[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 132 (Tuesday, September 20, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 20, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                                 HAITI

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to join with a 
number of my colleagues who have already spoken regarding the recent 
actions by the administration in Haiti. I wish to share with my 
colleagues, as well as the American people, the relief that I am not 
standing here today talking about the military invasion of Haiti but, 
rather, an intervention in Haiti that was negotiated. Thus, the loss of 
American lives, so much the concern of all of us last week, has been 
thwarted by the success of the negotiators.
  I wish to praise the efforts of former President Jimmy Carter, 
General Powell, and our colleague, Senator Sam Nunn. Because of their 
contribution, our Armed Forces entered into a less hostile environment 
in Haiti yesterday.
  Mr. President, that was yesterday. A new day has begun and a new 
obligation has begun. The ramifications of that, of course, are still 
to unfold. Time will be the judge of the contents of the agreement. 
Many in the international community and at home believe that this 
agreement, in my opinion, is much more lenient on the military junta 
than the Governors Island accord. This could have been achieved, of 
course, without the brinksmanship that the administration engaged in, 
but I am not going to dwell on hindsight. The fact is we are fortunate 
it did not involve the loss of American lives, and we are fortunate it 
did not result in the invasion that was contemplated.
  One wonders why there was not more thought and consideration given to 
the proposal that economic and political sanctions be used more 
effectively but, again, that is hindsight.
  So we should look ahead. We should be positive. We should not be 
lulled into a premature declaration of victory, however, because, 
according to our President, our goal is to stay in Haiti not only until 
President Aristide is returned to power but until order is restored. A 
good deal of that is going to depend on actions within the Haitian 
Government.
  But really, Mr. President, as you and I know, getting into Haiti was 
never the heart of the operation. No one wants to say the word, but in 
reality what we are involved in is nation building, something that we 
do not acknowledge but is certainly occurring in the sense that we are 
staying there until President Aristide is returned to power and until 
order is restored.
  So I would encourage my colleagues to recognize what it is that we 
have undertaken. It is, indeed, nation building. We have had some 
experience in nation building. I think that is what led us to stay in 
Somalia long after the humanitarian mission was complete.
  Perhaps this is a sign of a purpose that resulted in the unfortunate 
loss of a number of rangers who were involved in the manhunt for the 
warlord Muhammed Aideed. We all remember those tragic circumstances.
  The words ``peacekeepers'' and ``peacemakers'' bear an interesting 
connotation. Our troops are not merely ``peacekeepers,'' they are 
``peacemakers'' in Haiti. Under the terms of the U.N. Resolution No. 
940, this is a mission to ``establish and maintain a secure 
environment.'' We are not quite sure what all of that involves.
  But I would note that last year when I had an opportunity to spend a 
few days in a seminar, in attendance was one of our top Marine 
generals. He was very eloquent in his expression of the role of our 
military men and women who are taught how to fight wars. ``Fighting'' 
wars and ``peacekeeping'' or ``peacemakers'' have entirely different 
connotations, entirely different responsibilities, entirely different 
types of training. But we are asking our warriors, those that are in 
Haiti, to be involved in a peacemaking, peacekeeping, nation-building 
engagement. Mr. President, that troubles this Senator from Alaska.
  Political and economic sanctions, of course, as I said earlier, were 
preferable. There is nothing new about the fact that Haiti is our 
neighbor and the turbulent conditions there have led to human rights 
abuses and immigration problems. I regret to say that I think that this 
may also be true at the end of our occupation. But again, time will 
tell.
  We face potentially an unknown and certainly costly commitment to 
keep peace in Haiti--unknown in the sense of how long we are going to 
be there--and one can only guess the cost commitment.
  I am still not satisfied that this was a specific goal worth risking 
American lives. But, clearly, the negotiators were successful, and the 
engagement that was anticipated, the invasion of Haiti, fortunately did 
not become a reality. I would prefer to have seen the sanctions 
extended. But again I am not going to draw on hindsight.
  I acknowledge the immigration problems and human rights abuses. These 
are terrible problems. These problems could be addressed I think in 
another manner. We certainly are not occupying Mexico to stop the 
enormous flow of immigrants from there. We are not occupying China to 
prevent human rights abuses there. But we are occupying Haiti.
  Even though I remain skeptical of the goals of this mission under any 
circumstances, I would have been more committed if I had a little more 
faith in the leader President Clinton is determined to restore. I think 
it is legitimate to question whether Aristide is a good risk, a good 
risk to have the support of the people of Haiti.
  We have heard confirmed and unconfirmed reports of Aristide's own 
human rights abuses, and anti-Americanism. This raises the concern that 
we will risk American lives and spend taxpayer dollars to restore a man 
to power who has a questionable commitment to the very objectives we 
seek to achieve in Haiti.
  So I would remind my colleagues that we are committed to support 
Aristide at least until the next elections in Haiti, that we are 
embarked on an unknown commitment beyond that of the stabilization, 
establishment and maintenance of a secure environment. We are also 
involved in a substantial monetary commitment, the amount unknown, but 
clearly an obligation that the American taxpayers are going to have to 
underwrite.
  In closing, Mr. President, I commend our negotiators. I commend the 
President for the success of having our troops there without bloodshed, 
and without initiating an invasion. But I would urge the President to 
bring our U.S. troops home as soon as possible.
  I am sure that this body will have an opportunity over the coming 
months to address the points that I am somewhat uncomfortable about; 
that is, the obligation we are undertaking to ensure the support of 
Aristide, the commitment of funds, and the commitment of U.S. military 
personnel in a peacekeeping role.
  I thank the Chair. I wish the President a good day.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________