[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 21851-21856]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]





AUGUST 1999 VISIT TO THE HAGUE, UKRAINE, ISRAEL, JORDAN, EGYPT, KOSOVO, 
                               AND ITALY

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on August 14, I landed in Amsterdam, 
Holland, and proceeded directly to the War Crimes Tribunal in The 
Hague. There, I met with a team of the leading prosecutors/
investigators at the Tribunal including John Ralston, Bob Reid, Graham 
Blewitt, and J. Clint Williamson. Ralston, Reid, and Blewitt are all 
Australians who got their start together hunting Nazis who had 
immigrated to Australia following World War II. They have been at War 
Crimes Tribunal since 1994. Williamson is an American who used to work 
for the Department of Justice.
  Recently the prosecutors obtained a very important indictment against 
five 

[[Page 21852]]

individuals: Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, the President 
of Serbia, the Serbian Interior Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister of 
Yugoslavia, and the Chief of Staff of the Yugoslav Army. They have been 
charged with crimes against humanity in the deportation of more than 
700,000 ethnic Albanians from Kosovo and mass murder. Their theory of 
prosecution is that the atrocities in Kosovo were so systematic and 
widespread that they must have been orchestrated at the highest levels 
of the Yugoslav/Serbian government and military.
  No arrests in connection with this indictment have been made to date. 
When I asked about the prospects of detaining Milosevic and bringing 
him to trial, my hosts told me that this will happen only when a new 
government comes to power in Yugoslavia. It is possible that such a 
government may quickly find that Milosevic is too great a liability and 
hand him over.
  I also asked about the prospects of capturing another indicted war 
criminal, Radovan Karadzic, the leader of the Bosnian Serbs during the 
fighting in Bosnia. Karadzic is still in Bosnia and to date remains at 
large. Karadzic is believed to be in the French sector of Bosnia, and 
the French have shown no interest in arresting him. Unfortunately, the 
United States has also shown a lack of resolve on this issue. I believe 
that capturing Karadic and trying him before the War Crimes Tribunal 
would send a powerful signal to leaders around the world that they are 
not immune from prosecution, and that prosecution will not be limited 
merely to the troops on the ground. Had Karadzic been in custody in the 
Hague awaiting or standing trial, one wonders whether Milosevic would 
have acted as brazenly as he did in Kosovo.
  The war crimes team all stressed that there was a great deal of work 
to do collecting evidence of the war crimes in Kosovo and that this 
work needed to be done prior to October, when winter weather would 
prevent further excavations until the Spring. They also told me that 
the work was particularly challenging because the Serbs had gone to 
great lengths to hide their crimes, including burning the bodies of 
their victims, bulldozing houses in which mass murders took place, and 
dispersing bodies from mass graves.
  In early summer, the FBI sent a team of forensic experts to help 
collect evidence of war crimes in Kosovo, and the FBI was preparing to 
send a second team at the end of August. I had helped to get funding 
for these FBI missions, and was interested in hearing about what the 
FBI was doing. The team at the War Crimes Tribunal told me that the FBI 
had been sent to work at a number of massacre sights where most of the 
evidence had been destroyed, usually by burning the victims' corpses. 
Despite the difficulties, the FBI was able to find evidence, including 
bone fragments, blood stains, shell castings, and petrol cans used to 
start the fires. They have exhumed victim bodies and conducted 
autopsies. This evidence will prove invaluable when the individuals 
under indictment are finally brought to trial.
  I asked my hosts if they needed any additional resources. Mr. Blewitt 
told me that resources continued to be a problem--the tribunal was 
currently borrowing against other areas of its budget in order to fund 
its Kosovo operations and would run out of money by early October. He 
mentioned that the $9 million dollars recently pledged by President 
Clinton would carry them through the end of 1999.
  After leaving the War Crimes Tribunal, we proceeded to meet with 
General Wesley Clark, the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO forces. 
General Clark ran our war effort in Kosovo and continues to manage the 
day-to-day operations there, and is a valuable source of information 
about the situation on the ground.
  I asked the General about the odds of capturing Milosevic and 
bringing him to trial. The General stated that he was optimistic that 
one day Milosevic and the others would indeed be captured and brought 
to justice. I also asked him about the chances of capturing Karadzic. 
He mentioned that Karadzic is in hiding, surrounded by guards, and goes 
to great lengths to avoid being located such as avoiding the use of 
cell phones. Still, I got the impression that if NATO were truly 
determined to capture him, they could do so.
  I also asked General Clark about the Apache helicopters that were 
sent to Kosovo with much fanfare but were never used. He told me that 
the Pentagon had conducted a risk/benefit analysis and decided that the 
risk of losing one of these expensive helicopters outweighed the 
benefit that could be derived by their use. I expressed my view that 
there is no point in having all of this high priced machinery unless it 
is going to be used.
  Our next stop was Kiev, the capitol of Ukraine. We arrived in Ukraine 
shortly before the celebration of its 8th Independence Day. During this 
short period, Ukraine has become an important country for U.S. foreign 
policy. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Ukraine was left 
with one of the largest nuclear arsenals in the world. Our work with 
Ukraine has eliminated all of these nuclear weapons. In addition, 
Ukraine is a young country making the difficult transition from 
totalitarian rule to democracy and from a planned economy to a market 
economy. If Ukraine succeeds, it can lead the way for Russia and other 
former Soviet Republics to follow. If Ukraine fails, it could revert to 
communism and possibly join Russia and others in a union that would 
once again seek to pursue global power through militarism. The United 
States has a lot at stake here.
  During my stay in Ukraine, I met with the top leadership of the 
country including President Leonid Kuchma, Prime Minister Valeriy 
Pustovoitenko, Deputy Foreign Minister Oleksandr Chalyi, and Secretary 
Volodymyr Horbulyn, who is the head of the National Security and 
Defense Council. These meetings provided valuable information on the 
challenges facing Ukraine and the role the United States can play to 
help this country on the difficult path to democracy and free markets.
  President Kuchma is up for reelection this October. He is generally 
considered to be a reformer and a man who will continue down the path 
towards democracy and free markets. His strongest opponents are the 
Communists and the Socialists, who have opposed Kuchma's market 
reforms.
  I was curious to know what my hosts thought would be the major issues 
in the campaign. Both President Kuchma



and Prime Minister Pustovoitenko agreed that one of the most important 
issues in the campaign would be unpaid pensions and government 
salaries. The government has missed a number of monthly payments of 
pensions and salaries this year and last. Naturally, people owed money 
are likely to vote for the party they believe is most likely to pay it 
to them.
  Beyond the specific issue of back pay, the economy in general will 
also play a pivotal role in the campaign. My hosts told me that they 
felt threatened on economic issues, because there are many who believe 
that their lives were better under Communism and would therefore 
support the Communists. The Prime Minister noted that as an opposition 
party, the Communists have been criticizing President Kuchma's economic 
reforms and have blocked more meaningful reform. President Kuchma 
agreed that it is possible, although unlikely, that the Communists 
could come to power and return the country to totalitarian rule.
  Although Kuchma is considered to be a reformer, there have been 
complaints that the pace of reform is too slow and that his initiatives 
have been too modest. When asked about the pace of reform, my hosts put 
the blame largely on the shoulders of the left wing parties. They told 
me that the Communists, Socialists and some others are blocking the 
most important reform legislation his government has introduced. They 
suggested that the pace of reform would pick up after the election, 
provided President Kuchma wins.
  Prime Minister Pustovoitenko confirmed that Ukraine has eliminated 
all of the nuclear arms in the substantial arsenal it inherited from 
the Soviet Union. Today, of course, countries are 

[[Page 21853]]

competing in the most aggressive way to acquire nuclear arms. Being a 
member of the nuclear club gives a country great prestige and bargaining 
power in the world. It is for this reason that I find it truly remarkable 
that Ukraine had voluntarily given up its nuclear arsenal.
  I asked my hosts why they would agree to do this voluntarily. 
President Kuchma mentioned that after the disaster at the Chernobyl 
nuclear reactor, which is in Ukraine, Ukrainians understand better than 
most people the danger posed by nuclear power and simply did not want 
them. Deputy Foreign Minister Chalyi also gave me an interesting 
answer. He told me that he and others decided that the best development 
model for Ukraine to follow was Japan, which disarmed and focused on 
building its economy. Nuclear arms do not bring prosperity.
  Given Ukraine's voluntary disarmament, I was interested to know what 
my hosts thought about the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and 
the failure of the U.S. Senate to ratify this treaty. All of the 
government officials I spoke with felt very strongly that the Test Ban 
Treaty was an extremely important way to seek to prevent the 
proliferation of nuclear arms and slow this dangerous arms race. 
Likewise, they all agreed that the failure of the U.S. to ratify this 
Treaty was a serious impediment to the goal of disarmament. As 
President Kuchma noted, ratifying the Treaty gives a country the moral 
right to pressure others to stop their testing and construction of 
nuclear arms. Prime Minister Pustovoitenko sounded a similar note when 
he said that the United States must set an example for the world when 
it comes to disarmament and would be in much stronger position to 
pressure other countries to stop their tests once they formally 
committed to stopping their own.
  Deputy Foreign Minister Chalyi told me a very interesting story in 
response to my question about the Test Ban Treaty. Mr. Chalyi serves as 
the Chairman of the South Asia Taskforce, a group of Asian nations and 
their trading partners including China, Japan, Australia, Argentina and 
Brazil. He told me that during a visit to Pakistan, he urged his 
Pakistani counterparts to ratify the Treaty. A Pakistani official 
responded that he did not see why Pakistan should have to ratify the 
Treaty when the Americans had not.

  While in Ukraine, I also had a meeting with representatives of the 
Ukrainian Jewish Community. Of the 6 million Jews killed in the 
Holocaust, 1.7 million came from Ukraine. After the War, the Holocaust, 
and continuing emigration, the Ukrainian Jewish community now numbers 
approximately 500,000. I feel special concern for this community since 
both of my parents were Ukrainian Jews.
  I found these Jewish leaders to be upbeat, even optimistic, about the 
future of their community. They told me that since the break-up of the 
Soviet Union, the Jewish community has begun to develop rapidly. Rabbis 
are coming to the country, and many Jewish schools and camps are 
opening. They told me that there is religious freedom and opportunities 
for Jews in every sector of society.
  During the Communist era, I was told, Ukraine was one of the most 
anti-Semitic republics in the Soviet Union. No Jew could hope to be a 
leader in politics or industry. In contrast, one of the Jewish leaders 
we met with was a successful businessman and an advisor to President 
Kuchma. I was informed that a former Prime Minister of Ukraine was 
Jewish. Another Rabbi from the Lubavitcher Hasidic movement told me 
that he has been walking back and forth to synagogue in his town for 
two years without any incident. This is certainly different from the 
days when the Cossacks used to ride up and down the streets of my 
father's town looking for Jews to harass.
  The only complaint I heard was on the issue of communal property. 
Jewish property confiscated by the Nazis became government property 
under the Soviet Union. Now that Communism is gone, representatives of 
the Jewish community would like to retrieve Jewish communal property--
graveyards, synagogues, schools, etc. Some feel that the government has 
not moved fast enough on this issue. Others stressed that this is a 
sensitive topic affecting many ethnic groups in Ukraine and feared that 
to push too loudly for restitution would lead to anti-Semitism.
  A number of the leaders I met with, including President Kuchma, asked 
that the United States repeal the Jackson-Vanik Amendment as it applies 
to Ukraine. Jackson-Vanik was originally passed during the days of the 
Iron Curtain as a way of pressuring the Soviet Union to allow Jews and 
other religious minorities to emigrate. Today in Ukraine, there are 
open borders and free emigration. The Ukrainians don't understand why 
they must come to the U.S. every year and ask for a waiver from the 
Jackson-Vanik sanctions, and they believe that the repeal of the 
amendment would have great symbolic importance.
  When I met with the Jewish leaders, I asked them about this issue. 
They agreed that there is free emigration from Ukraine and seemed open 
to the idea of repealing Jackson-Vanik. Some raised a concern, however, 
that today Jackson-Vanik applies to issues beyond emigration, such as 
the restoration of communal property, and should therefore not be 
repealed until the communal property issue is settled. The U.S. 
Congress should review this issue.
  On my final night in Kiev, I met with a group of American businessmen 
living in Ukraine to hear their view of the Ukrainian economy and 
business climate. They all complained about the slow pace of reform, 
corruption and inefficiency. They contrasted Ukraine with countries 
such as Poland, which have converted well to capitalism. Ukraine, they 
argue, is still a state run economy in many important ways. Private 
firms have made progress in some consumer product fields such as 
brewing beer and making chocolates. But in major industries, the 
government-owned companies still dominate. Despite these problems, 
however, these Americans still believed in the potential of Ukraine and 
were devoting themselves to the task of developing their economy.
  From Ukraine we flew to Israel where we had a series of meetings 
relating to the Mid-East peace process. Our first meeting was with 
Israeli Prime Minister Barak. I found the Prime Minister to be 
optimistic about the prospects for peace in the Middle East. He stated 
that Israel will resume implementation of the Wye Accords as soon as 
possible. When I asked him about the risks of peace making, Barak 
explained to me why he is seeking to make peace so quickly. If Israel 
does not make peace now, he said, then he is certain that there will be 
another war in the Middle East. While he is confident that Israel will 
win this war and survive, he knows that Israel will never



win an unconditional surrender from her Arab neighbors. So after Israel 
and her neighbors have buried their dead and repaired their cities, 
they will sit down to negotiate exactly the same issues that are on the 
table now. The Prime Minister believes that by making peace now he will 
avoid this futile loss of life.
  In addition, Barak believes that Israel is strong enough to take the 
risks inherent in pursuing peace. He drew a strong contrast between his 
view of Israel in the Middle East and the view of his predecessor, 
Binyamin Netanyahu. He noted that Netanyahu once analogized the 
situation of Israel in the Middle East to that of a carp in a tank of 
sharks. Barak rejected this analogy and stated that Israel is not a 
carp, but a ``benign killer whale.'' His message was clear--Israel is 
strong enough that it does not have to fear making territorial 
concessions to its neighbors.
  But the Prime Minister is also a realist and he stressed that Israel 
will only enjoy peace so long as it is stronger than its neighbors. He 
stated, I believe correctly, that there is no second chance for the 
weak in the Middle East. During the peace process, Israel must stay 
militarily strong and even supplement her strength to compensate for 
lost military assets, namely land and strategic depth. Towards this 
end, he stressed the importance of U.S. aid and the need to continue to 
provide the 

[[Page 21854]]

aid to help convince the Israeli public that the peace 
process will not jeopardize Israel's security.
  Under the Wye River accords, the U.S. pledged to provide $1.2 billion 
in aid to Israel beyond the almost $3 billion it currently receives in 
annual economic and military assistance. This $1.2 billion is meant to 
pay for the costs of moving two military bases that are currently 
located in territory that will be handed over to the Palestinians under 
Wye. The money will also pay for additional missile defense deployments 
and research.
  I told the Prime Minister that while there is support in Congress for 
such aid, there will be difficulties in procuring it. Because of the 
caps established under the '97 Budget Act, there is great difficulty in 
meeting existing requirements in the FY 2000 budget. Nevertheless, I 
told the Prime Minister that I believed the U.S. would ultimately 
provide the promised funds to implement the Wye Accord.
  After leaving Prime Minister Barak's office, we drove directly to 
Ramallah, a city in the West Bank which is under the control of the 
Palestinian Authority. There we met with Chairman Yasser Arafat and a 
number of his deputies. Mr. Arafat had some complaints about the pace 
of negotiations with Israel, but he was still optimistic that there 
would be progress.
  Some of Arafat's deputes seemed more pessimistic. Towards the end of 
my talk with Arafat, Saeb Erakat entered the room. Mr. Erakat is the 
Palestinians' chief negotiator with the Israelis over the terms for 
resuming implementation of the Wye accord, and he had just returned 
from a negotiating session with the Israelis. I asked Mr. Erakat how 
the negotiations went. He refused to go into details, but was clearly 
frustrated with the lack of progress. He complained that the Israeli 
settlers had too much influence and were refusing to compromise. The 
next day the papers reported that the Israeli-Palestinian talks had 
reached and impasse over the release of Palestinian prisoners in 
Israeli jails.
  Under the Wye Accords, the U.S. agreed to provide $400 million in aid 
to the Palestinians. I asked Arafat how he would use this money. He 
told me that it would go towards a variety of projects, including 
building a road from Jenin to Nablus, building a high tech industrial 
zone, and funding programs to help establish the rule of law in the 
Palestinian Authority territories.
  I also asked Chairman Arafat about Syria and the possibility that 
Syria would cease to harbor Palestinian groups still pursing terrorism 
against Israel. Mr. Arafat told me that some of these groups may 
abandon terrorism on their own initiative. He told me that he is 
conducting negotiations with two reductionist groups--George Habash's 
Poplar Front for the Liberation of Palestine and Nayef Hawatmeh's 
Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine about the terms for 
ending hostilities against Israel and entering the political arena. If 
these negotiations succeed, the only major Palestinian groups opposed 
to peace with Israel will be the fundamentalist groups such as Hamas 
and Islamic Jihad.
  Despite rumors about his poor health and the lip tremors that have 
been evident for some time, Mr. Arafat met me at his office at 8:30 in 
the evening. When our meeting ended at 9:40 he walked me out the door 
and then, I'm sure, returned to work.
  The next morning we drove to Tel Aviv for a meeting with Foreign 
Minister David Levy. Mr. Levy was born in Morocco and moved to Israel 
in his teens. He speaks French, Arabic and Hebrew, but no English, so 
we spoke with the assistance of a translator. Mr. Levy reiterated the 
Prime Minister's commitment to quickly resume implementation of the Wye 
Accords. On Syria, he sounded a less optimistic note than Prime 
Minister Barak had. He stated that Israel cannot accept Syria's 
precondition for resuming negotiations that Israel accept Syria' 
interpretation of where negotiations with Prime Minister Rabin left 
off. Foreign Minister Levy stressed that Barak would be a tougher 
negotiator.
  After these meetings with Barak and Levy, I though it would be 
worthwhile to hear from someone who is opposed to the peace process 
they are pursing. Perhaps no Israeli politician has been more 
consistent in his opposition to territorial concessions that former 
Prime Minister Yitzhark Shamir. So we dropped by Mr. Shamir's office in 
Tel Aviv for a visit. True to form, Mr. Shamir dismissed Oslo and Wye 
as dangerous concessions by Israel to her implacable enemies. He said 
that the Palestinians are real enemies of the State of Israel and that 
Syria will never be able to change. Shamir added that he would like to 
see 5 million more Jews move to Israel, but that there would be no room 
for such an expansion if the proposed territorial concessions take 
place.
  After finishing our business in Jerusalem, we drove to Amman for a 
brief stay in the Jordanian capitol. Each time I visit Amman, I notice 
that the city has grown and developed substantially since my last 
visit.
  We met with he new King of Jordan, King Abdullah, at his palace. I 
express my  condolences to the King on the loss of his father, King 
Hussein. King Hussein was truly a valuable force for peace in the 
Middle East, and I am hopeful that King Abdullah will fill the void his 
father's death left behind.

  The King was upbeat about the situation in the Middle East. He 
believed that Ehud Barak was sincere about pursuing peace and making 
the sacrifices it entailed. He was also optimistic that President Assad 
would be flexible about negotiating with Israel and would relent on its 
insistence that the peace talks pick up exactly where he believes they 
left off with Rabin. He told me that Syria is prepared to accept all of 
Israel's requests regarding security arrangements in exchange for the 
Golan.
  I also asked the King about the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the 
failure of the U.S. to ratify it. He expressed his view that this was 
an important treaty for the safety of the world and told me that he 
hoped that the United States would ratify it.
  From Amman we flew to Alexandria, Egypt, a teeming city on Egypt's 
Mediterranean Coast. Egypt's leaders often spend the hot summer months 
by the sea in Alexandria. When I met with President Mubarak in 
Washington this past June, he told me that he, too, would be in 
Alexandria for much of the summer.
  President Mubarak shared the optimism of the other leaders I met that 
the Israeli-Palestinian track was going in the right direction. He was 
less sanguine about the Israel-Syria track, but felt that progress with 
the Palestinians would help bring the Syrians along. He suggested that 
Syria is looking to receive more from the Israelis than the Egyptians 
received in their peace treaty to justify the 20-year delay in making 
peace.
  President Mubarak also stressed that it is essential that Israel and 
the Palestinians reach a peace agreement while Yasser Arafat is still 
alive. Mubarak fears, for good reason, that after Arafat's death there 
will be a power struggle among various Palestinian



factions for control of the Palestinian Authority, and that terrorism 
against Israel will become a feature of this competition.
  I asked Mubarak about reports that he wanted to hold a summit on 
terrorism. He told me that he does intend to hold such a summit, and 
that he would like the focus of this summit to be terrorism and weapons 
of mass destruction. I think this is an excellent idea and encouraged 
President Mubarak to proceed with his plans.
  I asked the President his opinion of the situation in Iran and what 
the U.S. policy towards Iran should be. Mubarak was not optimistic that 
Iran would abandon its extremism any time soon. He told me that the 
Iranians have named a street in Teheran after the man who assassinated 
President Sadat. When President Mubarak complained about this, the 
Iranians placed a large mural of the assassin above the street that 
bears his name.
  I next asked President Mubarak when he would warm up his relations 
with Israel. Mubarak blamed the cold peace with Israel on Prime 
Minister 

[[Page 21855]]

Netanyahu. He told me that prior to Netanyahu, things were 
warming up and economic cooperation was beginning. When I asked him if 
Egypt's relations with Israel would warm up now that Netanyahu was out 
of office, he responded that this would ``take time.'' I reminded 
President Mubarak that a lot of time has already passed since Egypt and 
Israel signed their peace treaty.
  From Alexandria we flew to Skopje, Macedonia, where we met 
representatives of the U.S. army for a one-day tour of neighboring 
Kosovo. We were flown by helicopter from Skopje to Prishtina, the major 
city in Kosovo. On the way, we flew over a number of Kosovar villages 
and towns. In almost every village, we saw the burnt-out remains of 
houses that once belonged to the Kosovor Albanians.
  In Prishtina, we met with Bernard Kouchner, the UN's top official in 
Kosovor. Mr. Kouchner told us that he has witnessed some positive 
developments since coming to Kosovor. Most importantly, he noted that 
the large majority of Albanians who fled Kosovor during the war have 
already returned home. In addition, the Kosovo Liberation Army appears 
willing to accept the transition from paramilitary force to civil 
service. KLA members will be given approximately 2,500 places in the 
UN-sponsored Kosovor police force.
  The return of the Kosovor Albanians to Kosovor is creating challenges 
for the UN. Mr. Kouchner told us that 60,000 homes were destroyed in 
Kosovor during the war, and that the UN would not be able to provide 
sufficient housing for all of the returnees prior to winter. The UN is 
going to have to rely on winterized tents and rehabilitating damaged 
homes to make up for the shortfall.
  Mr. Kouchner told us that the major challenge facing the UN in Kosovo 
is protecting the Serbian community from Albanian retribution attacks. 
While he felt he was making some progress in this area, Mr. Kouchner 
noted that there were still a number of attacks taking place on a daily 
basis, including assault, arson, and murder.
  I asked Mr. Kouchner how long the UN would have to stay in Kosovor. 
He estimated that it would take ``several years'' until the UN could 
leave.
  From Prishtina we flew by helicopter to Camp Bondsteel, the base for 
the U.S. contingent in NATO's Kosovo Force. There we were briefed by 
Brigadier General Peterson and his staff on the Army's mission in 
Kosovo. Although U.S. forces had only been in the country for 63 days, 
we saw a small city coming to life with rows of tents and some more 
permanent structures being built.

  Although the war may be over, our forces still face great danger in 
Kosovo. General Peterson told us that up until 6 nights prior to our 
visit, U.S. forces had taken hostile fire every night since their 
arrival, mostly in the form of sniper and mortar fire at U.S. 
positions. Although there have been no fatalities from these attacks, 
some U.S. soldiers have been injured.
  Our briefers confirmed that almost all of the Kosovar Albanians who 
left the U.S. sector during the fighting have since returned. Echoing 
what the UN's Kouchner told us, the soldiers said that one of the major 
problems they are now confronting is protecting the Serb population 
from retribution attacks by Albanians. Since some Albanians have sought 
to prevent the Serbs from harvesting their crops by targeting Serbian 
farmers, the U.S. must provide protection to Serbian farmers in the 
fields.
  I asked the soldiers how long they thought the U.S. Army would need 
to be in Kosovo. They refused to hazard a guess. They pointed out that 
the region is less complex than Bosnia, since there are only two 
nationalities fighting each other in Kosovo, as opposed to three in 
Bosnia. On the other hand, they told me that by time the U.S. entered 
Bosnia, the Bosnians were exhausted from fighting and ready to lay down 
their arms. It is not clear that the parties in Kosovo have exhausted 
their will to fight.
  Next we flew to the Kosovar village of Vlastica to view the sight of 
a massacre that took place during the war. As we entered the village, a 
large crowd of Albanian villagers came out to greet us. These people 
were clearly grateful for what the U.S. had done for them, and they 
were excited to hear that we wanted to help them rebuild and wanted to 
bring the war criminals to justice.
  As we walked through the village, we passed a number of burned-out 
houses. Even the village mosque had been burned. We stopped at the 
charred remains of a home where 13 Albanians had been killed in one 
night. There, we met a 13-year-old girl named Vlora Shaboni. Vlora used 
to live in the house with her family, and she was at home the night the 
Serb soldiers came. She told us that the Serbs broke down the door and 
ordered everyone in the house to line up with their hands above their 
heads. Then they shot everyone with automatic weapons. To hide the 
evidence of this massacre, the Serbs set the house on fire and 
bulldozed the remains.
  That night, Vlora saw the Serbs kill her mother and her brother. 
Vlora herself was shot in her face and the bullet lodged in her jaw, 
but she remained conscious and was able to escape before the house 
burned down. Vlora told me that she did not know her attackers but that 
she would be able to recognize them if she ever saw them again.
  Vlora told her story with an anxious tremble in her voice and the 
frightened, downcast eyes. I don't know where she found the strength to 
talk about what happened that night at all.
  The burnt remains of the victims of this massacre were left in the 
house, and have been recovered by a Canadian forensic team. That 
evidence, together with the statements of Vlora and others, will help 
the War Crimes prosecutors in The Hague prove their theory that 
Serbia's leaders orchestrated the systematic and widespread destruction 
of Albanian life in Kosovo.
  From Skopje we flew to Naples, Italy, to visit the headquarters of 
Allied Forces Southern Europe, or ``AFSouth,'' which is NATO's southern 
command. There we were briefed by Lieutenant General Jack Nix, Jr., the 
Chief of Staff of AFSouth, and members of his staff. AFSouth is 
responsible for the region surrounding the Mediterranean and Black 
Seas. This region includes a number of hot spots such as the Middle 
East and the Balkans. AFSouth has been responsible for operations in 
both Bosnia and Kosovo.
  We were briefed on the details of the air war in Kosovo. The allied 
bombing campaign was effective in Kosovo, and only 12% of bombing 
targets escaped without some damage. Still, our hosts agreed that there 
were problems with the air campaign. Most importantly, they noted that 
our forces were largely incapable of mounting the air campaign during 
bad weather. This experience convinced these soldiers that the U.S. 
must develop all-weather munitions that will free our forces from these 
weather-related limitations.
  I asked if any broader military lessons could be learned from the 
Kosovo campaign. I noted that during the debate over whether to 
authorize the air campaign, some military experts had argued that a war 
can never be won by air power alone. Did Kosovo prove these experts 
wrong? My hosts responded that, in fact, our forces did not win in 
Kosovo by air power alone. Ground forces played a pivotal role in the 
conflict--they just weren't NATO ground forces. Towards the end of the 
conflict, the Kosovo Liberation Army began major ground operations 
against



Serbian positions. These operations pinned down large numbers of Serb 
troops in concentrated groups. These concentrations made the Serbian 
forces vulnerable to Allied air attacks for the first time in the war, 
and they sustained large numbers of casualties during this period. Had 
the KLA not undertaken this campaign, Serbian forces would have 
remained spread out and largely invulnerable to air attack.
  During the air campaign, AFSouth was in charge of Operation Allied 
Harbor, which provided shelter to the hundreds of thousands of refugees 
who fled Kosovo. My hosts told me that during the height of the crisis, 
AFSouth actually exhausted the world's supply of tents in its effort to 
provide shelter for all the refugees. Now AFSouth is overseeing the 
repatriation of the Kosovar 


[[Page 21856]]


refugees to Kosovo. Our briefers confirmed what we heard in Kosovo--
that most of the Kosovar Albanians who fled Kosovo during the war have 
already returned home. All of the refugees camps in Albania have been 
shut down. Among the small percentage of refugees who have not returned 
to Kosovo are the 20,000 who were brought to the United States and will 
most likely choose to remain here.
  On August 26, I returned from Rome to Philadelphia.

                          ____________________