[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]

 
                                 HAITI

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am very concerned with the current 
policy on Haiti and the events precipitated by that policy. While the 
situation in Haiti is of interest to the United States, there is no 
strategic necessity, no national emergency, no military or economic 
threat to the United States or to the world. Our interests focus on 
humanitarian treatment of the Haitian people and the promotion of 
democracy in this hemisphere. So why would the most powerful nation on 
Earth invade this small island nation?
  Our foreign policy goal with reference to Haiti seems to be to 
restore Mr. Aristide to power. While a noble goal, it is misguided. I 
do not share the administration's view that restoring a person like 
President Aristide to power will lead to improvement in the 
humanitarian, economic, or political climate there.
  Mr. President, there is much wrong in Haiti besides the overthrow of 
the freely elected Government. Every sovereign state must have a viable 
economy to survive and to provide for the welfare of its people. 
Haiti's economy is in ruin and, except for the elite, the Haitian 
people have an abysmal quality of life. Our embargo has only made the 
situation worse. The sanctions against Haiti have not brought General 
Cedras to a bargaining table. Instead, General Cedras and his friends 
have become richer while the Haitian people are suffering more than 
ever.
  I do not understand the seemingly irresistible attraction to use 
military intervention in Haiti. I also do not understand the emphasis 
this unfortunate situation is being afforded. The foreign policy 
interests of the United States are complex and far reaching. Haiti 
should never have emerged as an imperative situation commanding a major 
portion of the attention and resources of our Nation.
  What are our goals? How will we know when we have accomplished these 
goals? Can anyone in the administration describe what success will look 
like so that the American people, and the world, will know when we have 
achieved success? What is our plan for withdrawal?
  Mr. President, we learned from our errors in the past that before we 
use military force we must have specific goals which can be explained 
to the American people. If we can define our goals, we will be better 
able to plan for them and we will know when we have achieved them. 
These tenets are being overlooked or minimized in respect to Haiti. I 
fear that American men and women will be killed and maimed for some 
foreign policy goals which are still undefined.

  There is a better way. In my Senate floor speech on June 8, 1994, I 
called on President Clinton to modify our policy toward Haiti. I urged 
him to work with the Organization of American States to develop a plan 
for the humanitarian, economic, and political recovery in Haiti. The 
United States can exercise leadership and further the humanitarian, 
economic, and political recovery of Haiti. If the administration will 
tone down the rhetoric, lift the embargo, and enter into firm, 
meaningful negotiations with the ruling junta, I am confident the 
current situation can be brought to a bloodless, satisfactory end. The 
United States can invade a sovereign state and replace the government; 
or we can demonstrate our strength and humanitarian concern through 
leadership and diplomacy.
  Democracy can be restored in Haiti without putting Mr. Aristide back 
in the Presidential suite in Port-au-Prince. I would support the 
administration in any efforts in this arena. I cannot, however, support 
an attempt to use military force to accomplish these ends.
  Mr. President, I supported the Dole-Gregg amendment. I have written 
to the President urging him not to send our troops to Haiti without 
congressional approval. I am not suggesting prior approval is necessary 
under the Constitution. That is a different debate. The fact of the 
matter is that there is no emergency in Haiti and nation building is 
not what we should expect of our Armed Forces. We have the most 
powerful Armed Forces in the world. They are unmatched in their ability 
to project force and, if necessary, to fight and win. However, we can 
soon dissipate this fine force if it becomes a police force or is 
primarily used for, in the current vernacular of the Pentagon, 
``operation other than war.'' In order to keep a military force 
prepared--ready to project force or to fight and win--is a full-time 
mission. In an already dangerously constrained defense budget, there 
may not be sufficient resources to maintain readiness now. Deploying 
forces to occupy Haiti as peacekeepers or police force will consume 
critical funds and rob units of training opportunities.

  It will be a tragedy of the highest proportion if even one soldier, 
sailor, airman, or marine is killed during the invasion and subsequent 
occupation of Haiti. Even if the military leaders were to decide not to 
oppose an invasion by the United States, I expect there will be loyal, 
patriotic Haitians who will defend their country from a foreign 
invader. Certainly, we would protect our hearth and homes, why would we 
expect less of a proud Haitian people? It is unrealistic to assume we 
will not suffer casualties. Remember Somalia? The marine landing was 
unopposed militarily. The guerrilla actions came later. It took the 
events of October 3, 1993, when 18 young men gave their lives to shock 
us into realizing that we did not have clear objectives and no plan for 
completing our mission and withdrawing. I certainly remember Somalia. I 
do not want to remember a similar day in Haiti.
  Mr. President, the sense of the Senate is clear--no military action 
in Haiti without congressional approval. I believe this represents the 
sense of the people as well. Since there is no emergency, the American 
people deserve the opportunity to listen to the full debate and, 
through their elected representatives, express their approval or 
disapproval of this policy. Once again, I urge President Clinton to 
lift the embargo, open sincere negotiations with the junta and, within 
the auspices of the United Nations and the Organization of American 
States, seek a peaceful solution which preserves the dignity of the 
Haitian people.
  I am pleased to yield to the distinguished Senator from South Dakota.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Time is not to be yielded at this point. 
There is no controlled time.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator seek recognition?
  Mr. PRESSLER. Yes.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Dakota is 
recognized for what purpose?
  Mr. PRESSLER. To proceed as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the Senator from 
South Dakota proceeding out of order for how much time?
  Mr. PRESSLER. For 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. For not to exceed 3 minutes and to conduct 
morning business therein for 3 minutes.
  The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.

                          ____________________