[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 3]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 4169-4170]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            THE SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO DEMOCRACY ACT OF 1999

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, March 10, 1999

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the 
Serbia and Montenegro Democracy Act of 1999, a bill which will target 
much needed assistance to democratic groups in Serbia and Montenegro. I 
am joined by Representatives Ben Gilman, Steny Hoyer, John Porter, Dan 
Burton, Eliot Engel, Dana Rohrabacher, Louise Slaughter and Jim Moran, 
all strong promoters of human rights worldwide and the original 
cosponsors of this Act.
  It is fitting that this important piece of legislation be introduced 
today, as a high-level envoy for the United States is in Belgrade to 
seek the blessing of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic for a 
political settlement which hopefully will restore peace to the troubled 
region of Kosovo. We are dealing directly with the man most responsible 
for the conflict in Kosovo, not to mention Bosnia and Croatia. 
Milosevic has maintained his power from within Serbia throughout the 
1990s at the cost of 300,000 lives and the displacement of 3 million 
people. He has relied on virulent Serbian nationalism to instigate 
conflict which will divide the people of the region for decades.
  The most fundamental flaw in U.S. policy toward the region is that it 
relies on getting Milosevic's agreement, when Milosevic simply should 
be forced to stop his assaults on innocent civilians. It relies on 
Milosevic's dictatorial powers to implement an agreement, undermining 
support for democratic alternatives. In short, U.S. policy perpetuates 
Milosevic's rule and ensures that more trouble will come to the 
Balkans. There can be no long-term stability in the Balkans without a 
democratic Serbia.
  Moreover, we need to be clear that the people of Serbia deserve the 
same rights and freedoms which other people in Europe enjoy today. They 
also deserve greater prosperity. Milosevic and his criminal thugs deny 
the same Serbian people they claim to defend these very rights, 
freedoms and economic opportunities. Independent media is repeatedly 
harassed, fined and sometimes just closed down. University professors 
are forced to take a ridiculous loyalty oath or are replaced by know-
nothing party hacks. The regime goes after the political leadership of 
Montenegro, which is federated with Serbia in a new Yugoslav state but 
is undergoing democratic change itself. The regime goes after the 
successful Serb-American pharmaceutical executive Milan Panic, seizing 
his company's assets in Serbia to intimidate a potentially serious 
political rival and get its hands on the hard currency it desperately 
needs to sustain itself. The regime also goes after young students, 
like Boris Karajcic, who was beaten on the streets of Belgrade for his 
public advocacy of academic freedom and social tolerance.
  Building a democracy in Serbia will be difficult, and it is largely 
in the hands of those democratic forces within Serbia to do the job. 
However, given how the regime has stacked the situation against them--
through endless

[[Page 4170]]

propaganda, harassment and violence--they need help. This Act intends 
to do just that. It would allocate $41 million in various sectors of 
Serbian society where democratic forces can be strengthened, and to 
encourage further strengthening of these forces in neighboring 
Montenegro. It would ensure that this funding will, in fact, go to 
these areas, in contrast to the Administration's budget request which 
indicates that much of this funding could be siphoned off to implement 
a peace agreement in Kosovo. Another $350,000 would go to the 
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and its 
Parliamentary Assembly, which could provide assistance on a 
multilateral basis and demonstrate that Serbia can rejoin Europe--
through the OSCE--once it moves in a democratic direction and ends its 
instigation of conflict.
  This Act also states what policy toward Serbia and Montenegro must 
be: to promote the development of democracy and to support those who 
are committed to the building of democratic institutions, defending 
human rights, promoting rule of law and fostering tolerance in society.
  This funding, authorized by the Support for East European Democracy 
Act of 1989, represents a tremendous increase for building democratic 
institutions in Sebia and Montenegro. This fiscal year, an anticipated 
$25 million will be spent, but most of that is going to Kosovo. The 
President's budget request for the next fiscal year is a welcome $55 
million, but, with international attention focused on Kosovo, too much 
of that will likely go toward implementing a peace agreement. Make no 
mistake--I support strongly assistance for Kosovo. I simply view it as 
a mistake to get that assistance by diverting it from Serbia and 
Montenegro. We have spent billions of dollars in Bosnia and will likely 
spend at least hundreds of millions more in Kosovo, cleaning up the 
messes Milosevic has made. The least we can do is invest in democracy 
in Serbia, which can stop Milosevic from making more problems in the 
future.
  Building democracy in Serbia will be difficult, given all of the harm 
Milosevic has done to Serbian society. The opposition has traditionally 
been weak and divided, and sometimes compromised by Milosevic's 
political maneuvering. There are signs, however, the new Alliance for 
Change could make a difference, and there certainly is substantial 
social unrest in Serbia from which opposition can gain support. In 
addition, there are very good people working in human rights 
organizations, and very capable independent journalists and editors. 
The independent labor movement has serious potential to gain support, 
and the student and academic communities are organized to defend the 
integrity of the universities. Simply demonstrating our real support 
for the democratic movement in Serbia could convince more people to 
become involved.
  Finally, Montenegro's democratic changes in the last year place that 
republic in a difficult position. A federation in which one republic is 
becoming more free and open while the other, much larger republic 
remains repressive and controls federal institutions cannot last for 
long, yet Montenegrins know they could be the next victims of 
Milosevic. It would be a mistake to leave those building a democracy in 
Montenegro out on that limb. They need our support as well.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing the Serbia and 
Democracy Act of 1999 because I feel our country's policy in the 
Balkans has all too long been based on false assumptions about the 
region. Granted, social tensions, primarily based on ethnic issues, 
were bound to have plagued the former Yugoslavia, but it is an absolute 
fact that violence could have been avoided if Slobodan Milosevic did 
not play on those tensions to enhance his power. As we prepare debate 
the sending of American forces to Kosovo to keep a peace which does not 
yet exist, we must address the root cause of the conflict in the former 
Yugoslavia from 1991 to today. This Act, Mr. Speaker, does just that, 
and I urge my colleagues to support its swift and overwhelming passage 
by the House. The Senate is working on similar legislation, and 
hopefully the Congress can help put U.S. policy back on the right 
track.

                          ____________________