[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 65 (Friday, May 10, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H4882-H4884]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ADMINISTRATION'S FAILURE TO DEAL EFFECTIVELY WITH INTERNATIONAL HUMAN
RIGHTS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Metcalf). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the matter of human rights.
Perhaps the most basic of these rights is just to be able to exist or
to live. And I am compelled to speak on America's role in protecting
and promoting these basic rights.
Like it or not, we are the nation to which the world turns for
leadership and direction, especially in the area of human rights. Quite
frankly, our Government is just not doing a good job here. It isn't
measuring up.
The administration has failed to exercise leadership all around the
globe in the area of human rights. There has been a total collapse of
will, of spine, of backbone in dealing with terrible things happening
to people in every corner of the world. Events that we could alter--
that we, in the past, have altered--by standing up to tough guy
dictators who treat their own with brutality and terrorism.
I wish it wasn't necessary to talk about this right now because this
is the campaign season and honest criticism and frustration are
sometimes discounted as just more candidate bashing. But I'm not
bashing the administration. I want President Clinton to succeed in
promoting human rights. In his State of the Union Speech on January 25,
1994, he stood right there and said ``as we build a more constructive
relationship with China, we must continue to insist on clear signs of
improvement in that nation's human rights record.'' I alone arose from
my seat over there to applaud his courageous intentions.
But he didn't follow through. And the men and women in China are
worse off today for our failure to lead. Just as the men and women in
southern Sudan are worse off, and the Nagorno-Karabach, Turkey, Tibet,
Burundi, even Vietnam and elsewhere. But this afternoon, I want to
focus on Chechnya, a fractious part of the Russian Federation of
States, which I visited last year, and where unbelievably brutal events
are unfolding. Chechnya could be the catalyst that results in a Russian
Federation dominated by communism again.
It should have been enough to count the dead men, women, and children
to see something must be done about Chechnya. But if it were not, it
should then be enough to also see the villages and hamlets across the
land that have been ravaged. But if that were still not enough add the
once thriving capital city of Grozny which has been leveled, where few
buildings remain standing; only hollow skeletons amid huge piles of
rubble. That scene surely calls for remedy.
To give the administration some credit, perhaps they wanted to do
something helpful there. But faulty and sporadic rhetoric have only
made things worse. At one point the administration said Chechyna is an
internal or civil problem. Russia then took this to mean that we would
look the other way while they embarked on an effort to crush Chechyna.
When the tragedy of war became too apparent to bear in silence, our
Government began to urge President Yeltsin to bring this conflict to an
end. Each time a high level delegation from the United States, either
the President, Secretary of State or other high official, was scheduled
to meet with the Yeltsin government, they would intensify their war
effort to crush the Chechens hoping to claim the problem had been
solved and peace is being restored even before our Government
delegation arrived and could raise the issue.
This cat and mouse brand of diplomacy had the effect of ratcheting up
the killing and bombing and shelling. And more Chechens died. But more
Russian soldiers continued to die as well. The Chechens are fierce
fighters and good soldiers comfortable in their homeland which they
know like the back of their hand. They, too, can be ruthless and are
not pushovers. They have taken a grueling toll on the Russian troops.
This, coupled with the hemorrhage of rubles to wage this war, the
humiliating realization by the Russian people that their army may be
only a paper tiger that cannot over-run even tiny Chechnya, and the
stingingly negative world opinion showering down on the Yeltsin
government, has made this a key issue in the upcoming June elections.
What is at stake in these elections is the soul of Russia. And the
major candidates to control its soul are President Boris Yeltsin on one
hand and the Communist leaders on the other. President Yeltsin himself
has said he may not win re-election if the Chechnya war continues. Let
me say that again. The Russian people, tired of and embarrassed by the
war in Chechnya, could turn away from President Yeltsin and re-embrace
communism as, perhaps, the lesser among evils.
Russia could return to communism as we stand idly, too timid or too
confused to force the Chechen issue. Now I absolutely do not suggest
this is something which should involve U.S. forces. That would clearly
be irresponsible. What we have is two belligerents engaged in a
struggle which neither side knows how to end. Like two feuding family
members unable and unwilling to stop fighting even when both recognize
continuing conflict is worse than any resolution available. Sometimes
it takes an outsider to demand a truce. I don't want to trivialize this
conflict but it is not unlike two small boys whaling away at one
another and both are secretly delighted when someone steps between
them.
I have, again and again, written the President and others in his
administration--and Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert in
the Record copies of these letters--urging that our Government offer
and encourage both sides, Russian and Chechen, to accept the offer of
an American statesman of high stature and achievement to help search
for peace. A broker or negotiator or arbitrator--choose a title--but
someone with wisdom, experience and diplomacy to help find an accord
where neither side is a loser, killing and destruction end and people
can begin rebuilding lives. The administration barely even acknowledges
my letters, which would be OK if they were pursuing another workable
outcome. They are not. They again arrange a high level meeting with the
Yeltsin government which spurs the Russians toward a renewed offensive
to stamp out the Chechens. More killing and destruction result; time
passes; frustration and bitterness grow and the cycle begins anew.
This is not diplomacy. This is not international leadership. This is
folly. It seems that our Government is abdicating its role as a world
leader. A role no other power can assume. And the
[[Page H4883]]
void is being filled around the world with brush fires and
geographically contained arenas of terror and terrorism.
But the stakes in Chechnya may be higher. Communism might be the
winner in this round. And if it is, it will not only be the Russians
who are the losers. It will be every free nation and those who thirst
for freedom. And surely, America will be among the losers if this
happens. And that will be the biggest shame of all because we had, in
our grasp, the ability to try to lead the world into a tomorrow of
relative peace and tranquility.
Even if a resurgence of communism did not hinge on the resolution of
the conflict in Chechnya, and Mr. Speaker, the political picture in
Russia is such a tangled web no one could predict with any certainty
the outcome at the Russian ballot box on June 16, the administration
should still prod the Russian Government into finding peace. Isn't
peace and the end of killing and the destruction of a society a worthy
goal in itself? Of course it is and it is one our Government ought to
resolutely pursue with dispatch. I implore the administration to not
let this slip through their fingers.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the letters I referered to
above.
The information referred to follows:
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, January 26, 1996.
Hon. William J. Clinton,
The White House, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: The brutal conflict in Chechnya is now
in its second month. Gruesome images of the fighting emerge
day after day. Thousands of Chechnyans have died in the
fighting, including many innocent women and children.
While the U.S. position has been that this is an ``internal
Russian affair,'' the American people certainly have an
interest in bringing an end to the fighting. Besides the
obvious human tragedy occurring as men, women and children
continue to die, Russia is a major recipient of U.S. foreign
aid. This war is causing many in the Congress to consider
whether Russia is deserving of such aid and whether the
entire U.S.-Russian relationship should be re-examined,
particularly our close ties to President Yeltsin.
Continuation of this conflict will have major implications
for the future of the Yeltsin government, the Russian economy
and Russia's already fragile relationship with its neighbors.
I believe our government should use its diplomatic leverage
now to help bring peace to the region.
I am writing to propose that you appoint former President
George Bush, or possibly former Secretary of State James
Baker, as special emissary for this purpose; to go to Moscow,
meet with President Yeltsin and other Russian leaders, and
present your viewpoint on the importance of quickly ending
the Chechnyan conflict. I believe President Bush could be
very helpful in ending the fighting and stopping the killing.
Mr. President, I hope you will give careful consideration
to this proposal and move quickly in sending an emissary to
Russia. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Frank R. Wolf,
Member of Congress.
____
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, February 21, 1996.
Hon. William J. Clinton,
The White House, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: As you know, I traveled to Chechnya in
May of last year to view the ravages of war in that part of
the world. I have enclosed a copy of my trip report.
It has been frustrating to see this conflict drag on for
over a year and the fighting and hostage-taking flare up
again in recent weeks. The Russians seem to be getting more
militaristic, but I understand that President Yeltsin
recently acknowledged the importance of dealing with the
conflict before the elections. The U.S. should strongly
support President Yeltsin in any of his efforts to bring
peaceful resolution to the conflict and, if necessary, serve
as the catalyst for peace in the region. Perhaps the U.S.
could help bring the sides together or serve as a mediator.
The U.S. should use every opportunity to strongly encourage
the Russian government to end this conflict peacefully. It's
in the best interest of Russia, and ultimately, the best
interest of the United States.
Sincerely,
Frank R. Wolf,
Member of Congress.
____
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, April 4, 1996.
Hon. Warren Christopher,
Secretary of State, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Secretary: I am writing to again raise the tragic
situation in Chechnya. Some 40,000 civilians are dead,
hundreds of thousands are homeless and, yet, this was not
even a topic of discussion during your recent visit to
Moscow. Why should the United States step in? Each time a
high-level U.S. delegation has visited Moscow, President
Yeltsin, seemingly in an attempt to put this issue aside,
steps up the intensity of the military action and more
Chechen civilians get pummeled.
President Yeltsin now seems to be making efforts to
establish peace. He has called a cease-fire and the fighting
has died down somewhat. We all hope his efforts are sincere,
lasting and fruitful. But like a family trying to work out
solutions to irreconcilable problems, sometimes the issues
are too difficult to resolve alone. Feelings run too high and
past wrongs have seared too vivid a memory to bring about
resolution. Families often need to bring in outside help to
provide counsel and objectivity, defuse tensions, arbitrate
unresolvable differences and provide a fresh outlook. This is
a mediation role only the United States can play in resolving
this brutal conflict. I ask that you consider offering to
both sides the use of a high-level negotiator of
unquestionable stature: someone, perhaps, who has held at
least a cabinet position in our government.
When I visited Grozny last May, there seemed little of the
town left to destroy. Yet reports of death and destruction
continue. What can we lose by offering to negotiate between
the parties? Things could grow even worse after the June
elections if the winner of the presidential race senses a
mandate to end the conflict in Chechnya by any means.
I hope the U.S. will lend its weight to seek a speedy
resolution. Please consider appointing a high-level
negotiator to shuttle between the sides and push for peace.
Our neutrality should cease to be indifference and we should
use our voice, our experience and our economic power to
stridently work for peace in Russia.
It's not too late. But too many have died. I urge you to
take decisive action.
Sincerely,
Frank R. Wolf,
Member of Congress.
____
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, April 25, 1996.
Hon. William J. Clinton,
The White House, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: Thank you for your response to my last
letter expressing concern over Chechnya. I have been in
Chechnya, seen the results of the war, met with the people
there and have a sense of their resolve, their bitterness and
their anger. They are a hearty, robust and proud people.
Chechens are good fighters and will not yield in this
situation, not as long as even a few have the means to
resist.
I believe more must be done and time is running out. Time
has already run out for too many Chechen men, women and
children as well as for too many Russian soldiers and their
families. Though not intended, each time you meet with
President Yeltsin or visit Russia . . . with the purpose of
propping him up or lending stature to his presidency . . .
the opposite and undesired outcome results. Before your
meetings, he tries, once again, to clean up events in
Chechnya with a renewed and vigorous military onslaught
causing more Chechens and more Russian soldiers to die, and
the two sides become even more deeply mired in the conflict.
President Yeltsin's attempt to make Chechnya disappear from
the radar screen before you meet has the opposite and
unwanted result of more killing, more conflict and a
diminished way out of this mess. He has apparently even found
it necessary to lie to you. According to the enclosed Reuters
report, the Russian military attacks which resulted in
Dzhokhar Dudayev's death were occurring even as President
Yeltsin assured you that he was pursuing a peaceful
resolution in Chechnya.
President Yeltsin's history here is one of reacting badly
in Chechnya each time you and he are to meet. The outcome
inevitably is an even more difficult problem for him and may
result in his downfall in the June elections. He may not win
reelection without resolving this Chechnya situation.
I agree that our interests and Russia's as well are better
served with Mr. Yeltsin as president when compared to other
likely candidates. If he loses, Russia and their federation
of states will take a giant stride backward. So I believe
America must do all it can to bring resolution to the Chechen
conflict, for them, certainly, but for us as well.
No one, least of all me, wants US involvement on the ground
in that region. But America, as no other, is a respected and
trusted force standing for freedom and justice. Our
leadership alone can drive a peace solution. As I have asked
before, and copies of all my earlier letters on this issue
are enclosed to refresh your memory, please offer to
President Yeltsin . . . and urge him to accept . . . the
appointment of an American of considerable stature to
negotiate and to search for a peaceful end to this tragedy in
Chechnya. I know there are many good candidates, perhaps a
retired flag or general officer or a statesman on the order
of former Secretary Holbrooke.
Mr. President, when I first wrote on this issue, our
interest was one of bringing a humanitarian end to a needless
war in Chechnya. With the passing of time and evolving
political fortunes in Russia, our own national interests
could be also affected
[[Page H4884]]
by fall-out from this matter, especially if it results in the
return of communism to Russia. This would be bad for America
and for the world.
I believe we must quickly do something here. I respectfully
submit these recommendations and will do anything I can to
help. If I can persuade you on this matter, I will come over
on a moments notice.
Please act, Mr. President. Thank you and best regards.
Sincerely,
Frank R. Wolf
Member of Congress.
____
Report: Russian 'Copters Attack Chechen Town
Moscow.--Russian helicopter gunships attacked rebel
positions in the Chechen town of Shali on Thursday, a day
after slain separatist leader Dzhokhar Dudayev was buried.
General Vyacheslav Tikhomirov, commander of Russian forces
in Chechnya, told Interfax news agency that the gunships had
made two ``pinpoint strikes'' on guerrilla positions in
Shali, about 25 miles southeast of the regional capital
Grozny.
The attacks were in response to rebel fighters firing on
Wednesday at Russian helicopters which flew over Shali on a
reconnaissance mission, he said.
Interfax said civilians had been killed and wounded in the
attacks, though it gave no casualty figure.
It said seven people were killed when Russian ground forces
opened fire on a civilian convoy trying to flee the town
which had been sealed off by Russian troops in six days.
A Shali police official, quoted by Interfax, said the
Russian attacks had caused considerable destruction. ``People
have been killed and wounded,'' he said.
The renewed Russian air raids followed the death of Dudayev
last Sunday in a rocket attack from the air at Gekhi-Chu,
about 20 miles south-west of Grozny, as he stood in an open
field speaking by satellite telephone.
Dudayev, '52, unchallenged leader of the rebellion against
Russian rule, was buried on Wednesday at a secret location in
the south of the territory.
Russian military involvement in killing Dudayev, to whom
President Boris Yeltsin had offered indirect talks to end the
16-month conflict, was mired in controversy.
Tikhomirov was quoted by Interfax as saying his troops had
not conducted any special operation to assassinate Dudayev.
But an Interior Ministry source said on Wednesday he had
been killed in retribution for an ambush last week in which
Chechen fighters killed up to 90 Russian soldiers.
In a more detailed report, Interfax quoted another source
as saying Dudayev had been deliberately targeted by a rocket
fired from the air which homed in on him by following the
signal of his satellite telephone.
This source said it was the fifth attempt in the past two
or three months to destroy Dudayev by this means.
The first four had failed, the source said, because the
Chechen leader ended his telephone conversation before the
rockets could target him.
Tikhomirov called the report of retribution ``madness and
an attempt to pass on to the federal troops the blame for a
possible disruption of a peace settlement in Chechnya.''
He said his forces had stuck to Yeltsin's order to halt
military operations and only responded to rebel attacks.
Yeltsin ordered troops into Chechnya in December 1994 to
crush its independence drive.
Over 30,000 people, mostly civilians, are believed to have
died and Yeltsin is trying to end the conflict to boost his
chances of winning a second term as president in a June poll.
He unveiled a peace plan on March 31 which included a halt
to Russia's military offensive, partial withdrawal of troops
and indirect talks with Dudayev. But the plan allowed
``special operations against terrorists.''
It was not clear how the killing of Dudayev and his
replacement by Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev, a hardline pro-
independence ideologist, could affect peace efforts.
____
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, May 7, 1996.
Hon. William J. Clinton,
The White House, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: I am, once again, writing to point out
that conditions for the men, women and children in Chechnya
continue to deteriorate as hopelessness and hatred battle one
another. Did you see the enclosed Washington Times piece
reporting the views of Duma Member, Mr. Aoushev, who is also
the deputy chairman of their parliament's national security
committee? He makes several thoughtful points which should
give us pause about a ``see nothing--do nothing'' policy.
He notes: military action could spread from Chechyna to
next door neighbor Ingushetia. Not only would this bring
senseless killing, destruction, and misery to a new region
that is, today, relatively tranquil, it would deny an
existing haven to many Chechens who have fled from the daily
terrors of their homeland. When I recently visited that
region, I went to an Ingushetian refugee camp for Chechens,
mostly women, children and the aged. They do not need another
turn in a war zone.
The conflict in Chechnya will not continue at its present
level. It cannot get better so it will only become worse. Not
only will pain and suffering intensify with continued
fighting but the opportunity for reconciliation or consensual
peace will recede further into the realm of the improbable.
The Clinton Administration (Mr. Aoushev's term) is ignoring
human rights violations by Russian military and has not done
enough to use its influence to end the conflict.
I hope you will consider what Mr. Aoushev has to say and I
reiterate my earlier and often made suggestion that you
should offer to both sides an American negotiator of
principle and stature whose task is to urge and prod the
parties to this senseless conflict to stop it. How could it
hurt? It might help. Continuing to do nothing is to accept or
even to encourage more inhumane acts on helpless people.
Please work to stop this senselessness. Thank you for your
time.
Sincerely,
Frank R. Wolf,
Member of Congress.
____________________