[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 86 (Thursday, June 30, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 30, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
       NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZA- TION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, we are in the process of trying to get a 
unanimous consent agreement on a time agreement on a couple of 
important amendments that we will be debating this evening, one on the 
B-2 and the other on an amendment we call COLA equity relating to 
military retirement. It is my hope that we can go ahead and get started 
on the debate, even pending the unanimous consent request. That request 
is, I hope, going to be entered into.
  So I ask that the Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin] and the Senator 
from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] and others who are interested in the B-2 
debate, come on over and begin debate on that. I think we would not be 
wasting any time at all because that is the amendment that I hope we 
will be able to get to first. I know the Senator from Michigan is 
anxious to get that up. It is going to take a considerable amount of 
time for debate. So I hope we can get started on the B-2 debate. I 
yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. DOLE. Will the Senator withhold?
  Mr. NUNN. I withhold.
  Mr. DOLE. The Senator from South Carolina is prepared to speak on 
Bosnia at this time if there is no objection to that.
  Mr. NUNN. No, I have no objection at all.
  Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond] 
is recognized.


                          bosnian arms embargo

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am pleased to join as a cosponsor of 
the Dole-Lieberman amendment to lift the Bosnian arms embargo. I regret 
I must oppose my distinguished colleagues on the Armed Services 
Committee, the able Chairman Senator Nunn, and Senator Warner, who have 
offered a second degree amendment. I know their views on this matter 
are well thought out and sincerely held. I recognize that they too want 
to help the embattled Bosnians, but have honest concerns about the 
dangers of acting unilaterally.
  When this issue was last before the Senate, we had a vigorous debate, 
perhaps one of the best the Senate has seen in a long time. That debate 
highlighted the moral and political complexities of the Balkan war, and 
showed that men and women of good will can disagree passionately.
  The Bosnian question is not a matter any of us should take lightly. 
Nevertheless, I am still persuaded that the amendment is necessary. 
While the Bosnian crisis confronts us with extremely complex dilemmas, 
I believe the fundamental, underlying issue is simple--it is a matter 
of basic moral choice. America is not obligated to intervene militarily 
on the side of the Bosnians, or supply them with tanks and artillery. 
But if we are not going to defend the Bosnians from aggression and 
wanton killing, it is morally wrong to deny them the means to defend 
themselves.
  Opponents of lifting the embargo argue that acting unilaterally will 
undermine America's leadership position in NATO. It may compromise 
other U.N.-sponsored sanctions and embargoes around the world which the 
United States supports; for example, in Iraq or Haiti. For us to act 
alone may make it difficult to go to our allies or the United Nations 
if we need to invoke sanctions against North Korea at some future 
point.
  I realize we must balance the moral imperative against the political 
risks in acting unilaterally. Withdrawing from the current NATO 
operation may well place a severe strain on the Alliance. I can only 
hope that if the United States must act alone, we can find some way to 
reconcile this action with our leadership role in NATO.
  Is such a reconciliation of competing interests possible? Douglas 
Hurd, the British Foreign Secretary, recently visited with the Armed 
Services Committee. While he opposed lifting the embargo, he conceded 
that NATO also wants to help the Bosnians, just as we who support this 
amendment. I remind my colleagues that NATO's first combat mission in 
its 45-year history was on behalf of the Bosnians, with air strikes 
against Serbian aggressors. Clearly it is NATO's policy to help the 
victims of aggression. The purpose of the Dole amendment is to help the 
victims of aggression. Since the supporters of this amendment and NATO 
members agree in principle, surely some way can be found to work out 
this difficulty.
  If not, Mr. President, then we find ourselves caught between a rock 
and hard place. Americans want to preserve our standing and commitment 
to NATO, and we want to allow the victims of brutal aggression to 
defend themselves. Faced with such a dilemma, we must look for guidance 
in ``first principles,'' principles which flow from our historic 
national norms and values.
  I believe the first principle involved here is clear; it is the 
inherent right of self-defense. The Dole amendment bases termination of 
the embargo squarely on the right of self-defense, in this case as 
spelled out in article 2 and article 51 of the U.N. Charter. Natural 
law, most world religions, our own moral tradition, and plain common 
sense support the right of a people to defend themselves from attack. 
But, by enforcing the embargo, we violate our own historic moral and 
political norms. We allow U.N. resolutions to overturn the U.N. 
Charter, a blatant inconsistency that should never have happened in the 
first place.

  Let the Bosnians acquire the arms they need to defend their villages, 
their women and children. Let us reaffirm the traditional American 
principle that every state has the right to defend itself. In today's 
violent and chaotic world, the inherent, fundamental right of self-
defense must be protected.
  Mr. President, the opponents of the amendment base their arguments on 
what might happen if we act unilaterally. They fear that lifting the 
embargo will only prolong the agony. Certainly no one can promise that 
lifting the embargo will bring about a lasting peace. But I base my 
support of the amendment on what has already happened. The current 
approach simply has not worked, and has only made the innocent 
vulnerable to slaughter. At one time I would have said indiscriminate 
slaughter. But after hearing the compelling testimony of Bosnian Vice-
President Ganich and also the moving remarks on the floor of Senator 
Biden, I realize that the slaughter is not indiscriminate. The Serbs 
clearly have embarked on a policy of deliberate killing of women and 
children, the old and helpless, in order to terrorize the Bosnians into 
fleeing or submitting.
  In my view, and in the view of the Bosnians themselves, the current 
military imbalance is what makes the policy of terror possible, and 
prolongs the war. Lifting the embargo may help bring peace. At least it 
will reduce the violence by making the Serbs pay a higher price for 
their aggression.
  I concede that none of the options open to us are attractive. If we 
do nothing, we feel a sense of responsibility as we watch an 
ineffective U.N. peace operation falter, while the innocent suffer. If 
we act unilaterally, we jeopardize our relations with our allies. In 
the end I have to reach into my conscience and conclude that we must 
not continue forcing the Bosnian Muslims to remain defenseless against 
Serbian tanks and heavy artillery, with no means to protect themselves.
  I wish it were not necessary for us to act alone, since the Bosnian 
crisis is not just an American responsiblity--it affects Europe far 
more than us. Perhaps the Europeans can be persuaded to join with us. 
That may mean they will have to withdraw their peacekeeping troops. 
Yet, the Bosnians have made it very clear this is what they prefer. 
They would rather have the means to defend themselves than be forced to 
rely on foreign peacekeepers.
  Mr. President, our current policy has proven to be neither practical 
nor moral. Something new is needed to change the dynamics of this one-
sided war. We have to try something else. I believe that the Dole 
amendment is a proper and necessary step in that direction, and I urge 
its adoption.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.


                         PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that David W. 
Davis, a fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges throughout 
the remainder of consideration of S. 2182.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair.


                  LIFTING OF THE BOSNIAN ARMS EMBARGO

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the most troubling aspect of this 
debate is that we are voting to take this action without our allies. We 
have stood in the field shoulder to shoulder with these same friends, 
wading ashore on the beaches of Normandy, slogging over the frozen 
mountains of Korea, bearing the searing heat of the Arabian Peninsula. 
In each of these cases, the United States was a reliable ally who paid 
her full share of the costs and individual self-sacrifice to accomplish 
a common goal.
  This time, however, it seems that all of us are willing to fiddle 
while Rome burns. We have been debating lifting the arms embargo on 
Bosnia for over a year. We have attempted to bring our allies to this 
view. But it has not happened. And Rome still burns. More than 200 men, 
women, and children have been slaughtered during the time that we have 
been debating. There is genocide in Bosnia. Thus far, the United States 
has correctly, I believe, resisted armed intervention, and I will 
continue to oppose sending armed troops from the United States into 
Bosnia. Because we are unwilling to take on this mission, the time has 
come for Congress to stop the impediment to the Bosnians being able to 
defend themselves.
  On June 23, Vice President Ganic came to the Senate Armed Services 
Committee. He is the Vice President of Bosnia. He made a poignant 
appeal to the Armed Services Committee. He said, apologetically, ``I 
realize I am emotional about this issue.''
  I thought to myself this man is apologizing for being emotional while 
they are under armed assault and their families are being brutalized 
and murdered. He asked that we lift the arms embargo. He is one of 
their elected leaders. He is a spokesman for his country.
  Mr. President, I think we must grant the request of the people of 
Bosnia.
  We 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 wherever we can to oppressed people who 
are willing to fight for their freedom. It is not always our 
responsibility to fight for others, but we must be willing to support 
them. The issue is American leadership and resolve.
  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 leader? The danger lies in the false sense of security that 
leadership will somehow evolve from consensus.
  Nothing could be further from the truth. Consensus follows 
leadership. Leadership does not, nor will it ever, follow consensus.
  The coalition which met the challenge in the gulf war did not result 
from consensus. It came because of American leadership, and that is 
what is lacking today. It is up to us to provide that leadership. No 
other country can and no other country will.
  A few weeks ago, we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the allied 
landings at Normandy. On that day, free people all through Europe 
commemorated the rollback of Nazi tyranny. It will be a bitter irony if 
the United States, which bore a tremendous amount of the burden in the 
defeat of Nazi Germany, may also be remembered in history for 
consigning the people of the cities of Gorazde to the same fate as the 
citizens of Guernica.
  During the testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, 
Bosnian Vice President Ganic talked about our sacrifices on D-day, and 
he warned that 50 years after the defeat of fascism, unfortunately, in 
Europe fascism is again on the rise with genocide and repression 
against the non-Serbian population.
  Dr. Ganic reminded us that the same European leaders who celebrated 
the D-day anniversary are now unable or unwilling to assume the task of 
confronting fascism. He asked that if the world is not prepared to act 
now to stop this tyranny as was done 50 years ago, at least let the 
Bosnians defend themselves.
  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, come what 
may. The Bosnians are not asking for troops to fight for them on the 
ground. Dr. Ganic told us he hopes the U.N. troops continue to do 
humanitarian missions in Bosnia, but if they feel they must withdraw, 
Bosnia is willing to accept that fate. He simply plead with us to no 
longer combine big words with small deeds but to lift the embargo 
because they need arms to survive.
  In closing Mr. President, Richard Perle recently defined the stakes 
so well. He said,

       In considering finally whether to reverse the shameful 
     policy of leaving Bosnia defenseless against a well armed 
     Serbian aggression, we face a decision in which the right and 
     moral course is also the course least likely to lead to 
     adverse consequences for the United States and its allies. 
     That is because it has the prospect of leading to a peace the 
     Bosnians themselves can defend rather than a peace imposed on 
     the vanquished that cannot last and which the United States 
     would be obliged to defend.

  The United States has acted unilaterally before and we will again. We 
must life the arms embargo. Vice President Ganic said, ``We are dying 
anyway. Let us die fighting--fighting for our country.'' Mr. President, 
I hope we hear their pleas and help them by lifting this arms embargo.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________