[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 194 (Thursday, December 7, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2314]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     GPO SUPPORT ON BOSNIA DIFFERS FROM DEMOCRATS' BALKING ON GULF

                                 ______


                           HON. DOUG BEREUTER

                              of nebraska

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, December 7, 1995

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues an 
editorial which appeared in the Omaha World-Herald on December 5, 1995.

     GOP Support on Bosnia Differs From Democrats' Balking on Gulf

       In January 1991, the U.S. Senate voted 52-47 to approve a 
     resolution authorizing President George Bush to use force in 
     liberating Kuwait. Forty-five of the Senate's 55 Democrats 
     voted against the resolution, including some of the party's 
     top leaders.
       Among the Senate Democrats casting ``no'' votes were George 
     Mitchell, then the majority leader; Claiborne Pell, chairman 
     of the Foreign Relations Committee; and Sam Nunn, chairman of 
     the Armed Services Committee. Sen. Edward Kennedy voted 
     against the resolution. So did Daniel Moynihan and Lloyd 
     Bentsen. So did Bob Kerrey.
       In the House, which approved the resolution 250-183, 
     Democrats voting no included Speaker Tom Foley and Majority 
     Leader Richard Gephardt.
       A number of those same Democrats in 1995 support a mission 
     in which the U.S. interest is much less clear: President 
     Clinton's commitment to send troops to Bosnia, But this time 
     something is different. Clinton has support--qualified in 
     some instances--from key members of the other party.
       Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole said he will support 
     Clinton's position. So has Sen. Richard Lugar, chairman of 
     the Foreign relations Committee. In the House, Speaker Newt 
     Gingrich has discouraged Republican congressmen who wanted to 
     try to stop the Bosnian operation. For those GOP leaders, 
     apparently, partisanship still ends at the water's edge, as 
     it should.
       How, was it possible for the Democrats in 1991 to say no to 
     the liberation of Kuwait and just about five years later 
     support a vague mission in Bosnia that has little to do with 
     America's vital national interests?
       Certainly the issues weren't identical. The 1991 vote gave 
     Bush authorization for a ground war against what was then 
     widely reported to be a formidable Iraqi army. Clinton's 
     intended dispatch of 32,000 troops to Bosnia is based on the 
     assumption, although it's debatable, that combat can be 
     avoided.
       Some of the Bush critics in 1991 said it was wrong to go to 
     war for oil. Kerrey, as a presidential candidate in October 
     1991, told a New Hampshire audience that he rejected the 
     Kuwait resolution 10 months earlier because the main 
     reason was to protect an oil source. (Some Americans 
     thought that preserving an essential source of fuel for 
     the industrial West was a good reason to liberate Kuwait 
     and make sure Saudi Arabia wouldn't fall to Saddam 
     Hussein.) If Bush had emphasized the restoration of 
     freedom in Kuwait, Kerrey said, he might have supported 
     the action.
       However, the 1991 resolution that the 45 Senate Democrats 
     voted against did not mention oil. It stated that Iraq's 
     invasion of Kuwait was unprovoked, illegal and brutal and 
     that the United Nations had authorized its members ``to use 
     all necessary means'' to ensure that ``Kuwait's independence 
     and legitimate government be restored.''
       Whether or not one agreed with Bush, the mission was clear: 
     Beat back an illegal aggressor threatening to roll over a 
     region that had a direct impact on American interests and 
     would continue to have an impact. Iraq had overrun Kuwait and 
     was poised to move into Saudi Arabia. There was an immediate 
     danger that the war would spread throughout the region, 
     perhaps drawing in Israel.
       Contrast that with the Balkan situation. Ethnic and 
     religious passions have fueled centuries of hatred, 
     bitterness and wartime atrocities. None of the parties to the 
     current conflict--the primarily Catholic Croatians, the 
     Orthodox-Christian Bosnian Serbs or the Muslim majority in 
     Bosnia--has an unblemished record. They are waging what 
     amounts to a religious and territorial civil war. Some are 
     angry that their leaders signed a truce. As to the danger of 
     an expanded war, few indications exist that any outside 
     powers were planning to come to the aid of the warring 
     factions.
       Yet the Clinton policy would place U.S. troops on the 
     ground in that situation. And for what national interest? The 
     president should be grateful that his Republican opponents 
     aren't guided by the way the Democrats behaved in 1991, when 
     the threat to the national interest was genuine.

                          ____________________