[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 97 (Monday, July 12, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8251-S8252]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       TRIBUTE TO JEANMARIE HICKS

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I would like to take a moment to 
acknowledge a remarkable young woman from Rapid City, South Dakota, 
Jeanmarie Hicks, who was recently selected as the National Winner in 
the 1999 National Peace Essay Contest sponsored by the United States 
Institute of Peace.
  This year more than 2,500 high school students from all 50 states 
were asked to express their thoughts on the topic of preventing 
international violent conflict. Winners from each state were awarded a 
$1,000 college scholarship and invited to participate in a week of 
special activities here in Washington. The National Winner receives an 
additional $10,000 college scholarship.
  Jeanmarie Hicks, who recently graduated as valedictorian from St. 
Thomas More High School in Rapid City, wrote an eloquent essay entitled 
``Preventive Diplomacy in the Iraq-Kuwait Dispute and in the Venezuela 
Border Dispute.'' In addition to her writing skills, Jeanmarie recently 
took first place in South Dakota in both the National French Contest 
and the National Spanish Contest, and will attend the College of St. 
Benedict in Minnesota this fall.
  I know my colleagues join me in congratulating Jeanmarie on all of 
her accomplishments, and I ask unanimous consent that her essay be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the essay was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

 Preventive Diplomacy in the Iraq-Kuwait Dispute and in the Venezuelan 
                             Border Dispute

  (By Jeanmarie Hicks, St. Thomas More High School, January 22, 1999)

       ``Too little, too late'' often in the prevention of violent 
     conflicts holds true (Peck). When the roots of the problem 
     are not identified in time, violence becomes the solution. 
     Preventive diplomacy, one way of avoiding conflicts, can be 
     defined as ``action to prevent disputes from arising among 
     parties to prevent existing disputes from escalating into 
     conflicts, and to limit the spread of the latter when they 
     occur'' (Boutros-Ghali 45).
       Preventive diplomacy protects peace and ultimately people, 
     who suffer greatly in armed conflicts. Preventive diplomacy 
     has been used in many disputes, including the border dispute 
     in Venezuela with Great Britain in the 1890s and in this 
     decade's Iraq-Kuwait dispute. Conflict was prevented in 
     Venezuela. However, preventive action was not effective in 
     Kuwait; and civilians suffered as a result.
       The United States' intervention in the border dispute in 
     Venezuela is one example of preventive diplomacy. 
     Unfortunately, the border between Guyana and Venezuela was 
     never clearly defined; and colonial maps were inaccurate 
     (Lombardi 29). From the 1840s until the 1880s, Britain pushed 
     into Venezuela over Guyana's western border by claiming the 
     area's gold (Lombardi 29), and by asserting that the land 
     from the Rio Essequibo to the Orinoco was part of Guyana 
     (Schomburgk Line) according to colonial maps (Daly 2). 
     Britain was vehement about its right to the land, and 
     Venezuela appealed to the U.S. for aid. Under the Monroe 
     Doctrine, the U.S. states that it will act as a police force 
     to protect Latin America from European influence. The U.S. 
     viewed Britain's occupation of a portion of Venezuela as a 
     breech of the doctrine (Cleveland 93).
       Conflict was imminent, as Britain began to prepare its navy 
     for war (Boutwell 4). A solution appeared in 1895 in the 
     person of Secretary of State Richard Olney, Enthusiastic to 
     attempt preventive diplomacy, Olney sent a dispatch to 
     Britain stressing the importance of the Monroe Doctrine. Lord 
     Salisbury of Britain responded, saying that the Monroe 
     Doctrine was not applicable in the Venezuela situation, as no 
     system of government was being forced upon the country 
     (Cleveland 100-101). In addition, Salisbury pointed out that 
     the conflict was not the result of the acquisition of new 
     territory: Guyana owned the territory in question (Boutwell 
     10).
       Olney stressed that the issue was pertinent to American 
     stability, and remained steadfast in his demands (Cleveland 
     109). When Britain refused to submit, Congress authorized the 
     president's appointment of an investigative committee. 
     Meanwhile, Salisbury and Olney organized a meeting for 
     November 10, 1896. At the meeting, a treaty was written; and 
     the U.S. threatened to use its military to remove Britain 
     from Venezuela's border if necessary. Britain and 
     Venezuela signed the treaty on February 2, 1897, giving 
     Venezuela control of the Rio Orinocco and much of the land 
     behind the Schomburgk Line (Cleveland 117-118). Thus 
     preventive diplomacy on the part of the U.S. was 
     successful, and war was avoided.
       The use of preventive diplomacy in the recent Iraq-Kuwait 
     dispute was less successful. Iraq had been part of the 
     Ottoman Empire from the 1700s until 1899, when Britain 
     granted it autonomy (Darwish and Alexander 6). When in 1961, 
     Britain gave Kuwait independence, Iraq claimed that, 
     historically, Kuwait was part of Iraq (Sasson 9). Iraq 
     begrudgingly recognized Kuwait's independence in 1963.
       For awhile, relations between the two countries improved as 
     Kuwait aided Iraq monetarily in the Iran-Iraq War (1980 until 
     1988) (Sasson 11). After the war, however, Iraq demanded 
     money from Kuwait for reconstruction. Then Iraq accused 
     Kuwait of drilling oil from the border without sharing and of 
     taking more oil than the Organization of Petroleum Exporting 
     Countries (OPEC) quota permitted (Sasson 12). Iraq began to 
     threaten Kuwait borders, beginning a conflict that would take 
     thousands of soldiers away from their homes, harm civilians, 
     and detrimentally affect the environment.
       In 1990, Iraq began to mobilize near the Kuwait border 
     (Darwish and Alexander 6). Arab nations made unsuccessful 
     attempts at preventive diplomacy (U.S. News & World Report 
     99). Surrounding nations attempted unsuccessfully to meet 
     with Saddam Hussein. Iraq invaded Kuwait, took control of its 
     capital on August 2, 1990, and installed a puppet government 
     under Hussein's command. Iraqi soldiers brutally raped 
     Kuwaiti women, and killed any civilian who was considered an 
     obstruction (Sasson 76). At this point, the United Nations 
     Security Council and the Arab League placed an embargo on 
     Iraqi oil as punishment. Iraq, in response, annexed Kuwait 
     (U.S. News & World Report 95-96).
       War was imminent. On November 29, 1990, Iraq showed no 
     signs that it would retreat. The United Nations Security 
     Council declared that the coalition should use all

[[Page S8252]]

     means to expel Iraq from Kuwait if Iraq remained there after 
     January 15, 1991 (Gordon and Trainor 195). In a final attempt 
     at preventive diplomacy on January 9, James Baker of the U.S. 
     met with Iraq's foreign minister, Tariq Aziz. Baker stressed 
     that the coalition was willing to fight, and encouraged Iraq 
     to leave Kuwait (U.S. News & World Report 199). Iraq, 
     however, refused to retreat; and Hussein declared that Iraq 
     would fight a ``holy war'' for Kuwait. The world realized 
     that war was the only means of solving the problem (Gordon 
     and Trainor 197-198).
       Air assaults began on January 17, and land war began on 
     February 24 (U.S. News & World Report). Iraqi civilian 
     casualties were heavy. The land war lasted only 100 hours, 
     but numerous oil wells were set afire, causing the emission 
     of dangerous gases. Peace was never truly made. Hussein 
     resisted the requirements for peace, including frequent 
     United Nations inspections and the prohibition of possession 
     of nuclear weapons (U.S. New & World Report 447).
       The consequences of the Iraq-Kuwait conflict are grave. 
     Civilians of both Iraq and Kuwait suffered. Fires in oil 
     wells caused dangerous air pollution. American soldiers 
     suffer from the so-called Gulf War Syndrome, which has caused 
     a number of afflictions and death. The Syndrome is believed 
     to have resulted from the biological and chemical weapons and 
     the gases emitted by the oil wells (Eddington 1-2).
       As illustrated, preventive diplomacy can affect the outcome 
     of imminent disputes. Various factors affect its success. In 
     the Venezuela border dispute, preventive diplomacy was 
     effective for several reasons. First, the problem was 
     recognized early; and neither side was truly battle-ready. 
     Second, the problem was contained, in that only four nations 
     (Venezuela, Britain, Guyana, and the U.S.) were involved. 
     Finally, both sides were willing to cooperate: the U.S. 
     supported the Monroe Doctrine, and Britain decided that the 
     border area was not worth war.
       Preventive diplomacy was not effective in the Iraq-Kuwait 
     dispute. First, the problem was not recognized and acted upon 
     until Iraq had mobilized in Kuwait. Second, many nations were 
     involved in the conflict, putting Iraq on the defensive. 
     Problem solving was made a worldwide effort rather than an 
     isolated effort concerning Iraq, Kuwait, and a few mediators. 
     Finally, Hussein and the Iraqis were and remain unwilling to 
     cooperate for peace, as illustrated by the recent problems 
     with weapons' inspections.
       With increasingly powerful weapons of mass destruction, 
     preventive diplomacy is particularly important. Moreover, 
     preventing crises is more effective than dealing with the 
     consequences of armed conflict (USIA Electronic Journals). 
     Consequently, some factors could be initiated to make 
     preventive diplomacy more effective in the future. First, 
     nations must learn about other nations' cultures in order to 
     learn respect for the people (``Stopping War Before It 
     Starts''). Children should be taught about the other 
     countries' histories and cultures in school; and current 
     information about events abroad should be readily available 
     to the public. Secondly, acceptable political behavior must 
     be explicitly defined by an international council that all 
     nations will be aware of the consequences of their actions 
     (Kennan 83). The ownership of nuclear weapons, for example, 
     should be limited. An international council would deal with 
     breaches of the rule by inspections, reprimands, and military 
     action, if necessary.
       Preventive diplomacy centers must be established in all 
     regions (Peck). Each center would have professional 
     peacemakers and staffs, and report to the previously 
     mentioned international council, for international 
     cooperation is important in the prevention of war in that all 
     nations must cooperate to maintain good relations, and thus 
     peace (``Preventive Diplomacy in Action''). The centers would 
     watch for signs of conflict, study causes, and train 
     diplomats. With centers in all regions, conflicts could be 
     dealt with immediately. The involved nations would not need 
     to feel threatened, unless preventive diplomacy is refused, 
     in which case, the nations in the council would unite 
     militarily to maintain peace. If a potential conflict was 
     identified, the center would react by gathering 
     representatives from each party (Peck). The center's 
     diplomats would facilitate negotiation by suggesting ways to 
     make concessions; and hopefully, war would be prevented.
       Preventive diplomacy, when used effectively as in 
     Venezuela, aids in the avoiding of armed conflict. However, 
     as apparent in the tragedy in the Iraq-Kuwait dispute, when 
     preventive diplomacy is not effective, people on both sides 
     of the conflict and resources suffer. Certain measures, 
     including regional centers, the consolidation of the problem, 
     and cooperation, should be taken for optimum effectiveness. 
     Preventive diplomacy can make the difference between 
     bloodshed and peace, which is necessary for survival in these 
     times of technological advances in weaponry. As Abraham 
     Lincoln said in his second inaugural address, ``Let us strive 
     . . . to do all which may achieve a just and lasting peace 
     among ourselves and all nations'' (qtd. in Boutwell 16).

                          ____________________