[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14409-14410]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                           NATO GOT IT RIGHT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, last Sunday one of the newspapers in my 
home State of New Jersey, the Newark Star-Ledger summed up the outcome 
of the Kosovo conflict in an insightful editorial. The headline of the 
editorial says it all, in my opinion: ``NATO Got It Right.''
  I would like to read a few passages from the editorial. It begins, 
and I quote,

       The case for our intervention in Kosovo is still being 
     made. The evidence turns up daily corpse by corpse, mass 
     grave by mass grave, massacre by massacre. Claims of ethnic 
     cleansing were treated with a certain skepticism when the 
     bombing went on. Were the atrocities really that bad or was 
     this just a case of war-time exaggeration? We now have our 
     answer.

  The editorial goes on to cite an estimate by the British Foreign 
Office that 10,000 Kosovars were the victims of mass executions by the 
Serbs. Then the editorial poses perhaps the most important question of 
all, and I quote, ``Still, how much worse would it have been if NATO 
had not intervened? The dimensions of unchecked genocides are a matter 
of guesswork.''
  What we have seen, Mr. Speaker, in Kosovo is a genocidal campaign by 
the Serb forces that was halted by NATO's intervention. Moreover, the 
success of our military intervention resulting in the quick withdrawal 
of the Serb forces has allowed for the genocide to be documented 
essentially in real time. Yes, there were some crude efforts by the 
Serbs to conceal the evidence of the atrocities that they had 
committed, but the grizzly discoveries being made every day by the 
allied troops offer compelling proof, irrefutable testimony of what 
happened. It will be difficult for future revisionist historians to 
deny what happened in the villages and fields of Kosovo.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely important development. Throughout 
the 20th century genocide has occurred while the world looked the other 
way. It is, of course, impossible to conceal all evidence of the mass 
murders of thousands or millions of people. But in past cases of 
genocide, the world only found out what happened after the fact. For 
example, in the years during and after World War I, 1.5 million 
Armenians were massacred by the Ottoman Turkish Empire. At that time 
the term genocide had not yet been coined to describe mass murder of a 
civilian population as part of a government policy.
  During the Armenian genocide, word started to filter out about mass 
atrocities and a flood of refugees into neighboring countries offered 
firsthand testimony. Relief operations were set up, but the Ottoman 
forces were able to cover up much of the evidence, not only while the 
genocide was occurring but also after the fact. After the collapse of 
the Ottoman Empire, there was no allied occupation. The killing fields 
remained under the control of those who committed the genocide. To this 
day, Turkey still denies that the Armenian genocide took place.
  Mr. Speaker, during the Second World War there were strong 
indications that the Nazi persecution of European Jews had reached a 
new level of barbarism. There are many indications that the allied 
governments were largely aware of the Nazi holocaust while it was going 
on, although this information was not known to the general public. With 
the defeat and occupation of Germany and the liberation of the 
concentration camps, it became apparent for the world to see what had 
occurred was a degree of mass murder so extreme a new word had to be 
invented, the word genocide.
  The evidence of the holocaust was documented. The world was utterly

[[Page 14410]]

shocked by what happened and the international community solemnly 
vowed: ``Never again.'' The genocide was documented, but only after 6 
million Jews and millions of other victims had been murdered.
  What we have seen in Kosovo may represent a major historical turning 
point. Not only have we documented genocide as it occurred, but we have 
acted to prevent more widespread slaughter. And I hope this will serve 
as a precedent for our future resolve and commitment. More important, I 
hope our action in Kosovo will deter a future Milosevic before he 
imbarks on a policy of genocide.
  To quote again from the Star-Ledger editorial:

       Our intervention in Kosovo demonstrates our 
     internationalist tradition is still in place and that a 
     multi-national intolerance of mass murder has developed. 
     While we cannot be policemen to the world, we are also not 
     willing to see this type of barbarism prevail, particularly 
     in an area that was a battleground for two world wars.

  Mr. Speaker, America's military intervention, with our NATO allies, 
on behalf of the people of Kosovo, was a just and a moral cause, a 
noble effort. The successful campaign in the Balkans, like so many of 
our country's international triumphs, was motivated both by idealism 
and by our national interests.
  There was clearly an altruistic motive in stopping the Serb dictator 
Milosevic from carrying out his plans to drive the ethnic Albanians 
from their homes in Kosovo. But there was also the pragmatic 
recognition that instability in the heart of Europe threatens American 
interests. We fought two world wars on European soil, and held the line 
against Soviet expansionism for nearly half a century. We have learned 
the lesson of history, that a murderous, aggressive, genocidal regime 
must be stopped before causing widespread instability and death.
  We can be very proud of the courage and professionalism of our men 
and women in uniform who carried out this operation. We can be proud of 
the American technology that allowed us to achieve our objectives so 
successfully with no combat casualties. And we should also be proud of 
our political leaders for taking a stand against aggression and ethnic 
cleansing, and for staying the course when a successful outcome 
appeared far from certain. President Clinton and his national security 
team deserve great credit for their leadership. The leaders of some of 
the allied nations faced difficult internal opposition but still showed 
great resolve, for which they deserve our respect and gratitude.
  Mr. Speaker, in the past few months, there has been a shocking lack 
of support for our commander-in-chief on the floor of this House, as 
members of the Republican Party, including some in very senior 
leadership positions, have talked about the Kosovo campaign as the 
``Clinton-Gore War,'' trying to score cheap political points while our 
armed forces were involved in combat operations. I don't want to cast 
this debate in purely partisan terms; there were some members of the 
Republican Party who strongly supported this operation, while other 
Republicans at least had the decency and good taste to express their 
reservations in more restrained language. And there were also members 
on this side of the aisle who expressed misgivings about the operation. 
Fair enough; this is a democracy and this House should be a place of 
vigorous, sometimes partisan debate. But now that we have clearly 
achieved a military victory and are implementing our political 
objectives, I would have hoped that the opponents of the Kosovo 
operation would offer at least grudging support. Instead, during the 
recent debate on the Defense Authorization bill, there were some in 
this House who, because of their animosity for our President, still saw 
fit to criticize the President and his national security advisers and 
to try to argue that the Kosovo operation was not a success.
  I guess you have to accept a certain amount of partisanship, but I 
still remember the days when our differences ended at the water's edge. 
You only have to go back to the early part of this decade, to the Gulf 
War. I voted to support President Bush's decision to use force to oust 
Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Many in my party did not support that 
decision. But once the conflict began, there was bipartisan support--
not only for the troops and the operation, but for the President 
himself and his national security team. After our victory in the Gulf 
War, President Bush, a Republican, received an enthusiastic, triumphant 
reception here from a Democratic Congress. I hope we can get back to 
that kind of bipartisan consensus when it comes to our nation's 
international commitments.
  Mr. Speaker, I did want to cite one positive development that came 
out of the human tragedy in Kosovo. Thousands of Kosovar refugees have 
been given temporary shelter at Fort Dix in my home state of New 
Jersey. The outpouring of support from the community has been extremely 
impressive. I think it says a lot about the true character of the 
American people, about our willingness to help out those who are in 
need.
  Mr. Speaker, it's true: NATO did get it right. We still have a lot of 
hard work ahead of us. Slobodan Milosevic and his henchmen must be held 
accountable for their crimes. The challenges of rebuilding Kosovo are 
enormous. Likewise, helping a post-Milosevic Serbia get re-integrated 
into the family of civilized nations is a daunting, but urgent 
challenge. I am very hopeful that we can move forward as a nation--with 
the support and commitment of our European allies--to achieve these 
goals.
  In the half-century since the Holocaust, we have said ``Never 
again.'' In Kosovo, we finally proved that we meant it.
  Mr. Speaker, I provide for the Record the complete article I referred 
to earlier.

              [From the Sunday Star-Ledger, June 20, 1999]

                           NATO Got It Right

       The case for our intervention in Kosovo is still being 
     made. The evidence turns up daily--corpse by corpse, mass 
     grave by mass grave, massacre by massacre.
       Claims of ethnic cleansing were treated with a certain 
     skepticism while the bombing went on. Were the atrocities 
     really that bad or was this just a case of wartime 
     exaggeration? We now have our answer.
       As NATO troops entered Kosovo, they found each day 
     substantial evidence of widespread slaughter. Much came from 
     eyewitnesses, but there was accompanying testimony from those 
     who could not speak, the dead, buried in mass graves.
       The assessment by the British Foreign Office that 10,000 
     Kosovars had been the victims of mass executions by the Serbs 
     is chilling. Still, how much worse would it have been if NATO 
     had not intervened? The dimensions of unchecked genocide are 
     a matter of guesswork.
       The international war crimes tribunal has begun its 
     forensic investigation in Kosovo, and it will not be hard to 
     find further proof of such atrocities. While the war may have 
     been bungled and the assumptions that prompted our tactics 
     were sometimes naive, there now should be little doubt that 
     our resolve that action had to be taken was well-founded.
       Our intervention in Kosovo demonstrates that our 
     internationalist tradition is still in place and that a 
     multinational intolerance of mass murder has developed. While 
     we cannot be policemen to the world, we also are not willing 
     to see this type of barbarism prevail, particularly in an 
     area that was a battleground for two world wars.
       There is one more step to be taken. Yugoslav President 
     Slobodan Milosevic has been cited as a war criminal by an 
     international tribunal. We must see that he, along with the 
     other butchers of Bosnia and Kosovo, answers to these 
     charges.

                          ____________________