Congress Knocks Kosovo-Troops Plan
Wednesday, 10 February 1999
W A S H I N G T O N (AP)
THE CLINTON administration asserted it doesn't need congressional
approval to send troops to Kosovo, but the possible deployment drew
fresh attacks Wednesday from lawmakers weary of spending billions on
Bosnia.
"I'm concerned about the constitutional process and whether it's a vital
national interest to devote such a large portion of our military capabilities to
keeping the peace at two places in the Balkans," Rep. Doug Bereuter,
R-Neb., told administration witnesses at a House International Relations
Committee hearing.
As rival factions continued to negotiate near Paris, the administration was
finding its proposal to send up to 4,000 U.S. troops to the southern
Serbian province becoming a hard sell on Capitol Hill.
Thomas Pickering, undersecretary of state for political affairs, conceded
the controversy but told the panel: "NATO's credibility as the guarantor of
peace in Europe is at stake."
He insisted that no final decision had been made and that there would be
no U.S. ground presence in Kosovo in the absence of a peace agreement
between the Serbs and the province's Albanian-speaking majority.
Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott told reporters, meanwhile, that
President Clinton also was pondering the use of civilian monitors now in
Kosovo and backing them up with air and sea power "just over the
horizon."
Committee Chairman Benjamin Gilman, R-N.Y., suggested the current
draft peace accord for Kosovo was "no more than a holding action."
"Such solutions do not eliminate the underlying problem; they promise to
drag on indefinitely, at high cost to our own nation," said Gilman. He said
the real problem was the continued reign of terror of Yugoslav President
Slobodan Milosevic.
NATO generals are working on plans to dispatch 25,000 to 30,000
troops to Kosovo, including up to 4,000 Americans, to enforce any
agreement. About 6,900 U.S. troops are in nearby Bosnia.
The peace talks in Rambouillet, France, are "off to a good start," Pickering
said. But with no solid agreements after three days, "we are under no
illusions. The task ahead is a challenging one."
The warring parties were pushed to the table by the threat of NATO
attacks.
Talbott raised anew the threat of a NATO bombardment if the Serbs
refuse to reach a settlement granting maximum self-rule to the ethnic
Albanians in Kosovo.
However, Talbott told reporters at an Overseas Writers Club luncheon
that the United States would not support an Albanian demand for a
referendum on statehood at the end of the three-year period of self-rule
envisioned in the formula on the negotiating table.
And if NATO bombs the Serbs, it would be to try to make Milosevic
keep his promises to withdraw most of the Serbian troops and special
police units out of the province - not to dismember Yugoslavia, Talbott
said. While Belgrade has lost its authority in the province, Talbott said, it
has not lost its sovereignty there.
Several International Relations Committee Republicans suggested Clinton
could not send troops to Kosovo under the war powers provision of the
Constitution without first getting congressional consent. But Pickering
disputed this. "There is ample constitutional precedent for this type of
action," Pickering said.
Retorted Rep. Tom Campbell, R-Calif: "Previous constitutional violations
do not justify subsequent ones."
Other lawmakers noted that Congress would have the ultimate say,
regardless, because funds for sending troops to Kosovo would have to be
appropriated.
"So in some ways, of course, almost everything the commander in chief
does, particularly if it relies on finances, sooner or later comes to roost
back here," said Sen. Mark Sanford, R-S.C.
"I was not arguing that the Congress had no role," Pickering said.
Undersecretary of Defense Walter Slocombe told the panel: "Nobody
wants to send American troops to do jobs like this, but there sometimes
comes a point where that is much better than letting the situation
deteriorate further."
But committee members of both parties seemed skeptical, particularly in
light of the fact that the Bosnia deployment has dragged on now for more
than three years - at a cost of about $20 billion - despite original
administration assertions that U.S. troops would be out in one year.
"We are indeed going into a second Bosnia," said Rep. Pat Danner,
D-Mo.
And Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., said he believed the policy
advanced by Clinton was "nonsensical. ... We may end up bombing both
sides. Now, isn't that ridiculous?" |
