[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 159 (Wednesday, November 12, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2342]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          THE FURTHER POLITICIZATION OF THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. DOUG BEREUTER

                              of nebraska

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, November 12, 1997

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member hopes that his colleagues 
might read and they remember the following editorial from the October 
11, 1997, edition of the Omaha World-Herald next month when the Nobel 
Peace Prize is formally awarded. It will be used as an unreasonable and 
irresponsible point of pressure or attack on the American use of 
landmines in the demilitarized zone on the Korean peninsula by both 
domestic and foreign critics.

              [From the Omaha World-Herald, Oct. 11, 1997]

       Nobel Decision Raises Question: What About Peace in Korea?

       The Nobel committee awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to the 
     international committee promoting a treaty to halt the use of 
     anti-personnel land mines. A more appropriate recipient, in 
     our opinion, would have been the U.S. government for its 44 
     years of preventing war along the demilitarized zone that 
     separates North and South Korea.
       Mention of Korea is appropriate in connection with the 
     Nobel committee's decision. By honoring the anti-mine 
     campaign, the Nobel people have implicitly condemned one of 
     the tools used by U.S. forces to prevent invasion or 
     infiltration of South Korea by troops, saboteurs or assassins 
     from the north.
       President Clinton had asked treaty sponsors to exempt 
     Korea, allowing the U.S. to sign the treaty and still 
     maintain the option of using mines along the DMZ. When his 
     request was refused, he said the United States could not sign 
     the treaty.
       So the awarding of this year's Nobel prize to the anti-mine 
     campaign is a slap at Clinton, too, and a slap at the 
     hundreds of thousands of American troops who have rotated 
     through the U.S. divisions in Korea since the 1950s. (During 
     part of that time, the head of the anti-mine committee, Jody 
     Williams of Putney, Vt., was campaigning against U.S. efforts 
     to keep Central America from going communist.)
       The United States, of curse, is not the cause of the land-
     mine problem to which Princess Diana called attention. She 
     went to Angola and hugged children who had been maimed by 
     exploding mines left over from that country's civil war.
       U.S. forces don't scatter land mines at random, leaving 
     them to be exploded years later by grazing animals or playing 
     children. That's the behavior of terrorists, dictators and 
     guerrilla groups. Iraqi military units. The Viet Cong. East 
     African warlords. Balkan terrorists.
       By contrast, America, like most other western nations, is 
     pledged to follow the 1947 Geneva Convention, which requires 
     armies to record the placement of mines and remove the 
     devices when no longer needed.
       The United States halted exports of land mines years ago, 
     even to its allies. U.S.-made mines are manufactured to 
     defuse themselves after a certain time, usually 60 days. 
     Older mines in the U.S. inventory are being destroyed. Fewer 
     mines are being used in Korea, although the United States 
     wants to keep the right to use them.
       In Korea, 35,000 U.S. troops augment the South Korean army 
     in holding back the million-man army of the north. They guard 
     a 487-square-mile demilitarized zone that stretches more than 
     100 miles through rugged mountains, steep valleys and 
     forested hills.
       Many times over the past four decades, infiltrators from 
     the north have tried to slip across the DMZ into the south. 
     Minefields stand in their way. Some people say that the 
     United States must give up such defenses to persuade outlaw 
     nations and terrorists not to scatter mines across the 
     countryside. This argument fails to account for the fact that 
     the United States is a superpower to which other nations, 
     often by default, have entrusted certain responsibilities. 
     Giving up a tool for carrying them out is more difficult for 
     a superpower than for nations that have fewer international 
     obligations.
       Our suggestion that the United States receive a Nobel prize 
     was only half-serious. The award is generally reserved for 
     individuals and institutions.
       In terms of contributions to the peace of the world, 
     however, America's role on the Korean peninsula has few 
     parallels. Because South Korea was kept out of a Soviet or 
     Chinese orbit, democracy and free enterprise took root there. 
     Because Japan didn't need to arm itself against a Soviet or 
     Chinese threat based in South Korea, Japan emerged from its 
     post-war recovery as a peaceful industrial democracy. Other 
     nations around the Pacific rim took inspiration from the 
     economic success of South Korea and Japan. Much of the region 
     is now prosperous, non-communist and free.
       The careful use of mines played a role in that success. 
     It's unfortunate that the anti-mine people will now have yet 
     another forum, the Nobel ceremonies in December, from which 
     to paint the U.S. position as irresponsible.

     

                          ____________________