain, or will it be muted? That to me is the fundamental choice 
between these two amendments and that is why I will vote no on the 
first amendment and yes on the second, which I am proud to cosponsor 
with the Senator from Kansas, and which will unilaterally lift the 
illegal and immoral arms embargo against the people of Bosnia.
  This amendment is genuinely a bipartisan effort. It was never 
intended to be antiadministration, although I know the administration 
opposes it. It was in fact conceived as an unifying expression of 
support for the lift and strike policy that was adopted by the Clinton 
administration more than a year ago, but never fully implemented--
primarily because of the opposition of our allies.

  The strike part of the policy came into effect after the President 
reacted to the slaughter in Sarajevo in February of this year. This 
amendment gives us now the opportunity to strengthen the President's 
hand in implementing the lift part of his policy.
  Mr. President, this amendment is premised on two large lessons that 
emerge from the sad story of diplomacy in the Bosnian war.
  First, the Serbs have only responded when the world community acted 
forcefully and they have had something to fear.
  Second, the world will not act forcefully unless the United States 
takes the leadership by being forceful ourselves.
  This embargo is immoral because it denies an independent country and 
its people the arms with which to defend themselves against aggression, 
invasion by Serbia for the purpose of conquest, and genocidal acts.
  The comparisons that have been made in this debate between this 
embargo and the embargoes against Serbia and Iraq, for instance, 
totally miss the point and fail to distinguish between embargoes that 
are imposed by the world community on aggressor nations and an embargo, 
this one, against the Bosnian people that prevents the victim of 
aggression from defending itself.
  Make no mistake about it, this embargo is not just a piece of paper 
or a resolution adopted at the U.N. or implemented by Executive order 
of the President, as this one was. This is an embargo that American 
military personnel on ships in the Adriatic are enforcing today. We are 
party to denying, by our actions, the Bosnian people the weapons with 
which to defend themselves.
  The embargo is illegal because it violates article 51 of the Charter 
of the United Nations which gives every country the right to defend 
itself. It is illegal because, in a technical sense, this embargo was 
imposed on the former Yugoslavia which no longer exists. And it is 
illegal because it was imposed before Bosnia came into being.
  The Senate knows all this. As my colleagues have said, one after the 
other, most Members of the Senate are against the embargo and want to 
lift it. In fact, the Senate voted 87 strong on January 27, 1993 to 
urge--not demand, not unilaterally lift--but to urge the lifting of the 
embargo. What happened? Nothing. Neither our allies nor our enemies 
took that action seriously, and that is why we have to act forcefully 
today and take a leadership role by lifting the embargo unilaterally.
  Mr. President, we have debated and debated for more than 2 years in 
this Chamber. Meanwhile, the people of Bosnia have continued to be 
shelled by artillery, attacked by tanks, forcibly removed from their 
homes simply because of their religion--in this case Moslem--and have 
seen their communities destroyed, their lands stolen, and their loved 
ones raped and killed. There are 200,000 dead and 2 million refugees.
  The time for talk is over. The time for action is here. How many more 
Bosnians are we going to allow to die before we stand together with the 
victims of this brutal aggression and shout, ``Enough''?
  Will this amendment give the Bosnians hope? Absolutely. Not the false 
hope of the American cavalry riding over the hill to save them. They 
are not asking for that. They have soldiers --their own--and what they 
want is the arms with which to fight their battles.
  In debate here, some have said that lifting the arms embargo 
unilaterally would lead the United Nations' peacekeepers to leave 
Bosnia, putting the Bosnians in harm's way; or that sending the arms in 
would actually lead to the death of more Bosnians. Mr. President, it 
seems to me that we ought to listen to the words of the democratically 
elected leaders of Bosnia as to what is best for the Bosnian people and 
not from this place make the judgments about their well-being as they 
suffer and struggle through a war.
  We have heard from those leaders. Prime Minister Silajdzic wrote 
yesterday to Senator Dole and me and to all Members of the Senate 
through us, pleading with us to adopt the amendment to unilaterally 
lift the arms embargo. He quoted Edmund Burke saying: ``The only thing 
necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.''

  Mr. President, we have done nothing for too long, and we have seen 
the triumph of evil. Lifting the arms embargo is the least we can do.
  So we have to listen to the pleas of the Bosnian people, the victims 
of this aggression. We have to listen to the words of Edmund Burke and 
to our own conscience which tells us to do what is right; to our 
intellect which knows that this embargo is illegal; and to the echoes 
of history which tell us that those who invade neighbors, as the Serbs 
have, for the purpose of conquest and to carry out genocidal acts will 
cease their brutality, not when they hear the language of diplomats, 
but only when they face the weapons of soldiers.
  Mr. President, the question before us in these two votes is how we 
will answer the pleas of the Bosnian people for help. Will we say, yes, 
we will help, or will we say maybe? I hope and pray that we will say 
yes.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, was leaders' time reserved?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, it has been and the Senator can use his 
10 minutes at this time.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, first I want to thank my colleague from 
Connecticut for underscoring right up front that this is bipartisan. 
This is not an effort to undermine the President of the United States. 
In fact, we thought when we started it was an effort to help the 
President of the United States because he had talked so often about 
lifting the arms embargo. In fact, many of us have visited with the 
President at the White House, and he talked not only about that but 
about air strikes. Some of us were prepared to support him in both 
cases, including the Senator from Kansas.
  If we go back to the Revolutionary War, the Americans were engaged in 
self-defense, and we were helped by other countries. The right of self-
defense is inherent. It does not have to be in the U.N. Charter. It is 
a basic inherent right: The right of self-defense.
  If you read the letter we received yesterday from the Prime Minister 
of Bosnia, Haris Silajdzic, I think the one statement that stands out--
and there are a number that stand out--first of all, he says:

       Tomorrow the hopes of the Bosnian people are turned to the 
     United States Senate.

  They are looking to us for leadership. They are looking to America 
for leadership. This is what this is all about: Leadership. Bipartisan 
leadership.
  He also makes the statement, which I have been trying to make the 
last several times I have spoken on this issue:

       If the rest of the world is making a mistake, should 
     America also make the same mistake? Isn't it high time to 
     correct this mistake?

  To me that says it all. I am surprised some here would say, ``Well, 
I'm going to vote for the other amendment because we are going to let 
the United Nations authorize the United States air power under U.N. 
direction and require us to abide by U.N. interpretation of what 
Bosnia's rights are.'' That is in my colleague's amendment, the 
distinguished majority leader.
  We have had all this debate about the United Nations having too much 
authority now and about the U.N. directing this and the United Nations 
directing that, and some are about to vote for an amendment that would 
authorize the United Nations to direct air power and to authorize air 
power. We have already had problems with Mr. Akashi who had our pilots 
flying around up there for hours while he is trying to talk somebody 
out of having air strikes, while he is having conversations with the 
Serbs. It is outrageous.
  So I hope that people read both resolutions before they vote.
  We also address the specific question raised by the distinguished 
Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd.] We make it very clear we are not 
talking about personnel. Let me repeat, we are not talking about ground 
forces. In our amendment, in the Lieberman-Dole amendment, the 
bipartisan amendment, with 30-some cosponsors, Democrats and 
Republicans, all we suggest is to give these people a right to self-
defense. Remove the British forces, remove the French forces, remove 
all the U.N. protection forces so nobody is going to be in harm's way, 
and that is all that Mr. Silajdzic asked for in his letter delivered 
yesterday. And we hope that every Senator has had a chance to look at 
it.

  In my view, he should know better what is best for the people of 
Bosnia than anybody on this floor, any of us.
  So he just says:

       Please let your colleagues know that we fully support this 
     measure and that we hope and pray

  --we hope and pray--

       for its passage. And as Edmund Burke said: ``The only thing 
     necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do 
     nothing.''

  He closed his letter by saying:

       It is never too late for justice.

  Now, he has seen it all. He has seen 200,000 Bosnians slaughtered in 
the past 25 months. He has seen shelling of hospitals, shelling of the 
Red Cross, children shot before their parents' eyes. And all we are 
saying is let us send a statement--we are not France. We are not Great 
Britain. We are the United States of America, and we have had moral 
authority in this world for a long time and moral leadership in this 
world for a long time, and the people of the world look to us for 
leadership. We do not send any armed forces. We do not send any ground 
forces. We do not have air strikes. All we do is lift the embargo so 
they can defend themselves.
  This vote ought to be unanimous. It was 87 to 9 in January, almost 
the same amendment, a sense of the Senate amendment, and now we have 
made it a little tougher. The vote was 87 to 9, and some of the nine 
voted against it because they were concerned that we might authorize 
personnel, so we made that very clear in this amendment. We made it 
very specific. We are not authorizing the use of personnel, American 
personnel. All they want are defensive weapons.
  We were told, Senator Lieberman and I, by the Prime Minister and by 
the Vice President, Mr. Ganic, about 2\1/2\ weeks ago, they have one 
rifle for every four men. They have 8 tanks to 300 tanks the Serbs 
have.
  Now, how do we empower ourselves to sit in judgment on a people who 
only want the right to fight for survival? And we are saying, ``No, you 
can't have that right. We are not going to give you that right. Oh, we 
are for you, but we are not going to give you that right unless the 
United Nations says OK.''
  Again, we are the United States of America. We are not risking one 
American life. We are not risking one American pilot, one American 
airplane, one American anything. What is so wrong with the Dole-
Lieberman resolution?
  There is nothing wrong with it. And I note that Mr. Lake this morning 
said on a morning talk show, ``The option is still on the table. If our 
current efforts to work out a diplomatic settlement don't succeed, then 
we think we should go back to that option.''
  Well, this option has been on the table for months, and now we have 
the French Foreign Minister over here saying we ought to impose a 
settlement on the Bosnians. Sure; why not? Why not take all their 
country and give it to the Serbs? They control about 70-some percent of 
it now. And we are saying, well, maybe we can get it down to 51 
percent. Then they ought to be happy. Then we will send U.S. ground 
forces there to impose a settlement on the Bosnians.
  It does not make any sense to this Senator. I am not a diplomat, but 
I am a Senator. And we will have, in about 20 minutes, an opportunity 
to say something very simple, that we believe in the right of self-
defense. If 87 Senators said that in January and only 47 say it today, 
I am going to wonder what happened, what have we done wrong? What has 
Bosnia done wrong except witness more slaughter of innocent men, women 
and children? The Serbs are the aggressors, and they have been the 
aggressors. They have the arms. They have the tanks. And they thumb 
their nose at us at every opportunity.
  I do not understand. I listened to the arguments on the other side, 
and if I were suggesting we send one American, or risk one American 
life, I would agree with the Senator from Virginia and others. But we 
are not. We are not.
  So it seems to me that we can dither along here and wait another 3 
weeks and if the United Nations does not act--they are not going to 
act. They are not going to take up any resolution even though the 
President might table the resolution, so they turn it back and we come 
back in 5 or 6 weeks and then, some people say, well, then I will vote 
for it. But first we have to kill about 10,000 more Bosnians before I 
have this moral outrage that permits me to speak up and to vote 
correctly. That is what this is all about.
  We do not need any hearings on this resolution. We do not need 
anything on this resolution but for somebody to read it. If every 
Senator reads the Dole-Lieberman resolution--and it is all on one 
page--in my view they will vote for it, unless they want to go contrary 
to what the Prime Minister says. He says they are praying for us today 
to do the right thing--us, Republicans and Democrats.
  It seems to me that now is the time. We have made all the arguments. 
They do not want anything. They do not want American forces. They do 
not want air strikes. They would like air strikes, but they would be 
willing to settle for just lifting the arms embargo.
  In my view, if we take this action today, you will see the British 
and the French follow suit. That is what American leadership is all 
about. If we do not provide the leadership in the world, nothing 
happens. In this case, only bad things have happened. So I hope my 
colleagues who are undecided and maybe some who may be on the wrong 
side will read the resolution and then read the letter from the Prime 
Minister. And if you can vote no after reading those two documents, 
then you should vote no.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I have read both documents, and I will 
vote ``no'' I urge all of my colleagues to do so.
  First, there is no disagreement on our objective. It is a peaceful 
and fair resolution of the conflict raging in that region.
  Second, it is to obtain a lifting of the arms embargo. But the 
appropriate way to do it is not in the manner prescribed in the 
amendment offered by my colleague, Senator Dole.
  Over the past year, I have been present at several meetings with 
President Clinton on the subject of Bosnia. Members of the House and 
Senate, Republicans and Democrats, have been asked to give the 
President their views. They did so, and the views ranged over a wide 
range of options, many contradictory. But on one point there was no 
disagreement. Every Senator or House Member who spoke to the President 
said, ``You cannot do it alone. You must involve our allies.''
  No one expressed a contrary view, not one, in those meetings, because 
they recognized that we cannot now simply unilaterally discontinue this 
embargo without regard to the views of our allies or the safety of the 
citizens and troops of our allies.
  It is all well and good for U.S. Senators, not one of whom would now 
vote to send a single American soldier to Bosnia, to talk about 
morality and authority when there are several thousand British and 
French troops on the scene in danger, under fire, and have been for 
years. Who are we to scorn the British and French? Who are we to demean 
the British and French? Who are we to suggest that the British and 
French have not played a part when they have been willing to and have 
sent thousands and thousands of their young men into Bosnia where they 
have been exposed to danger all of these years as we have talked.
  Mr. President, it is easy to make speeches. It is tough to take 
action. Let us consider also the effect of this vote on other 
multilateral actions imposing sanctions or other collective actions in 
other parts of the world.
  Right now there are sanctions against Iraq which have been in place 
since the time of the Gulf war. There are sanctions against Haiti; just 
voted. And we all know, as Senator Nunn so rightly pointed out, that we 
are going to soon face the possibility of seeking collective action 
against North Korea.
  Every Senator here should understand that if we now vote to 
unilaterally lift these collective actions by the United States, then 
others will do the same in those areas. Just a few months ago, in my 
office a few feet from here, I met with the Prime Minister of Turkey. 
She made a powerful and impassioned statement of the adverse effects on 
her country of the sanctions against Iraq. Of course, they do not hurt 
our economy. So we are all for it.
  There can be no doubt that if the Senate now votes that the United 
States unilaterally lift the arms embargo in Bosnia, the Turkish 
Government will unilaterally lift the sanctions against Iraq and cite 
the U.S. Senate as the justification for their action. Is that what the 
Members of the Senate want?
  Just 2 weeks ago, Senator Dole and I met in my office with the Prime 
Minister and the Foreign Minister of Greece. The Foreign Minister 
devoted a good part of the meeting to describing to us the extreme 
adverse economic effects upon his country of the economic sanctions 
against Serbia. He told us how the front line States, Greece, Romania, 
Bulgaria, and Hungary, are suffering from those sanctions.
  There is no doubt that if we now vote to unilaterally lift the arms 
embargo on Bosnia, those States will unilaterally terminate the 
economic sanctions against Serbia. Will that help the Bosnians? One of 
the most effective actions that has been taken has been the economic 
sanctions on Serbia. And that is directly related to this incident.
  Mr. President, we know we cannot take the position that others must 
participate in multilateral actions, but the United States alone can 
pick and choose those in which it will participate. We know we cannot 
have it both ways. But that is exactly what those who vote for the Dole 
amendment will be saying--``We want it both ways. We want to pick and 
choose when we can drop out of multilateral actions, but others don't 
have that same right.''
  Obviously, that is not a standard which other countries are going to 
accept, especially those countries who have placed thousands of men and 
women into the area of conflict, in danger, as we have refused to do so 
and as we have then preached at them. They are not going to accept that 
standard, nor would we.
  It is also very important for everybody here to recognize that the 
lifting of the embargo does not mean the immediate delivery of arms to 
the Bosnian forces. Any heavy equipment will have to be delivered 
through Croatia. If we are willing to violate the United Nations 
action, we do not know that the Croats will be willing to do so. So 
this could be an empty gesture, unless others drop out as we have done.
  And even if Croatia decides it wants to violate the U.N. action as we 
would be doing, it would take a good bit of time for heavy arms to 
reach Bosnia. Then there would be training, and who is going to conduct 
the training? Is the next step going to be an immediate action by our 
colleagues to have American trainers involved?
  Finally, Mr. President, let us ask ourselves this question. Every 
time we get into one of these situations, someone gets up and 
criticizes the President and says, ``Well, we have a lot of what-if 
questions. What if this happens? What if that happens? What if the 
other happens? And we want answers to those before we will decide.''
  We have not heard one of those questions or answers on this 
resolution. Well, I would like to pose one. What if the arms embargo 
was lifted? What if, as many credible observers believe, it leads to a 
much wider war involving several competing armies and forces in the 
region, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of others, and 
ranges out of control? And then they come back to us, and, say, ``Well, 
look here, you Americans. We need you to send some people over here to 
end this conflict.'' What if? Is there one Senator who is going to vote 
for the Dole amendment who will vote to send an American into that 
region then? Is there one?
  The answer is obvious. The silence is deafening. The answer is 
clearly no. Think about the consequences of our actions.
  Let me make one other point before I conclude. What we do hear today 
has consequences beyond Bosnia and beyond 1994. The United States is a 
Nation unique in history at a time that is unique in history. We are 
the dominant military, economic, and cultural power in the world. There 
have been other dominant powers in history. But never before has a 
dominant military power possessed a moral authority that the United 
States now possesses. Every previous dominant power was ringed by 
hostile forces, and had to fight their way onto other countries' soil. 
The United States does not.
  Our problem is the opposite. Because we seek no military ambition, 
because we do not seek to dominate others, we not only do not have to 
fight to get our forces onto other soils, we have to fight to bring our 
forces back from other countries. Our political problem is that people 
want our Armed Forces on there territory.
  In the past 2 years, I have met with the leader of every European 
government, and I have asked each of them this question: Now that the 
Soviet Union no longer exists, and they are withdrawing their forces to 
Russia, should the United States withdraw our military forces back to 
the Continental United States?
  In every single case, the answer was no; not even a maybe. And those 
countries which do not have American military forces on their soil want 
us to send them there. You combine that fact, the United States' unique 
position in history, with the unleashing of ethnic, tribal, religious, 
and nationalist violence that is rising in the world, and this country, 
this Government, and this Senate is going to be confronted over the 
next several decades with the number of requests for American 
intervention that is without precedent in our history, or in human 
history.
  We are going to be asked to solve everything. The Senators from 
Connecticut and Kansas spoke eloquently of the thousands of people 
killed in Bosnia. Well, there have been 250,000 killed in Rwanda, 
according to most press reports. Do those lives not matter? Or should 
we now say, well, we are going to have an American solution to that 
problem? And what about the Sudan, what about Jordan, and what about 
Azerbaijan? What about events everywhere in the world?
  The United States is the world leader, and will be the world leader 
for centuries to come. But there is no nation with the capacity, 
financial or military, that can solve every problem in the world by 
itself. We require collective action. We need the involvement of 
others, and the involvement of others means more than saying to them, 
or criticizing them and saying, we and only we have the solution. We 
have to involve them in the process. We have to lead, but as part of a 
community of nations. That is the sensible, that is the prudent, 
approach, and that is the one that is most consistent with our national 
interest.
  I say to my colleagues, we cannot disdain or demean our allies. They 
are our allies. We have a long history of cooperation and friendship 
with them. We do sometimes disagree. We have to lead aggressively and 
actively. But we cannot solve every problem in the world by ourselves. 
Every problem in the world is not and will not be an exclusively 
American problem requiring an exclusively American solution. 
Increasingly, it will require collective actions.
  If we now undermine the concept of collective action, for however 
worthy a cause, a cause with which I, frankly, agree, I think we have 
done our Nation a longstanding harm and made it much more difficult to 
deal with the situations of the future.
  Mr. President, we have heard the debate on this issue. There is 
clearly no disagreement on the goal we want to achieve. We want to see 
an end to the fighting in Bosnia and a peaceful resolution to the 
conflicts which have existed in the former Yugoslavia for centuries, a 
tangle of ethnic, religious, and other differences.
  What we have come down to is a difference over the best way to 
achieve our common goal. The approach proposed by Senator Dole and his 
colleagues would direct the President to simply lift the arms embargo 
on Bosnia unilaterally. The alternative presented by myself, Senators 
Pell, Nunn, and Bumpers would instead have the United States 
aggressively seek the support and concurrence of our allies in NATO and 
the United Nations to end the arms embargo on Bosnia.
  Our alternative goes beyond addressing the issue of the arms embargo. 
It also expresses support for the decisions made by the President and 
NATO to support and protect the United Nations forces in and around the 
U.N. designated safe areas, to use NATO's air power in the Sarajevo 
region, and to authorize air strikes against Bosnian Serb heavy weapons 
and other military targets in the exclusion zones around the safe 
areas. No mention of that is made in the alternative.
  While we are encouraged by the results achieved so far by resolute 
action on the part of the NATO allies, we cannot be lulled into a false 
sense of success.
  The threat of deeper involvement by NATO forces is real. The attack 
on Danish peacekeepers in Tuzla less than 2 weeks ago was proof of the 
continuing peril that Bosnian Serb promises, as others before them, 
will not be kept.
  This is the moment, however, for the consolidation of gains already 
made to find an end to this bloody war and support the renewed 
diplomatic initiative of the ```Contact Group,'' made up of 
representatives of the United States, Russia, the European Union, and 
the United Nations.
  Those who believe that the United States and the United Nations 
should be more aggressive in dealing with this situation should support 
the alternative we are presenting because the other alternative is 
silent on those matters.
  I was in the region 2 years ago. Later, I expressed support for an 
end to the arms embargo on Bosnia. I reached that conclusion 
reluctantly, because I recognized that it could trigger a much more 
widespread and more destructive conflict than has occurred. But I 
believe then, and believe now, that on balance it is the right thing to 
do.
  But I believe that it would not be right for anyone now to simply 
unilaterally discontinue this embargo without regard to the views of 
our allies or the safety of citizens and troops of our allies.
  At this time there are several multilateral actions imposing 
sanctions or other collective actions in other parts of the world and 
in this part of the world. Right now there are sanctions against Iraq 
which have been in place since the time of the Persian Gulf war. The 
United Nations has just voted to impose tighter sanctions against 
Haiti. And, as all of us know, there is a possibility that there will 
be collective action to impose sanctions on North Korea if that country 
persists in its refusal to permit inspection of its atomic facilities.
  My colleagues should consider the consequences of a vote to force the 
President to lift the arms embargo unilaterally and how other countries 
will view this move. Unilaterally lifting the arms embargo against 
Bosnia and Herzegovina will open the door for other nations to pick and 
choose which U.N. actions they wish to ignore.
  A few months ago, I met with the Prime Minister of Turkey. She made a 
powerful, impassioned statement of the adverse economic effects on her 
country resulting from the sanctions against Iraq. They have a 
negligible impact on the American economy but they are crippling the 
Turkish economy because Turkey borders on Iraq and they had substantial 
trade.
  In my view, it is a near certainty that if the United States now 
unilaterally drops out of the arms embargo on Bosnia, the Turkish 
Government will unilaterally drop out of the economic sanctions on 
Iraq. Is that something that we in the Senate want?
  Just 2 weeks ago, Senator Dole and I met with the Prime Minister and 
Foreign Minister of Greece. In the course of the discussion, the 
Foreign Minister described at some length the adverse effects that the 
economic sanctions on Serbia are having on Greece's economy.
  The economic sanctions on Serbia are directly related to the matter 
upon which we are about to vote, the conflict in Bosnia. Because of the 
Serbian actions with respect to Bosnia, economic sanctions were imposed 
on Serbia. They are a collective action. And, as always, the pain of 
these is not equally felt. We are not feeling much pain in this country 
from the sanctions against Serbia, but the front-line states are--
Greece, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria.
  Those countries have been asked to bear the burden. They are not 
going to continue to do that if they see that the United States picks 
and chooses which collective action it will participate in.
  We cannot take the position that others must participate in 
multilateral actions but we can pick and choose when we want to 
participate. We cannot have it both ways. But that is what the Dole 
amendment tries to do. It says, in effect, that the U.S. can opt out of 
collective efforts when it chooses, but others have the same right. 
Obviously, no other country is going to accept that standard.
  It is also important to consider that lifting the embargo does not 
mean immediate delivery of arms to the Bosnian forces. Rapid delivery 
of substantial amounts of military equipment by air would be perilous 
if not impossible, given the strategically located Bosnian Serb 
artillery and antiaircraft artillery positions around Bosnia's 
airports. In any case, heavy weapons would have to be delivered through 
Croatia's Adriatic ports. if Croatia cooperated, and that is not 
certain, in violating the United Nations arms embargo, needed heavy 
weapons from any source could not begin reaching Bosnia for weeks or 
months.
  If the heavy weapons made it into the hands of the Bosnian Government 
forces, those soldiers would require training in their use and 
maintenance. Training in the operation of sophisticated weaponry has 
been estimated at anywhere from 1 to 6 months. And who would conduct 
this training of the Bosnian soldiers? Would American military trainers 
have to go to Bosnia?
  Furthermore, the consequences for the Bosnian Government forces and 
UNPROFOR and Bosnia's civilian population of a likely all-out 
preemptive Serbian offensive and interdiction of humanitarian resupply 
efforts could be catastrophic. This is something that every Senator 
must keep in mind.
  The United States is in a position relative to other nations that I 
believe is unique in history. The United States is the dominant 
military and economic power in the world.
  There have been other dominant powers in history. But there has been 
no other which possessed the moral authority and the trust which the 
United State now possesses. Prior empires have all had to fight their 
way on to the soil of other countries. They were constantly at war with 
hostile nations who resisted their drive for domination.
  The United States has no territorial ambitions. As a result, not only 
do we not have to fight to get on to other people's soil, other people 
are constantly asking us to send our military forces on to their soil.
  In the last 2 years, I have spoken with the leaders of almost every 
government in Europe. I have asked each of them this question: Now that 
the Soviet Union no longer exists and its forces are being withdrawn to 
Russia, should the United States withdraw its forces from Europe?
  Without exception, the answer was no. The Russians, the Germans, the 
French, the Italians, and all the others; they want American military 
forces in Europe.
  In fact, in several of the countries which I visited where American 
forces are not presently located, the governments requested that we 
send them there. This is a situation without parallel in history. 
People know that the United States does not have territorial ambitions. 
They know we are not trying to conquer other countries. So they trust 
us.
  The demise of communism and the rise of ethnic conflict and 
nationalism will create uncertainty turmoil around the world. We are 
going to be asked over and over again to send American forces to every 
part of the world.
  The question we must ask ourselves as we prepare to vote on this bill 
is: Are we now to say that every problem in the world is going to be an 
American problem that requires an American solution? Or are we going to 
say, as I believe we should, that the United States is the world 
leader, but it cannot by itself solve every problem in the world and we 
are going to have to ask others to join with us in dealing with 
problems, especially those distant from our shores.
  I think that common sense, prudence, and our national interest all 
combine to lead us to include that, in the face of a rising chorus of 
requests for Americans to intervene everywhere in the world, we must 
involve other countries in dealing with there problems in the future.
  For years to come, Members of this Senate are going to be confronted 
over and over again with requests for Americans to intervene in every 
part of the world. We cannot do it all by ourselves now or at any time 
in the foreseeable future. We can lead and we must lead. But we must 
have the help and support of other countries. We are not going to get 
that help or support from them in other instances if we say that we do 
not care about their views in this instance.
  We agree that the arms embargo on Bosnia should be lifted. We should 
take that step, but we should not take it alone. That is my point. We 
should be doing it in concert with our allies.
  The amendment which I proposed sets forth a process for doing so. It 
states that the Congress favors the termination of the arms embargo. It 
directs the President to seek immediately the agreement of NATO allies 
to terminate the embargo. It then directs the President to propose and 
support a resolution in the U.N. Security Council to terminate the 
embargo. Finally, should the Security Council fail to pass such a 
resolution, the President shall within 5 days consult with the Congress 
regarding unilateral termination of the arms embargo.
  If we are going to take this step let us do it in a sensible way that 
is consistent with our national interests, by involving our allies: 
First, by seeking immediately the agreement of our NATO allies; second, 
by presenting the matter at the U.N. Security Council and seeking its 
approval; and then, if that fails to come back and consider unilateral 
termination at that time.
  For the reasons I have outlined I ask my colleagues now to cast their 
vote for my amendment which I believe is most consistent with the best 
interests of the United States.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have 1 
additional minute.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Certainly. I am pleased to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I point out that Iraq is an enemy, and Korea 
is a potentially enemy. Bosnia is our friend. Whatever the Greeks and 
Turks may say, they get hundreds of millions of dollars in United 
States foreign aid. I do not think they would be too happy to give that 
up if they wanted to have a unilateral lifting of some embargo. I am 
not concerned about that.
  I am not so concerned about that. But again I just say, in the 20 
seconds I have left, that I think the majority leader agrees--we are in 
agreement, basically. We are not talking about committing troops or 
getting involved. We can talk about that ``what if'' questions. But 
what if another 100,000 Bosnians are slaughtered while we talk about 
this and think about it, when all they want us to do is to lift the 
arms embargo--no American troops, no air strikes--nothing, nothing, 
nothing, but lifting the arms embargo.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today we consider legislation to end 
the United States arms embargo on Bosnia. As many of my colleagues 
know, I have for over 2 years operated within a very interventionist 
framework on Bosnia. I have persistently argued that brutal Serb 
aggression has been intolerable, and that we must do what we can to 
stop it in a much more forceful way than we have so far.
  When the Senate voted in January on this issue, I supported the view 
that the U.N.-sponsored international arms embargo against the Bosnian 
Moslems should be lifted. I continue to believe that. Today we must 
choose between two alternative men of reaching that goal.
  My trip to the former Yugoslavia a few months ago underscored for me 
the proportions of the crisis, and the need for more forceful 
intervention by United States and our NATO allies. It confirmed what I 
had believed for many months with respect to the role of the U.N. 
forces there: that they have been struggling under a mandate that is 
much too limited. I know they have been subjected to much criticism, 
some of it justified. They have been in a very difficult position for a 
very long time.
  During my trip, I talked with United Nations troops throughout the 
region, who have been doing a tough job with relatively few resources 
and too little political support for their difficult mission. If we are 
to expect the U.N. forces there to do its job better, they need a 
tougher, broader mandate to enable them to respond more quickly and 
more forcefully to Serb aggression and harassment.
  I saw the results of the war, talked with refugees about the 
devastating impact of the war on their families, their homes, their 
lives, and their futures. And I returned to the United States more 
convinced than ever that the United States must take a firmer stance 
toward Serbian aggression.
  And we have in recent months begun to take a firmer stand, shamed 
into it by the marketplace bombing of Sarajevo and the continued 
bombardment of innocent civilian populations in and around Gorazde. The 
continued threat of NATO air strikes to protect the Moslem enclaves, 
which are authorized by Congress in the Mitchell amendment, must be 
real and immediate.
  The senseless slaughter of innocent noncombatants, and the persistent 
ethnic cleansing campaigns, must be stopped by forceful NATO and U.N. 
action. We cannot continue to allow the U.N. and Bosnian Moslem forces 
to bear the brunt of persistent Serb harassment and attack.
  To do this, I believe we must lift the embargo now. If possible, we 
should do it with the assent of the international community, in full 
recognition of the implications of that action.
  That has not always been my position. For many months, I opposed 
lifting the arms embargo. But I returned from my sobering trip last 
December convinced that the embargo policy is no longer sustainable. We 
must send a strong signal of our willingness to at least allow the 
Bosnian Moslems to defend themselves.
  The Mitchell amendment does that. It is the one of the two 
alternative approaches that I believe makes the most strategic sense, 
and that poses the greater likelihood of success in our efforts to 
protect civilian populations there.
  For months, the administration has pressed our Western allies 
unsuccessfully to lift the arms embargo against the Bosnian Moslems. 
Today we read in the papers that the dispute over how to handle Bosnia 
between the United States and France is rising to new heights. Those 
tensions will continue to grow, and frankly do not look like as though 
they can be resolved very easily at the Security Council.
  But if our high-minded commitment to a new world order in which the 
United Nations helps to act as a guarantor of rights and freedoms 
around the world is to mean anything at all, we must give the Security 
Council another, final chance to reconsider its opposition to lifting 
the arms embargo.
  The Mitchell amendment requires the President to seek immediately 
the agreement of our allies to terminate the embargo. I urge him to do 
that with all the diplomatic and political force that can be mustered, 
as soon as possible.

  If the Security Council vetoes such an effort, or if the President 
refuses to pursue it vigorously at the United Nations, then I think we 
must pursue the immediate lifting of the embargo if circumstances 
continue to deteriorate there, and allow the Bosnian Moslems to defend 
themselves against Serb aggression. That is why I requested that a firm 
deadline be included in the amendment, to guarantee that the 
administration's consultations with Congress to lift the embargo 
proceed as quickly as possible if the United Nations refuses to go 
along.
  I must say honestly, while I intend to vote for the Mitchell 
amendment today, I am at the end of my rope on this question. If the 
international community is unwilling to act to lift the embargo, and is 
unwilling to intervene more forcefully by military and other means to 
protect humanitarian aid delivery and noncombatant populations in the 
enclaves, then we must act to lift the embargo, and provide certain 
limited and defense military materiel, in the form of the heavy 
artillery and mortars which they lack, to the Bosnian Moslems. It is 
unjust and immoral to allow them to continue to be pounded by Serb 
attacks without adequate means of protecting themselves.
  This military assistance is limited to the provision of appropriate 
arms that would allow the Bosnian Moslems to defend themselves. It does 
not urge, nor would it authorize, the dispatch of U.S. military 
advisors or other troops to the region. Even in the face of the 
continuing horrible tragedy there, that would be a serious mistake.
  The Mitchell amendment does require that any intervention by U.S. 
ground troops be explicitly authorized by Congress; that is a key 
provision. It also requires the President to clearly define in law the 
goals and purposes of any such military action, the rules of 
engagement, the respective roles of U.S. and U.N. forces, and the plan 
for disengagement of Western forces there.
  I will vote to approve the Mitchell amendment, and against the Dole 
amendment, for the reasons I've described. I know that colleagues on 
both sides of this debate all share the same goal: to stop the killing 
and stabilize the situation in Bosnia so that a more just peace can be 
sought under the auspices of the international community. I believe the 
Mitchell amendment best meets that goal, and does so in a way that 
satisfies our international commitments. I urge my colleagues to join 
me in supporting the Mitchell amendment.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I ask unanimous consent to permit the Senator from 
Virginia to ask a question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I seek clarification of the language in 
paragraph 2. It says:

       The President shall seek immediately the agreement of NATO 
     allies to terminate the international arms embargo * * *

  My question to you is: If the President fails to get such an 
agreement, does this resolution then say we stop?
  The next sentence raises the inference that we proceed, with or 
without such an agreement:

       In accordance with administration policy, following such 
     consultations, the President shall promptly propose or 
     support a resolution * * *

  My question is: If you do not get agreement, does this resolution 
stop there? Because I wholeheartedly support your thesis that this 
Nation must act in concert with its allies today and, equally 
important, tomorrow.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, if I might respond, the amendment sets 
forth a series of steps that will occur. It does not contemplate 
stopping at any particular one point because, in fact, were we 
successful to get collective action to lift the arms embargo, the 
further actions would be rendered unnecessary. So it is a sequence of 
events. If the first one does not succeed, we first get our allies and 
then we go to the United Nations.
  Mr. WARNER. But if you do not get the agreement, what then?
  Mr. MITCHELL. We go to the U.N. and try there.
  Mr. WARNER. Irrespective of the absence of the agreement?
  Mr. MITCHELL. That is right.
  Mr. WARNER. Does that not contradict your thesis that we should not 
act without the partnership of our allies?
  Mr. MITCHELL. No, because it says we go to the U.N. and try to get 
their agreement.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader and I yield 
the floor.


                    amendment no. 1696, as modified

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my 
amendment be modified, and I believe it has been cleared on both sides.
  I send the modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified.
  The amendment (No. 1696), as modified, is as follows:
       At the appropriate place insert the following:
       (a) Purpose.--To approve and authorize the use of the 
     United States airpower to implement the North Atlantic Treaty 
     Organization (NATO) exclusion zones around United Nations 
     designated safe areas in Bosnia and Herzegovina and to 
     protect United Nations forces.
       (b) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) the war in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina has 
     claimed tens of thousands of lives and displaced more than 
     two million citizens;
       (2) the Senate supports as a policy objective a peace 
     settlement that provides for an economically, politically and 
     militarily viable Bosnian state, capable of exercising its 
     rights under the United Nations Charter;
       (3) United Nations Security Council Resolutions 836 and 844 
     call on member states, acting nationally or through regional 
     organizations, to take all necessary measures to deter 
     attacks against safe areas identified in Security Council 
     resolution 824.
       (4) On February 9, 1994 the North Atlantic Council 
     authorized the use of air strikes to end the siege of 
     Sarajevo and on April 22, 1994 to end the siege of Gorazde 
     and to respond to attacks on the safe areas of Bihac, 
     Srebrenica, Tuzla or Zepa or to the threatening presence of 
     heavy weapons within a radius of 20 kilometers of those areas 
     (within Bosnia and Herzegovina);
       (5) The Congress in the FY 1994 State Department 
     Authorization bill expressed its sense that the President 
     should terminate the United States arms embargo on the 
     Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
       (c) Policy.--(1) The Senate authorizes and approves the 
     decision by the President to join with our NATO allies in 
     implementing the North Atlantic Council decisions:
       (A) of June 10, 1993 to support and protect UNPROFOR forces 
     in and around U.N. designated safe areas and,
       (B) of February 9, 1994 to use NATO's airpower in the 
     Sarajevo region of Bosnia and Herzegovina and,
       (C) of April 22, 1994 to authorize CINCSOUTH to conduct air 
     strikes against Bosnian Serb heavy weapons and other military 
     targets within a 20 kilometers radius of the center of 
     Gorazde, and Bihac, Srebrenica, Tuzla or Zepa (within the 
     territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina) if these safe areas are 
     attacked or threatened by Bosnian Serb heavy weapons.
       (2) The Congress favors the termination of the arms embargo 
     against the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The 
     President shall seek immediately the agreement of NATO allies 
     to terminate the international arms embargo on the Government 
     of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In accordance with Administration 
     policy following such consultations The President or his 
     representative shall promptly propose or support a resolution 
     in the United Nations Security Council to terminate the 
     international arms embargo on Bosnia and Herzegovina. If the 
     Security Council fails to pass such a resolution the 
     President shall within 5 days consult with Congress regarding 
     unilateral termination of the arms embargo on the Government 
     of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Upon termination of the 
     international embargo the President shall ensure that subject 
     to the regular notification procedures, of the appropriate 
     Congressional Committees appropriate military assistance be 
     provided expeditiously to Bosnia and Herzegovina upon receipt 
     from that government of such a request in exercising its 
     right of self-defense.
       (3) Unless previously authorized by the Congress no United 
     States ground combat forces should be developed in Bosnia and 
     Herzegovina. Any request by the President for such 
     authorization should include:
       (A) an explanation of the United States interests involved 
     in such commitments or actions;
       (B) the specific objectives of the commitments or actions;
       (C) the likely duration of the operation;
       (D) the size, composition, command and control 
     arrangements, rules of engagement, contributions of allied 
     nations, and other details of the force needed to meet the 
     objectives;
       (E) specific measurements of success, particularly the end 
     point of the U.S. involvement, and what follow-on security 
     arrangement would be needed; and
       (F) an estimate of financial costs, including burdensharing 
     arrangements, and non-financial costs as can be determined.
       (4) Nothing in this legislation restricts the prerogative 
     of Congress to review the arms embargo on Bosnia and 
     Herzegovina.

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, by a prior order, the second and third 
votes will be 10-minute votes. There will be three. The first will be 
on my amendment; the second will be on Senator Dole's amendment; and 
the third will be on the conference report, on the access to clinics 
conference report.

                          ____________________