[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.

                          ____________________