[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 114 (Wednesday, September 3, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8739-S8743]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 BOSNIA

  Mrs. HUTCHISON Mr. President, I want to take this time, along with my

[[Page S8740]]

colleague from Kansas, Senator Roberts, to talk about an experience 
that we had in the same place in the world at separate times in the 
last 2 weeks We were both in Bosnia We had different experiences, but 
the experiences that we had have brought us to the same conclusion The 
conclusion is that it is time to go back to the drawing board.
  I had the great opportunity--and I did consider it a great 
opportunity--to walk on the streets of Brcko 1 week before people there 
started hurling stones at our troops I said at the time that there is 
going to be trouble here, that we are trying to put a square peg in a 
round hole, and it will not work We have not set the base for what we 
are trying to do, and it is not going to be able to be done in 9 
months, probably not 2 years, probably not 5 years I think we have to 
go back to the drawing board.
  As I walked on the streets in Brcko, I talked to Serbs, I talked to 
Muslims I went into a Serb house I went into what was the beginning of 
a Muslim house We are trying to move Muslim refugees back into a 
neighborhood where they are supposed to live with Serbs who are there, 
not 25 feet from each other Are they talking to each other? Are they 
helping each other build houses or put the roofs on? Are they talking 
about what they are going to do to bring their communities together? No 
No, they are not, Mr. President We are talking about putting people who 
have suffered atrocities in houses 10 feet from each other, and then 
presumably they are going to try to live together, form a school 
district together Mr. President, it is not going to work It may work 25 
or 50 years from now, but it is not going to work now.
  The reason I want to talk about this is because our troops are right 
in the middle of it Our troops are being put in the position of taking 
positions between two warring Serb factions They are trying to keep 
peace in a place where they have not yet come to terms with the issues 
So I am very worried that the President, though I know he is trying to 
do the right thing, is not stepping back and asking what have we 
learned from the last year and a half? What have we learned since 
Dayton? What can we do to give peace a fair chance? And, most 
important, how can we make sure that our troops are neutral 
peacekeepers, so they will not be the targets of the wrath of one 
faction or another? How can we make sure that our troops are keeping to 
the mission that they were given, without mission creep, and that our 
policies underlying the troops that are there are sound policies with a 
reasonable chance of success?
  You know, I was struck by the interview given by General 
Shalikashvili, who is leaving the Joint Chiefs chairmanship this month, 
when he said two things He said the troops that are in Bosnia are not 
the right types of troops to capture war criminals It is a different 
type of training that is necessary for that--those are my words Second, 
he talked about the lack of money that we have available right now to 
make sure that our troops are ready when they are needed to go into a 
United States security threat He said we don't even have the money to 
buy parts, and we are not keeping up with training I am thinking to 
myself, we are spending $3 billion a year in Bosnia on a mission that 
is ill-defined and a mission that is, I am afraid, creeping into 
danger, and we are doing it with defense dollars, which is clearly 
taking from our readiness--$3 billion a year.
  So I want to raise some basic questions No. 1, can our troops 
adequately defend themselves? Thank goodness, today Gen. Wes Clark, the 
new head of NATO military operations, said, ``Don't fool with American 
troops because, if you do, we are going to react with force.'' Well, 
thank goodness I want our troops to defend themselves with all the 
might that they need to make sure that people do not think they can 
fire at our troops or throw rocks at them because they are on a 
peacekeeping mission So, No. 1, can our troops defend themselves?
  No. 2, what is the mission? Now, we have been told that the mission 
is very clear It is to keep the warring parties apart; it is not to 
capture war criminals And, yes, we keep seeing others trying to draw us 
into capturing war criminals Now, this does not mean we don't want to 
capture war criminals Of course, we would like to see these people 
brought to justice But, Mr. President, I have to say that if we are 
trying to keep peace, I think we have to determine what we are going to 
do that will keep peace and what we will do that will hurt peace I 
think if we are trying to resettle refugees who are not ready to mix 
yet, that is not going to bring about peace No. 2, if we are going to 
expand the mission without coming to Congress to explain exactly what 
our troops are supposed to be doing with regard to capturing war 
criminals, then we have a shifting mission and not a clear one. So what 
exactly is the mission?

  Mr. President, last but not least, do we have an underlying policy 
that gives us a real chance for peace? If we don't, if this is not 
going to work, let's address it now, let's not wait until 9 months from 
now when our troops are supposed to withdraw. Let's not say, well, we 
have tried something for a year and a half and it isn't working, but if 
we just hang in there, then maybe things will get better, and then when 
9 months are up, then the cries will come, ``Well, let's keep the 
troops there.''
  Mr. President, I want American troops on the ground if there is a 
U.S. security interest and if there is a chance for success. I don't 
mind spending our taxpayer dollars if there is a chance for success. 
But if we are taking from our own military readiness, if we don't have 
the spare parts for the equipment that we need for training and 
readiness, how can we justify spending $3 billion a year for Dayton 
accords that I don't think have a chance to succeed?
  So I think we need to go back to the drawing board. I think the time 
has come for us to look at what is the underlying best chance for a 
peaceful coexistence in Bosnia.
  Now, I would like to turn to my friend and colleague from Kansas 
because he also had the opportunity to visit our troops. I will just 
say that I am so proud of our troops. They are doing a wonderful job. I 
had lunch in Tuzla with our troops, and they are committed to doing the 
job they always do well. They are following orders. But, Mr. President, 
I think we owe our troops something. We owe them an underlying policy 
that has a chance to succeed. We owe them a clear mission. Mr. 
President, we are not giving our troops that clear mission. We are not 
giving them the underlying policy that will have a chance to succeed. I 
think we owe them that. I think the time has come for the President to 
say, step back, let's look at the Dayton accords and let's see if we 
can do something that will make more sense, not 9 months from now, but 
tomorrow let's start talking about this so that we will have a better 
chance to leave in 9 months when we have been promised that we will. 
But when we leave, let's leave with a chance for success.
  Mr. President, I am very pleased that my colleague from Kansas also 
took the time to go and visit with the troops. I think that we have 
decided, from our different experiences--we were not there together, we 
were there at different times. But his experiences were very, very 
vivid. I think because we have visited with our troops and because we 
have talked to the people, I think we have a real feel for what can be 
done and what can't be done.
  This was my fourth trip to Bosnia. It is not like I just tooled in 
there one day a couple of weeks ago. I have been there four times. I 
have to say that I had great hopes for the Dayton accords, even though 
I did not want our troops on the ground. I led the fight against it. 
Nevertheless, once they went, I wanted it to succeed. Of course, we all 
do. But, Mr. President, what we are doing now is not going to succeed, 
and I don't want to risk one American life and not one more taxpayer 
dollar until the underlying policy is a policy that has a chance to 
succeed.
  I yield to my friend and colleague from Kansas, Senator Roberts.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Texas for yielding. I especially thank her for obtaining this time to 
discuss our policy, the American policy on Bosnia, at what I consider a 
special time, a real crossroads time to determine exactly what that 
policy is.
  The Senator has already pointed out that we were in Bosnia over the 
recent

[[Page S8741]]

break at different times--very close, but at different times. I went as 
a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and, as a matter of fact, 
I received briefings in Prague, Budapest, Bosnia, and London. Most of 
the concern in regard to those people in charge of our intelligence 
capability was in regard to Bosnia and, obviously, we spoke with the 
officials within our embassies, as well as the SFOR command and those 
of the military.
  I came back after visiting Sarajevo, Tazar, our staging base in 
Hungary, and Tuzla, which is the SFOR command center. I must say that I 
share many of the concerns with the Senator from Texas. There is 
progress in Sarajevo. If you land in Sarajevo, you will get a briefing 
by the embassy that indicates that the 90-percent figures in relation 
to unemployment have now been reduced to 50; the shops, the markets--
the famous market that literally exploded on CNN, really that first 
great atrocity where American people became aware of the severe 
problems there, that is back in business. The schools are now 
operating, and we know that there is income in Sarajevo because the 
gypsies are back. The areas over the main highway obviously are very 
heavily mined. That is still a big problem. I arrived I think at a very 
special time, I would tell my colleague from Texas, because it was just 
after the President's special emissary, Mr. Richard Holbrooke, had 
arrived in Bosnia. And I must say that in my personal opinion that up 
to that point we were drifting in Bosnia, and I think with Mr. 
Holbrooke's arrival there was a new impetus, if you will.

  A week prior to that the British--our allies over there, part of the 
SFOR command--had arrested and captured and killed one or two of the 
war criminals. As that happened, the Embassy officials that we visited 
with indicated that certainly did a lot for our credibility in regard 
to that area; that up to that point there had been some drift.
  So I asked all of our intelligence people, I asked the SFOR command, 
and I asked our Embassy people: Had the mission changed? Because 
obviously if we are going to adopt that kind of an aggressive posture 
in Bosnia; that is, really going after the war criminals to locate and 
to capture and to prosecute them--that certainly is a different kind of 
mission that many of us here in the Senate, and I might add in the 
House, envisioned for our United States troops in Bosnia.
  They reiterated the following.
  No. 1: The relevancy of the United States in Bosnia is peacekeeping, 
refugee resettlement, economic restoration, democracy building, and the 
war criminal issue.
  I think the mission has been changed. I think it has been changed 
substantially. I think we have gone from peacekeeping to peace 
enforcement. I think we now are disarming, if you will, the police that 
Mr. Karadzic has around him in Srpska. It is a very aggressive overt 
effort. We are now taking over radio and TV stations and apparently 
giving them back after a fuss is raised by a mob against our NATO 
troops.
  I think we have a timetable. I think this is a must-do situation 
prior to the elections to be held later on this month in Srpska. I 
think we have taken sides in that election overtly. I think it is very 
clear in that regard. And I think we made a decision that before winter 
comes in that area we must do something about the war criminals. Why? 
It is pretty easy to point out.
  I know that this is a very small replica of persons indicted for war 
crimes. I have a much larger chart. Time did not permit me to bring it 
over from the office. These are 79 individuals that are pictured here--
10 are in custody now--of the war criminals or the persons indicted for 
the war crimes. Let me just say, I said 79 and 78. They are indicted by 
the U.N. International Criminal Tribunal in the Hague for grave 
breaches of the 1949 Geneva Convention, violations of laws, customs of 
war, and crimes against humanity.
  The person I would like to draw to your attention is a young man 34 
years old who is still at large. He is only 34 years old. The charges 
are from about May 7, 1992, to early July 1992. There were hundreds of 
Muslim and Croat men and women confined at the Luka camp in inhumane 
conditions under armed guard. These detainees were systematically 
killed at Luka almost every day during that time. The accused, often 
assisted by camp guards, entered Luka's main hangar where most of the 
detainees were kept, selected detainees for interrogation, beat them, 
and often shot them. They killed them. It goes on here. I would just 
say simply that the descriptions involved remind you of the Nazi war 
crimes. I will not go into that.
  But obviously if these people are not brought to justice there is no 
chance for peace in Bosnia. Who is going to do this job? The Senator 
from Texas has already indicated that it is pretty obvious now that the 
NATO troops are. That is a clear difference, or a clear policy change, 
from peacekeeping. I call it peace enforcement.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. ROBERTS. I am delighted to yield to my colleague.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I am glad the Senator is on this point because in the 
original mission statement in the Dayton accords there was a provision 
to capture war criminals, but it was going to be a police force within 
the Federation. It was going to be a police force made up of all three 
of the sectors that would go after war criminals, hopefully in a way 
that would be responsible. That police force has not materialized. As 
the Senator from Kansas has said, we are substituting our NATO forces 
for the police force that is the mission in the Dayton accords. That is 
a change of mission by any way you read it.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I appreciate the Senator's comments.
  The young man I was talking about is 34 years old, at large now, and 
78 other war criminals are at large as well.
  As I have indicated, there is no way that you can bring the Dayton 
accords to their successful completion with these folks at large.
  Let me just say this. Everybody there, every intelligence source, 
every person that you visit with, whether they be Muslim, Croat or 
Serb, SFOR command, Russians. We visited with the Russians in their 
compound. They are really doing a very good job working with us and 
closely cooperating; and obviously the Brits and the Norwegians; 34 
nations are involved in this effort.
  We have literally planted the flag. We have an outstanding 
cooperative effort. We have spent $7 billion in Bosnia. But there are 
some expenditures too from all those nations involved in the SFOR 
command. All of these people have indicated very clearly that if we 
leave, and if we leave, why, the Brits will leave. If we leave, the 
British will leave.
  We both have learned that when we were talking to Embassy officials 
and members taking part in the interparliamentary conference over there 
in Great Britain, they said, ``We were with you in terms of our ground 
troops. When you leave, we leave.'' If we leave, if SFOR leaves, or the 
American presence in SFOR. Let's not really kid ourselves. Within 
weeks, why, the fighting will break out again. Yet we have in the other 
body in the House on the defense appropriations bill a cutoff date 
saying our troops must come home as of June 1998.
  Our Secretary of Defense, our former colleague and dear friend, 
Secretary Cohen, indicated that the troops will be home in June 1998. 
The President has said the troops will be home in June 1998. But maybe, 
I don't know. We are a little nebulous on that.
  That is where the candor comes in because I think our policy has 
become very disingenuous. On the one hand we are building up the troop 
levels from about 8,500 to 12,000. We have changed the mission from 
peacekeeping to peace enforcement. Yet, we say in June 1998 we can 
withdraw the troops. That is not possible.
  I personally think that once you plant the flag, once you have 34 
nations involved, once you have that kind of cooperation, it is going 
to be very difficult to withdraw. When the Dayton accords fail, that is 
going to send a message around the world that we don't want to send. 
Yet the case has not been made to the American public, to this Senate, 
or to us by the administration, as to how we are going to accomplish 
that.

  Thank goodness the Senator from Texas has arranged this time so we 
can sort of have a kickoff here in terms of long-term goals and what I 
consider to

[[Page S8742]]

be short-term politics. I think we need a lot of candor.
  I have a related concern. In a meeting with about 18 young Kansans, 
both men and women in uniform, only 2 plan to stay in the service. They 
have been over there 9 months. They work 13, 14, 15 hours a day. The 
personnel tempo, the operational tempo--the Senator from Texas, as a 
former member of the Armed Services Committee, knows, I know, and 
everybody even connected with the military knows that we have downsized 
to the point where the operation and personnel tempo in all the 
countries involved in the peacekeeping operations--we are wearing out 
our military. It is not working. When you get 16 out of 18 Kansans, 
some of whom are very dedicated in midcareer, say they are going to 
leave because of the pressures on them and their families, working 
overtime, there is a big problem here. That is a related problem that 
we have not really talked about in relation to the Bosnian situation.
  Let me just say in closing that I would like to refer to the remarks 
by our colleague from Delaware, Senator Biden, who has had many trips 
to Bosnia. I have his remarks here that he made before the Senate as of 
this morning.
  He says that we have reached a crucial point in our policy toward 
Bosnia. Resolute American action, combined with allied support and 
local compliance, could turn the corner.
  I also add that I agree with Senator Biden. I am not sure we can turn 
the corner. I want to know what is around the corner. And we need 
candor.
  I also say that he lists the goals--to greatly expand the number of 
refugees returning to their prewar homes.
  The Senator from Texas was in Brcko, talked to the people there, and 
saw the futility of forced relocation.
  I was flying in a helicopter with a one-star Army commander, went 
over a knoll where Moslems used to live--60 of them. We have tried 
three times to relocate these people. Each time they have been beaten, 
and the homes have been destroyed. He has indicated that it might not 
be a very good idea to try for the fourth time.
  Senator Biden went on to say--and I agree with him--that we can and 
must ensure that the country's municipal elections in mid-September are 
held and are free and fair. I hope we can do that. That will be our 
best hope. But there once again we are having our troops and the NATO 
troops take part, and are actually taking part in an election. They are 
election observers, and more than that. He points out that we must and 
can guarantee free access to the electronic media. We guarantee the TV 
station. And Mrs. Plavsic, who is one of the candidates and the best 
candidate, openly now is supported by NATO forces, and our forces. But 
now we apparently have given that back to Mr. Karadzic and his people. 
So we are playing sort of a back and forth business in terms of TV.
  Senator Biden--and I will just sum up here--in his remarks said that 
it is absolutely essential for an international military force to 
remain in Bosnia after June 1998 to guarantee that progress will 
continue. Thank goodness somebody has been candid. Senator Biden has 
indicated that. He says an international force should be there. 
Everybody in that whole part of the world indicates that if we are not 
involved in that international force it will not succeed. That is what 
happened in the beginning.
  So I commend Senator Biden for his candor. But then he says--I want 
the Senator from Texas to pay very close attention in regard to his 
comments as it relates to NATO expansion. He indicates that not only 
would all that has been accomplished go up in smoke if fighting 
reignited--i.e., if we leave--but a failure in Bosnia would signal the 
beginning of the end for NATO which is currently restructuring itself 
to meet Bosnia-like challenges in the 21st century.
  Senator Biden, Senator Lugar, and many others who are involved in the 
proposal to expand NATO have indicated that the Congress of the United 
States is not focused on this issue. The American public is not focused 
on this issue.
  Let me say that Senator Hutchison has certainly focused on the issue, 
and that she is able to have 20 Senators sign a letter to the President 
expressing many concerns over NATO expansion--tough questions that need 
to be answered.
  In Prague I was very privileged to address the Transatlantic 
Conference in regard to NATO expansion. I guess you could say that I 
was sort of the skunk at the expansion picnic in that I took the 
concerns that the Senator has raised. I raised them with the Czech 
Republic not because of any lack of support or admiration for the 
emerging nations. But there again we have planted the flag for NATO 
expansion. Here we have a situation where the Congress of the United 
States is going to say, ``OK, we are going to take our troops, and we 
are going to bring them home after June 1998. But, on the other hand, 
we are going to go ahead with NATO expansion. And under article V we 
are going to be committed to American men and women perhaps risking 
their lives on Polish soil, Czech soil, and Hungarian soil, not to 
mention the 24 other countries that would like to become involved if we 
are going to withdraw the troops in regard to Bosnia. You certainly 
can't propose an expansion of NATO with article V.''
  These are the kind of questions that I think we need to raise.
  I have gone on much too long here this evening. But I do again want 
to thank the Senator from Texas for raising these concerns. I have just 
touched on several concerns. I plan when we have additional time under 
morning business--or we ought to take the time--to go over all of the 
concerns that the Senator from Texas has raised, and some of the 
concerns that I have raised. It is a time for candor because the clock 
is ticking.
  The election will be held at the end of September to determine the 
future of Bosnia. I do not want to see the Dayton accords fail. But I 
can tell you one thing, they are not going to be successful if we 
simply withdraw the troops by June 1998. Then where are we? If we keep 
them there, where are we?
  I asked one of the Embassy officials in Sarajevo, ``When did all of 
this start?'' I think I am right by saying it was in 1384 when the 
Turks and the Serbs first got involved in a very difficult conflict and 
a war. It has not been fully settled since, except for the reign of 
Marshal Tito who ruled the country with an iron fist.
  So I thank the Senator from Texas. I thank her for her leadership. I 
look forward to continuing to work with her as we try to answer some of 
these very, very difficult questions.
  I thank the Senator. I yield the floor.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kansas for 
his remarks. I am pleased that he took the time to go over and visit 
our troops in Bosnia, to find out for himself what the situation was 
there. He is a distinguished new member of the Armed Services 
Committee.
  I think it is important that all Senators try to go over there 
because we have a lot at stake. Our troops are on the ground. Up to 
12,000 will be there very soon. Their lives are at stake. In addition 
to that, our taxpayers are footing the bill for $3 billion a year so 
far, and they have the right to ask, what are we doing there? What are 
we doing with the $3 billion? Are we doing something that will have a 
chance to succeed? Those are fair questions.
  Americans are generous people. They are valiant. They are committed 
to freedom, and they want everyone in the world to live in freedom. 
They would risk their lives, as they have in this century, for the 
freedom of people who live in Europe and other places. They are willing 
to risk their lives. They are willing to pay from their pocketbooks, 
from their families the money if a policy has a reasonable chance to 
succeed.
  I am today raising the question, do we have a reasonable chance to 
succeed with the underlying policy? There is no question that our 
troops are doing a great job. There is no question that our new 
commander, Gen. Wes Clark, is absolutely correct when he says, you fool 
with American troops and you are going to face the consequences. I am 
glad we have issued the ultimatum because everybody is on fair notice 
that you can't throw rocks and shoot at American troops and get by with 
it.
  But it is the underlying policy that I question today. I am calling 
on the President of the United States, with the leadership of the 
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State, to step back and look 
at the policy. Are

[[Page S8743]]

we trying to put the American standard of multiethnic, peaceful 
democracy into a place that is not ready? I think we are. And I think 
we are risking a lot doing it. So I am asking the President and his 
Cabinet members to come together and say, let's look again at Dayton. 
Let's look at whether the time is now for resettling refugees, for 
forcing people to live in this Federation with a joint Government of 
Croats and Muslims and Serbs, all of whom have committed, or had 
committed on them, terrible atrocities. And we are now saying come 
together, form a government, have a joint presidency, have a joint 
government, create a school system that will accommodate a Muslim 
religion and a Catholic religion and come together and bring all of 
this in in the next 9 months.
  Let us step back. Let us revisit Dayton. Let us see if we can make a 
Dayton that has a chance to succeed. I will support leaving our troops 
on the ground beyond June 1998; I will support the money it takes if we 
have a policy that has a reasonable chance to succeed, that will bring 
a peaceful coexistence. And I think the time has come to look at a 
division where people can come together of like mind and form a 
government that will serve their purposes where they can invest in 
infrastructure, where we can help them invest in infrastructure, and 
they can build their factories and they can have jobs and begin to live 
in peace with their neighbors who are different from them.
  That happens all over Europe. In fact, the lesson of history is that 
many times people who cannot live together split apart. You can name 
example after example. And it can be done peacefully. Why not let them 
come together in their own groups, form their governments, create their 
livelihoods. In the former Bosnia, there were taxes on the minority 
ethnic groups. There were restraints on what certain minority ethnics 
could do. They could not be doctors. They could not be small business 
people around the corner selling hardware. They could not be lawyers. 
They could only have certain farming-type jobs.
  That is not a recipe for success. Why not look at a division that 
might work. Let them have their government. Let them have an economy. 
Let us help them build the sewer lines and the roads and the streets 
and the airports and the factories so they can pull themselves up. Let 
them trade with their neighbors. Let that be the beginning of getting 
along together, whether they are Catholic or whether they are Muslim or 
whether they are orthodox, and then perhaps eventually, after they have 
had good relationships for years, they will be able to mix and move in 
to the other country.
  I hope that the President of the United States will not continue to 
say, well, if we just keep trying, we just stay at it, we will have an 
infinite commitment of American troops and American dollars along with 
our European allies, all of whom are also stretched in their budgets, 
all of whom care about their soldiers and their troops just as we do, 
all of whom, I believe, would like to see a policy that has a chance 
for success. They are there on the ground because they, too, are 
generous people.
  So I ask the President of the United States, I ask Madeleine 
Albright, I ask Bill Cohen, go back to the drawing board. Look at 
something that might have a chance to work. Do not be in a rut trying 
to put a round peg in a square hole. It is time to look for a round 
hole. What we are doing now is not working. Maybe a division will not 
work either, but let us try something that has a better chance. Let us 
learn from the experience and let us go forward.
  Mr. President, we are going to hear a lot more about this. I hope we 
will not wait 9 months to determine that this is not going to work. Let 
us start now. Let us give our troops a chance now. Let us give our 
taxpayers a chance now. Let us give the people of Bosnia more hope than 
they are seeing now. Senator Roberts talked about the experience of 
these poor Muslim people trying to move back into their old homes and 
the Serb factions kept them out, beat them up, finally burned their 
homes up. Mr. President, that is not a recipe for success.
  Let us step back. Let us give peace a chance by looking at something 
new. And let us do something now rather than frittering away 9 months 
and not having any better chance than we have today.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  On behalf of the leader, I would like to close the Senate.

                          ____________________