[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 170 (Tuesday, October 31, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S16366-S16368]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  THE UNITED STATES ROLE IN BRINGING PEACE AND JUSTICE TO THE FORMER 
                               YUGOSLAVIA

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I rise this morning to comment on 
developments in the former Yugoslavia.
  I particularly want to comment on a resolution, House Resolution 247, 
which was adopted last night in the other body.
  Madam President, I say respectfully that there are two parts to this 
resolution. The first I disagree with. The second I think is 
unnecessary.
  I rise to make the point that as the representatives, the Presidents 
of the three major parties to the war in Bosnia, Bosnians, Croatians, 
Serbians--gather in Dayton, OH, to begin the effort that many thought 
was impossible--to negotiate a peace treaty in the Balkans--that it is 
appropriate for us to step back. It is a time not to pass resolutions, 
in my opinion. It is a time to ask questions that are appropriate about 
the course of the negotiations. But it is primarily a time to give the 
negotiators some room to see if they can achieve an agreement that will 
bring peace to the former Yugoslavia.
  Madam President, I rise to explain why I am troubled by this 
resolution, and what I hope will be the course of congressional action 
here. Let me begin with recent events.
  The people of the former Yugoslavia have suffered almost unimaginable 
horrors for the last several years. Every day seems to bring new 
reports of genocidal acts in Bosnia.
  In the past week alone we have seen disclosures which are chilling, 
that confirm our worst suspicions about the fate of so many people who 
lived in the alleged safe haven of Srebrenica, who were driven from 
their homes and now, according to eyewitness testimony, were 
slaughtered by Serb forces; according to some accounts, in the presence 
of, perhaps at the direction of, General Mladic, the commander of the 
Bosnian Serb forces already indicted by the international war crimes 
tribunal.
  New reports highlight ethnic cleansing and genocide by the Serbs in 
the area of Banja Luka which continues even now although these reports 
are sketchy because the international media has been denied access to 
these locations.
  Madam President, last week Assistant Secretary of State for Human 
Rights John Shattuck was in Bosnia and Croatia to investigate the 
reports that have come out of the region. He found that prison camps 
such as Keraterm--the site several years ago of outrageous human rights 
violations--have been reopened. A cease-fire is declared but a prison 
camp is reopened, the site of torture has been reopened. He found that 
people had been forced from their homes in Banja Luka, some sent to 
prison camps, some sent into forced labor, and apparently too many 
others murdered, slaughtered, especially in the Sanski Most and 
Bosanski Novi areas around Banja Luka.
  Assistant Secretary Shattuck met in Belgrade with President Milosevic 
and demanded immediate and unconditional access to all missing persons 
and to areas where crimes have or may have been committed.
  He also discussed the situation of refugees from the Krajina. Several 
thousand Croatian citizens of Serb background want to return to their 
homes there. Shattuck found indicators of a human rights situation 
which is nearly out of control with people of all ethnic backgrounds 
being dislocated, persecuted and murdered, not for what they have done 
but simply for who they are.
  We cannot let the frequency, the regularity of these reports of 
systematic campaigns of rape and terror numb us to these atrocities. We 
must express our outrage as we did when we first heard these reports 
years ago. We must recommit ourselves to bringing the genocide, the 
torture, the rape, the slaughter to an end and to bring those 
responsible for this barbarity to justice.
  Last week, I was privileged to join with the distinguished occupant 
of the chair, Senator Hutchison, of Texas, and our colleagues Senators 
McCain, Levin, Thurmond, and others, in offering a resolution 
expressing the sense of the Senate on this human rights, this life and 
death crisis. The resolution was unanimously adopted as an amendment to 
the budget reconciliation bill last Friday.
  Let me go to the words of that resolution because we spoke clearly 
and unanimously to ``condemn the systematic human rights abuses against 
the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina.''
  We spoke unanimously to demand that the Bosnian Serb leadership 
``should immediately halt these atrocities, fully account for the 
missing, and allow those who have been separated to return to their 
families.''
  These are words that describe a situation that we can only imagine. 
It is hard for us to put ourselves into. But men and boys separated 
from mothers and daughters. Where are they going? What will become of 
them? We now find, certainly in Srebrenica, that what became of them 
was that they were slaughtered and buried in mass graves.
  Again last week in the resolution promulgated by the occupant of the 
chair, Senator Hutchison, we spoke unanimously to assert that ```ethnic 
cleansing' by any faction, group, leader or government is unjustified, 
immoral and illegal and all perpetrators of war crimes, crimes against 
humanity, genocide and other human rights violations in former 
Yugoslavia must be held accountable.''
  Every side in the Bosnian conflict bears some guilt, some 
responsibility 

[[Page S16367]]

for ethnic violence. The Serbs of Bosnia and of Serbia-Montenegro, the 
Croats of Bosnia and of Croatia, rebel Moslems in northwest Bosnia, 
even Bosnian Government forces have inflicted war on civilian 
populations and driven people from their homes. But there can be no 
doubt that now, as throughout the years of war and strife suffered by 
the Bosnian people, the Serbs are primarily responsible and have 
committed the most heinous and brutal crimes.
  America must do all that it can to end these atrocities and to ensure 
that the guilty are punished without supporting retribution and 
allowing the cycle of violence to continue. The international community 
has put in place a mechanism to do this--the War Crimes Tribunal for 
former Yugoslavia.
  Earlier this month in Storrs, CT, at a dedication ceremony for the 
Thomas J. Dodd Library and Research Center to preserve the memories of 
the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal 50 years ago, President Clinton said: 
``Those accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide 
must be brought to justice. They must be tried and, if found guilty, 
they must be held accountable.'' I agree wholeheartedly with the 
President as I know my colleagues do.
   Madam President, in some substantial degree the latest horrific 
stories of mass slaughter from Srebrenica, reflected in the resolution 
adopted unanimously on Friday evening, remind us of why so many of us 
in this Chamber have been concerned about the course of events in the 
former Yugoslavia. As I saw these events, and others agreed--some did 
not--from the beginning this has been a case of aggression by Serbia, 
stimulated in fact from Belgrade. Perhaps it went beyond what Belgrade 
sought, what Belgrade expected. Perhaps Belgrade was forced to suffer 
more than they expected because of the economic sanctions. But this has 
been a course of aggression to build a greater Serbia using genocidal 
tactics as a means of that aggression.
  What did that mean? Again, one nation in Europe invading another, 
committing genocidal acts based on the religion of a people, in this 
case Moslem; instability in Europe, at a post-cold war time when that 
instability could spread, if not checked, throughout the Balkans, 
involving other countries--Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria, Albania--and 
sending a terrible message to those who had lived within the former 
Soviet Union about the lack of concern or unwillingness to act by the 
world, by the powers in Europe, by NATO.
  So, many of us called for a policy of ``lift and strike.'' Lift the 
arms embargo. At least give the people of Bosnia the weapons with which 
to defend themselves and then use NATO air power to strike at the Serbs 
to make them pay for the aggression and for the genocide. For too long 
no one listened. Excuses were given. But ultimately, a resolution 
passed this Chamber and the House, overwhelmingly, with bipartisan 
support, calling for our Government to lift the arms embargo 
unilaterally if the world community was not prepared to do so 
multilaterally.
  Then came the Croatian invasion and capture of the Krajina. The 
outrageous, the unspeakable murders at Srebrenica--an army attacking an 
unarmed safe haven, U.N. peacekeepers from the Netherlands left in a 
horrible middle position--ultimately aroused the conscience of the 
world and particularly the NATO powers leading to the extremely 
successful NATO airstrikes against Serbian targets, poignantly forcing 
us to raise the question of whether those airstrikes, if they had 
happened at an earlier time, could have prevented some of the slaughter 
that occurred. Because once leadership was exercised and power was 
brought to bear, and those who were the aggressors were forced to 
suffer some pain and humiliation, the road to peace was opened. 
Assistant Secretary Holbrooke has moved skillfully, aggressively in 
difficult circumstances to find some common ground among the parties to 
bring about a cease-fire that now leads us to the discussions occurring 
in Dayton, OH, that begin tomorrow.
  Some rightly have questioned the idea of negotiating with Serb 
leaders who may themselves be guilty of war crimes and crimes against 
humanity. If we hope to reach a settlement which will bring the Bosnian 
conflict to an end, it may be that we have no choice but to negotiate 
with Serb leaders. No one should misconstrue these negotiations as 
excusing, forgiving or forgetting war crimes which have been committed. 
We are doing none of that. Those who have committed war crimes with 
their acts or their orders will be brought to justice.
  Moreover, before real negotiations can begin, the Serbs must be 
required to stop ethnic cleansing and other atrocities which are still 
taking place. This is not an unrealistic or unwarranted precondition, 
but a test of whether these negotiations can achieve peace. If one 
party or another chooses to continue to propagate the war or undertakes 
or tolerates ethnic cleansing, then we are not dealing with leaders who 
want peace.
  If these leaders do not control their own forces and cannot restore 
an order which prevents further atrocities and turns the guilty over 
for punishment, then how can these leaders implement a negotiated 
settlement in which territory will change hands but the rights of all 
people will be respected?
  But if those leaders gathering in Dayton do stop the fighting and the 
atrocities, we must give them every opportunity to achieve a negotiated 
settlement. We owe this to those who have already died, but more 
importantly to those who still live and who want to live in peace.
  The settlement which eventually comes from these negotiations may not 
be what some of us would like, but we should not second-guess the 
decisions of those who will make them and who are willing to live with 
the results. However, a few elements will be key to any viable 
settlement:
  To give reconciliation a chance, there must be real protection for 
human rights.
  To provide hope for full reintegration of a multiethnic Bosnian 
state, there must be significant unity through a meaningful Bosnian 
central government.
  To ensure long-term stability, a regional military balance must be 
ensured--not just within Bosnia, but among Bosnia, Serbia, and Croatia. 
This will probably require both arms control and reductions as well as 
arming and training the Bosnians.
  Finally, to ensure justice without retribution, the settlement must 
require all states of the former Yugoslavia--Serbia-Montenegro and 
Croatia as well as all parties in Bosnia--to fully cooperate with the 
War Crimes Tribunal and to comply with its indictments and decisions. 
There can be no amnesty, no refuge for any guilty party. As President 
Clinton said in Storrs, CT, ``There must be peace for justice to 
prevail, but there must be justice when peace prevails.''
  Madam President, the question of whether there will be a peace treaty 
depends on the three nations that are gathered there under American 
auspices in Dayton, OH. If they achieve a peace agreement and open the 
door to the end of this slaughter, and present an opportunity to 
preserve the stability in Europe--remember again, why are we 
interested? Twice in this century aggression and genocide unchecked in 
Europe led to wider war. But if a peace treaty is agreed on, it is 
clear that NATO forces will be needed to implement that peace treaty to 
monitor, to keep the parties apart.
  Let us be clear that we are on the eve of proximity talks and the 
prospect of peace because the United States exercised leadership and 
power and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization exercised power 
through discriminate and carefully planned air strikes. United States 
leadership and NATO bombing against the Bosnian Serb aggressors were 
absolutely essential to bringing all sides to the peace process. But 
our involvement cannot end there.
  U.S. leadership and involvement by the United States and NATO will be 
essential to the successful implementation of a settlement. The United 
States cannot bring the parties this close to peace and then just wash 
our hands of them. We will need to lead this effort and to be involved 
as befits the leader of the free world. We owe this to our NATO allies 
and to the alliance which has served peace and stability for nearly 50 
years. We owe this to the ravaged people of Bosnia. And we owe this to 
the memories of all who have been the victims of genocide. It is only 
right--no, it is necessary--for the United States to stand up to 
genocide. We did 

[[Page S16368]]

not stand up in time 50 years ago and too many innocents perished as a 
result. We must not repeat this mistake.
  The United States is the leader of NATO. NATO functioned as an 
extraordinarily successful defensive military alliance against the 
Soviet Union throughout the cold war. There are those post-cold war who 
have asked, what is NATO's purpose? But remember, NATO is the strongest 
functioning military alliance among nations in the world. The NATO 
powers gathered at our urging to fight alongside us in the gulf war to 
bring about that magnificent post-cold-war victory. Clearly, NATO will 
not be willing to play the role of peacekeeper or keeping the peace 
that may be achieved in Dayton, OH, unless the United States is part of 
that peacekeeping force. I think we have to be honest about that. If we 
are not part of that force, NATO will not go in, there will not be 
peace in the Balkans, and we have only more aggression, more 
instability, and perhaps more genocide to look forward to.
  Beyond that, Madam President, I would say this. The relationship in 
NATO works both ways. Our allies in Europe are asking us to be part of 
this. Our friends in Bosnia are saying they will not trust the peace 
unless we are part of policing it.
  But what is the next crisis going to be in which we will not want to 
carry the burden alone, in which we are turning to our allies in NATO 
and saying, ``Help us''? What will they say if we say to them in this 
case, ``Sorry, folks, you take care of it''?
  So I say to my colleagues in the Senate, there is a lot on the line 
here. That is why I say that the resolution passed in the House last 
night was untimely and unhelpful. I support the policy of American 
forces being part of a NATO force to police a peace treaty that is 
agreed upon in NATO. Are there questions to ask? Yes, there are. Should 
the administration consult with Congress? Of course it should. And it 
has been. But this is a time for questions, not resolutions.
  Let me also say I support the second part of the House resolution, 
which says troops should not be dispatched without congressional 
authorization. But let us remember this: So does President Clinton. He 
said to Senator Byrd in his letter he would welcome, encourage, and at 
the appropriate time request an expression of support by Congress. That 
is what I anticipate.
  President Clinton has already begun the important process of 
consultations with Congress. Key senior officials--Secretary of State 
Christopher, Secretary of Defense Perry, the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, General Shalikashvili--have all come to Congress to 
explain the why and how of this proposed undertaking. Everyone 
understands that there are many important questions which remain 
unanswered. Some of these answers will depend on the outcome of the 
negotiations in Dayton. Some will depend on ongoing NATO military 
planning. Some will depend on decisions to be made by the North 
Atlantic Council. But the President and other administration officials 
have made clear that the United States will participate in implementing 
a peace settlement only if several nonnegotiable conditions are met.
  The operation must be a NATO operation, with full NATO command and 
control and no U.N. dual key arrangements.
  The mandate for U.S. forces and their missions must be clear.
  The forces must be large enough and the rules of engagement 
sufficiently robust for the NATO force to carry out its mission and to 
defend itself from any attack.
  President Clinton and his Cabinet officials have promised to continue 
their close consultations with the Congress and to explain their 
proposals to the American people in order to assure that the President 
has their support.
  This process of consultation should continue in a meaningful, 
bipartisan way. The President needs the support of Congress and the 
American people if this mission is to be successful. Just as President 
Bush recognized the need for congressional support before combat began 
in the Persian Gulf war, President Clinton realizes the importance of 
congressional support. Thus, he has said, in words nearly identical to 
those used by President Bush in January 1991, he ``would welcome, 
encourage and, at the appropriate time, request an expression of 
support by Congress promptly after a peace agreement is reached.''
  So I hope that my colleagues in both Chambers will give the 
negotiators some room, ask questions, but hold the resolution until a 
much more appropriate and constructive time.
  I welcome the coming debate. The stakes are too high for the people 
of Bosnia, for our men and women in uniform, for the position of 
America in the world of the next century and for all Americans for us 
not to engage in this debate.
  Just as in those early days of 1991 when I joined a majority of the 
Senate in supporting George Bush's use of force in the gulf war, we are 
at a turning point in our history. When His Holiness Pope John Paul II 
was recently in the United States, he spent a short period of time with 
President Clinton. The President reports that the Pope said to him at 
the end of that conversation, ``Mr. President, I am not a young man. I 
have a long memory. This century began with a war in Sarajevo. We must 
not let this century end with a war in Sarajevo.''
  If we believe in the hope expressed by the Pope and in the important 
role which America must play in the world, we must be involved in 
implementing peace in Bosnia. Without us there will be no involvement 
by NATO. Without NATO there will be no peace to implement. Without 
peace in the Balkans, there will be no peace and no stability in 
Europe, and there will be a continuation of murder and genocide. I am 
not prepared to accept this outcome for America or the world.
  I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

                          ____________________