[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 114 (Tuesday, July 30, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1407-E1408]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       LEAH BREMER, HAWAII STATE INSTITUTE OF PEACE ESSAY WINNER

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. PATSY T. MINK

                               of hawaii

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, July 30, 1996

  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this 
opportunity to salute an outstanding young woman from the State of 
Hawaii, Ms. Leah Bremer. I recently met Leah during her visit to 
Washington, DC, in June when she represented Hawaii as the State winner 
for the U.S. Institute of Peace national essay contest. Leah will be a 
senior at Punahou School on Oahu and is planning to attend college in 
California after she graduates.
  Leah's essay is entitled, ``Promoting Peace After the Cold War'' and 
I am pleased to share with you her award-winning entry.

                   Promoting Peace After the Cold War

                            (By Leah Bremer)

       During the cold war the United States' national security 
     interests focused on the direct military threat posed by the 
     Soviet Union and on preventing the spread of communism. 
     During the last decade, the Soviet Union has crumbled and the 
     United States has become the world's dominant military power. 
     Our government must now redefine and re-focus its national 
     security interests to assure regional, global, and domestic 
     stability in this new world. The United States should move 
     toward a long-term policy emphasizing diplomatic rather than 
     military intervention. As the political crisis in Haiti has 
     demonstrated, the diplomatic process can serve as an 
     effective way to resolve a conflict.
       A key factor determining national security interests is the 
     stability of neighboring nations. A crisis occurring nearby 
     could cause instability in the United States. The United 
     States supports harmony and democracy in its own region 
     because, ``As Haiti and Cuba, have shown, stability in the 
     Caribbean doesn't stay there--it washes up, dead or alive, on 
     the Florida shore.'' Unrest rarely remains with a nation's 
     borders; one country's crisis can rapidly spread to a 
     neighboring country.
       While fifty years ago, such concern focused mainly on the 
     countries nearest our own, advances in technology, and 
     international trade have created a global system in which 
     countries that once had no affect on one another are now 
     related. Moreover, the dismantling of the Soviet empire has 
     created an underground market in which relatively small 
     powers can purchase nuclear weapons. Because of these 
     factors, turmoil in a seemingly remote region of the world 
     such as Somalia could have important consequences for the 
     United States' national security interests.
       In addition to maintaining global stability, the United 
     States government must be sensitive to the interests of the 
     American people. It is an important part of the democratic 
     process to ensure that the people have a say in their 
     government's actions. The crisis in Haiti created two major 
     issues for the American public. On one hand, groups such as 
     the Black Caucus pushed for the restoration of democratic 
     rule in Haiti. At the same time, the political crisis brought 
     many Haitian refugees to the United States. Many American 
     citizens opposed this immigration, and domestic pressure 
     pushed the government to take action. President Clinton 
     responded by sending refugee boats back to Haiti, but as

[[Page E1408]]

     the number of seaborne refugee ships increased so did the 
     domestic pressure for some sort of action to stop the flow of 
     refugees, or the mistreatment of these refugees.
       Likewise, the mass starvation and genocide in Somalia also 
     concerned American citizens. Media made the American public 
     aware of the nation's suffering, and groups such as the Black 
     Caucus again pushed the American government to intervene. In 
     cooperation with the United Nations, the White House 
     responded to this domestic pressure by intervening in Somalia 
     for humanitarian purposes.
       If the demands of the American public are not met, 
     conflicts within the United States borders could arise. In 
     Haiti, when General Cedras' military coup overthrew President 
     Aristide and committed countless human rights' abuses, the 
     Congressional Black Caucus supported United States' 
     intervention, and ``urged applying any pressure, including an 
     invasion to bring down Cedras.'' Clinton chose to support 
     their demands for action in Haiti. As Elliot stated, ``it 
     will often be in the `national interest' to take an action 
     about which one group feels passionately while others 
     acquiesce.''
       Once it has been established that a situation may pose a 
     threat to national security, the government must decide what 
     type of action to take. The type of intervention, whether it 
     be military, economic, humanitarian, or diplomatic, is 
     extremely important as the outcome depends upon the resource 
     used. The government may use a combination of these measures, 
     as was the case in Haiti and Somalia.
       Although economic sanctions are often thought of as a way 
     for the United States to effectively resolve a conflict 
     without becoming too involved in the situation, some 
     theorists see sanctions as an ``over-rated tool politicians 
     use to make them look decisive while they avoid tough 
     decisions about foreign policy.'' Sanctions are less 
     effective now than they were forty years ago because, with 
     the rise of competing economic powers and a more global 
     economy countries tend to be less dependent on United States' 
     goods. Furthermore, poorly patrolled borders may also lessen 
     the sanction's impact. For instance, the economic sanctions 
     imposed on Haiti lost influence because Haiti could still 
     trade with the Dominican Republic and obtain U.S. goods 
     through the black market. Economic sanctions also may not 
     directly harm the leaders initiating the crisis. In countries 
     like Somalia, Haiti, and other dictatorships, the common 
     people have no way to voice their discontent'' Economic 
     actions may back fire in dealing with human rights violations 
     as they end up hurting those people the sanctions were 
     initially designed to help.
       Many times the United States sends troops into a country as 
     a ``last resort.'' Although the U.S. needs to have a strong 
     military to back up its diplomatic claims, the use of the 
     military should be reduced and replaced by diplomatic 
     intervention. In July 1994, as domestic pressure increased 
     concerning Haiti and the U.S. government acknowledged that 
     economic sanctions were not working, the United States began 
     training an invasion force and obtained a United Nations 
     Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force as 
     ``last resort'' to remove Cedras and restore Aristide to the 
     presidency. In training an invasion force, however, the 
     Clinton administration maintained diplomacy as an 
     alternative. Dante Caputo, an Argentine diplomat appointed as 
     the United Nations' representative in Haiti tried for two 
     years to negotiate Aristide's return. Caputo was 
     unsuccessful. But in 1994 after obtaining reluctant White 
     House approval former President Carter, accompanied by 
     Senator Sam Nunn and General Colin Powell, met with Cedras. 
     After two days of negotiations in mid-September Cedras agreed 
     to step down by October 15th, 1994. When the troops arrived 
     in Haiti the Haitians cheered. Cedras kept his word and 
     stepped down on October 15th.
       Carter was successful in negotiating with Cedras because he 
     gave him an opportunity to leave honorably. As Smith states, 
     ``Carter described Cedras as a man of honor and praised the 
     beauty of Mrs. Cedras.'' In return for his keeping his word, 
     Cedras received financial compensation from the United States 
     and was flown to Panama with his family. Carter's strategy 
     didn't back Cedras into a corner, but allowed him to step 
     down without a fight.
       In Somalia, however, the warlords were never given an 
     opportunity to step down honorably. Sending troops to 
     distribute food to the starving Somalis was well-intentioned, 
     but the underlying problem of clan warfare was overlooked. 
     The United Nations military presence complicated the 
     situation. The troops became like another warring clan. As, 
     ``Initially presented as a purely humanitarian mission, 
     Operation Restore Hope gradually shifted from feeding Somalis 
     to fighting them.'' The focus changed from feeding the 
     starving Somalis to capturing General Aidid. United Nations 
     Secretary General Butros-Butros Gali's obsession with 
     capturing General Aidid as a way to resolve the conflicts was 
     not effective as, ``In Somali culture, the worst thing you 
     can do is humiliate them, to do something to them you are not 
     doing to another clan.''
       When the United States government first intervened in 
     Somalia, they began with peace talks between the two dominant 
     clan leaders, Ali Mahdi, and Aidid. After two days a cease 
     fire was declared. The cease fire, however was not 
     implemented, and peace talks never resumed. The United States 
     and the United Nations immediately sent in troops, thus not 
     giving the warlords an honorable way to reconcile.
       The United States has made many diplomatic mistakes which 
     have led indirectly to some form of crisis later. In Somalia, 
     the former dictator, Siad Barre, received more than 
     700,000,000 dollars in economic and military aid from the 
     Reagan administration. Aid continued despite the fact that 
     most analysts in 1989 judged Barre as a cruel dictator about 
     to fall. A survey by Africa Watch in February , 1992, showed 
     that this aid ``helped lay the groundwork for the country's 
     destruction today.'' The United States should be more careful 
     in choosing which governments to support.
       As the recent conflicts in Somalia and Haiti demonstrate, 
     the national security interests of the United States 
     government lie not only in deterring military attack, but 
     also maintaining, global, regional, and domestic stability. 
     After determining that a situation affects national security, 
     the United States must choose what measures to take whether 
     economic, diplomatic, humanitarian, or military. Each type of 
     intervention has limitations and may not be appropriate for 
     all situations. Economic sanctions, for instance may increase 
     suffering under a totalitarian government, such as that of 
     Cedras in Haiti. Likewise, military intervention may succeed 
     in delivering food supplies to people in Somalia, but it may 
     not be able to resolve a complicated conflict. As the Haitian 
     situations reveals, one type of successful intervention may 
     combine sustained diplomatic negotiations with limited 
     military action.

                          ____________________