[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 127 (Tuesday, September 13, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 13, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                           THE GRENADA MODEL

                                 ______


                          HON. SONNY CALLAHAN

                               of alabama

                    in the house of representatives

                      Tuesday, September 13, 1994

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the consideration of the 
House an editorial from the September 10, 1994, Mobile Press Register 
discounting arguments that Grenada set a precedent for a United States 
invasion of Haiti.
  It is refreshing to me to have access to a newspaper that is light 
years away philosophically from the liberal east coast media. I am 
frequently in agreement with the Mobile Press Register's editorial 
staff and these comments on President Clinton's plans to invade Haiti 
are right on target.
  It appears unlikely that we will have an opportunity to vote on the 
question of military force in Haiti, but I urge my colleagues to 
consider the points made in this editorial.

               [From the Mobile Register, Sept. 10, 1994]

                The Grenada Model: A Disaster of Deceit

       As the unspecified hour for President Clinton's splendid 
     little invasion of Haiti draws closer, it becomes ever 
     clearer that the heart of this misadventure is a lump of 
     slippery political calculations. Consider, for example, that 
     the president sought and got approval (prearranged) from the 
     United Nations--thus creating an illusion legitimacy--but 
     will not dare seek approval from Congress. He knows the 
     improbability of getting it.
       When asked how the president escapes his constitutional 
     duty to seek congressional approval for an invasion, a White 
     House official said they regard ``the Grenada model'' as 
     ``more appropriate'' to the circumstances. He was alluding to 
     President Reagan's decision to invade Grenada in 1983 without 
     Congress' approval.
       The Clinton administration shows breathtaking arrogance in 
     trying to pass off an analogy between the radically different 
     circumstances of Haiti today and Grenada in 1983. Recall a 
     few of the differences.
       1. The United States was asked to intervene in Grenada. 
     Less than a week after Grenada's Marxist prime minister was 
     murdered and fractional violence broke out, the chairman of 
     the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (of which 
     Grenada was a member) asked President Reagan to intervene, 
     which he did immediately.
       No one has asked president Clinton to intervene in Haiti, 
     where there is no emergency. The Clinton administration has 
     been posturing and threatening Haiti's military dictators for 
     months trying to frighten them off.
       2. Americans on Grenada were in immediate danger. After 
     murdering the prime minister, the ruling faction declared 
     martial law. About 1,000 Americans on the island, mostly 
     medical students, were put on 24-hour curfew and told that 
     violators would be shot on sight. The island was in chaos.
       Americans in Haiti don't face any danger remotely 
     comparable to that perilous emergency. Many have told 
     reporters they don't want to be ``rescued'' by an invasion 
     force.
       3. We had a strategic interest in Grenada. This was a time 
     when, having a secure base in Cuba, the Soviet Union was 
     busily establishing outposts throughout Latin America and the 
     Caribbean. On Grenada, Cubans were building a 10,000-foot 
     runway clearly intended for military aircraft, and Grenada 
     had no air force. After invading the island, U.S. forces 
     uncovered plans for equipping 10,000 troops. Their purposes 
     would not have been for the defense of Grenada.
       We have no strategic interest in Haiti. With the Cold War 
     over we don't even have a strategic interest in Cuba.
       Much discussion these days centers on why so many hold Mr. 
     Clinton in such low esteem. Here is one answer. ``The Grenada 
     model'' is so wildly inappropriate to Haiti's circumstances 
     that the analogy insults one's intelligence. How could 
     Americans not lose respect for an administration that would 
     put our troops at risk and seek public approval through such 
     an obvious ruse?

                          ____________________