[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 11 (Monday, January 29, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S607-S612]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE, THE MIDDLE EAST AND OUR FLAWED ENERGY POLICY
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, several weeks ago, Senator Specter and
I had the unique privilege to represent our nation and this body during
a visit to Germany, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Bosnia, Egypt
and Israel.
While in these nations, we were able to meet with a number of
government and non-governmental leaders who familiarized us with the
current situation in southeastern Europe and the Middle East.
I found our discussions with these leaders to be extraordinarily
educational and highly productive, and their insight helped us assess
the broad spectrum of issues that shapes both of these volatile regions
of our globe.
Our first stop was in Munich, Germany where Senator Specter and I
spoke with members of the U.S. Embassy about trade, security and
foreign policy issues facing the United States and Germany.
We also met with a number of leaders of the Munich business community
to talk about trade issues affecting the United States and the European
Union, (EU). Specifically, we discussed steel, bananas, and
genetically-modified beef--all issues currently dominating our trade
relations.
We further spoke about the deployment of the National Missile Defense
system, our commitment to the ABM Treaty and the concern in the U.S.
that the Europeans are moving away from their commitments to NATO.
Our second stop was in Belgrade, Yugoslavia. It was my first trip to
Yugoslavia in many years; since before Milosevic came to power. I had
been asked to go many times--even by the Patriarch himself--but I said
that I would not go until Milosevic was no longer in power. I had taken
the same view with regards to Croatia; I would not go there until
Tudjman was gone.
The fact that in the last year I've visited both Croatia and
Yugoslavia says that a lot about the change that has happened.
And I am proud of the fact that I was the first member of the House
or Senate to visit Croatia's new president, Stipe Mesic, and that
Senator Specter and I were the first U.S. elected officials to fly into
Yugoslavia and congratulate President Kostunica.
I think it's important for the American people to know that our
efforts in southeastern Europe are paying dividends for the cause of
democracy, the
[[Page S608]]
rule of law, human rights and a market economy.
However, a part of me often wonders if we had taken as much of an
interest in southeastern Europe in the early 1990's as we do today,
perhaps we wouldn't have to have U.S. troops in Bosnia and Kosovo.
Still, we are making progress in restoring order and building peace,
and though some may not agree, it is in our national interest to be
involved in the Balkans.
I was impressed with the leadership of Yugoslavia's President
Kostunica. He has surrounded himself with bright, capable individuals
who share their President's eagerness to bring their nation back into
the fold of the international community.
Our discussion focused on a number of issues, including reintegrating
Yugoslavia into the international community after Milosevic's downfall,
the country's continuing economic challenges, the humanitarian issues
facing the people--including a lack of power, medicine and medical
equipment--and the situation in Kosovo, the Presevo Valley and
relations with Montenegro.
I was also impressed with Zoran Djindjic, the Serbian government's
prime minister. Our meeting largely focused on the same subject matters
discussed with President Kostunica.
We also discussed in detail the war crimes issue and America's strong
interest in seeing progress in this area. I reminded him that Congress
had laid out conditions in the FY 2001 Foreign Operations
Appropriations bill in order for U.S support to continue.
From Serbia, we traveled to Bosnia to visit our American troops. We
were met by Major General Smart who gave us an overview of the
situation in Bosnia. He informed us that the men and women under his
command understand the importance of their mission, have high morale
and are performing beyond expectations.
After lunching with some of our men and women in uniform from Ohio
and Pennsylvania, Senator Specter and I rode along with some of our
troops on a Humvee patrol through the area.
I asked a couple of the young soldiers with whom we were patrolling
what they thought would happen if the United States were to pull out of
the region. They answered without hesitation that the ethnic
hostilities between the Serbs, the Croat's and the Muslim's would
almost immediately resume.
Their assessment--these two young men who are right in the thick of
it--made it clear how important it is to maintain an ongoing
international military presence in Southeastern Europe for at least the
immediate future. In my view, Bosnia's government structure which was
created in Dayton is fundamentally unworkable, and it must be
reassessed if there is ever to be a lasting peace in Bosnia.
After a return to Belgrade for more meetings, we flew to Egypt, where
we met with President Mubarak.
We had a detailed discussion about the latest peace plan put forward
by President Clinton, Egypt's role in the peace process, and the
comparative positions of the Israelis and Palestinians.
During the meeting, we encouraged President Mubarak to support
President Clinton's peace initiative, and requested he urge other Arab
leaders to support the peace initiative in Israel.
From Cairo, we went to Israel to meet with Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak
and Ariel Sharon and other leaders to discuss the fragile peace
process.
Mr. Peres felt that economic cooperation is a key to conflict
resolution, believing that if people have something to lose in war or
violence, they will be less likely to fight. We also discussed the
issues of the day in the negotiations--the Temple Mount and refugee
returns.
Mr. Barak expressed his disappointment at the failure of various
peace initiatives, and concern that the Palestinians may be learning
the wrong lesson: that continued violence strengthens their negotiating
position.
He stressed the opposite: that violence is slowing the peace process
and strengthening the negotiating position of the Israelis. Mr. Barak
was hopeful that negotiations would continue throughout the American
presidential transition and the Israeli elections. Thank God they have.
We then met with Ariel Sharon, and immediately discussed his
controversial visit to the Temple Mount last September and the impact
it had on the peace process. I indicated that many Americans felt it
was inflammatory.
Mr. Sharon explained that his visit was a normal event and that every
Israeli citizen has the right to visit the Temple Mount because of its
religious significance. Evoking images of Richard Nixon, he further
stated that he was the only candidate for Prime Minister who could
reach a true peace agreement with the Palestinians.
After my meeting with Mr. Sharon, I joined U.S. Consul General Ron
Schlicher for a dinner discussion with Faisal Husseini. Husseini is a
leading figure in the Palestinian community. We had a lengthy
discussion regarding the ongoing violence and tensions in Israel,
prospects for peace, and the Palestinian perspective on the last 50
years.
The next day, I also met with Mr. Jawdat Ibrahim, a young Palestinian
businessman who was deeply interested in the peace negotiations. I was
interested in his view--and through him, the Palestinian view--on
current events. Our discussion was interesting and it added an
important perspective to my trip.
Mr. President, at this time, I ask unanimous consent that a longer
statement outlining many of the observations that I was able to make
over the course of our trip be printed in the Record following my
remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, one of the true benefits of traveling
overseas is it gives lawmakers an opportunity to see first hand the
political, social and economic conditions of nations that many of us
only read about in the papers or see on the nightly news.
It also allows us to see how these conditions in one part of the
world can have a profound impact on an entirely different part of the
world.
So it was with my trip to the Middle East, where I was able to see
how events there have a direct effect on events in the United States.
Many people in our nation do not realize this, but there actually is an
``interconnectedness'' of issues between nations that sometimes we
don't think about.
One thing that I have thought a lot about since my visit is just how
much the ``on-again/off-again'' peace process in the Middle East
affects our nation's energy policy, particularly as it relates to our
national security.
While I was in Israel, I met with Richard Shotenstein, the Managing
Director of the Ohio Department of Development's Eastern Mediterranean
Regional Office, an office I created as Governor of Ohio.
He told me that the tensions surrounding the ongoing Middle East
crisis have dramatically lessened the interest of Ohio companies in
business opportunities in the region.
He also indicated that there is a growing anti-Americanism, largely
seen in boycotts, spreading throughout the Arab world, where many view
the U.S. and Israel as intimately linked. Thus, anti-Israel trends
become anti-American trends.
This should be a concern of every American given the fact that today,
the United States is more dependent on foreign oil than at any other
time in history.
In 1973, at the time of the Arab oil embargo, we imported 35 percent
of our oil to meet our domestic needs. Today, that number averages 58
percent and it is estimated that we could be importing 65 percent of
our oil by 2020.
Unless we address our own domestic energy needs and become less
dependent on foreign oil, we may be held to the whims of the OPEC
nations, and indirectly, to the vagaries of the Arab world--
particularly in Iraq, arguably our nation's biggest enemy.
On January 17, the New York Times reported that the OPEC nations were
going to reduce oil production by 1.5 million barrels per day. Although
this will likely drive up prices, the real problem to watch for is what
Iraq will do.
According to the article:
If Iraq indeed keeps exports to a trickle, Saudi Arabia--as
the largest producer in OPEC and its de facto leader--may
feel compelled, as it has intermittently over the last year,
to increase its own output to make up for the Iraqi supplies.
But the Saudis might be able to replace only part of the oil
that Iraq took off the market.
[[Page S609]]
I shudder to think how Iraq would use its influence should they gain
a more dominant role in the production of crude oil in the Middle East.
It is one of the major reasons why a lack of a reliable supply of
energy should be of great concern to all Americans.
Consider the rolling electricity blackouts that California is now
experiencing. Consider also natural gas prices which are expected to
skyrocket 70 percent by the end of winter according to predictions by
the Department of Energy.
Add in the fact that home heating oil prices have already jumped by
40 percent and more, not to mention high gasoline prices, and it should
become crystal clear that our country's lack of a comprehensive energy
policy must be addressed.
Since at least the mid-1970's, Congress and presidential
administrations of both parties have been unwilling, unable and
unmotivated to implement a long-term energy policy.
As I have stated, the United States relies on more foreign sources of
oil than at any other time in history. However, even if we wanted to
increase the production of crude oil in this country, there has not
been a new refinery constructed in 25 years due, in part, to changes in
U.S. environmental policies.
Additionally, 36 refineries have closed since the beginning of the
Clinton administration, in part, because of strict environmental
standards.
Last year, the existing refineries were running at 95 percent
capacity or higher for much of the year. With our refineries running at
these levels, even if a greater oil supply was available, there would
be no capability for refineries to turn it into useful products.
As a result, we must currently rely on overseas supplies at an
astronomical cost from a region fraught with instability. Until new
refining capacity is available, even minor supply disruptions will
continue to lead to drastic increases in fuel prices. No one has dared
contemplate what would happen should major disruptions occur.
In addition, natural gas heats 56 million American homes and provides
15 percent of the nation's electric power, for nearly one-quarter of
our energy supply.
Because natural gas burns so cleanly, it is easier to obtain the
environmental permits necessary to build natural gas-run energy plants.
Thus, it is easy to see why virtually all new electric generation
plants that are currently being built will use natural gas for fuel.
The popularity of natural gas is good for the air we breathe, but the
high demand for it is beginning to pinch the pocketbook, resulting in
soaring costs. We should not forget that other energy resources are
available which can provide additional sources of clean, low-cost
power.
New technologies are making coal an increasingly cleaner source of
electricity. We should not forget this valuable, abundant natural
resource--with an estimated domestic supply of 250 years--as we move
forward with an energy policy that not only protects our environment,
but also continues to meet consumer's needs for power.
I support efforts such as those in the National Electricity and
Environmental Technology Act, introduced last week by Senator Byrd. His
bill creates research and development programs that provide incentives
for developing clean-coal technologies in the U.S.
As my colleagues know, if we are to decrease our dependence on
foreign energy sources, research and development will be important to
ensure that coal can remain a viable energy option in the future.
During this energy crisis, it is critical that we restructure our
country's disjointed energy policy into a national plan that is
comprehensive, cohesive and cost-efficient.
Last year, the Majority Leader and Senator Murkowski introduced
legislation to address many of these problems. I was proud to be an
original cosponsor of that legislation in the 106th Congress, and I
will cosponsor Senator Murkowski's bill when he introduces it this
year.
In addition, Senator Murkowski and I sat down last week to discuss
the role that environmental regulations play in our nation's energy
policy. We agreed that it is imperative that we work to harmonize our
environmental and energy policies so that clean, affordable and
reliable energy can be made available to all consumers.
To help accomplish this goal, we both agreed that the key to a
comprehensive energy policy will rely on environmental regulations
that, while protecting public health and the ecosystem, are based on
cost-benefit analysis and sound science. As Chairman of the Senate's
Clean Air Subcommittee, it is something that I will work towards in the
107th Congress.
Finally, with the extreme cold weather we have experienced so far
this winter compounding our current energy crisis, we need to encourage
the President to provide more funding for the Low Income Home Energy
Assistance Program--LIHEAP--to meet the pressing needs of those who are
most vulnerable to skyrocketing energy prices. Certainly if we have a
supplemental this is an emergency that needs to be addressed in that.
Under LIHEAP, states are required to use the Federal funds they
receive to provide the greatest level of benefit to the greatest need.
That means in my State of Ohio, some 220,000 households are expected
to be helped this year--10 percent more than last year--with each
household receiving payments between $150 and $400 to cover energy
costs.
Last week, along with a number of my colleagues, I asked the
President to provide $300 million in emergency LIHEAP funds. Should he
allocate these funds, it will help hundreds of thousands of low income
families, seniors and the disabled get through our current energy
crisis.
Our national security depends on our ability to guarantee a reliable
energy supply. To do this, we must lessen our dependence on foreign
oil, investigate alternative fuels and energy sources and ensure an
adequate delivery and supply infrastructure.
At the same time we are developing this energy policy, we must insist
that it does not result in diminishing our environment or public
health. We cannot allow that to happen. We must continue to improve the
environment and public health. It is a complex task, but one I know
that we can accomplish if we work together on a bipartisan basis. We
need to get the environmentalists, industry, and consumers--all of us
in the same room talking to each other, so we can come up with a policy
that is fair to everyone.
Exhibit 1
Observations in Southeastern Europe and the Middle East, January 29,
2001
(By Senator George Voinovich)
On the morning of December 28, 2000, Senator Specter and I
left Andrews Air Force Base for a 7 day assessment of the
situation in Southeastern Europe and the Middle East and the
prospect for peace in either region. The first leg of our
journey consisted of an approximately nine hour flight to
Munich, Germany where we were scheduled for an overnight
stay. Arriving late that evening, we were met by Consul
General Robert W. Boehme and John McCaslin, a U.S. Foreign
Commercial Service officer. We had an interesting discussion
about a variety of trade, security and foreign policy issues
facing the United States and Germany.
The next morning, (December 29), Senator Specter and I met
with a number of leaders of the local business community. We
had an interesting conversation about a variety of trade
concerns facing the United States and the European Union, EU.
Specifically, we discussed the steel, banana, and
genetically-modified beef issues currently dominating our
trade relations.
When the conversation turned to technology, I was surprised
to learn that the Germans are facing the same shortage of
highly-trained information technology workers that our nation
has been struggling with in recent years. This problem has
been exacerbated by the growing number of entrepreneurs
funneling venture capital into the high-technology sectors of
the economy.
We also had an interesting discussion about National
Missile Defense, NMD. The business leaders we met with
explained their deep concern that the United States'
commitment to an NMD system may create another Cold War with
Russia and China. They were also concerned with our continued
commitment to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, ABM Treaty,
and indicated that their views largely reflected those of the
German people.
Finally, we discussed the European Union's, EU, European
Security and Defense Policy, ESDP. Senator Specter and I made
it clear that many Members of Congress are concerned that our
European allies are moving away from their commitments to the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO. The group responded
by explaining that the Europeans will continue to view NATO
as
[[Page S610]]
the foundation of the trans-Atlantic relationship.
After the meeting in Munich, Senator Specter and I flew to
Belgrade in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, FRY. Ours was
the first American plane to land in Serbia since the Kosovo
bombing campaign in early 1999.
While a number of the buildings in the central section of
the city were abandoned due to bomb damage, I was generally
impressed with the city's landscape. It was clear that
Belgrade was once the economic, political and cultural heart
of Tito's Yugoslavia.
We immediately met with Vojislav Kostunica, the recently
elected President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia at
the Federation Palace, and it was not lost on me that we were
the first federally-elected officials from the U.S. to meet
the man who toppled Slobodan Milosevic. He reminded us that
it took Yugoslavia less time to elect their new president
than it did for us to elect the President of the United
States.
The President sat down with us after completing a meeting
with Boris Trikosky, the President of the Former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia, whom I personally had met last
February during a visit I made to Croatia, Macedonia and
Kosovo. The discussion President Kostunica had with Senator
Specter and me focused on the progress that has been made in
reintegrating the FRY into the international community after
Milosevic's downfall, the country's continuing economic
challenges, the humanitarian issues facing the people
(including a lack of power, medicine and medical equipment),
and the situation in Kosovo, the Presevo Valley and relations
with Montenegro.
We spent a great deal of time stressing to President
Kostunica the importance of cooperation with the United
Nations' International Criminal Tribunal for the Former
Yugoslavia, ICTY or the Hague. We made it clear that Congress
will demand significant progress in this area in order for
economic assistance to continue to be made available to the
FRY. We also highlighted the view of many in the U.S. that
Milosevic must be brought to justice for the crimes he
committed against humanity in Bosnia and Kosovo;
specifically, that he be brought to the Hague.
In response, the President indicated that he was very aware
of American concern over the war crimes issue, and that he
shared our concern but for very different reasons. Milosevic
is thought to have stolen over $1 billion from the people of
Serbia during his rule, ordered the murder of many of his
political opponents and manipulated the results of several
elections, among other crimes.
President Kostunica made it clear that the Serb people want
him to be held accountable for his crimes against the Serb
people before he faces any international court or charges for
war crimes. He also indicated that a domestic trial would
begin to show to the people of the FRY what horrors were
committed on their behalf over the last ten years.
He explained that Milosevic's control of the media
prevented the vast majority of people from the truth about
Bosnia and Kosovo. A trial would begin to present these ugly
realities. He pointed out that the International Criminal
Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia is expected to open an
office in Belgrade as a sign of growing cooperation and
understanding between The Hague and the FRY.
The next meeting we held was with Miroljub Labus, the
Federal Deputy Prime Minister responsible for economic
policy, and his senior team. I was very impressed by his
understanding of the various problems dragging down the
Serbian economy. He made a point to stress the humanitarian
crisis the country is facing.
He also made it clear that their efforts to reinvigorate
the economy, attract foreign investment and begin to address
the nation's debilitated infrastructure would not likely have
an effect for several months. He explained that Milosevic's
rule had left the economy in such a shambles that they were
only now beginning to pick up the pieces.
I stressed the importance of resisting the traditional
Balkans temptation to fill key jobs in the new government
with family, friends and political allies. Given the troubles
before them, now is not the time to bring in political hacks.
Labus must assemble a clean, well-qualified team, and from
what I saw, he has done so thus far.
I was very impressed by Deputy Prime Minister Labus and his
team. The future Serbian Minister for Finance, Bozidar
Djelic, and the FRY's Stability Pact Coordinator, Milan
Pajevic, attended the meeting as well. It was clear that they
understood the importance of addressing their people's needs
in the short-term.
We then met with Zoran Djindjic at his campaign
headquarters. Mr. Djindjic ran Mr. Kostunica's presidential
campaign and has been active in the opposition movement in
Serbia for years. It was widely reported that he would soon
be installed as the Serbian government's prime minister, and
in fact, on January 25, he was sworn in as prime minister. As
my colleagues may not be aware, under the FRY's constitution,
the prime minister of Serbia is given a great deal of power,
thus, Mr. Djindjic will be intimately involved in finding
solutions to the various problems facing his country.
The discussion largely focused on the same subject matters
discussed with President Kostunica--reintegrating the FRY
into the international community after Milosevic's downfall,
the country's continuing economic challenges, the
humanitarian issues facing the people (including a lack of
power, medicine and medical equipment), and the situation in
Kosovo, the Presevo Valley and relations with Montenegro. We
also discussed in detail the war crimes issue and America's
strong interest in seeing some progress in this area. I found
Mr. Djindjic to be well-versed in all of these matters and
largely aware of the official American position on them.
Of the various matters covered, the issue of Montenegro's
relationship with Serbia was discussed in the most detail.
Mr. Djindjic's passion for retaining the existing structure/
relationship with Montenegro was clear. As some of my
colleagues may know, President Djukanovic of Montenegro has
indicated that, in response to the popular will of his
citizens, he may be forced to hold a referendum on
Montenegrin independence in the next few months. Mr. Djindjic
indicated that such a move would create a crisis between
Serbia and Montenegro which would have the potential to have
a broader regional impact.
I then traveled to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for a
meeting with Foreign Minister Goran Svilanovic. Again, in an
effort to be consistent in my message to the new government,
I explained in detail the importance of cooperation with the
International Criminal Tribunal, (The Hague). The Foreign
Minister's response echoed that of the President and Mr.
Djindjic.
I was pleased to know that Mr. Svilanovic is pushing EU
membership as a long-term goal for the FRY. To that end, he
plans on traveling extensively in the near future to explain
the various issues facing his country, their plans to address
them, and their long-term agenda. I am hopeful that he will
be successful in this effort. I believe that a focus on EU
membership will encourage changes within the FRY that will
further instill a commitment to democracy, the rule of law
and human rights.
For dinner that evening, I was pleased to join U.S.
Ambassador to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, William
Montgomery, Foreign Minister Svilanovic, Professor Vojin
Dimitrijevic, who is head of the Belgrade Human Rights
Committee, and Milan St. Protic, the Mayor of Belgrade. It
was widely expected at that time that Mayor Protic would be
named as the FRY's Ambassador to the U.S. and since we've
been back in the United States, it has actually occurred. As
a matter of fact, just last week, I met with Ambassador
Protic to discuss a variety of issues of concern to his
nation.
The dinner we had in Yugoslavia included a frank, wide-
ranging, off-the-record discussion, where we exchanged views
on the opposition movement in Serbia during the Milosevic
years, the Bosnia tragedy and Kosovo. It was a dinner that I
am not likely to forget soon.
The morning of December 30, Senator Specter and I met with
His Holiness Paul, the Patriarch of the Serbian Orthodox
Church, at the Patriarchate. The Patriarch discussed the
importance of reconciliation between the various peoples of
southeast Europe to the future of the region.
He pointed out that cooperation and mutual respect between
the various ethnic groups in the region, between the Serbs
and Albanians in Kosovo, for example, is impossible while
violence continues. He expressed his deep concern and remorse
that nearly 100 Serbian Orthodox religious sites, included
centuries-old churches, had been destroyed in Kosovo since
the completion of the 1999 NATO bombing campaign.
The Patriarch gave me a copy of a booklet that the Serbian
Orthodox Church prepared on the number of churches gutted,
damaged and destroyed. I told the Patriarch I had read it and
had shared copies that I had been given by Father Irini
Dobrevich with some of my colleagues.
I reminded the Patriarch that I met with Bishop Artemiie on
his visit to the UN and the United States last year and
indicated that he is an effective voice for the Serbian
Orthodox Church in Kosovo. I stated that because of the
efforts of people like Bishop Artemjie, the U.S. State
Department is a little more focused in terms of their
involvement and concern with Yugoslavia.
Further, the Patriarch Senator Specter and I discussed the
terrible ethnic cleansing that had happened and was
continuing to happen in Kosovo, and I asked him to keep me
updated on the ongoing situation in Kosovo.
Finally, I thanked him for the leadership role the Orthodox
Church played in the removal of Slobodan Milosevic and their
push for free and fair elections, and for establishing a
Serbian Orthodox Church office in Washington, led by Father
Irini Dobrevich. I have gotten to know Father Dobrevich and
find him to be a breath of fresh air in Washington. He has
worked hard on behalf of Serbs in diaspora and continues to
respond to the many ongoing humanitarian needs in the FRY.
Senator Specter and I then flew to Tuzla, Bosnia where we
were met and briefed by Major General Walter M. Sharp. Major
General Sharp commands Multi-National Division, a force of
some 7,000 soldiers. He was happy to report that the men and
women under his command understand the importance of their
mission, have high morale and are performing beyond
expectations.
After the overview, we traveled to Camp Dobol where we
shared lunch with a number of Ohioans and Pennsylvanians
serving their nation in Bosnia. And I have to say that we as
a nation should be very proud of all of our
[[Page S611]]
young men and women who serve their country, not just in
Southeastern Europe, but all over the world.
Senator Specter and I then rode along with some of our
troops on a mounted patrol through area. It quickly became
clear to me that General Sharp's comments about the morale
and performance of his people were accurate.
Although some of the scenery looked very peaceful, it
belied incredible tension in the area. I asked a couple of
the young soldiers with whom we were patrolling what they
thought would happen if the United States were to pull out of
the region. They answered without hesitation that the ethnic
hostilities between the Serbs, the Croats and the Muslims
would almost immediately resume.
Their assessment made it clear how important it is to
maintain an ongoing international military presence in
Southeastern Europe for at least the immediate future.
After our tour, we returned to Belgrade for more meetings.
We met with Momcilo Grubac, the Federal Minister of Justice
at the Federation Palace. Mr. Grubac stressed his
government's commitment to the rule of law. He explained that
his first task will be to modernize the legal framework
within the FRY to bring it into compliance with international
standards. He was quick to point out that the years under
Milosevic had set the country and its people behind in this
area.
Again, we discussed in great detail the importance of
cooperation with the international community on war crimes.
As expected, his comments largely reflected those of
President Kostunica. However, he did indicate that the FRY
will no longer harbor indicted war criminals. He added that
an internal criminal proceeding to deal with Milosevic would
be important to further establishing democracy in the FRY.
We then traveled to the Federal Parliament Building where
we met with Dragoljub Micunovic, the President of the Chamber
of Citizens, and a number of other leading parliamentarians.
On the war crimes issue, Mr. Micunovic agreed that
accountability must be established to remove the sense of
collective guilt that is beginning to become more and more
prevalent in the FRY. On Milosevic specifically, he indicated
his strong belief that Milosevic would be tried domestically
and by the international community if there were evidence to
support charges.
Senator Specter and I then joined Mr. Micunovic at a press
conference to discuss our meeting and our general impressions
from our visit to Belgrade.
I explained my position about the bombing campaign, that I
really believed that other diplomatic routes should have been
pursued in dealing with Milosevic. I also explained that had
the U.S. not legitimized Milosevic's leadership at Dayton,
and not refused to support the resistant movement in 1997,
the situation could have been a lot different in Serbia.
There could have been an earlier removal of Milosevic from
office and avoidance of the whole war, and the death,
destruction and human suffering that accompanied it.
One of the questions I was asked was whether the U.S. and/
or NATO leaders should appear before a war crimes tribunal
for the air war conducted over Kosovo. I made it very clear
that the responsibility for the bombing rest solely with
Milosevic--not the United States or any of her officials, nor
NATO. To those in NATO and the U.S., Milosevic and his thugs
were a cancer that had to be removed from Serbia for the
crimes he has committed. With Milosevic out of power, it is
now possible to stabilize southeastern Europe, integrate
Serbia into the EU and improve the standard of living and
quality of life of all the Serbian people.
That evening, I joined a number of OTPOR activists for
dinner. As my colleagues may know, it was the demonstrations
by OTPOR members against Slobodan Milosevic's attempt to
steal last autumn's election from Mr. Kostunica that hastened
the downfall of Milosevic. I was heartened by the youthful
spirit of the people I met and I suggested some new roles
that they could play now that Milosevic has been removed from
leadership.
I was thoroughly impressed with the quality of this group
of leaders in Yugoslavia, men and women who were able to
mobilize a nearly 70 percent youth vote turnout in the
election that toppled Milosevic. I am sure that they will
continue to be a significant force for democracy in the years
ahead.
The next day (December 31), we traveled to Cairo, Egypt
where we met with U.S. Ambassador Daniel C. Kurtzer. He
explained that President Mubarak, with whom we were planning
on meeting the next day, was consumed with the Middle East
peace process.
With that in mind, we discussed the political environment
among the Arab and Israeli peoples, Prime Minister Barak's
political position in light of the upcoming elections in
Israel and Arafat's negotiating positions in the discussions.
The morning of New Year's day (January 1, 2001), we met
with President Hosni Mubarak at his presidential complex in
downtown Cairo. We had a detailed discussion about the latest
peace plan put forward by President Clinton, Egypt's role in
the peace process, and the comparative positions of the
Israelis and Palestinians. During the meeting, we encouraged
President Mubarak to support President Clinton's peace
initiative, and that he should urge other Arab leaders to
support the peace initiative in Israel.
After meeting with President Mubarak, Senator Specter and I
had a news conference where we indicated that we would send
out a telegram encouraging other Arab leaders to come out
publicly in favor of the initiative. We also announced that
we would be urging President Clinton to meet with Chairman
Arafat for the purpose of clarifying the details of the
proposal and to keep the parties talking to one another
rather than seeing the peace discussions end precipitously.
Later that day, we sent a telegram encouraging other Arab
leaders to come out publicly in favor of the initiative and
continuing the negotiations. We were pleased that ultimately
the President did meet with Arafat and that the Arab leaders
came out and said that they were supportive of the
initiative.
I found President Mubarak to be an engaging, affable man,
committed to peace yet struggling to maintain a very
difficult political position. Given Egypt's crucial role in
maintaining relative peace in the region since the Camp David
Accords, it was an honor to meet him. I believe his role will
be crucial in the coming weeks, months, and years if peace is
to truly be reached in the Middle East.
After the meeting and press conference, we flew to Tel Aviv
and then drove to Jerusalem for a series of meetings. Our
time in Israel began with a discussion with U.S. Ambassador
Martin Indyk who updated us on the American perspective on
the peace negotiations. We examined the right of return and
Temple Mount issues in some depth which quickly confirmed my
impression that the issues facing the negotiators are
incredibly complex.
We then traveled to the Knesset building where we had a
series of meetings. We first saw Shimon Peres, a friend I
have known for years. He indicated that he did not believe
that the schedule imposed on the ongoing peace talks,
considering the U.S. presidential transition and the upcoming
election for prime minister in Israel, was realistic. I
agreed.
I believe that it was a mistake and is a mistake to set
deadlines on the discussions because they create unnecessary
pressure. I believe that it is best to continue an active,
open dialogue for as long as necessary, even if it appears
that little progress is being made.
Mr. Peres commented how advances in information technology
had fundamentally altered the worlds of diplomacy and
warfare. He also explained that one of the keys to peace in
the region that has not been properly addressed is economic
cooperation.
He believes that if people have something to lose in
conflict or violence, they will be less likely to fight. This
is a message I had received from him several years ago and
was crucial in my decision when I was Governor of Ohio to
open a Middle East trade office, the Eastern Mediterranean
Regional Office, in Israel.
We then discussed the issues of the day in the
negotiations--the Temple Mount and refugee returns. As
always, I found his analysis to be insightful.
Senator Specter and I then visited with Prime Minister Ehud
Barak. As my colleagues would expect, the peace process was
the only matter discussed.
Mr. Barak expressed his disappointment at Camp David's
failure and the various peace initiatives attempted since
then. He also expressed his concern that the Palestinians may
be learning the wrong lesson in recent months--that continued
violence strengthens their negotiating position. Rather, he
made it clear that violence is slowing the peace process and
strengthening the negotiating position of the Israelis.
Mr. Barak was hopeful that negotiations would continue
throughout the American presidential transition and the
Israeli elections. It was clear, however, that the continued
violence was putting a great deal of pressure on him.
We then met with Ariel Sharon who is widely expected to
defeat Mr. Barak in the upcoming elections for prime
minister. We immediately turned to his controversial visit to
the Temple Mount last September and the impact it had on the
peace process. I pointed out to him that many of us felt that
his visit was inflammatory, that it did nothing to aid the
peace process and that if elected Prime Minister of Israel,
he would have to make it very clear that he was for peace.
Mr. Sharon explained that his visit was a completely normal
event and that every Israeli citizen has the right to visit
the Temple Mount because of its religious significance. I
also expressed my opinion that in visiting Israel for the
sixth time in twenty years, the situation there was more
critical and explosive than I'd ever seen.
We then discussed his plans for the peace process, should
he be elected prime minister. He made a number of strong
statements regarding his commitment to the process. He argued
that since only President Nixon could open the door to China,
only he could come to a peace agreement with the Palestinians
given his military background.
After the Sharon meeting, Senator Specter traveled on to
Jordan to continue examining issues in the Middle East. I
remained in Jerusalem to continue to examine the situation in
Israel.
That evening, I joined U.S. Consul General Ron Schlicher
for a dinner discussion with Faisal Husseini. Husseini is a
leading figure in the Palestinian community. We had a lengthy
discussion regarding the ongoing violence and tensions in
Israel, prospects for peace, and the Palestinian perspective
on the last 50 years.
[[Page S612]]
I thought it was important that I have a balanced
understanding of the current situation in Israel and was
pleased to have the opportunity to meet with Mr. Husseini.
The next day (January 2), I met with Ehud Olmert, the Mayor
of Jerusalem. I met Mr. Olmert on my fourth trip to Israel in
1993. He indicated how important it was to retain Jerusalem's
integrity during the course of the peace negotiations.
He also argued that the various plans being considered,
including President Clinton's proposal, were fundamentally
flawed on this point. He strongly believes that the people of
Jerusalem, his constituents, will never agree to a divided
capital city. Richard Shotenstein, the Managing Director of
the Ohio Department of Development's Eastern Mediterranean
Regional Office, attended the meeting with Mayor Olmert.
Afterwards, I spoke with Mr. Shotenstein regarding the
Office's recent activities. While there have been some great
successes, he explained that the tensions surrounding the
ongoing Middle East crisis have dramatically lessened the
interest of Ohio companies in business opportunities in the
region.
He also indicated that there is a growing anti-Americanism,
largely seen in boycotts, spreading throughout the Arab
world. This trend has especially impacted consumer products.
Mr. Shotenstein explained that to many in the Arab world, the
U.S. and Israel are intimately linked. Thus, anti-Israel
trends become anti-American trends.
I then met with Mr. Jawdat Ibrahim, a young Palestinian
businessman who was deeply interested in the peace
negotiations. I was interested to see his view--and through
him, the Palestinian view--on current events. Our discussion
was interesting and it added an important perspective to my
trip.
Later that day, I met with a group of Ohioans now living in
Israel. After meetings with various political leaders, I
wanted to have an opportunity to discuss the issues of the
day with people whose lives are affected by the ongoing
violence. The group made it very clear that there was a very
real sense of fear living in Israel.
Some described risking their life simply driving to and
from work. Others feared that their car would explode when
they started it every morning. Still others recounted phone
calls from relatives living in America expressing concern
about the safety of their grandchildren. I cannot imagine
living with this kind of fear.
The last day of the trip (January 3), I had a telephone
conversation with Benjamin Netanyahu. While I was
disappointed that scheduling conflicts prevented our meeting
in person, I found his analysis of the situation in the
region to be very insightful. I hope to have the opportunity
to meet him on my next visit to the region, although he
indicated that he would make it a point to meet with me the
next time he visited the United States.
Following my phone conversation, I had another meeting with
Ambassador Indyk to discuss the various things I had learned
during my visit to the region.
I was pleased to travel with my colleague, Senator Specter,
to two of the most important regions to our national security
at such a crucial time. I gained valuable insight as to the
fragility of peace, and came away with a new and deeper
appreciation for our American democracy.
Mr. President, as we welcome a new administration to the
White House, I am hopeful that President Bush and his foreign
policy team will be successful in promoting peace, stability
and prosperity in these areas. We must never forget that both
southeastern Europe and the Middle East are important to our
national security and our nation's future.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
____________________