[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 124 (Wednesday, September 17, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Page S9440]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         THE BOSNIAN ELECTIONS

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I would like now to speak very briefly, 8 
minutes, to the issue of Bosnia. Last weekend, the people of Bosnia-
Herzegovina went to the polls to elect their various municipal 
governments. I know the President has recently been to Bosnia, as I 
have. These local elections had been postponed from last year because 
of tampering with registration, chiefly by the Bosnian Serbs.
  But I am happy to report, and we have all observed, that this year's 
municipal elections were a success. Despite dire threats of violence 
against refugees and displaced persons who wanted to cross over to 
their former homes to vote, over 2 days, not one single incident of 
violence occurred in the entire country.
  Why? For a simple reason, I believe, Mr. President. Because of the 
presence of SFOR, the NATO-sponsored troops on the ground led by 
recently reinforced American troops. SFOR made clear to all parties 
that violence would not be tolerated and force would be met with force.
  Every single time over the past several years when the West has been 
forceful in its behavior, the ultranationalists in Bosnia, primarily 
the Serbs but all ultranationalists, have backed down--every single 
time.
  The elections were carried out by the Organization for Security and 
Cooperation in Europe, the so-called OSCE, in which the United States 
is an active member, but only one of many. The OSCE observers deserve a 
great deal of credit for their successful labors.
  The results of the election will not be known for another couple of 
days. Already, however, some encouraging signs are emerging. In Tuzla, 
a place I have visited on more than one occasion, the Muslim Party for 
Democratic Action, the SDA, conceded defeat by Mayor Selim Beslagic, 
who represented not just the Muslim party but the multiethnic joint 
group that was running.
  I met the mayor last month. I met with him last month in Bosnia in 
Sarajevo. When I met with him, he indicated that he represents not just 
Muslims, but he represents this multiethnic slate and he represents 
just the kind, in my view, of democratic, tolerant, pragmatic 
politician that is going to be needed to rebuild Bosnia. But the point 
is, the controlling party in the area lost. The election was free.
  Until now, three ethnically based parties that profess to represent 
the interests of the Muslims, Serbs, and Croats have been dominating 
the airwaves and the patronage system. Tuzla, and perhaps other cities 
in both the federation and the Republika Srpska, show that if SFOR and 
the international community guarantee equal access, the monopoly of 
these parties on power can be broken.
  Moreover, Mr. President, I would argue it represents what I believe 
to be the majority view of Bosnian Serbs, Bosnian Croats and Bosnian 
Muslims, who, I might add, lived together in peace for decades and 
decades prior to this and the majority of whom wish to do that again. 
But it shows that the monopoly of the parties that are representing 
purely the xenophobic notions of their particular interests are not 
necessarily the views of the people of Bosnia.
  Moreover, it is likely that, thanks to the absentee voting and the 
protection offered by SFOR for returning refugees, the election may 
reverse the vile ethnic cleansing of the war. For example, in the town 
of Drvar in western Herzegovina, it was 97 percent Serb until the 
town's inhabitants were driven out in the fall of 1995 by Croats. Last 
weekend, the Croats who displaced the Serbs did their best to harass 
returning Serb voters. International election officials from the OSCE, 
however, insisted the Serbs be allowed to vote, and it looks like there 
may be a turnaround in that community as well.

  Several other towns, like Jajce and Srebrenica, site of the largest 
civilian massacre in Europe since World War II, may see their former 
inhabitants, in these two cases Muslims, forming the governments in 
those two cities.
  The international community is now faced with the next--and this is 
an incremental thing, Mr. President--they are faced with the next stark 
question of whether now we will enforce the election results, whether 
we will now be part of that.
  I realize that is a dicey deal, but I continue to argue that when we 
demonstrated force, and given the power of the people in those 
communities, we, the Western community, have prevailed.
  So now the question is, will we enforce the results of the election 
by guaranteeing that the newly elected councils not remain governments 
in exile? Enforcing the election results, of course, means that the 
right of refugees and displaced persons to return must be honored, 
which Dayton calls for. In most cases, that would be able to be 
accomplished only by the international community being present and the 
presence of SFOR.
  Mr. President, I believe we have no choice in this matter. Both for 
moral and practical reasons, it seems to me we must move rapidly to 
enforce the resettlement of refugees as the results of the election 
will dictate. This will be a difficult task, and the time is short 
before the onset of the Balkan winter. Most likely we will have to 
begin with highly visible demonstration returns in one or two selected 
towns. But, Mr. President, we must keep the democratic momentum going.
  Rebuilding shattered Bosnia is an immense undertaking, and now, for 
the first time in years, there has been a string of successes. The 
United States has been the prime mover in these, although not the prime 
player in terms of numbers. We must continue to exert our leadership on 
the European Community, and we must continue the valuable and honorable 
work we have undertaken, for, Mr. President, to do otherwise, I will 
predict, the result will be disastrous for Europe, disastrous for our 
interests.
  I will end with a rhetorical question. How can we expect stability in 
Europe if the ethnic cleansing is able to be justified, and 
partitioning takes place? How do we then explain that to the other 
parts of the former Soviet Union who have equally deep divisions that 
exist? Mr. President, there are 5 million ethnic Russians in the 
Ukraine. There are 5 million of them. There are millions of people who 
have ethnic differences living throughout that area. How do we deal 
with Rumania and Hungary? If we say that this vile ethnic cleansing 
will be rewarded by us backing out and letting it return to the status 
quo, you know European leadership will not step up to the ball. Again, 
I want to make it clear, we play the smallest part relative to the rest 
of the world in this, in the sense that we are only a small portion of 
the overall effort, but the overall effort is occurring because of our 
leadership.
  So, Mr. President, I acknowledge that this is a dicey deal. I 
acknowledge that it is going to be difficult, but I would suggest that 
those who have a different view from me acknowledge that there have 
been recent successes that at least lend hope to the possibility that 
we can continue down this path.
  I thank the Chair, and I thank my colleague. I yield the floor.

                          ____________________