[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 143 (Wednesday, October 5, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 5, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                  THE UNITED STATES POLICIES IN HAITI

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I wish to address, once again, as I have on 
a number of other occasions, the issue of what our policies are in 
Haiti. There has not been a great deal of discussion in the last few 
days about this issue, although a number of our Members, including 
myself, just recently returned from a brief trip there to try to assess 
the situation.
  I continue to be concerned that we as a country, and this 
administration specifically, have not defined a national goal which 
justifies the huge amount of commitment we have made in Haiti, 
specifically the fact that we have put a large number of American 
troops on the ground there and put their lives at risk, and we have 
committed to spend at least a billion dollars in a plan laid out for us 
by the administration--probably multiple billions of dollars in this 
country.
  We are spending it without any definition, in my opinion, of what is 
the national interest there. We have discussed that issue before at 
some length, and I hope there will be a resolution jointly sponsored by 
both sides which will give us more of a definition as to what is going 
on in Haiti and the timeframes involved there, and which will get the 
administration to define the mission for us in Haiti, what the rules of 
engagement are in Haiti, and how much it is going to cost on a daily 
basis. I think that is critical.
  As we proceed down this road on the issue of Haiti and how we are 
going to deal with that nation, one of the obvious key factors is that 
we went into Haiti, according to the President, for the purposes of 
restoring to power President Aristide. Yet, today, there appears to be 
more and more issues as to Mr. Aristide and as to his credibility, 
character, and also his purposes. Should he obtain the position of 
President again?
  I want to refer today to two issues raised in the press, and I 
believe this Senate has an obligation to pursue these issues and to get 
some determination as to what the accuracy of these questions are. 
First, of course, is the representation that has been in the press from 
a number of quarters that Mr. Aristide is alleged to be taking money 
that was paid to him by the Colombian drug cartel. DEA has requested 
the opportunity to interview him and has been denied that by our 
Justice Department. Those are two representations that have been made 
in the public and reported September 30 and have been followed up on in 
a number of reports, and they are serious, obviously.
  The fact that we would be putting the American imprimatur of ``good 
government'' on an individual who may be taking bribes from the 
Colombian drug cartel is serious. The fact that American troops are on 
the ground in Haiti for the purpose of defending this individual and 
his supporters and for the purpose of reinstituting his Government, 
when that Government may actually be headed by an individual who has 
this sort of potential background, is serious.
  We need some answers here, and I hope that we will receive them from 
the administration, and that they will, at a minimum, allow their own 
Department of Drug Enforcement to pursue their investigation without 
interference from the Attorney General.
  The second group of issues which are raised relative to Aristide are 
his actions in relationship to the American commitment there. There is 
a story by Bradley Graham today in the Washington Post which has a 
number of very interesting issues raised in it. Specifically, it states 
that Mr. Aristide, through his lawyers--remember, his lawyers are paid 
American lawyers who represent him here and receive a great deal of 
money--his lawyers have represented that they will not sign what is the 
traditional status-of-forces agreement so our military on the ground 
knows what their purpose is and what their relationship is to the 
Government of Haiti, unless they receive a commitment from our troops 
that our troops will go in and disarm the enemies of Mr. Aristide, as 
defined by the Aristide faction.
  That, of course, is a very threatening position to put our troops 
in--that they would basically have to do a house-to-house search for 
weapons in Port-au-Prince and throughout the country of Haiti for the 
purpose of disarming people who may arbitrarily be chosen by the 
Aristide forces and Aristide faction as their opponents.
  When you look at the history of Mr. Aristide's political movement, 
you see that in the past he used the purposes of mob violence in order 
to enforce his own political agenda. And there is, from my experience--
which is brief, I must admit, my exposure to the Haitian situation--
serious and probably legitimate concerns by a number of people in Haiti 
that once their weapons are removed, they and their families may be the 
subject of mob violence.
  Second, the attorneys have said a condition of his signing the 
status-of-forces agreement is that the American forces must be 
committed to protect him and his people personally. I find that to be 
an interesting condition to put on American forces. The fact that the 
status-of-forces agreement has not been signed is truly an affront to 
this Congress, this country, and especially to our soldiers who are on 
the ground there.
  One wonders if it is just a continuation of the Aristide reaction to 
the situation that we have seen throughout this process, because as is 
described by Mr. Graham, he says:

       Aristide was angry and disappointed by the deal crafted by 
     former President Jimmy Carter that led to the peaceful 
     occupation of Haiti by the U.S. troops on September 19. The 
     exiled president, whose restoration to power is the goal of 
     the U.S. intervention, was unhappy that the deal allowed 
     Haiti's top military leaders to remain in office until as 
     late as October 15 and did not require they leave the country 
     after stepping down.

  As a result, Mr. Aristide refused to thank the American troops or the 
American people for their commitment there for a number of days.
  One has to question this person's approach to the whole issue and 
whether he is an individual who qualifies for the commitment of 
American soldiers that is being made there or the American tax dollars 
that are being put into this country.
  Furthermore, it appears that this administration has designed a 
fairly comprehensive plan for the future of Haiti, and I find this to 
be the most disturbing because in this article it states:

       U.S. officials have shared with the Aristide 
     representatives a number of papers outlining America's plans 
     and intentions in Haiti.

  I want to tell you this administration has not shared those plans or 
those intentions with either this Congress, this Senate, or with the 
people of the United States As far as we know as a Congress or as a 
Senate, or as far as the people of this country know, there is no 
definition that has yet been given to the policies in Haiti.
  We are seeing a mission which is subject to constant fluctuation in 
its purposes and its goals, and we are seeing a mission where our own 
troops are put on ground in a position which is confusing and difficult 
to enforce and where they are being asked to be policemen one day in 
support of one group and policemen another day in support of a 
different group.
  Yet this administration has been able to share with Mr. Aristide, 
according to this article, numbers, papers outlining American plans and 
intentions in Haiti. I do believe that it is time that they also shared 
those papers and plans and intentions with this Congress and with this 
Senate.
  I would hope that as we move down this road into the Haitian 
situation we would recognize that this is a murky and difficult 
business, that there is a potential here to draw American forces and 
American tax dollars into a very deep and murky lake and that we could 
end up in a position where a large number of American military 
personnel and American personnel generally and a large number of 
American dollars could be expended without any clear and effective 
policy to guide that activity.
  We clearly have some significant questions about Mr. Aristide and 
about his policies, about him personally, and what he has been doing 
and in the area of the DEA probe and about his policies and his role 
relative to the United States in regard to a status-of-force agreement.
  These need to be answered and, most important, the American people 
need to know what is the end plan, when are we going to get our troops 
out, and how much is it going to cost us. These are serious questions, 
and they need to be answered.
  I would hope that this Congress before it adjourns goes on record 
asking for those answers and that the administration has the courtesy 
to give them to us.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.

                          ____________________