[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 88 (Thursday, May 25, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7576-S7577]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


               PROSPECTS FOR PEACE IN BOSNIA AND CROATIA

 Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I commend the United Nations for 
its May 25 air strikes against the Bosnian Serbs. It is about time the 
United Nations took an assertive, instead of a passive, approach to 
carrying out its mandated responsibilities to defend Bosnian safe areas 
and the Sarajevo weapons exclusion zone. Even before the formal 
expiration of the January-April cessation of hostilities in Bosnia, 
Bosnian Serbs were violating their commitment to refrain from violence. 
The Bosnian Government has defended itself, and apologists within the 
U.N. have mistakenly treated as equal the cease-fire transgressions of 
the Serb aggressors and the Bosnian victims. This has been wrong. 
Today's decision, finally, to use force, which has long been 
authorized, against those violating the weapons exclusion zone is a 
step in the right direction.
  But it is only a small step. I was not surprised to learn of the 
failure of the [[Page S7577]] latest effort to appease Serbian leader 
Milosevic by offering to lift sanctions in exchange for his recognition 
of Bosnia and Croatia. The United States participated in this contact 
group offer despite the fact that Milosevic has repeatedly and 
blatantly violated his commitments to prevent shipments of arms to the 
Bosnian and Croatian Serbs. The U.N. eased sanctions on Serbia in 
November with the understanding that Milosevic would stop supplies to 
the Bosnian and Croatian Serbs. Faced with clear evidence that Serbia 
violated this commitment, the U.N. Security Council nevertheless 
extended the easing of sanctions for a second period in April. In 
Milosevic's experience, aggression, false promises and delay pay 
dividends. No one has given him any reason to expect that serious 
consequences will
 follow his failure to live up to his commitments.

  Similarly, the Bosnian Serbs have every reason to doubt the resolve 
of the international community--represented by UNPROFOR--in carrying 
out its commitments to protect safe areas, enforce weapons exclusion 
zones, or deliver humanitarian assistance to starving communities. The 
Bosnian Serbs have demanded and received from the U.N. treatment equal 
to that of their victims, the Bosnian Government. The U.N. has thus 
become a passive contributor to Bosnia's tragedy just as a witness who 
does not intervene to assist a victim can be judged to be an accessory 
to a crime. U.N. peacekeeping is truly at a crossroads in Bosnia--the 
largest and most expensive U.N. peacekeeping mission in history. While 
UNPROFOR may have contributed to stability and delivery of humanitarian 
supplies in the first year of its deployment, its compliant approach to 
resurgent Serbs in Bosnia and Croatia since then has called into 
question the U.N.'s capability to effectively carry out peacekeeping 
responsibilities in the future.
  We must make no mistake about the origins of the war in Bosnia. As 
Warren Zimmerman, the last U.S. Ambassador to Yugoslavia, made clear in 
a recent Foreign Affairs article, the Serbs initiated the war in Bosnia 
even before the country declared its independence from Yugoslavia.
  It is said by some that Bosnia's fate will have little impact on U.S. 
national security. They are wrong. I believe that tolerance of visible 
genocide and aggression in the heart of Europe cannot help but make 
more probable the recurrence of these crimes in other places in the 
future. If that is the case, then the post-cold war world is likely to 
be a Hobbesian one where independence for small democracies will all 
too often be painful and short-lived.
  We must not let our desire to stop the killing in the Balkans lead us 
to blame the victims instead of the aggressor. We cannot let our 
aversion to war obscure our vision of right and wrong. Is the post-cold 
war era going to be known as the no-fault era, when strong countries 
used their influence merely to contain the bad things that happened to 
weak countries but with no blame assigned? Surely the United States, 
which was founded on the principles of freedom and ``certain 
inalienable rights'' will not participate indefinitely in a policy of 
denying the pursuit and defense of basic human rights for Bosnians? 
Appeasement is never an honorable or effective course in foreign 
policy. Appeasement of a ragtag band of former Communists and war 
criminals--the Bosnian Serbs--is a dishonorable course which we should 
have no part in.
  I applaud the U.N.'s decision--supported by President Clinton--to use 
air strikes against the Bosnian Serbs May 25 in an effort to enforce 
the weapons exclusion zone around Sarajevo. I hope this is the 
beginning of a more assertive U.N. approach in Bosnia which will be 
sustained and expanded as necessary even if, as Bosnian Serb leader 
Karadjic has promised, his forces retaliate. The only way to avoid a 
larger Balkan war and to bring the Bosnian Serbs to the negotiating 
table is to stop Serbian aggression. Regrettably, talk alone will not 
do the job.


                          ____________________