[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 59 (Friday, May 13, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 13, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                                 BOSNIA

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment 
about the two votes in the United States Senate yesterday on the issue 
of lifting the arms embargo as to Bosnia, each 50 to 49. These two 
resolutions are inconsistent on their face--rather unusual for any 
body, for any legislative forum, and especially for the United States 
Senate. In my 14 years in the Senate I have not seen such inconsistent 
resolutions passed. I inquired as to the historical knowledge of those 
who have been in the Senate longer to see when or if such inconsistent 
actions had been taken. I believe that the inconsistency of these 
actions is significant in and of itself in terms of the strong feeling 
of the Senate and the emotionalism of, not only the debate, but the 
votes on the underlying desire for the United States to be more active 
in Bosnia and to find some way to remove the arms embargo as an 
underlying unifying theme. The area of disagreement being whether it 
ought to be done unilaterally, by the United States alone, or whether 
it should be done in collaboration with our allies, especially the 
French and the British.
  The problems in Bosnia have been soul wrenching and gut wrenching for 
the American people, and it is reflected in the sentiments of the 
Senators in this body. We have watched tens of thousands of people 
killed in the civil war in the former Yugoslavia, and we have seen some 
2 million people displaced from their homes. As we have watched from a 
distance, we have struggled with what action would be appropriate by 
the United States because of our concern for the desolation and 
bloodshed and suffering which is being inflicted in the civil war 
there.
  The decision was made long ago, and I think wisely, that the United 
States could not be involved in ground action there because of our 
bitter experience in Vietnam and because of the quagmire which would 
necessarily be involved were we to undertake any ground operation.
  We have debated and considered the issue of air strikes and have 
finally authorized them. It was unique, precedent-breaking action by 
the NATO allies to undertake the air strikes. The airstrikes have been 
helpful, to an extent, but have not been really determinative of any 
real solution.
  Therefore we have come back to the question of the arms embargo. We 
are not allowing the Bosnian Moslems to buy arms, stopping their 
shipment in, and we have asked the very basic question: Why not?
  The right of self-defense is a very basic human right. It is a very 
basic human instinct. Self-preservation is probably number one among 
human instincts, and the right of self-defense is well-recognized since 
time immemorial.
  The United Nations Charter, article 51, provides specifically for the 
right of self-defense. Yet, the Bosnian Moslems have been denied that 
right. Why? Because the United Nations imposed an arms embargo against 
the nation of Yugoslavia long before Bosnia was formed.
  It is my judgment, as a matter of international law, that the United 
Nations arms embargo really is not binding on Bosnia. Why? Because 
there was not even a nation of Bosnia when the arms embargo was 
imposed, and there is the supervening principle embodied in article 51 
that there is a right of self-defense.
  But it has been a torturous matter for the United States, including 
the Senate, to consider what to do, since the arms embargo was opposed 
by the United Nations and our allies. Especially the British and the 
French, who do not want to lift the embargo. They have troops on the 
ground there. The support of the United Nations, the British, the 
French, the Russians, and the Japanese are vital for the United States 
in carrying out other embargoes, other sanctions, for example, on Iraq 
and on North Korea where there are vital United States interests.
  Scheduling is always hard and it is hard to find very many Senators 
on the floor at any time to engage in the kind of exchange which is 
desirable. We have had it in the past. We had it when we considered the 
resolution for the use of force with respect to Iraq, and that historic 
debate which occurred on this floor in January 1991. It seems at the 
very end there is a time limitation.
  I saw my colleague from Virginia, Senator Warner, speaking. He was 
allotted 3 minutes. He had some very important things to say. It was 
totally insufficient, as he was wrestling with the problem of 
overwhelming importance, and we did not have the kind of airing which 
we should have had in the U.S. Senate, which is reputed to be the 
world's greatest deliberative body.
  There was important discussion about the difference in a ``vital 
interest'' contrasted with what may be termed an ``important 
interest.'' To lend support to a nation which is struggling for 
survival and is defending itself, in terms of a moral value, on what we 
have considered to be an important national interest to help a nation 
defend itself, like Bosnia, contrasted with what might be termed a 
vital interest which may be impacted upon if the United States acts 
unilaterally to lift the arms embargo, without the collaboration of the 
French and the British, without the acquiescence of the Russians. What 
will happen in North Korea where there are more important interests, 
arguably? I think it is accurate that the interests of the United 
States have to be established on a matter of priority: What could 
happen with the North Koreans acquiring nuclear bombs; what could 
happen with South Korea; with the United States forces there; or the 
vital interests of the United States in Iraq? So those were all matters 
of really great concern.
  I think it is important that this matter has been debated in the 
Senate, and I congratulate my colleague, Senator Dole, for offering an 
amendment which was considered by the Senate back in April where there 
was a vote of 87 to 9 in favor of assisting Bosnia. I know that it has 
caught the attention of the executive branch.
  These measures are unlikely to have the force of law because even 
Senator Dole's amendment yesterday, which does have the force of law, 
or purports to have the force of law--it is not a sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution. We frequently have sense-of-the-Senate resolutions which 
express our preference but are not binding.
  What Senator Dole had in his resolution yesterday, which said that 
``Neither the President nor any other member of the executive branch of 
the United States Government shall interfere with the transfer of arms 
to the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina,'' would have the force of 
law if it were passed. It is more than a sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution.
  As we debated this provision, this amendment, it was apparent that 
its enactment was unlikely because it was opposed by the President, so 
that it would have to be passed, ultimately, by an override of a 
Presidential veto by two-thirds. That was highly unlikely.
  As I viewed the measure, I was concerned about the multinational 
effects and the impact we would have on the alliance and the importance 
of Russia, Britain, and France and our other paramount interests in 
Iraq and North Korea, and that it would not become the law. I noted the 
measure attracted a great deal of attention from the executive branch.
  I received three calls from ranking members--not the President, not 
the Vice President either, or the Secretary of State--but three ranking 
members in the executive branch. I get calls with some frequency--we 
all do--but more than usual. There was real concern in the executive 
branch.
  I think it is more than a wake-up call. It is more than the alarm 
going off, and it is more than a fire alarm. There is real unrest in 
this body, there is real unrest in the country, and there is real 
dissatisfaction with the President's policy in Bosnia, and it has to be 
changed.
  If you take a look at Senator Mitchell's resolution, there is 
agreement in Senator Mitchell's resolution that the arms embargo ought 
to be lifted. The Dole resolution and the Mitchell resolution are 
unified on lifting the arms embargo. Almost all the Senators favor--
only a few Senators, perhaps as few as 6 voted against both 
resolutions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has spoken for 10 minutes. You may 
ask consent for more time.
  Mr. SPECTER. I was not aware there was a limitation, but I see my 
colleague on the floor, Senator Bradley, giving me the go ahead signal, 
so I ask unanimous consent to proceed for not more than 5 additional 
minutes, and I will try to conclude in less time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as I was saying, the resolutions of both 
Senator Dole and Senator Mitchell called for a release of the arms 
embargo. I think that the administration and the President are on firm 
notice of that policy, which I think reflects the attitude of the 
American public, and that expeditious action ought to be taken to get 
the United Nations' agreement. As Senator Dole has said, he is going to 
be back here in a short while, and he is going to be renewing this 
application. It is a very important one.
  I want to comment on a provision of the Mitchell resolution which 
concerns me, and it reads as follows:

       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.

  There follows a provision that there shall not be ground combat 
forces. It may be that was added afterward, after a colloquy and a 
questioning of that provision by Senator Byrd.
  There was a similar provision in the resolution offered by Senator 
Dole last April, which I voted against because the Dole resolution from 
April provided ``The President, upon appropriate military assistance of 
the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina, upon receipt from that 
Government a request for assistance in exercising its right of self-
defense''--the gravamen is the President shall provide ``appropriate 
military assistance.''
  I voted against the Dole resolution, one of the seven to vote against 
it in an 89-to-7 vote, because I am not prepared to give the President 
a blank check, which I think the Dole resolution could have been 
interpreted to mean. I think that in Senator Mitchell's resolution from 
yesterday, which provides again for ``appropriate military 
assistance,'' even though there is a later statement about not having 
combat forces, those provisions are too broad. There should be a grave 
concern and grave reservations by the Senate, by the House--by the 
Congress--on giving the President a blank check to provide what the 
President may consider to be appropriate military assistance, even if 
there is a disclaimer as to ground forces.
  I believe that the United States has engaged in wars which were not 
constitutionally authorized. Korea was a war with no constitutional 
authorization, because only the Congress can declare war. Vietnam was a 
war, and again it could not have the appropriate congressional 
authorization, in my legal judgment, although there was a Gulf of 
Tonkin resolution. When it came to the use of force in Iraq, the 
Congress took up the issue and appropriately considered it and passed 
it, albeit by a narrow margin, 59 to 43, in this body.
  I think Congress has to be zealous in assuring the American people 
that this country does not go to war unless the Congress declares war, 
and that we have had a bitter experience that we cannot sustain a war 
unless there is public support. The place to find out whether there is 
that public support is in the Congress of the United States.
  I am concerned now about all the talk of military intervention in 
Haiti, and that is another subject which I am not going to get into at 
any length today except to say that I do not believe there ought to be 
military intervention in Haiti without congressional authorization. 
There is no emergency in Haiti. There has been a long time to consider 
it. There is no reason for the President to act unilaterally. What is 
or what is not a war is subject to some dispute. But if United States 
forces are deployed in a situation where there is time for deliberation 
and congressional action, it is my firm view that, as a matter of 
public policy, it is only the Congress which ought to act and the 
President ought not to act, and that in many of these situations and 
perhaps Haiti as well, it is a constitutional requirement for the 
Congress to act.
  So that in considering the Bosnia matter, or any of these issues for 
international action, I think Congress has to be very zealous not to 
give any overly broad authorization and certainly no blank checks to 
the President. But especially in this Presidency there is a need for 
the corporate wisdom of the Congress to speak out on international 
matters, as we did in Somalia, where a Member of the President's party 
would have had us precipitously leave. It was really again a leadership 
effort by Senator Dole, but Democrats as well as Republicans, which had 
a timetable for an orderly withdrawal.
  The Senate has spoken very forcefully on this issue. It is my hope, 
Mr. President, that the administration will pay close attention to it, 
and that we will find a way to lift the arms embargo and a way to help 
the embattled Bosnian Moslems to defend themselves. We must try to 
bring a solution to the problems in Bosnia, hopefully diplomatically, 
but if not, at least to accord Bosnia its rightful opportunity to 
defend itself.
  I thank my colleague for waiting. I thank the Chair and I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. BRADLEY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. BRADLEY. I thank the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania for 
being generous with his remarks and addressing an important subject, a 
subject with which we dealt yesterday in the Senate.

                          ____________________