[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 89 (Tuesday, July 12, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


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

 
                   UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD HAITI

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I should like to make a few remarks 
regarding our policy toward Haiti.
  I am very fearful that we are heading down the road toward invasion. 
Our policy toward Haiti should have three parts. First, we should 
announce there will be no invasion by the United States so they do not 
expect us to invade and put a new government into power.
  Second, we should state clearly that there will be no mass emigration 
allowed from Haiti; that only standard, accepted, legal immigration and 
legal refugee procedures will be followed.
  And third, we should work toward lifting the economic embargo on 
Haiti so that there is a chance for economic prosperity.
  I say these three things about Haiti because our policy is very 
confused, and is making the situation worse.
  We moved 2,000 marines down to the Caribbean making it look like we 
might invade. It remains unclear whether we will invade or not. The 
people of Haiti are expecting the United States to do something, they 
are expecting the United States to do it so they will not have to do it 
for themselves.
  Let us remember that Haiti has been an economic basket case for 200 
years. It has not known democracy. It is true that they had an election 
and they elected Mr. Aristide. But as soon as Mr. Aristide was in 
power, he did not rule like a Democrat. Instead, he ruled like a 
dictator. He abolished the senate, essentially, or at least refused to 
have them confirm actions taken by the President, which is their right 
under the Constitution. He virtually abrogated the intent of the 
Constitution of the country by acting as a dictator and not following 
procedures of consultation and approval by the senate and other bodies. 
Aristide ordered judges to impose sentences of death on certain people. 
He also advocated necklacing; a practice involving placing a gasoline- 
filled tire around the neck of his political enemies and lighting it.
  Is this the man United States troops are going to put back into power 
in Haiti? Let us think a little bit more about it.
  We have a great deal of inconsistency in the administration's 
policies regarding immigration.
  Now, all of our parents and grandparents, our great-grandparents, our 
great-great-grandparents were immigrants, and I believe in emigration 
to the United States for the purpose of coming here to get a job in a 
field where people are needed. That is the traditional basis on which 
people came to the United States. People did not come here for welfare. 
They came to America because they wanted to work.
  We now find ourselves in a situation where the administration has 
changed its policy so often that the people of Haiti not only are 
expecting an invasion, but they expect large numbers of Haitians will 
be able to come to the United States. We should state a clear, clear, 
clear policy that that is not going to happen. We should state the 
policy that the traditional law regarding immigration and refugee 
policy will be followed.
  Mr. President, I am very concerned that our foreign policy regarding 
Haiti is being driven by the Black Caucus in the House of 
Representatives. I know that the President needs the votes of the Black 
Caucus to pass his health care bill. But for the first time, major 
foreign policy decisions are being made on a racial basis, and I find 
it very unfortunate.
  I have read some of the statements of Black Caucus leaders, and I 
guess in some States a certain percentage of the vote comes from 
African-Americans. Somehow this administration believes that it must 
follow the lead of the Black Caucus with regard to foreign policy in 
Haiti. That is a great, great mistake.
  It is my strongest conviction that we should carry out our foreign 
policy where there are clearly identified U.S. interests.
  I predict when this Congress is in recess in August, the President 
will invade Haiti, when the Congress cannot react, when the Congress is 
out of town. There appears to be a trend among recent American 
Presidents to seek popularity by executing military operations in 
relatively small countries. Sometimes that is good and sometimes it is 
bad. Generally speaking, it is bad. I think that this President, in 
particular, is eager to execute a successful military operation, partly 
out of a desire to show a military machoism on which the American 
Presidency seems to thrive.
  In this case, a U.S. military invasion would be a great mistake. I 
think the Clinton administration and the Congress should make it clear 
that there will be no invasion of Haiti, that there will be no mass 
emigration from Haiti allowed, and that we are for lifting the embargo.
  During the congressional recess, the President should assure Congress 
that he will not invade Haiti, knowing that Congress is out of town and 
knowing therefore that there would be a minimum of opposition to such 
action. Senators such as myself would not have a vehicle on which to 
offer an amendment condemning such an act until September 12. I am 
fearful that we will see an invasion of Haiti during that recess.
  Finally, Mr. President, I would plead that the President of the 
United States and the State Department not allow the Congressional 
Black Caucus to make foreign policy regarding Haiti. I know the 
President wants the votes of the Black Caucus to pass the health care 
bill and to pass several other pieces of legislation that are pending, 
and I know that such support has been threatened to be withdrawn if 
certain steps to invade Haiti are not taken. Perhaps never in our 
history has a group in Congress threatened to withhold their votes for 
domestic social legislation in exchange for the invasion of a foreign 
country. It is a very sad day, when domestic votes in the House of 
Representatives are being threatened to be withheld unless the 
President sends the U.S. Marines into harm's way, on a mission that 
could not possibly be successful. Let us look at what happened in 
Somalia the last time we sent troops into a small country.
  So, Mr. President, in conclusion, Haiti is going to have to solve its 
own problems. It has had those same problems for 200 years or longer. 
U.S. troops cannot institute democracy in that little country. The man 
the troops are most likely to install as leader, Mr. Aristide, is not a 
Democrat. He governed as a dictator. He was elected, but his record in 
governance is not as a Democrat, I think we should remember that.
  Mr. President, I will conclude by asking unanimous consent to place 
some additional newspaper articles into the Record.
  There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Times, July 9, 1994]

  Clinton Can't Shake the Haiti Morass--Critics Divert Attention From 
                             Naples Summit

                         (By Rowan Scarborough)

       President Clinton's zigzagging Haiti policy has followed 
     him to Europe, dimming what was designed to be a series of 
     shining moments for a president trying to establish foreign 
     policy stature.
       The press yesterday peppered Mr. Clinton with questions 
     about the small, impoverished country as the president sought 
     to keep attention on grander economic strategies being 
     discussed among the world's most powerful leaders.
       ``This is not a fun thing to have other leaders aware of at 
     this time,'' said Rep. Porter J. Goss of Florida, the chief 
     GOP critic of the administration's Haitian policy. ``What has 
     happened, this is one of the times the White House 
     spinmeisters have spun it back on themselves, and they have a 
     big problem on their hands.''
       This week's events--an unexpected tidal wave of Haitian 
     boat people, a corresponding shift in U.S. resettlement 
     policy, and Panama backing out of a pledge to house 10,000 
     refugees--struck at such a bad time White House spokeswoman 
     Dee Dee Myers asserted Haiti was not that important anyway.
       ``Haiti's not the most important foreign policy problem 
     that we face,'' Miss Myers told reporters in Naples, where 
     Mr. Clinton is attending the annual G-7 summit of 
     industrialized nations.
       Her sudden dropping of Haiti as a top priority came as the 
     Pentagon openly talked about training young soldiers for 
     possible combat on the military-run island.
       ``She has to say that,'' said a House aide who works the 
     Haiti question. ``On page 1 of the newspapers is Haiti and on 
     Page 17 are his speeches in Europe.''
       Miss Myers' comment so angered Rep. Kweisi Mfume, Maryland 
     Democrat and chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, that 
     the congressman called a press conference yesterday to 
     roundly denounce the administration's shifting course.
       ``The president may not believe that this is the most 
     important foreign policy issue facing the United States, but 
     it has quickly become the most embarrassing,'' said Mr. 
     Mfume, in his toughest criticism to date.
       ``The Congressional Black Caucus believes that our policy 
     on Haiti is a policy of anarchy, one which changes by the 
     moment, and in the past 72 hours has witnessed administration 
     officials issuing statements filled with conflicting 
     conditions,'' Mr. Mfume said.
       Even before Miss Myers' remarks, the administration had 
     spent the week reeling from developments related to the flood 
     of boat people, including, chronologically, these events:
       Faced with a sharp increase in the number of Haitians 
     taking to rickety boats in a risk-filled try to reach the 
     United States, William Gray III, the president's special 
     envoy, announced those who seek asylum via the sea would no 
     longer have any chance of resettling in America.
       Critics say the administration itself triggered the flood 
     by imposing harsh economic sanctions and establishing 
     shipboard processing of refugees to determine if they qualify 
     for U.S. entry as political refugees.
       Panama abruptly pulled out of an agreement to provide a 
     temporary ``safe haven'' for as many as 10,000 Haitians, 
     sending Mr. Gray scurrying to find the additional capacity in 
     other Caribbean nations.
       Mr. Goss charged in an interview that the administration 
     jumped the gun in announcing the deal before the Panamanian 
     legislature reviewed--and killed--the deal.
       Mr. Gray told reporters that Lt. Gen. Raoul Cedras and the 
     junta that ousted elected president Jean-Bertrand Artistide 
     in 1991 must leave power by the end of the year.
       Said Mr. Mfume: ``I thought it was a bit troubling 
     considering the fact that it's almost a license, then, to 
     continue to maim and to rape women as they are doing and to 
     murder, and to know that they've got until New Year's Eve 
     before they have to get serious.''
       The congressman called on the president to order ``surgical 
     air strikes'' against the Haitian military. He declined to 
     specify which type of targets, such as barracks or Gen. 
     Cedras' headquarters.
       While Mr. Mfume criticizes the president, Mr. Goss contends 
     the Black Caucus is partly to blame.
       ``In my view, the bottom line is the White House is being 
     responsive to domestic political pressure--that's really 
     what's driving this--from the left, the Black Caucus,'' he 
     said. ``Those folks are determined Haiti should be treated 
     just as Cuba is.''
       The United States automatically accepts all Cuban refugees 
     under Cold War legislation that deems all the island's 
     residents the victims of communist totalitarian rule.
       ``Haiti itself is a friendly neighboring country, and for 
     us to be in a warlike state with them now is a foreign policy 
     failure of extraordinary detail,'' Mr. Goss said.
       ``If we send in the military to remove Gen. Cedras, there 
     are thousands of Cedrases that could take over.''
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, July 12, 1994]

                           Don't Invade Haiti

                          (By Lally Weymouth)

       The order yesterday by Haiti's ruling regime expelling 
     international observers from the country brings the United 
     States one step closer to invading the poorest nation in the 
     Caribbean. The expulsion of the United Nations-Organization 
     of American States mission was denounced by a top U.N. 
     official as a ``provocation.''
       The ostensible purpose of a U.S. military operation would 
     be to remove the generals who are now running Haiti and to 
     reinstate Haiti's elected leader--the left-leaning, anti-
     American priest, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. The real aim, 
     however, would be to stop the flow of Haitian immigrants to 
     the United States and, as one administration official put it, 
     to ``win one'' for President Clinton.
       The operational plan--still opposed by high-ranking 
     Pentagon officials--is for U.S. forces to invade, expel the 
     military rulers who now govern Haiti and then quickly turn 
     matters over to Aristide. Within about four weeks, a 10,000 
     to 12,000-man U.N. peace-keeping force would take control of 
     the country. U.S. troops would participate in the U.N. force, 
     which would be expected to remain in Haiti until February 
     1996, by which time a general election would have been held. 
     The mission of the peace-keepers, as Washington sees it, 
     would be to establish civil order, protect Aristide, remake 
     the Haitian army and purge the police force.
       American officials insist that at this late juncture, the 
     only factor that could conceivably persuade President Clinton 
     not to order the U.S. military into action would be the 
     personal opposition of Aristide--the man in whose name the 
     operation would be launched.
       As the Clintonites see it, they are risking American lives 
     to restore democracy to Haiti. But, claim officials, Aristide 
     is himself undermining this very policy by refusing to give 
     his blessing to an invasion and to a U.N. peace-keeping 
     force. As things stand, Aristide is consenting only to a 
     ``surgical'' coup. As a consequence, the Haitian priest has 
     become a thorn in the side of President Clinton.
       Moreover, the administration is finding it hard to put 
     together a U.N. force without Aristide's extending his 
     express approval for military action. Administration 
     officials have endeavored--without success thus far--to 
     persuade Aristide to formally ask the United Nations for 
     official support.
       Senior officials at the United Nations are privately 
     expressing reluctance to send a U.N. peace-keeping force to 
     Haiti. Worried by the cost of the undertaking, these 
     international civil servants argue that it would take at 
     least three months to organize a force the size that the U.S. 
     is demanding. Indeed, one high-ranking U.N. official actually 
     suggests turning the ill-defined mission back over to the 
     United States--to prevent the U.N. from becoming involved in 
     an expensive, vaguely defined operation that could well fail 
     in the long term.
       In return for voting for the Haiti operation in the U.N. 
     Security Council, the Russian government is expected to 
     demand what it calls ``sphere of influence peace-keeping.'' 
     This means that the Russians will seek U.N. blessing for the 
     troops they have dispatched and the peace-keeping they have 
     undertaken in Georgia. This could, of course, set a precedent 
     for Russia's flexing its muscles in the future.
       Currently, Aristide remains ambivalent about an American 
     invasion of Haiti. He recently told National Public Radio, 
     ``I am against a military invasion.'' In the end his 
     continuing unwillingness to co-operate with the 
     administration may render it impossible for President Clinton 
     to order U.S. forces into action.
       If an invasion is launched, the Clinton administration will 
     have to account for Aristide's long-standing and unmistakable 
     anti-American sensibility. In a speech he made in Haiti just 
     six years ago, he asked a huge mob: ``Who is Satan, we or the 
     Americans?'' Answering his own question, he said, ``The 
     Americans.'' Aristide posed another question: ``Who is the 
     most satanic, the Americans or the American government?'' His 
     view? ``The American government. . . .  Down with Satan. Down 
     with imperialism.''
       At least one high-ranking Clinton administration official 
     argues for supporting Aristide on the grounds that his human 
     rights record was far better than that of the present 
     military rulers. Many disagree. Refugee expert Nina Shea of 
     the Pueblo Institute suggests that ``the tenor was the same. 
     Under Aristide, the courts didn't function. There was no rule 
     of law. Scores were settled through violence. Legislative 
     bodies were silenced through threats of mob violence.'' In 
     Shea's view, Aristide is no democrat.
       Should President Clinton call off the invasion, he would do 
     himself, Haiti and this country a favor. As Rep. Porter Goss 
     (R-Fla.) contends, there is no national security 
     consideration that justifies an invasion of Haiti. Clinton's 
     Haiti policy, Goss observes, is ``a mess caused by 
     overattentiveness to domestic politics.'' President Clinton 
     needs the Congressional Black Caucus's votes, Goss claims, to 
     pass a health care bill.
       Allen Weinstein, of the D.C.-based Center for Democracy, 
     notes that right now the diplomatic effort is dead. Weinstein 
     favors reviving it. Surely this would be a wise course--
     considering the cost of an invasion in blood and in money--
     not to mention the expense of a long-term U.N. peace-keeping 
     force.
       If North Korea's late Marxist dictator, Kim II Sung 
     deserved one last chance, how is it that Lt. Gen. Raoul 
     Cedras doesn't merit the same treatment?

                          ____________________