[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.
____________________