[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 86 (Friday, June 26, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7251-S7252]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  TRIBUTE TO LISA KAUFMAN, SOUTH DAKOTA WINNER OF THE NATIONAL PEACE 
                             ESSAY CONTEST

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I rise to salute Lisa Kaufman of Freeman, 
South Dakota--an outstanding young woman who has been honored as South 
Dakota's first place winner in the eleventh annual National Peace Essay 
Contest sponsored by the United States Institute of Peace. More than 
5,000 students in the 50 states participated in this year's contest. 
Students wrote about the way in which war crimes and human rights 
violations are accounted for in various international conflicts.
  Ms. Kaufman was chosen to represent South Dakota in a special program 
for state-level winners here in Washington this past week, where she 
participated in a three-day simulation of high-level discussions with 
the goal of finding the best way to address war crimes and human rights 
violations to ensure a stable peace in Cambodia. She has received a 
college scholarship to reward her achievement.
  I also commend Ms. Vernetta Waltner, the faculty coordinator for the 
contest at the Freeman Academy, for her involvement and for encouraging 
participation in this type of program.
  I am pleased that Ms. Kaufman and our next generation of leaders are 
helping build peace to promote freedom and justice among nations and 
peoples. Their commitment and dedication is a lesson to us all. The 
title of Ms. Kaufman's essay is ``Justice Leads to Peace.'' She richly 
deserves public recognition for her accomplishment, and I am proud to 
ask unanimous consent that her winning essay be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the essay was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                         Justice Leads to Peace

                           (By Lisa Kaufman)

       It is impossible to deny the fact that there are many 
     cruelties associated with war. In the news, we see and hear 
     about the devastation that war causes in a country. Damage 
     occurs to the land. Buildings and even whole cities may be 
     destroyed by bombs. The real problem with war, though, is 
     that it causes damage beyond just the destruction of various 
     structures within a country. War affects

[[Page S7252]]

     people. Individuals who live through times of war endure much 
     pain. An ugly reality is that many violent crimes are 
     committed against people during times of war.
       So how does a society deal with those who committed 
     atrocious human rights violations during a war? I feel that 
     the only way to restore a stable peace is to face the 
     challenge of punishing those guilty of war crimes. A society 
     can't move on without dealing with the realities of its past, 
     no matter how painful they may be. Several countries 
     throughout the world are now facing the obstacle of dealing 
     with war criminals as they move down the road to peace.
       One country that is dealing with this issue is South 
     Africa. Conflict over the practice of apartheid, or racial 
     segregation, escalated into a serious situation during the 
     last half of the 20th Century. The conflict is deeply seeded 
     in South Africa's history. The British gained control of 
     South Africa in 1814 and white control of the country 
     immediately provoked uprising by the native blacks who sought 
     independence. In 1910, Britain did grant South Africa 
     independence, but the situation didn't change much as white 
     English-speaking people maintained control of the government.
       The government established apartheid as an official policy 
     in 1948, and various acts were passed with the purpose of 
     completely separating South Africa's blacks from the white 
     minority. Inevitably, protests arose and they became more 
     serious throughout the 1950's. Nelson Mandela led the African 
     National Congress (ANC), a political organization that 
     actively worked for black control. Boycotts, strikes, and 
     rallies were used to draw attention to their plea for the end 
     of apartheid. Tensions rose even higher when the ANC was 
     banned by the government and Nelson Mandela was jailed.
       The black movement began to escalate again during the 
     1970's and 1980's. Renewed demonstrations and riots plagued 
     the country and a state of emergency was declared in 1986. 
     Change finally began when a new president, Frederick de 
     Klerk, took office in 1989. Nelson Mandela was released from 
     jail and apartheid was gradually dismantled. Real progress 
     came with elections held in 1994 in which blacks took control 
     of the government with Nelson Mandela as the new president.
       The new government faced many challenges, one of which was 
     dealing with those guilty of human rights violations that 
     occurred during the era of apartheid. The Truth and 
     Reconciliation Commission was created in June 1995 to give 
     victims a chance to voice the abuses that occurred. It also 
     served to uncover evidence about the perpetrators of those 
     crimes. Political amnesty was guaranteed for those who came 
     forward voluntarily to confess. In other words, those who 
     admitted to committing political crimes were pardoned, but 
     those who remained silent could be prosecuted.
       I feel that the creation of this commission was beneficial 
     in several ways, but was too lenient in its dealings with war 
     criminals. The acceptance of the commission was evident when 
     over 10,000 victims came forward to share their personal 
     horror stories. This reveals that there was a need among the 
     people to talk about what happened. The way in which the 
     commission dealt with war criminals represented a compromise, 
     though Truth is essential, but at what cost?
       There must be penalties for these crimes that were 
     committed and I think that the offer of political amnesty was 
     too generous. Citizens should be able to see punishment 
     handed out to the guilty so that they can feel safe again. It 
     would be beneficial to reward those who come forward 
     voluntarily with a lesser sentence, but they still deserve to 
     face punishment for their actions. Justice must not be 
     compromised in this way. War criminals must be held 
     accountable.
       Another recent conflict that has been plagued by 
     discoveries of genocide and vast human rights violations is 
     the civil war in Bosnia. The region has had a troubled past. 
     After World War II, Yugoslavia was united as a confederation 
     of six republics held together by the ruling Communist Party. 
     This federation was unstable, though, because of deeply 
     seeded ethnic divisions.
       In 1990, the Communists lost control and Yugoslavia began 
     to crumble. In June, 1991, two of the republics, Slovenia and 
     Croatia, declared their independence. The other republics 
     followed, with Bosnia and Herzegovina declaring their 
     independence in March 1992. Civil war then broke out in 
     Bosnia between the three ethnic groups living in the area: 
     the Croats, Serbs and Bosnian Muslims. The Muslim-dominated 
     government forces fought to maintain a multiethnic state 
     while the Bosnian Serbs and Croats called for separate ethnic 
     states.
       A peace treaty was signed in December 1995 in which Bosnia 
     was split into two sub-states, a Muslim-Croat federation and 
     a Serb republic. The agreement called for the exchange of 
     territory and this led to much violence. International 
     peacekeeping forces and humanitarian organizations were 
     present throughout the war and remain in the area yet today 
     to stabilize the conflict.
       Both during and after the war, reports were confirmed of 
     torture and cruelty committed by all three ethnic groups. The 
     Bosnian Serbs were specifically singled out, though, for 
     their policy of ``ethnic cleansing'' in which over 700,000 
     Muslims were forced from their homes in Serb-controlled areas 
     of Bosnia. The Serbs were also responsible for putting people 
     in concentration camps and killing and raping many women. 
     Mass graves hold evidence to the large number of deaths that 
     occurred.
       These human rights abuses were acknowledged with the 
     formation of The United Nations International Criminal 
     Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. This tribunal was set up 
     at The Hague in 1994 with the purpose of judging serious 
     violations of international humanitarian law. The tribunal 
     issued indictments of various criminal suspects and then 
     those in the international community were responsible to 
     arrest them and turn them over to the tribunal to face 
     punishment.
       The problem with this arrangement was that many indicted 
     war criminals were not actively sought by international 
     peacekeepers. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) 
     was very active both during and after the war in Bosnia by 
     stationing peacekeeping soldiers throughout the area. These 
     NATO troops have not chosen to search out the war criminals, 
     though. At one point 75 people had been indicted by the 
     tribunal, while only nine had been arrested.
       In July 1997, NATO started to actively track down indicted 
     war criminals. More arrests were made, but NATO has not yet 
     moved to arrest the higher-level criminals that have been 
     indicted, such as Radovan Karadzic, a Serb leader who is 
     accused of genocide, or the intent to destroy a whole ethnic 
     group.
       I believe that it is time for international peacekeepers to 
     actively move in on arresting the high-profile suspects. It 
     is easier to leave these suspects alone, but by delaying 
     action, peace and reconciliation is being delayed. I agree 
     with the tribunal's goal of bringing war criminals to face 
     judgment, but the way that this effort is being carried out 
     is short of effective.
       These issues dealing with the prosecution of war criminals 
     must be dealt with carefully. There are many variables to 
     consider. Even though public trials may be painful for 
     survivors, I feel that it is necessary to deal with the 
     perpetrators in public. Silence is not a solution. It is 
     better to deal with those suspected of human rights 
     violations than to pretend the damage never occurred. Only 
     when these problems are dealt with can lasting peace have a 
     chance.
       Truth must be exposed. Elie Wiesel, a Holocaust survivor 
     and Nobel Peace Prize winner, recently said, '`There is no 
     compensation for what happened. But at least a certain 
     balance can be established that opposing fear there is hope, 
     hope that when we remember the fear . . . our memory becomes 
     a shield for the future.'' By exposing what really happened 
     we can guard ourselves against it ever happening again.
       Both South Africa and Bosnia face challenges in their 
     future. As they work to bring war criminals to justice, 
     painful memories resurface. They are taking steps in the 
     right direction, though, as they confront the atrocities that 
     took place during times of war and conflict. War criminals 
     must be tried and held responsible for their actions. There 
     are no valid excuses for killing. People should never have to 
     suffer based on their ethnic origin or simply the color of 
     their skin. When these offenses occur, the guilty must be 
     punished so that peace and justice can thrive in the future.

                          ____________________