[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 98 (Monday, July 25, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 25, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
               HAITI: THE UNITED STATES SHOULD NOT INVADE

                                 ______


                           HON. DOUG BEREUTER

                              of nebraska

                    in the house of representatives

                         Monday, July 25, 1994

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, it has become increasingly clear that the 
Clinton administration is prepared to use military force to return Jean 
Bertrand Aristide to power in Haiti. This Member, like many other 
Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, believes that such an 
invasion is a wholly inappropriate use of U.S. military power.
  It is important to note that the vast majority of Americans oppose 
military operations in Haiti. The American people recognize that 
restoration of ousted President Aristide is not required by our 
national interest. As the July 19, 1994, edition of the Lincoln Star 
correctly noted:

       A military operation appeals to some frustrated members of 
     the administration who may feel pressured to do something 
     simply to show Clinton is not afraid to use force or act 
     decisively. Maybe they mistakenly think victory would be 
     simple. However, now is not the time, nor is Haiti the place, 
     to make up for Clinton's poor handling of foreign policy. In 
     fact, a poorly defined, unpopular, unilateral invasion will 
     go a long way toward turning Clinton's foreign policy 
     headaches into a real migraine.

  This Member would ask that the July 19, 1994, editorial from the 
Lincoln Star entitled ``Many Reasons Why the United States Shouldn't 
Invade,'' be printed following these remarks.
  The article follows:

          Many Reasons Why the United States Shouldn't Invade

       Sending American troops to fight and die in Haiti because 
     we do not know what to do with the exodus of Haitians is a 
     poor reason to invade.
       And premature.
       New sanctions, for the first time aimed solely at the 
     country's elite, have only recently gone into effect. We 
     ought to give them time to work.
       Meanwhile, we could put our diplomatic muscle behind 
     building a united front to enforce sanctions, aid refugees 
     and plan for economic and peacekeeping assistance once the 
     military regime collapses.
       We could also work on getting regional support for a 
     military mission, with exit strategy and troops from other 
     countries, should sanctions fail and the situation be deemed 
     intolerable.
       To date, however, Clinton has not won the approval of the 
     United Nations, the Organization of American States, the U.S. 
     Congress, the American public, nor, it would seem, most 
     Haitians, for a military invasion.
       We go this one alone at the risk of alienating obvious 
     allies, including the Haitians in whose name we fight. Nor 
     has the president identified a national security interest 
     that would justify the involvement of U.S. troops and the 
     loss of U.S. lives.
       Except for the boat people. Invasion seemed imminent in the 
     week in which 10,000 Haitians took to the sea in rickety, 
     overcrowded boats.
       Whether it's racism or simply the overwhelming numbers of 
     immigrants, U.S. policy has always treated refugees from 
     Haiti differently. For a time, both former President Bush and 
     Clinton turned them back without even an asylum hearing.
       Our humanity demands now that we take responsibility for 
     worsening the situation in their country. The price of 
     imposing sanctions is sanctuary.
       The U.S. should be prepared to accept some refugees and to 
     enlist other Caribbean and Latin countries into doing 
     likewise.
       The administration understandably wants a democracy in 
     Haiti.
       But military invasion is a crude diplomatic tool. Lives 
     will be lost; animosities engendered. Even supporters of 
     ousted President Jean-Bertrand Aristide do not want their 
     leader brought back on the shoulders of U.S. Marines.
       Only Haitians can bring democracy to their tortured island. 
     With no democratic institutions to draw upon, this will not 
     be an easy task for them. It's one the U.S. and others could 
     help with, but it's not something we can readily establish as 
     an occupying force.
       A military operation appeals to some frustrated members of 
     the administration who may feel pressured to do something 
     simply to show Clinton is not afraid to use force or act 
     decisively. Maybe they mistakenly think victory would be 
     simple.
       However, now is not the time, nor is Haiti the place, to 
     make up for Clinton's poor handling of foreign policy. In 
     fact, a poorly defined, unpopular, unilateral invasion will 
     go a long way toward turning Clinton's foreign policy 
     headaches into a real migraine.

                          ____________________