[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 61 (Tuesday, May 17, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       LET'S GET MOVING ON BOSNIA

  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, late last week we had some significant 
votes here in the Senate about what we should be doing in Bosnia and 
Herzegovina. Specifically, we addressed the issue of lifting the arms 
embargo currently imposed on Bosnia and Herzegovina. I would like to 
make a few brief remarks about this issue.
  There were two separate votes, which caused some confusion, 
especially since they both passed by a narrow 50-49 vote. When one 
looks at it closely, however, there is really no division in the Senate 
regarding support for lifting the arms embargo. Ninety-two Senators 
voted ``yes'' to at least one of the two amendments; only seven are not 
in support of lifting the embargo at all. Differences lie on whether we 
should do so unilaterally or on the basis of allied agreement and U.N. 
approval. I, for one, find the embargo so reprehensible and illegal, 
and view the international community's opposition to lifting it so 
wrong, that I have joined the 49 other Senators who stated their 
support for a unilateral lifting.
  A strong message is being sent here. Virtually every Senator has 
asked the President to take action. The vote last week was not just in 
favor of lifting the arms embargo; it was in favor of doing something 
to stop the Serb militants from accomplishing their huge land-grab. If 
the international community, including the United States, would have 
demonstrated that the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina was of 
genuine concern and that something was really being done to try to 
address it effectively, we never would have had the votes last week.
  The alternative chosen so far is essentially to cover inaction with 
talk. Over the weekend, for example, in Geneva the United States, 
Russia, and several European countries adopted another new plan, which 
calls for a 4-month cease-fire and for a 51 to 49 split of Bosnia and 
Herzegovina. The cease-fire could allow the Serb militants to 
consolidate their holdings, and the division suggested is well below 
the 58 to 42 the Bosnian/Moslems and Croats have themselves called for. 
Meanwhile, fighting in northern Bosnia continues. What can such a plan 
accomplish in thwarting one-sided aggression and genocide?
  A further point involves the Congress. We rightly agree that 
something needs to be done, and we chose lifting the arms embargo as 
the thing to do. I agree with that; the arms embargo should never have 
been applied to Bosnia and Herzegovina in the first place, and that a 
U.N. member has an inherent right to self-defense. But we should not 
delude ourselves. Many support lifting the arms embargo because there 
is little risk to us if it backfires. It's easy, because we will not be 
held accountable if something goes wrong. For some, it is also an easy, 
convenient way simply to attack the President.
  It was pointed out during our debate that there are practical 
problems in actually arming the Bosnians, and even though I support it 
unequivocally, I do not see trying to arm the Bosnians as an 
alternative to NATO action, specifically airstrikes, to end Serb 
aggression. Although previous NATO airstrikes were threatened or 
carried out in such a minimalist manner that their effectiveness was 
limited, they did have an effect. They also illustrated that the 
international community may be closer to taking this type of action 
than lifting the arms embargo.
  Massive airstrikes against Serb positions, political headquarters, 
and supply lines are the quickest and likely the most effective way to 
stop the carnage. They could more easily put the Serbs on the run 
before they attack the peacekeeping forces on the ground. They would 
keep the Serbs from engaging in an all-out offensive to destroy what is 
left of Bosnia and Herzegovina before that country could be armed to 
defend itself. They would possibly make arming the Bosnians completely 
unnecessary in the first place. If they do not, they would at least 
make the sufficient arming of the Bosnians easier.
  If we really support the Bosnians, then let's support them this way. 
Having denied them the right to self-defense for so long, we are 
obligated not just to restore that right to them so late in the game 
but to make up the difference by offering our protection as well, and 
not just of a few select places designated as ``safe havens.'' If we 
are unwilling to be responsible and extend to them the protection of 
NATO, our calls for lifting the arms embargo may be nothing more than 
symbolism or, perhaps worse, a cover for our own unwillingness to be 
responsible and say that saving people from genocide is worth some 
risk.
  Of course, it is often difficult for Members of Congress to make 
responsible choices that have risks attached to them, especially in an 
area of Presidential prerogatives where the President himself is 
reluctant. I want President Clinton to express leadership, and to ask 
us to support him in extending NATO protection in Bosnia and 
Herzegovina. And I want to see the Senate, and the Congress as a whole, 
prepared to support him in that effort.
  As a final point, let me say that lifting the arms embargo on Bosnia 
and Herzegovina is a matter of principle, for that U.N. member has been 
a victim of Serb aggression. But it has not been the only U.N. member 
to be such a victim and negatively affected by the arms embargo.
  Croatia, too, felt the brunt of militants supported by a nationalist 
Serbian leadership and a Yugoslav military machine. While the lives 
lost there were fewer, they were still many. Croatia rarely sees a day 
that there is not still some fighting, and almost one-third of the 
country remains occupied by Serb militants in contravention of an 
agreed U.N. plan. Yes, Croatia was inspired by Serb successes and its 
own nationalist inclinations to engage in its own land grab in Bosnia 
and Herzegovina, but that period seems over. Thanks to the United 
States, in its exercise of leadership, Bosnian Moslems are not fighting 
against Bosnian Croats. Instead, they have formed the basis for a 
Bosnian federation, which has entered into a confederal and mutually 
beneficial arrangement with Croatia itself.
  If we are to be consistent in our application of our principles, and 
if we want to encourage further positive developments, we should 
respond to this situation as well. I, therefore, think we need at least 
to support efforts to get the United Nations more active in Croatia 
itself. Perhaps we should also consider alternatives that would include 
lifting the arms embargo on Croatia as well.
  To conclude, Mr. President, none of us wants to see more arms pumped 
into the Balkans. None of us wants to see American fighter pilots put 
in harm's way. However, because we have been unwilling to take some 
risks early on, the situation we are now confronting is now much worse, 
and more dangerous as well. If we do not do something now, it will 
continue to get much worse and more dangerous, but we will eventually 
be compelled to get involved, as we have during earlier conflicts. We 
have an interest in stopping this conflict, and in doing so now rather 
than later.

                          ____________________