[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 78 (Tuesday, June 20, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5449-S5451]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
COMMENDING DAVID REDLINGER AND THE NATIONAL PEACE ESSAY CONTEST
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, when I was in high school, there was a
great deal of discussion in the Senate and across the country about our
country's role in preserving and promoting world peace. With the end of
the cold war, the focus of that debate has changed dramatically. The
arms race with the Soviet Union and the threat of communism spreading
in Europe are, thankfully, a part of our history. The challenge of
promoting peace, however, is as relevant today as it was at the height
of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
From Northern Ireland to the Middle East; from Africa to Asia, too
many innocent lives are destroyed by war and violence. We must be
creative in developing and adapting strategies for peace. Thankfully,
there are young people from across the country who have given
thoughtful consideration to how to create and sustain peace in the
world. The National Peace Essay Contest recognizes high school students
who have articulated a commitment to peace, and I am pleased to have
the opportunity to recognize one of those young people.
Tomorrow, I will meet with David Redlinger of Watertown, South Dakota
who is this year's South Dakota winner of the National Peace Essay
Contest. David's essay on Tajikistan and Sudan is eloquent, and
demonstrates his commitment to the fight for peace in the world. I
would like to congratulate David, and I ask that his essay be inserted
into the Record.
There being no objection, the essay was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Commitment to Peace for the 21st Century
(By David J. Redlinger)
In 1991, statues crumbled along with the tyrannical
governments that erected these symbols of the Cold War. As
chaos manifested the potential for instability became a
[[Page S5450]]
reality. The United States then felt obligated to help to
mold new democracies and promote regional security for these
new nations. As globalization and the interdependency of
nation takes priority, cooperation must be used as the
guiding principle for the foreign policy of nations, in the
benefit of both security and democracy. Unfortunately, self-
interest is the dominating determinate in the formulation of
foreign policy which leads to hypocritical and paradoxical
policies toward other nations. In 1991, the United States was
faced with injustices in Tajikistan and Sudan stemming from
the polarization of the work and the lack of cooperation
amongst nations. The changing nature of conflicts toward
regionalism, coupled with the United States' domestic
pressures to create foreign policy for the sole benefit of
America, led to perpetuated inaction that has threatened both
regional security and the promotion of democracy, supposedly
the cornerstone to United States' foreign policy. More than
just symbols of communism's bygone era crumbled in 1991; the
foundation of foreign policy for the leader of the free world
was also denigrated.
Regional instability pervades attempts to form legitimate
governments. Tajikistan is juxtaposed with the extremely
unstable areas of Afghanistan, Pakistan, China, and the other
former Soviet Republics. Daniel Pipes wrote, ``Peace and
stability in the region depend in large part on Afghanistan,
and its future will be determined by developments in
Tajikistan.'' The fragile balance of power that has existed
in the region could easily be upset. With new nuclear powers,
such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, and China, it is necessary
that the United States form policies that would help mitigate
proliferation and support regional security.
Barnett R. Rubin, Director of the Center for the Study
Central Asia at Columbia University, in testimony stated
that, ``. . . structural conditions virtually guaranteed that
inevitable disputes over the future of the country would
escalate into chaotic and bloody warfare, and that
neighboring states would act, sometimes brutally, to protect
their own security.'' The inability to solve these quandaries
between the national themselves can lead to the
destabilization of the region. The United States never took
an appropriate stance for the promotion of regional security.
Mr. Rubin calls for the integration of Tajikistan into a
coalition of Central Asian countries to render stabilization
of the region. The United States' policy must direct
attention towards this region if peace and stability are to
be established. Intervention, not inaction,will best reduce
the animosity amongst the countries.
Democratic ideas are also critical to peace. Unfortunately,
United States' policy did not help the struggling new
democracy of Tajikistan. Davlat Khudonazarov, a Presidential
candidate in Tajikistan of 1991 recalls in testimony to
congress, ``At political meetings I would talk about America
and about American values, about the values of American
democracy. It was my hope that these ideas would become a
symbol of truth for my people, truth and justice for my
people. Unfortunately, we received no help from the
outside.'' The leader of the free world did not fulfill its
duty in promoting democracy to a country that was asking for
it. United States' policy remained selfish and domestically
oriented in 1994 and never answered Tajikistan's cries for
help.
This inaction led to Tajikistan's thrust into political
turmoil, an estimated 500,000 to 600,000 internally displaced
people, and left more than 1 million innocent civilians dead.
The United States never seized the opportunity for the
advancement of democratic ideals in Tajikistan. Furthermore,
regional security was compromised because of the absence of
meaningful U.S. policies.
Said Akhmedow, Senior Lecturer of Philosophy at Tajik State
University and Chairman of the Committee for Religion of the
Council of Ministers of Tajikistan, relates the conflict most
significantly to both religious and political struggles after
the fall of communism. Mr. Akhmedov credits the political
differences of the Party of Islamic Renaissance of Tajikistan
(PIRT) and the Democratic Party of Tajikistan (DPT) to the
social differences between these two groups. Democratic
modernists were pitted against the Islamic traditionalists in
the fight for control of the country, while inversely the
democratic forces did not. The United States neglected to
form policies to promote the democratic ideals. Thus,
Tajikistan was left to fight for itself without the tools a
free society could utilize. America, because of domestic
pressures, was unable to promote the democratic ideals Davlat
Kludonazarov and other Tajiks has asked for. Therefore,
Tajikistan lost its autonomy to the repression of democracy
and the destabilization of the region.
Sudan has also been plagued by struggle. The conflict has
resulted in a total of 6 million people displaced, over 1
million injured, and the worst famine in the world this
century. The war continues because, as according to Francis
Deng, a former ambassador from Sudan, it is a ``zero-su?n
conflict.'' Lengthy wars cannot reach resolution without
significant intervention. The United States has not
implemented effective policies that have resulted in the
necessary change for the Sudanese people. The universal goals
of regional security and the promotion of democracy have been
discarded for a conflict which, ``. . . Even by the tortured
yardstick of Africa, a continent riven by armed conflict,
the scarcely visible war ravaging southern Sudan has
surpassed most measures . . . The conflict rates as the
continent's most deadly . . .'' The Sudanese People's
Liberation Army (SPLA) of the southern part of the country
who are generally moderate Muslims have been in conflict
with the Northern Islamic Front (NIF), Islamic
fundamentalists and seek to have the SPLA assimilate
culturally.
In the region, Kenya, Egypt, and Uganda have all felt the
effects of the conflict. Kenya has felt the economic impact
of refugees, while Egypt has felt a security threat from the
Islamic fundamentalists. Uganda on the other hand was
politically drawn into the conflict because of President
Museveni's support of the SPLA. The security of the region
can easily become weakened when all these factors collide.
The extension of the civil war outside the borders of Sudan
means that a full scale war could easily ignite in the hot
desert sand. The United States never intervened with
peacekeepers or policies that would marginalize the African
conflict. Instead, domestic issues and pressures took
precedence, while NGO's were expected to provide humanitarian
aid. Conflicts as lengthy as Sudan's war require third party
intervention into the root of the conflict, and not simply
surface level corrections with humanitarian aid. Clearly,
Uganda cannot make effective and fair foreign policy to
support Sudan, but the United States, because of its
nonpartial status, can provide for the protection of the
Sudanese, help to establish fair peace accords, and can
objectively examine the situation and formulate policies to
best support the goal of regional security.
Most recently the United States formed the wrong agenda
which jeopardized its relations with Sudan. As Donald
Patterson, the last United States Ambassador to Sudan, wrote,
``The Clinton administration's continuing criticism of Sudan,
its call for a cease-fire, and the lead it had taken in the
United Nations to bring about the adoption of resolutions
condemning Sudan put additional strains on U.S.-Sudanese
relations.'' The damage to relations could have easily been
avoided if cooperation would have been used. Instead, the
policies were formed in the sole interests of the United
States.
This is not the most advantageous way to support democratic
reforms of emerging nations. Sudan has many Islamic
fundamentalists who resist the modernization and
liberalization of their country. This is the root cause of
the hostility. The country in the mid-1980's was going
through a ``transitional'' period where a new constitution
was established along with a new government. Political
fragmentation between the NIF, SPLA, and others led to a lack
of cohesiveness that is necessary for a new government. This
allowed for the strengthening of Islamic fundamentalist ideas
and the subsequent loss of budding democratic ideals. If the
United States had cultivated its relationship with the
Sudanese, then the prospects for a true democracy would have
had more time to flourish. Both regional security and
democratic ideals were compromised because of the United
States' lack of legitimate and meaningful foreign policy
directed towards Sudan.
In the future, conflicts will continue to be defined by
root causes of religious and social differences, but to
reduce the animosity amongst these nations, it is imperative
that the United States establish policy with the cooperation
as the guiding principle. With globalization, only through
cooperation can effective policies be created. The post-
Soviet world, specifically for Tajikistan and Sudan, has
meant difficulty for the formulation of United States'
foreign policy. The principle of cooperation was often placed
second behind the self-interests of the United States. Future
conflicts, similar to Tajikistan and Sudan, deserve the
United States' help and cooperation in the rendering of both
regional security and the promotion of democracy. Only
through these goals will the society of the 21st Century
attain true and lasting peace.
bibliography
Akhmedov Said. ``Tajikistan II: The Regional Conflict in
Confessional and International Context.'' Conflicting
Loyalties and the State in the Post-Soviet Russia and
Eurasia. Ed. Michael Waller, Alexi Malashenko, and Bruno
Coppieters. London: Frank Cass Publications, 1998.
Ali, Nada Mustafa M. ``The Invisible Economy, Survival, and
Empowerment: Five Cases from Atbara, Sudan.'' Middle Eastern
Women and the Invisible Economy. Ed. Richard A. Lobban, Jr.
Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 1998.
Anderson, G. Norman. Sudan In Crisis: The Failure of
Democracy. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 1999.
Atkin, Muriel. ``Thwarted Democratization in Tajikistan.''
Conflict, Cleavage, and Change in Central Asia and the
Caucasus. Ed. Karen Dawisha and Bruce Parrot. New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Burr, J. Millard and Robert O. Collins. Requiem for the
Sudan: War, Drought and Disaster Relief on the Nile. Boulder:
Westview Press, 1995.
Gretsky, Sergei, ``Russia and Tajikistan.'' Regional Power
Rivalries in the New Eurasia, Russia, Turkey, and Iran. Ed.
Alvin Z. Rubinstein, Oles M. Smolansky and M.E. Sharp. New
York: Armonk, 1995.
Howd, Aimee. ``The Other Genocidal War.'' Insight 10 May
1999; 45-47.
Keith, Linda Camp. ``The United Nations International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Does it Make a
Difference in
[[Page S5451]]
Human Rights Behavior.'' Journal of Peace Research, 36.1
(1999): 95-113.
Lesch, Ann Mosely. The Sudan--Contested National
Identities. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998.
--``Sudan: The Torn Country.'' Current History. May 1999;
218-222.
Parmelee, Jennifer. ``Sudan's Hidden Disaster.'' Washington
Post 28 Jan. 1994. Lexis-Nexis. Online 7 Jan. 2000.
Patterson, Donald. Inside Sudan: Political Islam, Conflict,
and Catastrophe. Boulder Westview Press, 1999.
Pipes, Daniel. ``The Event of Our Era: Former Soviet Muslim
Republics Change the Middle East.'' Central Asia and the
World: Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and
Turkmenistan. Ed. Michael Mandelbaum. New York: Council on
Foreign Relations Press, 1994.
Shalita, Nicholas. The Sudan Conflict (1983- ).'' The True
Cost of Conflict; Seven Recent Wars and Their Effects on
Society. Ed. Michael Cranna. New York: The Free Press, 1994.
Sidahmed, Abdel Salam. Politics and Islam in Contemporary
Sudan. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1990.
United States. Cong. House, Subcommittee on Europe and the
Middle East of the Committee of Foreign Affairs. Developments
in Tajikistan. 103rd Cong. 2nd sess. Washington: GPO, 1994.
____________________