[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 117 (Wednesday, July 19, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10325-S10328]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA SELF-DEFENSE ACT

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, my comments are about support of this 
resolution concerning the arms embargo. I know the hour is late, but 
this is a very, very important subject that has concerned me, as it has 
concerned so many Members of the Senate, for several years. I am hoping 
that we come to some resolution of this matter on this occasion.
  I understand the majority leader's desire to consider the President's 
request. I look forward to the results of that discussion and the 
decisions that come from it. But I do rise tonight in support of the 
Dole-Lieberman resolution. Let me begin by mentioning three 
reservations I have about taking this position.
  First of all, I think the truest words of the day were those of 
Senator Cohen of Maine who said, ``No one can predict with complete 
confidence whether our action in this case or inaction in this case 
will turn out the way we want.'' This is a situation that requires the 
greatest humility on the part of a Senator because we cannot know for 
sure and because it does involve what is obviously life or death for 
many, many thousands of people in the former Yugoslavia. The facts are 
about as complex as they can get in a foreign policy situation.
  My second reservation in supporting the resolution is that basically 
I think the President should be our leader in conducting foreign 
policy, with the assistance of Congress in certain cases; in some cases 
only with congressional approval. I happen to believe, under the War 
Powers Act, and article I of the Constitution, that we have a 
preeminent role in making sure that we do not commit troops without 
congressional approval. But, generally speaking, I prefer to defer to 
the President, especially Democratic Presidents, on this kind of an 
issue.
  Third, although I have tremendous respect for the majority leader, I 
have generally preferred the foreign policy approach of our current 
President. This President has kept American youth out of wars. He has 
resisted the temptation to send us into adventures and to take every 
opportunity to police the world as, unfortunately, other Presidents 
have failed to do. The President has shown a steady hand and does not 
believe that we can afford or want to shed the blood to be the 
policemen of the world.
  But, despite these reservations, and while I think the majority 
leader is a great Senator and I hope he continues in that capacity for 
many, many years, I have long supported his view that we should lift 
the arms embargo on Bosnia and we should do so unilaterally, if 
necessary. I do think it is necessary, and I do think the time is now.
  In fact, my hope has been and continues to be that this will truly be 
a strong bipartisan vote. In fact, when I first got here, Mr. 
President, long before I realized the majority leader's position, 
before he was the majority leader, my first resolution as a United 
States Senator made one simple request: That the arms embargo be lifted 
for the Bosnian people. That was in March 1993.
  Even prior to the election in 1992, before I was a Member of this 
body, I followed the work of the Senator from Delaware, Senator Biden, 
who had already, before almost anyone else, understood that the key to 
this situation was not talking about certain American air raids or 
sending American troops to Bosnia, but giving them the ability to 
defend themselves.
  One of the most stimulating comments of the day, and I listened to a 
lot of the debate, was that of the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator 
Kerry, who spoke of lifting the arms embargo, and indicated, as I have 
heard him say on many occasions, that he supports lifting the arms 
embargo if we can. But the Senator from Massachusetts indicated that 
lifting the arms embargo is not a policy.
  I am not so sure. In fact, after scores of conversations with people, 
experts in foreign policy, and the military, my constituents, and 
especially the leaders of Bosnia itself, I feel, with all due respect, 
that all signs point to the conclusion that lifting the arms embargo 
unilaterally is not only morally right, but a very sensible policy, 
both for the United States and for Bosnia.
  I am sure the opposition to lifting is in good faith. But after 2\1/
2\ years I almost stopped asking questions on the committee where we 
serve together, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I grew weary at 
the committee meetings and the briefings of the constantly shifting 
series of excuses for not doing what is right in Bosnia.
  The opposition to lifting the arms embargo has been done in a very 
clever way. It is opposition by question, hundreds of questions, 
hundreds of scenarios, always the worst-case scenario. It is the most 
amazing variety of reasons I have ever seen. There are too many reasons 
being given, too many shifting back and forth, and sometimes 
contradicting each other. It does not seem credible.
  We even heard in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at a hearing 
the claim that lifting the arms embargo would lead to an Islamic jihad. 
Some of these arguments are just way beyond the pale. We are subjected 
to an astonishing parade of ``horribles.'' But, Mr. President, what is 
actually happening--not what is projected--is what is horrible and 
actual unending inhuman horror.
  We are urged on the floor today to try one last time. We are told 
that lifting the arms embargo is just like giving up. But to many 
Americans, it just makes sense. It looks like to many Americans that we 
never even got started helping the Bosnians if we could not do the most 
simple thing, which is to lift the arms embargo. We have never taken 
the first step and the most important step. We have never lifted the 
arms embargo so that we have the opportunity not to work with a captive 
and defeated Bosnia, but with an increasingly viable country, an 
increasingly viable military, working to defend itself and working 
perhaps to push back the Serbians to the lines where they were before.
  In fact, Mr. President, the comments that I have heard most from all 
of my constituents is, ``Why in the world don't we simply let these 
folks try and defend themselves?''
  Mr. President, other Members of this body did a very good job today 
answering some of these objections. But I think we ought to reiterate 
it a little bit. I want to give again the scope of all of the excuses 
being given for not lifting the arms embargo. Naturally, we have a 
tendency to want to defer to those who have military expertise. But in 
some of these cases the answer is very easy and obvious.
  For example, there is the claim that lifting the arms embargo will 
mean that the United Nations will be put in a position where none of 
its resolutions will be respected; the claim that this is, in effect, 
thumbing our nose at the United Nations and the Security Council. But 
the Senator from New York has made the point well that no other 
situation, no other resolution is in this status. This one involves the 
violation of article 51 of the U.N. Charter which calls for the right 
of self-defense for all countries. That is legally superior 

[[Page S 10326]]
under the U.N. charter to any particular resolution of this kind.
  In other cases, such as Rwanda or Angola or the Sudan, there are arms 
embargoes but those involve civil wars, internal strife. They do not 
involve a clear situation of one sovereign entity being involved in 
attacking another. Mr. President, that argument does not hold water.
  Another argument that I have heard and the question that is 
constantly asked is, ``Well, if they get the arms, how are they going 
to get trained? How are they going to know how to use the guns?''
  I sat in a private briefing a couple of weeks ago with a number of 
Senators and with the majority leader. And the majority leader asked 
that question of Haris Silajdzic, the Prime Minister of Bosnia. He 
said, ``We know how to use these arms. We are trained. We are not 
asking for the most sophisticated aircraft.'' They are simply asking 
for the normal weaponry of a ground war.
  I have here a list of what has actually been requested--certain kinds 
of defense arms, means of communication, electric power, health, 
satellite links, various types of vehicles, generators, clothing, 
surgical equipment. These are the kinds of things that are being 
requested. The notion that somehow massive special training is 
necessary is not valid.
  Another argument that comes up: ``How are the arms going to get there 
in this difficult situation?'' Well, it is a difficult situation. But 
arms are already getting there despite the embargo to some extent. How 
do people think the Bosnian Muslims are fighting? Some have gotten 
through, and particularly with the alliance between Croatia and Bosnia, 
that sealane. The necessary access to the sea through Croatia would be 
available to provide the arms.
  Another argument made: ``We will have to pay for all these arms. It 
is going to be expensive.'' It is true. If we want to supply the arms, 
it will cost something. Senator Biden's amendment a few years ago 
provided for 50 million American dollars. But there is nothing in this 
resolution that says we have to supply the arms. Other countries are 
ready do it. I think it is a good idea if we participate. It is not a 
choice that it is an open checkoff. It simply says they are permitted 
to obtain arms. There is nothing in this resolution that requires that.
  Mr. President, in addition to these examples of sort of legal or 
tactical questions, there has been very heavy emphasis today on two 
other arguments. One is, ``This is not the right time.'' And the other 
is, ``This action will `Americanize' the war.'' To me, these are 
probably the two most troubling arguments I have heard lately. They 
remind me of double talk, or maybe worse. They remind me, in George 
Orwell's words, of ``double speak.''
  First of all, this notion that it is not the right time--I was told 
the first time I mentioned this issue in early 1993 that if we would 
just hang on, ``The change is right around the corner; we are going to 
work this out; we should not lift the arms embargo; it will cause a 
terrible problem.'' But after each tragedy we get the same excuse, the 
same flutter of activity. Things die down for a while, and we are told 
again that we should wait.
  It is also troubling to me that we learn the names of these little 
towns in Bosnia and witness the tragedy, and then a few days later we 
do not even remember where the last tragedy occurred. But we are still 
told, ``Wait a little longer; wait until a few more towns go down the 
tubes.''
  It has been 30 months. How can someone talking in any way that would 
be considered straight say that we have to wait longer? How many times 
must U.S. Senators speak until the message gets through?
  I just had my staff tally up how many speeches have been given on 
this subject since 1993. Just in the U.S. Senate alone, there were 210 
speeches by Senators. Almost, I say, the vast majority of them were in 
favor of lifting the arms embargo.
  Mr. President, what are we waiting for? Are we waiting for perfect 
weather conditions? This is not a moon shot. This is an ongoing, 
horrible tragedy. And anyone can construct a reason why we should wait. 
But you cannot wait any longer when you witness every day on the 
television what can only be described as genocide.
  What about this second argument, this mantra, ``This is going to 
Americanize the war''? This one really bothers me. It is a slogan. 
People say we are committed, we are obligated to send 25,000 ground 
troops into Bosnia if we lift the arms embargo. When do we vote on 
that? When did Congress authorize 25,000 troops going into Bosnia? 
Under my view of the law and the Constitution, the Chair and I should 
have had a chance to vote on that. We did not do it. We did not make 
that commitment.
  And again, it is the ultimate in double speak to suggest that giving 
people the right to defend themselves is the thing that will cause us 
to have to go and defend them. That is what we are being told, that 
somehow giving them some guns or making sure they can buy some guns is 
the way to guarantee that all the rest of us would have to go over 
there and get involved. That is just nonsense. It is the opposite. 
Lifting the arms embargo is the best way to ensure that American men 
and women will not have to spill their blood. This is a lesson that the 
State of Israel has understood very well since 1948.
  The one thing that Israel always said is, ``We want help in terms of 
arms, logistical help, but we do not want American men and women to 
come here and fight on our soil.'' We always appreciated that 
sentiment, but it is not just to be nice. It is because the Israelis 
know that if we send troops onto Israeli soil and American men and 
women die, the obvious result will be probably a reduction in American 
support for that effort. That it will turn people off. They will say, 
``Why help Israel?''
  All you have to do is reference Somalia. It is exactly what happened 
in Somalia. People had compassion. They cared about the people in 
Somalia. They wanted to help them eat. But when it came to American men 
and women dying, they really had to question whether we could police 
the entire world.
  Well, the Bosnians understand this. And that is why they are sincere 
when they say that they did not want our troops. They want some help or 
at least not have us prevent them from getting the arms to defend 
themselves. Why can we as a nation say in some instances, ``This we can 
do. We can do no more. But we will do this.''?
  We do not want to police this situation. The American people will not 
support this as the absolute core of our national security. We probably 
are not ready to say in the case of Bosnia that we will bear any 
burden. But we are ready to do something as a people. We do want the 
Bosnians to be free. We do want them to be able to turn back Serbian 
aggression.
  So, Mr. President, this is the opposite of the Americanization of the 
war. This is how Bosnia determines its own destiny.
  Mr. President, maybe what has bothered me even more than these more 
convenient arguments is my problem with the position that the 
administration has taken when it says over and over again, ``We support 
lifting the arms embargo, but only multilaterally.'' But they are 
against unilateral lifting. And time and time again there have been 
statements from the administration indicating support, not for 
unilateral but for multilateral lifting of the arms embargo.
  A relatively recent example was March 20, 1995, where Mr. Richard 
Holbrooke stated:

       Only a negotiated settlement has any chance of lasting. 
     This administration is committed to pursuing that goal. What 
     we must not do is worsen the situation by unilaterally 
     lifting the arms embargo. We have always believed the embargo 
     is unfair and worked to end it multilaterally.

  This has consistently been the statement of the administration. They 
oppose unilateral, but they are for the multilateral lifting of the 
arms embargo. But usually when you look at the actual reasons why they 
are against the unilateral lift, they are just as true of the 
multilateral lift. Again, it is halfhearted arguments to justify a 
policy.
  And I know why the administration wants to do this. It is not a bad 
reason. They do not want to break faith with their allies, the British 
and the French, in particular, and even our relationship with the 
Russians, who do not want us 

[[Page S 10327]]
to lift the arms embargo. That is the real reason. What they say is 
they are for lifting the arms embargo if only they could get the French 
and the British to go along.
  Well, Mr. President, it does not hold up. For example, they say if 
you lift the arms embargo unilaterally, the allied troops will be in 
danger. Well, what is going on right now? Multilateral action there. 
And my figures indicate May 28, 377 peacekeepers taken hostage. Just 
last week at Srebrenica, the attack on the Dutch peacekeepers.
  The fact is that under either scenario, unilateral or multilateral, 
these folks are in danger. They are in danger now, and they would be 
then. At least if the Bosnians were properly armed, maybe those 
Serbians who like to go into the safe havens and attack peacekeepers 
and civilians would think twice if they knew there was a force to 
oppose them, not just a bunch of U.N. peacekeepers who are not allowed 
to do anything about them.
  Second, it is said that a unilateral lift would upset the Russians. 
My feeling about that is that that is a completely disingenuous 
argument because everyone knows the Russians can veto a multilateral 
lifting request. So the administration knows that is not going to 
happen. And certainly the Russians did not pay any attention to our 
feelings about this type of issue when they did their actions in 
Chechnya.
  A third argument is, if you lift the arms embargo, the Serbians will 
get arms too. Well, they may. But the fact is, they are already very 
well armed. They were the beneficiaries of the fifth largest stockpile 
of arms in all of Europe because of this foolish arms embargo.
  How would this be different with a multilateral lift? Surely, if 
there is a multilateral lift and the Serbians want to get more arms, 
they will get it that way just as they will with the unilateral lifting 
of the arms embargo.
  Finally, the incredible claim that under the unilateral lifting, the 
war will spread, and to somehow suggest that the war will not spread if 
we have a multi-lifting of the arms embargo. Why? Why is that the case? 
Surely it would spread either way to some extent.
  So I do not understand how the administration can claim that there is 
a difference between unilateral and multilateral. And that is deeply 
troubling to me. I think the administration simply opposes lifting the 
arms embargo and should be straightforward about it so that the Bosnian 
people and the Members of Congress could know where they really stand.
  So, Mr. President, why? Why have we been subjected to this avalanche 
of arguments, this manufacturing of arguments to stop lifting the arms 
embargo? It is to block the lifting of the arms embargo, obviously. But 
I think it is a symptom of what I like to call the all-or-nothing 
attitude about the military role of the United States in this world. 
Either we have to do everything, that our credibility says that if we 
do one thing we have to send in troops later on or our credibility is 
shot. I do not buy that. In some cases that may be true. In an alliance 
with NATO, you bet. That is the pledge. But America cannot and 
certainly has not signed on to the notion that every time we help 
somebody do something to defend themselves, we therefore have to commit 
the entire force of our country. That is not the case. And I do not 
think it is what the Bosnian people expect.
  What is our end game? Are we going to just defend Bosnia and somehow 
broker a peace agreement and then leave this morsel of a country with 
no defense, to do what? Are we going to have a permanent U.N. force 
there? Are we just going to leave someday and hope the Serbians are 
nice to them?
  There is a better scenario, and that scenario is, let these folks 
continue to learn to defend themselves, to actually defend themselves, 
to have the pride of having protected their nation. You know, that is 
how we got started. That is how Israel got started in 1948, and it made 
all the difference that they won their own freedom. Yes, maybe with 
other people's arms but with their own strength and courage--and, of 
course, sacrifice.
  What is our plan? To make Bosnia one big safe-haven forever? A 
country that is going to be free has to be able to defend itself and it 
has to know how to defend itself. And you need arms in order to do 
that.
  Mr. President, I think lifting the arms embargo is the key to the 
permanent freedom of Bosnia.
  Finally, Mr. President, the question for me more than anything else 
is, where did anyone get the idea that we have the right to stand in 
the way of a self-defense of a free people that we have recognized as 
an independent country? What did we do in 1776? We were not even free. 
We were supposedly pledged in loyalty to the King of England. We 
decided we wanted to make our own self-determination. Somebody helped 
us get some help and some arms because we were standing for our own 
freedom.
  Mr. President, what is the second amendment all about, the U.S. 
Constitution? I happen to be a believer that that second amendment of 
the U.S. Constitution is important. I think we do have a right in this 
country or a reasonable opportunity to defend ourselves. And the reason 
for that amendment more than anything else was that the right of a 
people to keep and bear arms is necessary for a free people. That is 
what this is about, too. It is not just Americans who feel this way 
about self-defense. It is people in every country, including Bosnia.
  Mr. President, do we not remember appeasement in Europe? Do we not 
remember the constant embarrassment that we were taken in by the Nazis, 
that we actually believed--speaking here more of Britain than 
ourselves, of course--but we actually believed they were going to take 
this much space, just the Sudetenland, just Czechoslovakia, just 
Poland.
  What we are dealing with here are people who--apparently the leaders 
of Serbia--who want a greater Serbia. They will not stop if we continue 
to appease them.
  Mr. President, do we not remember the Warsaw ghetto? We acknowledged 
the 50th anniversary of the uprising of the Warsaw ghetto against the 
Nazis. Did we say, would it not be better if they had not resisted? 
There would be less bloodshed if they had not taken up arms against the 
Nazis. That is not what we said. We commemorated the heroism and the 
courage of people in a concentration camp who, knowing they were going 
to die, decided to die with dignity.
  Mr. President, when I was a teenager I was given a book called 
``While Six Million Died.'' The book told a tough story for a young kid 
who was a Democrat, and still believes that Franklin Roosevelt was the 
greatest President in this country. It told of how that administration 
knew of some of the things that were going on to the Jews and others in 
Europe. It told how we did not really do everything we could do.
  Mr. President, I recently toured the Holocaust Museum again, and they 
talked about the difficulty of President Roosevelt's decision not to, 
for example, bomb some of the concentration camps. Well, at least in 
that case Franklin Roosevelt knew what he was trying to do. He 
believed, for the greater good of this world, that he could win the war 
and defeat the Nazis. He had a plan. And with Winston Churchill and 
others the plan was effective.
  But, Mr. President, we cannot use that excuse here. We have no plan. 
We have no intention of actually stopping Serbian aggression. So it is 
not understandable why we sit back and wait.
  Finally, Mr. President, when all is said and done, should not we ask 
the Bosnians themselves what they want? Should we impose upon them the 
notion that we are going to just keep these U.N. forces there for their 
own good?
  I think it is condescending, humiliating, and patronizing to the 
Bosnian people to suggest that we know better, that it is for their own 
good that we not lift the arms embargo.
  Let me conclude by just reading three statements from the Prime 
Minister of Bosnia that I think symbolize this issue better than 
anything else and the need for lifting the arms embargo.
  The prime minister has said first that:

       If the Serbs' aggression continues, we prefer military help 
     over food for dead people. The aggression, plus the arms 
     embargo, plus the nondeliverance of aid means death to 
     Bosnia.


[[Page S 10328]]

  And he said in March 1993:

       We would prefer doing it ourselves, but for that we need 
     arms. The arms embargo is what is humiliating. The 
     humiliation is to be slaughtered like an animal and not be 
     able to defend yourself like a man.

  Finally, Mr. President, very recently, May 28, 1995, Mr. Silajdzic 
just laid it on the line, as he has tried time and time again to do. He 
means it. He does not want American soldiers there. He does not want 
the Americanization of the war. This is what he wants and this is what 
he will do. He says:

       The Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina is 
     perfectly willing and able to defend our country and our 
     citizens. We do not now, nor have we ever, asked for any 
     ground forces from any country in the world to do our 
     fighting for us. We have the men. We have the courage. But we 
     do not have the means.

  That is all they are asking, Mr. President, a chance to protect their 
own lives, their own women, their own children, and to do something 
about this heartless Serbian aggression.
  So, Mr. President, although I again am eager to hear the outcome of 
the talks between President Clinton and others in the Congress, I do 
believe we should move forward as soon as possible to pass this 
resolution to unilaterally lift the arms embargo.
  I thank the Chair and everyone for their patience.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________