[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 93 (Monday, July 18, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 18, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                         ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

                                 ______


                                 HAITI

 Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, President Clinton has again 
failed to establish a clear and decisive strategy in the realm of 
foreign policy. It is now evident that the administration is leaning 
toward a military takeover of Haiti. I strongly advise the President to 
consider the likely repercussions of such a move. With the casualties 
suffered in Somalia, it is remarkable that the administration could 
even consider deploying troops into the tumultuous environment plaguing 
Haiti. Last week, 2,000 marines were deployed from North Carolina to 
the Caribbean Sea. Mr. President, let there be no mincing of my words, 
If one of these soldiers returns in a body bag, the occupation will 
rightly be considered a disaster by the American public.
  Mr. President, I am inserting an article by Mr. David Colburn who is 
serving in my Washington office as a special assistant this summer on 
foreign policy matters. Mr. Colburn is a history professor and 
assistant dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of 
Florida with expertise on international politics. The following 
editorial takes an insightful look at the external factors that are 
shaping Mr. Clinton's foreign policy. Unfortunately, it appears that 
the administration has again chosen politics over sound policy, at the 
expense of our soldiers and the Haitian people.
  The article follows:

           Invading Haiti: Look Who May be Calling the Shots

                         (By David R. Colburn)

       Has President Clinton decided to turn over the nation's 
     foreign policy in Haiti to the Congressional Black Caucus in 
     a move that is calculated to lead to direct military 
     intervention? The answer seems to be yes.
       The Wall Street Journal reported that Clinton appointed 
     William Gray as U.S. special adviser on Haiti in order to 
     quiet the steady stream of criticism by members of the 
     Congressional Black Caucus. Gray, a former congressman and a 
     leader of the caucus, met with its members shortly after he 
     was named Clinton's special adviser. Other reports also 
     reveal that Gray has communicated with former caucus 
     colleagues since taking office, while at the same time 
     ignoring the advice and input of State Department members who 
     have extensive expertise on Haiti.
       This is not the first time the president has taken such an 
     capricious approach to foreign policy, and it is likely to be 
     just as devastating as his efforts in Eastern Europe. In 
     devising American policy in Bosnia, Clinton and Secretary of 
     State Warren Christopher also failed to consult their own in-
     house experts, including Warren Zimmerman, a 30-year veteran 
     of the State Department who was the last ambassador to 
     Yugoslavia and who was widely regarded as one of the 
     department's best-informed East European experts. The result 
     in Bosnia has been an administration policy that gets 
     redefined weekly and that has been wholly unsuccessful in 
     easing the crisis.
       The administration has gone about handling events in Haiti 
     in much the same manner, although, unlike Bosina, the 
     president's ``new'' approach seems certain to result in U.S. 
     military action.
       Relishing its newfound influence, the Congressional Black 
     Caucus has also insisted that exiled President Jean-Bertrand 
     Aristide be fully restored to power. Despite Aristide's 
     often-peculiar behavior, he has the unqualified support of 
     the caucus and, by implication,'' the Clinton 
     administration. When Gray implied criticism of Artistide 
     last week, Rep. Kweisi Mfume, D-Md., head of the Black 
     Caucus, quickly came to Arisitide's defense, and gray said 
     no more.
       What is really surprising is that the administration would 
     rely on a group such as the Black Caucus, which has such a 
     strong emotional commitment to Haiti, to determine its 
     foreign-policy objectives there.
       The ties of black Americans to Haiti are not just the 
     result of developments during the past year, but reflect 
     historical connections as well. Haiti was the first nation in 
     the Western Hemisphere in which blacks threw off the yoke of 
     slavery. It thus holds special meaning for most black 
     Americans. Moreover, the daily killing, rape and arrest of 
     innocent Haitians during the past year and U.S. refusal to 
     make an exception to its immigration laws for Haitians 
     fleeing the country, as it has for those who fled the former 
     Soviet Union, deeply angers blacks. Most are convinced that a 
     white population would never be accorded the same treatment.
       What were Clinton and his aides thinking when they opted to 
     case the fate of Haiti with the Congressional Black Caucus?
       Certainly, the most outspoken critics of the Clinton policy 
     in Haiti came from these black congressmen within his own 
     party. More important, these members also represent the 
     voting block that most strongly supported Clinton in the 
     presidential election. It thus appears that political 
     concerns drove the Clinton policy shift.
       There could not be a worse way to pursue American's 
     foreign-policy objectives. Black Americans, understandably, 
     cannot view events in Haiti unemotionally, and the president 
     surely knows this. To place American policy efforts in Haiti 
     in the hands of the Congressional Black Caucus is to escalate 
     the demands for intervention: it is unavoidable.
       If this becomes the precedent for U.S. military action, 
     what is to stop the United States from using troops to oust 
     Fidel Castro or to allow other American ethnic groups to 
     shape our policies abroad?
       The last time we entered Haiti, it took 19 years before we 
     withdrew American Marines. Event in that country today are no 
     more harsh or corrupt than they were in 1915, and political 
     stability is no more likely.
       The Economist, a British magazine, has described Clinton's 
     foreign-policy initiative as ``simply embarrassing.'' The 
     decision to rely on the Congressional Black Caucus to help 
     define U.S. policies is Haiti warrants the same assessment. 
     Are members of the caucus and other Americans prepared for an 
     extended U.S. military stay in Haiti, and are they prepared 
     for the death of American soliders--both black and white? I 
     doubt that they have even thought about it.

                          ____________________