[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 144 (Friday, September 15, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13654-S13655]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


             THE PEACE INITIATIVE IN BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today both to congratulate the 
Clinton administration for having taken the lead in the search for 
peace in the former Yugoslavia and, at the same time, to offer words of 
caution, even warning.
  Mr. President, Benjamin Franklin once wrote. ``There never was a good 
war or a bad peace.'' These sentiments are indeed seductive, for no one 
who has seen the carnage of war could wish for anything more fervently 
than an end to the bloodletting.
  Yet, for all his wisdom, Franklin was ultimately wrong. There are 
good wars. The American Revolution that gave birth to our country was 
but one example. And there are bad peace settlements. Most historians 
agree that the Versailles Treaty that ended World War I was fatally 
flawed and was one of the fundamental causes of World War II.
  The point obviously is that a good, sensible peace settlement that 
eliminates the root causes of conflict--or at least ameliorates the 
worst injustices--can prevent future war.
  Conversely, a peace settlement unduly influenced by important, but 
secondary considerations such as perceived world opinion, a passionate 
yearning for an end to hostilities, or deference to sensibilities of 
allies or even enemies, all at the expense of hard realities, will only 
temporarily halt the fighting and postpone the attainment of a lasting 
peace.
  Mr. President, it is profoundly unfortunate that for more than 4 
years, two administrations abdicated this country's leadership in 
solving Europe's bloodiest crisis since 1945.
  The dismal series of broken promises, aborted cease-fires, and 
ongoing atrocities in the former Yugoslavia attests to the stark fact 
that unless the United States takes the lead, no foreign and security 
problem will be solved in Europe. I do not say this to brag; this is a 
simple fact echoed by many Europeans.
  So I applaud President Clinton for having broken the Balkan logjam 
this summer through an energetic combination of military action and 
diplomacy.
  Let us recall, however, that in this effort we have paid a grievous 
price. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the memory of three 
immensely talented and patriotic Americans--Joseph Kruzel, Robert 
Frasure, and Nelson Drew--who last month gave their lives on the Mount 
Igman Road near Sarajevo in the pursuit of peace.
  And now, thanks to the efforts of these men, and to the labors of 
Assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke and his new team, we are 
on the brink of another Bosnian cease-fire. This one is being praised:
  For having secured a promised withdrawal of Bosnian Serb heavy 
weapons around Sarajevo and for opening land and air routes into the 
city--in return for a halt in the NATO bombing campaign.
  For thereby having prevented a split in the Atlantic Alliance that 
reportedly was developing because of the bombing campaign.
  For having put a stop to a potentially dangerous confrontation with 
Russia.
  For allowing a framework for a peace settlement to be fleshed out.
  And yet, Mr. President, despite the apparent merits of this agreement 
and of the peace framework, I am worried.
  I am worried precisely because I fear that too much attention has 
been given to secondary considerations at the expense of primary ones.
  I am worried because fundamental principles appear to have been 
sacrificed for short-term gain.
  In other words, I am worried that we may be seeing the beginnings of 
what Benjamin Franklin could not envisage--a bad peace that will 
inevitably lead to another bad war.
  More specifically, I am worried that Assistant Secretary Holbrooke 
has misjudged the character of the Serbian strongman Milosevic and has 
unnecessarily and unwisely involved, or even considered involving, 
Russian troops in the most delicate aspect of the proposed agreement.
  Finally, I fear that the administration has seriously overestimated 
the willingness of this Congress to support the emerging settlement 
with massive development aid and the commitment of American troops to 
the former Yugoslavia as peacekeepers.
  The joint statement issued on September 8, in Geneva, despite 
vigorous denials by Assistant Secretary Holbrooke, manifestly abandons 
the ideal of a multiethnic, multireligious, democratic Bosnia.
  Instead, the so-called Republika Srpska, of Karadzic and Mladic--two 
indicted war criminals--is accorded status equal to the legitimate 
Government of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, whose territory 
must be divided between the Pale Serbs and the Moslem-Croat federation. 
This, Mr. President, is a huge concession.
  And what is gotten in return? The Bosnian Serbs agree to only 49 
percent of the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This acceptance has 
been trumpeted as a major concession on their part, usually described 
as sacrificing one-third of the territory they currently occupy.
  In actuality, however, it has been weeks since the Bosnian Serbs have 
controlled 70 percent of Bosnia and Herzegovina despite the persistence 
of the media in erroneously describing it as such.
  At the time of the Geneva signing they controlled perhaps 62 percent; 
this week they lost another 6 or 7 percent.
  In short, Mr. President, the military fortunes of the Bosnian Serbs 
have been on the wane. The NATO bombing campaign has contributed 
marginally to their difficulties by disrupting their communications, 
but the Bosnian Serbs' problems run much deeper.
  The Serbs' capture of the supposedly safe U.N. areas of Srebrenica 
and Zepa in July was actually a desperate gamble by General Mladic and 
his Serbian patron Milosevic to halt their military reverses. The 
Bosnian Serb Army is outmanned and is plagued by rapidly sinking 
morale. In the west and north it has lost is allies with the ouster of 
the Krajina Serbs by the Croatian Army.
  The Bosnian Serb Army retains a strong base in Eastern Bosnia and, of 
course, the capability to indulge in its favorite maneuver, lobbing 
artillery and mortar shells at defenseless civilians, as shown by the 
latest massacre in the Sarajevo market.
  So it is highly probable that within the near future the situation on 
the ground would have dictated a willingness of the Bosnian Serbs to 
sue for 

[[Page S 13655]]

peace--without our offering the formal recognition which they have 
craved for so long.
  Now we face the prospect of a recognized, ethnically cleansed Bosnian 
Serb entity in a shotgun marriage with the part of Bosnia and 
Herzegovina that is struggling to maintain the ideals of multiethnic 
tolerance and compromise. Can one blame the citizens of Sarajevo, 
Moslems, Croats, Serbs, Jews, and other nationalities, for feeling 
betrayed?
  What is the lesson that other potential ethnic cleansers will learn 
from this carve-up?
  Assistant Secretary Holbrooke was quoted in the New York Times as 
worrying about the implementation of the details of this strange and 
contradictory government structure. And well he should worry. But it is 
the violence done to fundamental principles of decency and democracy 
that is the real tragedy, not how the mugging is accomplished.
  In conceiving both the peace framework and the latest cease-fire, 
Assistant Secretary Holbrooke has relied on Milosevic to deliver. 
According to the same New York Times article, Mr. Holbrooke praised the 
Serbian strongman as a peacemaker.
  Mr. Holbrooke is, of course, entitled to his opinion, which is no 
doubt well-informed. However, I also have dealt personally with Mr. 
Milosevic, and I much prefer the portrayal of him given by our former 
Ambassador to Yugoslavia, Warren Zimmerman: A habitual liar who 
condoned and organized unspeakable atrocities.
  Mr. President, these are not just harmless differences of opinion. 
Rather, they impact directly on the chances for the cease-fire and the 
peace settlement succeeding.
  Because I consider Milosevic to be a liar and a war criminal, I am 
not at all surprised that he has continued to support the Bosnian Serbs 
with weapons, training, and vital infrastructural assistance--even 
during the NATO bombing campaign of the last 2 weeks--all the while 
assuring us that he has abandoned Karadzic and the Bosnian Serbs in 
Pale.
  I would ask, what is the next step? Are we to reward Milosevic's 
brazen duplicity with further sanctions of relief for Serbia?
  Assistant Secretary Holbrooke was quoted as saying that we did not 
sell out the Bosnian Moslems. ``They wanted this agreement,'' he 
assured the New York Times. ``They knew this was a good deal.''
  Well, I hope so, but pardon my skepticism. Other than having to 
abandon their ideal of a unitary, multiethnic State, the Moslem-led 
Bosnian Government has had to put up with criticism this past week for 
having had the nerve to launch an offensive with their Bosnian Croat 
allies to try to liberate parts of western Bosnia that were ethnically 
cleansed of Moslems and Croats in 1992.
  And we certainly do not want to offend the Russians. These are the 
people who this week accused NATO of genocide for its bombing campaign 
specifically targeted to avoid civilian areas, even when it meant 
sparing legitimate military targets.
  Other than desecrating the memory of millions of people who really 
did die as a result of genocide, the Russians with their apoplectic 
rhetoric and big lie techniques make even the most well-disposed 
American wonder if much has changed since the bad, old days of Soviet 
rule in the Kremlin.
  So what do we do? If one is to believe press reports, we contemplate 
a deal that puts Russian forces around Sarajevo to enforce the 
withdrawal of the Bosnian Serbs' heavy weapons.
  This would be a master stroke! We would now put the fate of the long-
suffering citizens of the Bosnian capital in the hands of people for 
whom Bosnian Serb war crimes are allegedly part of a people's struggle 
for existence.
  Suppose, just suppose, that the unthinkable happens and the Bosnian 
Serbs cheat on the deal and the Russians back them up. Now instead of 
having the option of resuming the bombing of the Bosnian Serbs, we 
would have to worry about hitting Russian soldiers.
  Mr. President, this reported part of the deal is so incredible that 
at first I could only believe that it was some sort of a trial balloon. 
This morning the White House told my staff that it may have been a 
deliberate piece of disinformation by the Russians. I hope so, because 
the idea is a nonstarter.
  What is the role of Congress in this peace process? In order to 
cement the bargain the Congress apparently will be asked to pony up 
half-a-billion dollars as a downpayment on an even larger aid package 
to follow.
  And, as the final stroke, we will be asked to send American soldiers 
to Bosnia and Herzegovina as apartheid cops to enforce the destruction 
of the unitary, multiethnic State.
  Well this Senator is frankly revolted at the whole thing. Will we be 
asked to bankroll the fiefdom of the war criminals Mladic and Karadzic 
who orchestrated vile ethnic cleansing, mass rapes, and mass murder all 
across Bosnia?
  Moreover, now that our pilots have bombed the Bosnian Serbs--as they 
rightfully have done--does anyone seriously think that Americans would 
be treated by the Bosnian Serbs as just any old neutral peacekeepers?
  Mr. President, I realize that Mr. Holbrooke and his team have worked 
long and hard and in good faith. I also understand that we are 
describing work in progress.
  But let these concerns that I have raised today be viewed 
unambiguously as a shot across the bow of the administration's Bosnian 
peace flotilla: Do not come to Congress with a bad peace to end a bad 
war.
  It has not worked in the past. It cannot work in the future. And 
Congress, I am confident, will not approve it this time.


                          ____________________