[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 116 (Friday, September 5, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H6955-H6956]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               ON BOSNIA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I have asked for this time today to express my 
deep concern for the recent military buildup in Bosnia.
  I think this is a dangerous situation and I would like to call it to 
the attention of my colleagues here in the Congress. This is something 
that has been going on for a long time.
  Many of us have tried to get our troops out of Bosnia and out of 
harm's way, but so far that has not been the case. Yesterday, the U.S. 
Defense Department announced that they would be adding more aircraft in 
this region. There will be 6 more F-16's sent to this region, taking 
the total number up to 24. They will be flying out of Ariano, Italy, 
and the purpose is to patrol the Bosnian skies.
  The purpose that is stated is to provide deterrence and to provide a 
peaceful situation to a very difficult problem that has existed not for 
a few months or for a few years but for decades, if not hundreds of 
years in this region.
  Instead of providing deterrence and a peaceful effort being made 
here, I believe our contribution is going to do nothing more than 
escalate the problems of that region.
  The recent buildup has also been said to be necessary because it is 
supposed to guarantee an election process. During the last year there 
were two attempts to hold elections in this region but, due to the 
political turmoil there, the elections have had to be canceled. Again, 
they are trying to have another election. Our presence there is 
supposed to provide the stability to a region that is inherently 
unstable, and I challenge this notion whether or not this can even be 
achieved.
  In addition to the troops and the aircraft that have gone in, we are 
sending, the international bodies have sent in 2,600 election monitors. 
The odds of this providing stability to an election are very, very 
slim.
  Last month there were some additional troops sent into Bosnia. Not 
much was said about this. There were not very many reports in the media 
regarding this, certainly no discussion here in the Congress. But we 
have had 8,000 troops stationed in Bosnia. We have added 1,600 more. So 
we are now in the process of adding aircraft and adding personnel in a 
situation which puts our troops in jeopardy. It was not too long ago 
that our troops were stoned and homemade weapons were used against 
them.

[[Page H6956]]

  The NATO forces just recently took control of a television 
transmitter and said that the information over this transmitter was not 
acceptable. Just recently that transmitter was returned in hopes that 
the return of the transmitter to the Serbs would calm the personnel 
there, the people there, so that the elections could be carried out. 
But just the thought of taking over the transmitter is one thing. But 
the conditions that were placed on the Serbs in the return of the 
transmitter is something else again.
  Our Pentagon official threatened the Serbs that if they violated the 
instructions that were given the television station, it would be a 
clear cut justification for NATO forces to retaliate. In the best of 
diplomatic jingoism, our Pentagon official, as quoted in the Washington 
Post, said, if they do not comply, we will whack them.
  Hardly do I think this policy will lead to peace and a wonderful 
election. I really challenge the Congress here for us, in the 
continuation of the funding of a military operation that is doomed to 
fail. It is a real tragedy that we get promises made by the 
administration.
  The troops were supposed to be in there until December 1996 and here 
they are, another year, supposedly, they are supposed to come out next 
July, but the way things are going there and by the way we comply, we 
are complicit in this operation and provide the funds, the odds of our 
troops being out of there next July are very, very slim.
  This raises the question about overall policy. Traditionally, the 
American foreign policy, up until the latter part of this century, has 
been that we should have a policy of noninterference, nonintervention 
in the affairs of other nations and also that of neutrality with all 
nations.
  This is proper under the Constitution. This has been traditional. 
Instead, we should be concentrating on national security issues. We 
should be concerned about what the American position is, and we should 
not pretend that we know what is best for everybody because we do not.

                          ____________________