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

 
                    OPPOSITION TO INVASION OF HAITI

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to what appears 
to be an imminent invasion of Haiti for the purpose of restoring Mr. 
Aristide to power.
  I call upon the President to come to Congress, make the case for what 
national interests are at stake vital enough to warrant the loss of one 
American life. I ask the President to seek congressional support in 
advance of any invasion.
  This body has often debated the issue of war powers and the 
President's authority as Commander in Chief. We are today faced with 
the real possibility that President Clinton is very close to sending 
our U.S. military into harm's way, having sought his authority to act 
in this case not from the U.S. Congress, but from the United Nations.

  Since the War Powers Resolution was passed in 1973, Presidents from 
both parties have questioned the constitutionality of the law which 
sought to restrict the President's power as Commander in Chief. Even 
so, all Presidents have selectively complied with the provisions of the 
War Powers Resolution and have recognized that the President's hand is 
only strengthened when he seeks and gains the support of Congress and 
the American people before ordering deployment of military personnel 
into hostile military environments.
  Because Operation Desert Storm was such a brilliant success, few 
recall today how contentious this issue was when President Bush came to 
the democratically controlled Congress and sought and gained a 
resolution in support of Desert Storm. Initially, President Bush did 
not believe he needed the authority from Congress to act in his 
capacity as Commander in Chief during Desert Storm. What President Bush 
did understand, and what I fear is not understood at the White House 
today, is that when a President makes the case for American involvement 
and acts in concert with Congress, his authority is strengthened, the 
resolve of the United States is understood by our allies, and neither 
our enemies nor our friends can doubt the commitment that the United 
States is there to stay through the course and see the action through 
to its conclusion.
  Mr. President, the administration claims that there have been 
numerous consultations with Congress regarding the situation in Haiti. 
If that is the case, these consultations can only be described as one-
way communications by an administration uninterested in addressing the 
concerns of a majority of our citizens and of a majority of Congress, 
concerns which remain today.
  The administration has simply failed to make a case for the invasion 
of Haiti. They have failed to inform the American people what interests 
are sufficiently vital as to warrant the loss of one American life in 
the invasion of Haiti. The situation in Haiti fails every rational and 
prudent test for United States military involvement, except one.
  Our military is the best trained, best equipped and most capable 
fighting force in the whole world. No one doubts their ability to make 
swift work of an invasion of Haiti. But having the military might to 
conquer a small island is not a justification. No case--no case--has 
been made that there is a national security interest important enough 
to warrant or to bring our military forces to assault Haiti's beaches.
  Once President Clinton orders an invasion and our people complete the 
primary task of conquering Haiti, how long will they be required to 
stay there? What will their role be? And what is the strategy to bring 
them home? These are the questions for which the American people 
deserve complete answers. These are the questions, if ignored, for 
which there are tragic consequences, as we have seen in Somalia and 
elsewhere. These are the questions which the administration has thus 
far failed to address.
  Some would like to have the American people believe that a U.S. 
military invasion of Haiti can be compared on moral and military 
grounds to Operation Urgent Fury in October 1983, when a joint task 
force of U.S. forces and those of Caribbean nations liberated the 
island nation of Grenada. This comparison is not only false, it is 
foolhardy. Those who push this idea are ignorant of history and the 
concept of collective security arrangements.
  Grenada was controlled by a Marxist dictatorship known as the new 
jewel movement. The island was used as a transshipment point for Soviet 
bloc weaponry destined for Communist insurgent groups, such as in El 
Salvador and those in other countries in our hemisphere.
  In the spring of 1983, President Reagan pointed these facts out on 
national television when he showed photographs of the large runway that 
the Cubans were constructing on Grenada, the extension of which could 
only have been necessary if there were a military buildup contemplated. 
The Government of Grenada was actively trying to destabilize countries 
in this hemisphere that were aligned with us. In other words, they were 
assisting the potential overthrow of our allies.
  There was also a large group of United States medical students 
enrolled at the military college on Grenada. In the week prior to the 
invasion, Maurice Bishop was deposed and executed by a more radical 
faction of the new jewel movement. Martial law was declared on the 
island and our medical students were not allowed to leave. Attempts to 
insert intelligence officers on the island to determine how grave the 
threat was to U.S. citizens met with failure. Anyone who doubts the 
threat to our young Americans on the island should look at the news 
footage when U.S. Air Force C-41 aircraft brought them to Charleston 
Air Force Base and they got down on their hands and knees and kissed 
the U.S. soil because they were so thankful for a safe return.
  Haiti invites no such comparison. Let us look at the timing issue. It 
was an emergency in Grenada. Clearly an emergency. We needed swift 
action, and that is what we accomplished. Swift action. We got in, we 
did our mission, we rescued our Americans, and we got out. President 
Clinton has been talking about invading Haiti for some time. He has 
gone to the U.N. and gotten their support. We have been talking for 
months about the invasion of Haiti. Why not come to Congress? Where is 
the emergency? The military dictatorship of Haiti cannot export its 
form of government to other nations in the region, nor does it act as a 
surrogate for the Cubans to do so.
  Since the President has failed to make his case for an invasion to 
the Congress and to the American people, it is fair to try to answer 
some of the questions posed by the threatened invasion.
  As we look at the situation in Haiti, it is instructive to reflect on 
the lessons learned in Somalia and ask if an invasion of Haiti and the 
subsequent requirement for stationing of United States forces would be 
worth the cost. Let us be clear about the costs of reinstating 
President Aristide to power.
  Military personnel may die. Military personnel may die if we invade 
Haiti. That is the first cost. I simply do not believe there is any 
national interest in Haiti significant enough to warrant the loss of 
one American life. As I see the Clinton administration moving steadily 
toward the confrontation of Haiti, I am concerned they have so quickly 
forgotten the lessons of Somalia. There, a humanitarian mission, filled 
with good intentions, escalated into a combat mission in which American 
military personnel were killed attempting to capture an elusive 
warlord. They did not die in furtherance of an American security 
interest, but they were sacrificed for an ill-conceived United Nations 
plan to pacify the country and impose a new political order.
  This is the same sort of morass the President threatens to involve us 
in now. Even if the United States were to invade Haiti, drive out the 
military junta, and reinstate Mr. Aristide to power, the problems which 
have sent thousands of Haitians to sea would still persist.
  Before embarking on a military adventure, we should consider the 
effects of the steps we have taken thus far in the name of humanitarian 
goals. It is the United States economic boycott which has destroyed the 
subsistence economy and reduced Haitians to desperate struggles for 
food and fuel. It is the United States economic boycott which has 
wrecked, not the military junta, but which continues to wreck the 
economy of the poor people in Haiti but not the lifestyles of the 
military leaders.
  Indeed, President Clinton's Haiti adviser, William Gray, recently 
admitted that it was the increasingly difficult economic conditions 
which have resulted in the despair which has caused unprecedented 
numbers of economic refugees.
  Mr. President, the United States should act, but it should act in the 
interests of both our country and the Haitian people. We should not 
invade Haiti. We must not place one soldier in harm's way in Haiti. But 
we should lift the embargo. We should repatriate the 15,000 Haitian 
refugees that are now in Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba, and in exchange 
for lifting the embargo, we should encourage another election, a real, 
free, democratic, election in Haiti.
  Recently, I joined several of my colleagues, on both sides of the 
aisle, in writing to President Clinton to express concern over his 
policies in Haiti and to express the view that full and complete 
consultations with Congress were necessary. The response from the White 
House was not very comforting. In his reply to our letter, he referred 
to the passage of the U.N. Security Council Resolution 940 as a 
critical step. He referred to continuing consultations with Congress 
and added that he would welcome the support of Congress and hopes that 
he would have the support if he decided that military action in Haiti 
is required. Apparently, the administration, having persuaded the 
United Nations, is less concerned about making the case to the American 
people and to Congress.
  The reason the President has not made his case seems clear. There is 
no case to be made. Indeed, an invasion of Haiti will indirectly weaken 
our security. It will be hugely expensive-- estimates are almost half a 
billion dollars in the early stages of an invasion, and the costs will 
amount to one more budgetary assault on a national defense structure 
that has already been dangerously weakened by too many cuts and by 
humanitarian missions that are drawing from our military budget.
  Most importantly, Mr. President, the American people do not support 
this invasion. Using the common sense that seems to be lacking here so 
often, they have concluded that there is no reason for the United 
States to invade and take over Haiti. They know that no matter how well 
planned, some Americans may lose their lives, and there will be widows 
and orphans and shattered lives. I strongly believe there is nothing to 
be accomplished in Haiti that is worth the price we will have to pay, 
and I call on the President to either make his case, consult with the 
Congress, or call off this invasion.

                          ____________________