[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 89 (Friday, June 28, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6314-S6316]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

                                 ______
                                 

                 HONORING MELISSA BYERS OF LEAWOOD, KS

 Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, today I am pleased to honor 
Melissa Byers of Leawood, KS, for her impressive essay, ``Determining 
the Role of Peacekeeping in a Global Age.'' This essay won first place 
in a State-level competition in the 15th Annual National Peace Essay 
Contest sponsored by the United States Institute of Peace. She received 
a $1,000 college scholarship, and is competing for national awards of 
up to $10,000. Melissa is a high school student at Blue Valley North 
High School in Overland Park, KS.
  Melissa sets an incredible example for all students in our country. 
Melissa came into my office and I met with her to extend my 
congratulations on her accomplishments. I would like to submit her 
essay into the Record and recognize her fine work.
  The United States Institute of Peace is an organization created and 
funded by Congress to promote research, education, and training on the 
resolution of international conflicts. This National Peace Essay 
Contest is one of the Institute's oldest activities to promote civic 
education on international peace for students across the United States. 
I would like to commend the Institute of Peace and Melissa Byers for 
their participation.
  Mr. President, I ask that Melissa's essay be printed in the Record.
  The essay follows:

          Determining the Role of Peacekeeping in a Global Age

                           (By Melissa Byers)

       Throughout the history of the United States, we have 
     adapted foreign policy to meet the unique challenges of the 
     times. Past US foreign policies of imperialism, expansionism, 
     and isolationism were adapted in ways representing a narrow 
     national interest. But global conflicts such as those 
     moderated by the current United Nations missions to the 
     Central Africa Republic, Sierra Leone, and Kosovo, not 
     withstanding the huge ramifications of September 11, require 
     a new foreign policy perspective. The collapse of the Soviet 
     Union effectively ended the Cold War, bringing with it the 
     possibility and the necessity of recognizing that the old 
     order is past and a new order is required. By examining the 
     traditional roles of the military and exploring several case 
     studies, the issues surrounding national policy come more 
     clearly into focus, and we can better begin to formulate and 
     redefine a new way of thinking about the peacekeeping role of 
     the United States military and our national interest.
       Much has been written about the traditional role of the 
     military, and protecting the homeland is a foundational 
     context in defining the role of the military. Erwin A. 
     Schmidl, a historian for the Austrian Ministry of Defense 
     defines five types of peacetime military operations (1) 
     frontier operations, (2) colonial interventions and 
     counterinsurgency, (3) occupational duties, (4) peacekeeping 
     military operations, and (5) multinational operations 
     (Sismanidis 1). This theory can certainly be applied to U.S. 
     history. In frontier operations, the presence of US military 
     was a stabilizing influence in fulfillment of Manifest 
     Destiny. The US military in putting down the Filipino 
     insurrection of 1901 was an example of colonial interventions 
     and counterinsurgency operations, and the US post-WW II 
     occupation of Germany and Japan in deterring the rise of 
     militant forces was an example of occupational duties. The 
     presence of forces in Haiti in trying to maintain political 
     and economic stability is an example of peacekeeping military 
     operations, and the recent NATO interventions in the old 
     Yugoslavia in preventing ethnic cleansing and genocide is an 
     example of multinational operations. The common thread of 
     national protectionism underpins all five roles, formulating 
     the traditional groundwork for the post-WW II definition of 
     peacekeeping.
       The timeliness of this essay is evident in the ashes and 
     aftermath of September 11. With the physical destruction of 
     the two World Trade Towers also came down the ideological 
     pillars of an inviolable and invincible United States. 
     Traditionally, wars have been fought between known enemies 
     and specific military targets. The profile of the enemy was 
     defined. But with the fall of the United Soviet Socialist 
     Republic came a new set of variables that changed foreign 
     policy. The profile of the ``enemy'' is not obscured. In many 
     modern conflicts, violence often occurs between subtle 
     ideological or ethnic enemies. The role of modern 
     peacekeepers is evolving around these global human and 
     economic conflicts. On the evening of September 11th, 
     President George W. Bush's address to the nation articulated 
     a shift in peacekeeping policy as it relates to national 
     security and foreign relations, ``America and our friends and 
     allies join with all those who want peace and security in the 
     world and we stand together to win the war against 
     terrorism'' (Bush Sept 11). In the evolving new foreign 
     policy, definitions are broadened, national security is 
     equated with international security, and American interests 
     are linked with global interests.
       The current evolution of the U.S. military's peacekeeping 
     role stems from United Nations mandates that peacekeepers 
     should maintain international peace and security. As 
     published on the United Nations Website, the role of the 
     peacekeeper is divided into three categories. (1) Cease-fire 
     peacekeeping, in which conflicting countries can pull back, 
     creating a more conducive environment for negotiations. (2) 
     Multi-dimensional peacekeeping, in which experts inspire 
     major political, social and economic change, strengthening 
     national institutions. (3) Humanitarian peacekeeping, in 
     which massive human suffering is relieved, delivering needed 
     support and supplies (What is Peacekeeping?).
       In the last six months, the role of U.S. peacekeepers has 
     been drastically redefined to include these roles. In 
     response to the threat of global terrorism, the U.S. has 
     broadened homeland defense to include global interests. In a 
     speech, marking the 100-day anniversary of September 11, Bush 
     declared, ``American power will be used against all 
     terrorists of global reach'' (Bush Dec. 20). The U.S. has now 
     begun to build coalitions, attack terrorist networks, employ 
     economic sanctions against those supporting and harboring 
     terrorism, and condemn terrorist attacks wherever they occur. 
     More funds have

[[Page S6315]]

     been made available the military's role, from not only 
     eliminating terrorist targets, but also to providing 2.5 
     million humanitarian rations inside Afghanistan (Bush Dec. 
     20).
       One positive example of U.S. military involvement in 
     peacekeeping happened during the 1999 Kosovo campaign to stop 
     the ethnic cleaning entire of the Albanian community (U.S. 
     White House 41-42). The presence of NATO peacekeepers 
     provided for surrender of Slobodan Milosevic, repatriation of 
     Albanian refugees, and withdrawal of Serbian forces from 
     contested soils (U.S. White House 41-52). The success of the 
     peacekeepers' involvement in Kosovo in promoting democratic 
     principles also increased the security and stability of 
     Europe. In October 2000, the world watched as Kosovo held its 
     first free and open municipal election, and its positive 
     result increased public confidence that peacekeeping efforts 
     could be successful.
       Negative examples of U.S. military involvement in 
     peacepeekping occurred during operations in Lebanon and 
     Somalia, failing due to a lack of US focus and resolve. 
     During the Lebanese civil turmoil in the eighties, several 
     thousand American, French, British, and Italian peacekeepers 
     intervened to stop bloodshed, yet terrorism and flagging 
     public support forced the peacemakers to withdraw without 
     finding a peaceful solution (Magnuson 54). During the 
     Somalian Conflict in 1992, 30,000 U.S. military troops 
     attempted to open supply routes and disarm local militias, 
     but horrific images of the bodies of U.S. soldiers being drug 
     through the streets of Mogadisu helped to break U.S. national 
     resolve (Carpender). Both missions were designed to decrease 
     localized violence and civilian suffering, with limited 
     international involvement, but in each, American uniforms 
     because the target of heavily armed local militias. While 
     these failed attempts at peacekeeping diminished U.S. 
     international prestige, the most negative result was public 
     disillusionment. Unsuccessful interventions in the civil 
     matters of others countries, compounded by costs of American 
     lives and resources, drastically limits the public resolve 
     to intervene.
       The tragedy of Rwanda is an example of the negative 
     implications of restricting U.S. military involvement abroad. 
     When the UN Security Council withdrew most of its 
     peacekeepers from Rwanda, it created a deathly vacuum, 
     resulting in the slaughter of 800,000 Tutsis in three months 
     (Kuperman 105). Four months later the UN reversed its 
     decision (Carnegie 4). In part, due to the Somalia 
     experience, the U.S. continued to be reluctant to intervene 
     (Nye 32). Experts project that the timely intervention of 
     6,000 U.S. troops could have prevented 275,000 Tutsi deaths 
     (Kuperman 100). Lack of U.S. military action partially 
     resulted in the human tragedy of Rwandan genocide, while the 
     guilt of the nations grew and the national consciences 
     appeared to numb.
       Vietnam is an example of the positive implications of 
     restricting U.S. military involvement abroad. For decades, 
     France and Vietnam had been embroiled in military conflict. 
     When France withdrew, the Americans entered in a peacekeeping 
     role, fearing the domino effect. By 1955, American 
     peacekeepers began advising military and political leaders 
     against the communist forces lead by Ho Chi Minh (Bailey 916-
     917). Eventually, peacekeeping forces became military troops, 
     escalating U.S. involvement, distracting the U.S. from its 
     goal of peace, and entangling the U.S. in a long protracted 
     war. Thus, public support decreased. What started out as a 
     peacekeeping effort resulted in 47,355 American casualties, 
     over one million Vietnamese casualties, and at a cost of 352 
     billion dollars (Bailey A34). The extent of such losses makes 
     for a strong argument in limiting U.S. military engagement 
     abroad.
       Over the next decade, there is no doubt that the American 
     military must play a leading part in insuring international 
     peace and security. The old order, including the narrow 
     traditional role of the military, is obsolete, and a new 
     order, including a broadened innovative role of military, is 
     required. Experiences in Kosovo, Lebanon and Somalia, Rwanda, 
     and Vietnam testify that it is in our national interest to 
     formulate and redefine broader peacekeeping roles for the 
     United States military. As in the case of Kosovo, the U.S. 
     needs to be bold enough to commit the forces needed to 
     resolve the situation. As seen in Lebanon and Somalia, 
     military objectives need to be well defined in order to avoid 
     escalating entanglement and unnecessary loss of life. To 
     prevent another Rwanda, the U.S. military policy needs to 
     defend human rights violations wherever they occur, yet, move 
     with enough caution and insight to prevent another Vietnam 
     imbroglio. The lessons of September 11 call us to the 
     openness and flexibility of preventative peacekeeping. The 
     United States must realize that it has a vested interest in 
     what goes on outside its borders, and that the best way to 
     protect our national interests is to defend personal and 
     economic rights worldwide.


                              Works Cited

       Bailey, Thomas A. and David M. Kennedy. The American 
     Pageant. D.C. Health and Company: 1994.
       Bush, George W. Address to the Nation. The White House, 
     Washington, D.C. 11 Sept. 2001.
       Bush, George W. President Blocks More Assets in Financial 
     War on Terrorism. Remarks. The White House, Washington, D.C. 
     20 Dec. 2001.
       Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict. 
     Preventing Deadly Conflict: Final Report. Washington, D.C. 
     Carnegie Commission, 1997.
       Carpenter, Ted Galen. ``Setting a Dangerous Precedent in 
     Somalia.'' 18 Dec. 1992. Cato Foreign Policy Briefing No. 20. 
     15 Jan. 2001.
       Kuperman, Alan J. ``Rwanda in Retrospect.'' Foreign Affairs 
     Jan.-Feb. 2000: 1-8.
       Magnuson, Ed. ``Nothing but Quicksand; If It Is Hard to 
     Keep the Marines in Lebanon, It Is Harder to Pull Them Out.'' 
     Times 2 Jan. 1984: 54-56.
       Nye, Joseph S. Jr. ``Redefining the National Interest.'' 
     Foreign Affairs July/Aug. 1999: 22-35.
       Sismanidis, Roxane D.V. Police Functions in Peace 
     Operations: Report From a Workshop Organized By the United 
     States Institute of Peace. Washington, DC: Peaceworks No. 14, 
     1997.
       United States. White House. A National Security Strategy 
     for a Global Age. Washington: GPO, 2000.
       ``What is Peacekeeping?'' 15 Jan. 2001.


                              bibliography

       Albright, Madeleine K. ``Challenges Facing U.S. National 
     Interests at Home and Abroad.'' Center for National Policy. 
     Washington, D.C. 21 Jan. 1999.
       Albright, Madeleine K. Focus on the Issues: Building Peace 
     and Security Around the World. Dept. of State. Washington, 
     D.C.: Feb. 2000.
       ``Allies in Lebanon Now Feel the Heat.'' U.S. News & World 
     Report 19 Dec 1983: 24.
       ``Attacks to Erase 1.6 Million Jobs.'' Kansas City Star 11 
     Jan. 2002: C3.
       Bailey, Thomas A. and Davis M. Kennedy. The American 
     Pageant. D.C. Health and Company: 1994.
       Bryan, William Jennings. ``British Rule in India.'' 22 Jan. 
     1999. New York Journal 17 Jan. 2001.
       Bush, George W. Address to the Nation. The White House, 
     Washington, D.C. 11 Sept. 2001.
       Bush, George W. President Blocks More Assets in Financial 
     War on Terrorism. Remarks. The White House, Washington, D.C. 
     20 Dec. 2001.
       Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict. 
     Preventing Deadly Conflict: Final Report. Washington, D.C.'' 
     Carnegie Commission, 1997.
       Carpenter, Ted Galen. ``Setting a Dangerous Precedent in 
     Somalia.'' 18 Dec. 1992. Cato Foreign Policy Briefing No. 20. 
     15 Jan. 2001.
       Daimbaye, Mirana. ``An Ecumenical Contribution to Resolving 
     Conflict.'' The Ecumenical Review July 2001: 390-396.
       Fleichman, Jeffrey. ``U.S. Peacekeepers: Changing Role 
     Ahead?'' The Inquirer 31 Jan. 2001: A1+.
       Global Security: Part 1: Films for Humanities and Sciences. 
     Videocassette. Princeton, NJ: 1997.
       Global Security: Part 2: Films for Humanities and Sciences. 
     Videocassette. Princeton, NJ: 1997.
       Hoepli-Phalon, Nancy. ``U.S. Foreign Policy and the 
     American Political System.'' Introduction. Great Decisions 
     2000: 5-8.
       ``Iraq/Kuwait-UNIKOM: Background.'' 17 Jan. 2001.
       Jantzen, Steven L., Kenneth Neill, and Larry S. Krieger. 
     World History: Perspectives on the Past. D.C. Heath Company: 
     1994.
       Jett, Dennis C. Why Peacekeeping Fails. New York: St. 
     Martin's Press, 2000.
       Kelly, John H. ``6: Lebanon: 1982-1984.'' 18 Jan. 2001.
       Korb, Lawrence J. ``The Military: What Role In U.S. Foreign 
     Policy?'' Great Decisions 2000: 43-52.
       Kuperman, Alan J. ``Rwanda in Retrospect.'' Foreign Affairs 
     Jan.-Feb. 2000: 1-8.
       Kurtz, Howard. ``Kerry Tells of Role in Vietnam Civilian 
     Deaths; Ex-Senator Calls '69 Killings Navy SEAL Unit 
     Accidental.'' The Washington Post 26 April 2001: A1.
       Macrae, Joanna. ``Humanitarianism: Facing New Challenges.'' 
     Great Decisions 2000: 87-96.
       Magnuson, Ed. `` `Nothing but Quicksand'; If It Is Hard to 
     Keep the Marines in Lebanon, It Is Harder to Pull Them Out.'' 
     Times 2 Jan. 1984: 54-56.
       Masland, Tom, et al. ``Fury and Fear (Sierra Leone).'' 
     Newsweek 22 May 2000: 20-22.
       Mason, Berry and Chris Talbot. ``Britain Steps Up Presence 
     in Sierra Leone as UN Forces Crumbles.'' 7 Nov. 2000. World 
     Socialist Web Site 17 Jan. 2001.
       Maynes, Charles William. ``U.S. Role in the World: What Are 
     the Choices?'' Great Decisions 2000: 9-18.
       Nye, Joseph S. Jr. ``Redefining the National Interest.'' 
     Foreign Affairs July/Aug. 1999: 22-35.
       Power, Samantha. ``Never Again: The World's Most 
     Unfulfilled Promise.'' 18 Jan. 2001.
       Ransdell, Eric. ``Where the Warlords Still Rule the 
     Roost.'' U.S. News & World Report 12 Dec. 1994: 67.
       ``Report: Kosovo, Timor Deaths Inflated.'' United Press 
     International 9 Nov. 1999.
       Schraeder, Peter J. ``Africa: Prospects for the Future.'' 
     Great Decisions 2000: 75-84.
       Sismanidis, Roxane D.V. Police Functions in Peace 
     Operations: Report From a Workshop Organized By the United 
     States Institute of Peace. Washington, DC: Peaceworks No. 14, 
     1997.
       Stone, Andrea. ``Pentagon's No. 2: Let Others Take Up 
     Peacekeeping.'' 18 June 2001. USA Today 12 Jan. 2001.
       ``The Bleeding of Rwanda.'' The Economist. 16 Apr. 1994: 
     45.
       United States. Cong. House. Committee on Armed Services. 
     The Impact of Peacekeeping on Army Personnel Requirements. 
     Hearing. 103rd Cong., 1st sess. Microform. Washington: USGPO, 
     1993.

[[Page S6316]]

       Committee on International Relations. Does UN Peacekeeping 
     Serve US Interest? Part 2. Hearings. 105th Cong., 1st sess. 
     Microform. Washington: US GPO, 1997.
       Dept. of State. United States Strategic Plan for 
     International Affairs. Washington, D.C.: 1999.
       White House Fact Sheet on Terrorism. Washington, D.C.: 20 
     Dec. 2001.
       White House. A National Security Strategy for a Global Age. 
     Washington: GPO, 2000.
       ``What is Peacekeeping?'' 15 Jan. 2001.
       Weiss, Thomas G. ``U.S. Role In the UN a Changing 
     Dynamic?'' Great Decisions 1999: 87-97.

                          ____________________