[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 92 (Wednesday, June 7, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7880-S7881]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                    ADMINISTRATION POLICY ON BOSNIA

  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, it is indeed ironic that the Clinton 
administration--whose policy on Bosnia needs to be checked hourly--is 
on the attack against those in Congress like myself who have 
consistently argued for a policy that candidate Clinton advocated. 
Maybe administration officials are tired of attacking each other in the 
press and have decided to take their frustration out on the Congress.
  The administration's arguments against withdrawing the U.N. 
protection forces and lifting the arms embargo are neither based on 
fact nor on American experience.
  First we have a statement from the Secretary of Defense today that 
withdrawing U.N. forces would lead to a humanitarian disaster. I do not 
know if the Pentagon has been keeping up with the news over the last 
few months, but the situation in Bosnia is and has been a humanitarian 
disaster for the last couple of years, despite the presence of 22,000 
U.N. troops. The U.N. mission in Bosnia has failed. Bandages like the 
quick reaction force will not change that fact.
  Secretary Perry also told the Armed Services Committee today that the 
casualty rate in Bosnia dramatically dropped, which he attributed to 
the presence of U.N. forces. As the recent hostage taking has painfully 
demonstrated, the U.N. forces cannot even protect themselves let alone 
the Bosnians. And I say this understanding the bravery of each of the 
individuals who are there. They are in a very, very difficult 
situation. They cannot protect themselves. They are placed there by 
their governments.
  Furthermore, the heaviest Bosnian casualties were in areas where U.N. 
forces were either not deployed or deployed too late--in northern and 
eastern Bosnia.
  So it seems to me that the real reason casualties dropped is because 
the Bosnians, over time, have acquired more weapons and have been able 
to better defend themselves. That is why the casualty rate has gone 
down.
  The second argument made by the administration is that the lifting of 
the arms embargo would Americanize the war and make the United States 
responsible for events in Bosnia.
  Let us not fool ourselves--America is responsible now. We already 
have a responsibility. America is responsible because it has not been a 
leader, rather it has meekly followed the Europeans' failed approach.
  As for the accusation that lifting the arms embargo would 
``Americanize'' the conflict, it seems to me that the United States has 
plenty of experience from Central America to Afghanistan in providing 
military assistance without being drawn into a quagmire with American 
troops on the ground. The real recipe for getting bogged down is to 
send United States ground troops into Bosnia without a mission, which 
is why the resolution I intend to submit would authorize, with strict 
conditions, the use of United States ground forces for the clearly 
stated purpose of withdrawing U.N. protection forces from Bosnia--not 
for peacekeeping, not for reconfiguration, not for strengthening, or 
any other proposed deployments supported by the Clinton administration.
  Furthermore, Bosnian officials have repeated time and time again that 
they do not want United States ground troops. Just a couple days ago, 
in response to news that a European quick reaction force would be 
created, Bosnian Prime Minister Haris Silajdzic said ``Please untie our 
hands, arm the Bosnians. We do not want your boys to die for us''--
British boys, French boys, or American boys.
  Finally, when those of us who advocate lifting the arms embargo--and 
I am talking about Republicans and Democrats; this has never been a 
partisan issue on this floor, it has been supported by many Democrats 
and a great number of Republicans--point out that other countries would 
also participate in arming the Bosnians, we are told this would allow 
Iran to arm the Bosnians. The fact is the arms embargo has guaranteed 
that Iran is a key supplier of arms to Bosnia and administration 
officials have actually used that fact to argue that there is no need 
to lift the arms embargo.
  What other choices do the Bosnians have? They are going to find 
weapons where they can find weapons.
  From statements made by State Department officials to the press, one 
gets the impression that Iran is the Clinton administration's preferred 
provider of weapons to the Bosnians. If the administration has a 
problem with Iran arming Bosnia, it should be prepared to do something 
about it.
  We can do something about it. It would not take very long.
  If the arms embargo is lifted, America would not be the only country 
to provide assistance. Countries like Turkey, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, 
Kuwait, and Pakistan would offer financial and military assistance. In 
addition, former Warsaw Pact countries would be free to sell their vast 
arsenal of Soviet-style weapons that have been designated for export 
pursuant to the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty. Since the 
Bosnians presently use Soviet-style equipment, acquiring former Soviet 
bloc equipment would minimize the amount of training they would 
require. Furthermore, any training, whether by United States military 
advisers or other country military advisers, could [[Page S7881]] be 
conducted outside of Bosnia--in Croatia or Slovenia, for example.
  Madam President, administration officials should quit fighting 
amongst themselves and begin real consultations with the Congress, 
consultations based on the facts and not on wild accusations or 
unrealistic scenarios. It is time to take sides--with the victims of 
this aggression. It is also high time for America to exercise 
leadership and end its participation in this international failure.


                          ____________________