[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 127 (Tuesday, September 13, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
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]

 
                AGAINST A CLINTON MISADVENTURE IN HAITI

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
February 11, 1994, and June 10, 1994, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Canady] is recognized during morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CANADY. Mr. Speaker, during the past several weeks we have 
unfortunately seen the Clinton administration move to the brink of 
armed intervention in Haiti. This step would, in my opinion, would be a 
tragic mistake.
  When we send U.S. military forces to invade another nation, we should 
at the very least have a compelling national security interest in doing 
so, a plan for extracting our forces after we accomplish the mission, 
and broad public support for the undertaking.
  Mr. Speaker, the planned invasion of Haiti meets none of these 
requirements.
  Should the Clinton administration carry through with the planned 
invasion, we will be establishing our beachhead on quicksand.
  To understand the quagmire we are getting into, we need only begin 
with the history of United States involvement in Haiti.
  In 1915, the United States invaded and occupied Haiti with, among 
other things, the intent of restoring civil order and stabilizing the 
nation's financial crisis. This action was deeply and bitterly resented 
throughout Haitian society. None of the accomplishments achieved or 
institutions established by the occupation survived after the removal 
of U.S. troops in 1934.
  There is no indication that the intervention in Haitian affairs 
planned by the Clinton administration would achieve more success or be 
any less resented by the populace.
  It is also of grave concern, Mr. Speaker, that the return to power of 
Jean-Bertrand Aristide is the linchpin of our whole Haitian policy. Mr. 
Aristide has proven in the past to be erratic and unstable. He clearly 
is not the unifying force needed to restore order to Haiti and move the 
country forward.
  Proponents of the administration's pro-Aristide policy constantly 
point to the fact that Mr. Aristide was elected with more than 65 
percent of the vote. The fact that he was deposed after 7 months in 
office, however, proves that he has bitter differences with powerful 
forces in Haiti and that he is unable to resolve these differences in a 
peaceful and nonconfrontational manner.
  Additionally, during the time he was in office, Mr. Aristide showed a 
disturbing tendency to disregard the Haitian Constitution on such 
important matters as the appointment of judges and questions 
surrounding human rights. Aristide's disregard for elected Haitian 
legislators and failure to condemn mob violence created tensions 
between the branches of government that helped precipitate Aristide's 
political demise. These tensions have not gone away in the years since 
the coup and would present yet another obstacle in the path to 
political and social order.

  It is clear that Mr. Aristide's leadership already faces many 
difficulties, but these difficulties would only be compounded by the 
proposed invasion. If Aristide returns to power by the barrel of an 
American gun, his legitimacy in the eyes of the Haitian people would 
collapse. Anyone who understands Haitian history must admit that 
Haitians will bitterly resent anyone who is viewed as an American 
puppet.
  This leads me to my next point. The remarks from the adminsitration's 
Haiti team have so far concentrated on the invasion and the retoration 
of Mr. Aristide to power. I have seen no evidence of a comprehensive 
plan for removing our soldiers and sailors out of harm's way. We must 
not allow ourselves to be embroiled in a protracted occupation quagmire 
which could result in the ongoing loss of American lives.
  The Secretary of State and others in the Clinton administration have 
been busy wheedling members of the international community into 
supporting this ill-conceived expedition to Haiti.
  Now the administration is proudly trumpeting the supposed broad 
support in the international community for an invasion.
  Of course, we all know that in reality the troops from other 
countries which have been pledged to the invasion will be standing on 
the sidelines while the American troops are standing in harm's way. It 
is the American troops who will bleed and die.
  So the key question is not what the members of the international 
community think about the planned invasion of Haiti. President Clinton 
should pay more attention to the views of the American people and less 
attention to government leaders from other nations.
  The American people are overwhelmingly opposed to this misadventure. 
In the most recent public opinion poll, 73 percent of the people say 
the United States should not lead an invasion of Haiti. And 78 percent 
of the people should present the issue to Congress for its 
consideration.
  I have talked with many people in the district I represent in central 
Florida. I can find no base of support for an invasion of Haiti. The 
people are dead set against this ill-advised course of action. They do 
not want to sacrifice one American life on the altar of the Clinton 
administration's bungled policy.
  The American people remember Somalia. They remember the Americans who 
needlessly died there. They know that lives were lost on a mission 
which had no realistic goal and in pursuit of a policy that can only be 
described as incoherent.
  The American people remember Somalia and they do not wish to repeat 
that disastrous experience on an even larger scale.
  Whatever the reasons may be that have propelled the President toward 
an invasion of Haiti, he would do well to listen to the American 
people. He would do well to heed the demands of the American people and 
abandon his planned invasion of Haiti.
  The United States has no business invading Haiti, and the President 
has no business initiating an invasion of Haiti without prior action by 
the Congress.

                          ____________________