[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6857-6858]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        THE SITUATION IN KOSOVO

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I commend my colleagues for the time they 
have taken on the floor to talk about the situation in Kosovo. I was 
privileged this last weekend to be selected to be part of the first 
leadership delegation to go to the Balkans. It was a joint House and 
Senate delegation involving Democrats and Republicans, and it was a 
whirlwind trip. We all came back exhausted, but I think each of us came 
back better informed about the situation.
  I would like to speak to that a few moments, following up on the 
speech just given by my colleague.
  Let me say at the outset that I am a product of the Vietnam era. I 
did not serve in the military nor in Vietnam, obviously, but I came to 
the conclusion, as a result of that experience, that war is the last 
resort; that there is no such thing as a military adventure. When 
military is involved, people die. It should be taken ever so seriously.
  That has guided me through 17 years of service on Capitol Hill. I 
have not been quick to turn to the military or quick to pull the 
trigger. I have always looked for an alternative, a peaceful 
alternative. Yet, I believe we find ourselves in the Balkans in a 
situation where, frankly, there was no alternative but the use of 
force.
  The Senator raised the question about what in the world is our 
national interest in Kosovo? Most Americans could not find it on a map. 
Why are we sending all this money and all of our troops, all of the 
resources of this country focused on Serbia? Why?
  It is part of Europe. It is part of a continent where the United 
States has a special interest. And if there is any doubt about that 
special interest, merely tour the veterans cemeteries in Europe, 
because in World War I and World War II, our best and brightest in 
America put on their uniforms, picked up their guns and went to Europe 
to defend the stability and future of that continent.
  We have an Atlantic alliance, not just because of a common ethnic 
heritage, but because we believe the synergy between the United States 
and Europe brings strength to the Atlantic, brings strength to both 
countries, both regions, and we have committed ourselves to that.
  Today, as you look at the map of Europe, the investments we made in 
two World Wars and the cold war has paid off so well. We now have 
former Warsaw Pact nations, like Poland, like the Czech Republic and 
like Hungary, waiting in line and finally being accepted as part of the 
NATO alliance. They are part of our alliance. We won. We are bringing 
Europe together. Our leadership makes a difference.
  But, yes, in one corner of Europe, a terrible thing has occurred over 
the last 12 years. A man by the name of Slobodan Milosevic has on four 
separate occasions started a war in this region of Europe. If you look 
at the nature of the war, you will find some harrowing language from 
this man.
  Twelve years ago in Kosovo, he stood up to the Serbs and said, ``They 
will not beat you again,'' and heard this roar of approval. This man, 
who was a minor league Communist apparatchik, said, ``I have a rallying 
cry here. I can rally the Serbs in their hatred of other ethnic 
groups.'' If you think I am overstating the case, in 1989, he went to 
Kosovo, stood on a battlefield where a war had been fought in 1389 and 
the Serbs had lost to the Ottoman Turks, and announced his policy of 
ethnic cleansing. As a result of his policy, that region has been at 
war and in turmoil ever since.
  For those who act surprised at Slobodan Milosevic, merely look at the 
history. For those who question why we are there, look at the history 
of the 20th century. We have said that Europe is important to the 
United States, and we have said something else: America does not go to 
war for territory or for treasure. We go to war for values. And the 
values at stake in this conflict are values that Americans can take at 
heart.
  Some have said that President Clinton came up with Kosovo at the last 
minute. Yet, history tells us that as President George Bush left 
office, knowing what Milosevic was all about, he left a letter behind 
to President Clinton saying: Watch Kosovo. We have warned Milosevic--do 
not show your aggression toward the province of Kosovo. President 
George Bush knew that. President Clinton was forewarned. And he has 
tried, with limited success, to contain this man's barbarism.
  Of course, they raise the question over whether or not we should have 
started the bombing in the Serbian area and in Kosovo. I voted for it. 
I voted for it because there was no alternative, none whatsoever.
  Many people have questioned the strategy ever since--important 
questions, questions that should be answered. But at least we have the 
answer to one question. When the United States saw this ethnic 
cleansing, this genocide in Serbia, did we stand idly by and do 
nothing? The answer is no, and that is an important answer.
  We decided to use the resources at our disposal to try to stop 
Milosevic from what he was doing. Of course, he is equally adept and 
should be recognized as a man of military means. He decided since he 
could not invade the neighboring nations of Albania and Macedonia with 
troops, he would overwhelm them with refugees.
  Saturday, I spent the afternoon in a refugee camp in Macedonia, near 
Skopje, named Brazda. You read about it a lot. It is a camp that did 
not exist 2 weeks ago, and 32,000 people live there today in that camp. 
The day I came and the previous 2 days, 7,500 people had flooded into 
this camp from Kosovo. These are not the poorest of the poor dragging 
themselves in. These are teachers and businessmen. These

[[Page 6858]]

are doctors and lawyers whose neighbors put on black ski masks and came 
to the door and said, ``Take everything that you want in your arms and 
leave in 5 minutes; we're blowing up your house.'' You have heard it on 
television, but I heard it firsthand.
  Standing in that camp and talking to those people, I asked a simple 
open-ended question: Why did you leave Kosovo? The stories came back 
the same time and time again. They did not leave for a crime or 
wrongdoing; they left because of who they were, and that is the nature 
of genocide and ``geno-suffering.''
  Now, of course, they are trying to survive, and we are helping them. 
Thank God we are. NATO is building camps. The humanitarian relief from 
around the world is inspiring, and yet these people wait, wondering 
what their fate will be.
  I came away from that experience understanding better the Holocaust, 
understanding what must have been in the minds of so many Jewish people 
at the end of World War II who said: We need Israel because we have 
nowhere to go. Everywhere we go, we have been persecuted, we have been 
killed. Now the Kosovar refugees ask the same question: Where shall we 
go?
  Our policy is to allow them to return to Kosovo. That is where they 
want to be. That is where they should be. We have said to Mr. 
Milosevic: Here is what we are asking of you, demanding of you: Remove 
your troops from Kosovo, allow the refugees to return in safety with an 
international force to protect them, and then we will negotiate the 
political status.
  I think that is sensible and humane.
  May I say a word, too, about Russia. Yes, I am concerned about the 
reaction of Russia. It is important that Russia prosper and get 
stronger. We have helped in many ways and can do more, and I am sure we 
will. But Russia is a master of its own destiny, too. If it decides it 
is better to be an ally of Slobodan Milosevic than an ally of the 
United States, then, of course, it is a decision they can freely make 
and one with which they will have to live.
  I hope they do not make that decision. I hope instead of arming 
Milosevic so he can shoot down American and NATO planes that they will 
decide they can play a more positive and constructive role; that Russia 
could be part of the brokerage of peace, lasting peace in the region; 
that Russia could provide some troops in an international peacekeeping 
force in Kosovo so that it will be more acceptable to the Serbian side. 
They can do that, and I hope that they will. But I think it is faulty 
logic to argue that we should restrain our foreign policy for fear that 
the Russians might react against it. Did we stop to ask the Russians 
whether we should bomb Saddam Hussein? I certainly hope not. We knew 
what our national interest was, and we proceeded with it.
  We hope the Russians will be with us, but they certainly should not 
have a veto over our foreign policy.
  Allow me, if you will, to speak for a moment about the state of our 
military. General Wes Clark, who is our commander in chief now of the 
NATO operations in Kosovo, is an extraordinary man. He was first in his 
class at West Point, a Rhodes scholar. He is articulate, dedicated, and 
patriotic. Thank God for him and people just like him who have 
dedicated their lives and service to our country.
  He met with us at great length and answered literally every question 
we had to ask about this operation. Is he frustrated? Of course, he is. 
This is NATO's first war. America has fought wars before, but this is a 
war by committee with 19 nations gathering together to talk of 
strategy, and that is a frustration to any commander in chief. He 
understands our mission, and he is executing it professionally.
  It troubles me to hear some of my friends on the other side of the 
aisle suggest that after 25 days of bombing in Serbia and Kosovo 
somehow or another the American military might has been decimated.
  I sure did not see that, not at Aviano Air Base or Ramstein in 
Germany. I saw a strong military that needs our support. I do not 
believe it is in the weak condition that many of my colleagues are 
suggesting.
  The President said we need $6 billion to make sure it continues to be 
strong. I hope we move on that quickly and we do not use this request 
by the administration as an excuse to get into a prolonged political 
debate about whether or not the military has been treated well over the 
last few years. Let us focus on the immediate needs: Supplying our 
troops and making certain they can defend themselves and successfully 
prosecute this mission.
  Let me also say that the Senator concluded with three recommendations 
about refugees. I disagree with his conclusion that we move them to 
another place. They want to return to Kosovo. They should return to 
Kosovo. I agree with him in bringing Russia in for peace negotiations. 
And I certainly agree with his conclusion that we should not involve 
ground troops in this effort.
  I say to those who are witnessing this event, the American people are 
now focusing more on it, as they should. My visit over the last 3 days, 
this last weekend, focused my attention on it as well. I am proud of 
what the United States is doing. I am proud of what NATO is doing and 
what it stands for. I believe we are standing for values that we have 
stood for for at least the 20th century, if not longer.
  I believe we can succeed. But we cannot succeed when a television 
program like ``Nightline,'' 7 days into the war, has a program entitled 
``The Kosovo Crisis: Still no end in sight.'' Seven days--7 days into 
the war they want it over with, and all the political pundits are 
coming on television on Sunday and saying, well, we must have lost that 
war. It is a good thing they were not around during the Battle of the 
Bulge. Who knows how that war might have ended? It is going to take 
patience and determination to bring this to a good conclusion. I hope 
Members of both political parties will join together to make that 
happen.
  I will tell you, when there was a vote on the Persian Gulf war, 
President Bush came to Congress and asked for our approval. I voted 
against it. I did not think it was necessary. I thought we could 
achieve our goals without the use of the military. But I lost and the 
vote went against me; the military action was approved. Immediately 
after that vote, a resolution was introduced, and passed overwhelmingly 
on a bipartisan basis, that said the debate is behind us now, we are 
behind our men and women in uniform, and we will stay behind them to 
the end.
  There will be plenty of time to debate this. History will be the 
judge of whether we did the right thing and did it in the right way. 
For the time being, let us, as a nation, let those of us, as elected 
officials in the Senate and the House, have the determination to stand 
behind this policy.
  What are our options? Well, there are three. We can stand behind this 
policy of bombing, or we can leave, or we can send in ground troops. It 
is an easy choice for me. I am going to stand behind this policy, 
because the future of NATO is at stake, the future of Europe is at 
stake, and the values of the United States, that we have defended so 
long, are at stake as well.
  Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time and suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________