[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 96 (Tuesday, July 16, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6858-S6860]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  2002 NATIONAL PEACE ESSAY CONTEST SOUTH DAKOTA WINNER, JESSICA HICKS

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am honored today to present to my 
colleagues in the Senate an essay by Jessica Hicks of Rapid City, SD. 
Jessica is a student at St. Thomas More High

[[Page S6859]]

School and she is the National Peace Essay Contest winner for South 
Dakota. ``Taking the Middle Ground: The Role of the Military in 
International Peacekeeping With Focus on Rwanda and Bosnia'' is a call 
to U.S. leaders to seek an active American role in international 
peacekeeping that never loses sight of our national security interests. 
Jessica has tackled a vitally important subject with compassion, 
realism, and maturity. I can only hope that she continues to share her 
wisdom with the world, and I commend her essay to my colleagues' 
attention.
  I ask unanimous consent that Jessica Hicks' essay be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

      Taking the Middle Ground: The Role of the U.S. Military in 
       International Peacekeeping With Focus on Rwanda and Bosnia

                           (By Jessica Hicks)

       ``Never doubt that a small group of deeply committed 
     citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing 
     that ever has'' (qtd. Mead). The U.S. military is composed of 
     a group of ``committed citizens'' that works to serve the 
     U.S. and its interests. As of late, the U.S.'s interests have 
     turned to international conflicts and peacekeeping. 
     International peacekeeping involves outside countries aiding 
     in stabilizing an area through mediation, presence, and 
     humanitarian aid. The military's role in international 
     peacekeeping has often been called into question. Many feel 
     that the U.S. military should only work to end conflict and 
     to ensure peace in areas of interest to the U.S. Others 
     believe that the U.S. should take an isolationist approach 
     toward peacekeeping, with the focus of the military on 
     protecting U.S. borders.
       Critics may not agree, but the U.S. military does have an 
     important role in international peacekeeping, a role that was 
     especially apparent during the 1990s. During this decade, 
     genocide occurred in Rwanda and Bosnia. In Bosnia, the U.S. 
     military took an active part in peacekeeping efforts (``Why 
     the Troops Should Go''), whereas in Rwanda, the U.S. did not 
     contribute to the United Nation's (UN) initial peacekeeping 
     mission (Onumah). In the next decade, the U.S. military 
     should follow a ``middle ground'' policy in international 
     matters, so as to be able to maintain national security and 
     to participate in peacekeeping (Hull 77).
       The Rwandan genocide that occurred in 1994 was a result of 
     past tensions (Goble). In 1919, Belgium colonized Rwanda, 
     whose majority population is composed of two ethnic groups, 
     the Hutus and the Tutsis (Freeman 16). Belgian colonizers 
     increased differences between the two groups by issuing 
     ethnic identity cards and placing the Tutsis in high 
     government positions, though the Hutus were in the majority 
     (Prunier 28).
       Frustrated by their lack of power, the Hutus overthrew the 
     monarchy of Rwanda in 1959 (Giles 59). As a result of this 
     change of power, many Tutsis were killed, and approximately 
     200,000 became refugees in neighboring countries 
     (``Rwanda''). In 1962, Rwanda gained independence from 
     Belgium, and the Hutus gained control of the government 
     (Iliffe 251). In 1973, Habyarimana, a Hutu general, became 
     president of Rwanda. His attempts to include minority parties 
     in the government were unpopular with Hutu extremists 
     (Prunier 74-75).
       Meanwhile, the exiled Tutsis created the Rwandan Patriotic 
     Front (RPF), an army rebel group. In 1990, the RPF launched a 
     civil war against the Hutus (Giles 59). The United Nations 
     Assistance Mission to Rwanda (UNAMIR) was sent in to support 
     Habyarimana's plan to share power with minorities (Shawcross 
     21). However, tensions between the Hutus and the Tutsis 
     continued to increase, and in 1994, Hutu extremists shot down 
     Habyarimana's airplane. Beginning in April of that year and 
     continuing over the next three months, 800,000 Tutsis and 
     moderate Hutus were killed in a genocide by the Hutus 
     (Shawcross 21). The genocide ended in July, 1994, when the 
     Tutsis regained control of the government. As a result, about 
     two million Hutus left Rwanda, becoming refugees 
     (``Rwanda''). When the killing began, most of the UNAMIR 
     troops left Rwanda, and the genocide continued practically 
     unrestrained by foreign influence (Goble). Although the 
     U.S. sent humanitarian aid to Rwanda, it neglected to 
     contribute much needed troops to initial UN peacekeeping 
     efforts (Onumah).
       The response of the U.S. military was different in Bosnia. 
     Bosnia's tensions largely began with the creation of 
     Yugoslavia after the First World War (Fromkin 135). Three 
     ethnic groups have traditionally existed in Bosnia: the 
     Croats, the Serbs, and the Muslims (Borden 16). Bosnia was 
     part of communist Yugoslavia in the 1980s, and declared its 
     independence in 1992 (Dragnich 192). Bosnian Serbs set out to 
     create a ``greater Serbia'' by means of ethnic cleansing 
     (Allen 44). In 1992, the UN responded by imposing naval 
     blockades and trade sanctions on the former Yugoslavia 
     (Ricchiardi 59). Croats and Muslims fought each other, as 
     well as the Serbs. The United Nations unsuccessfully created 
     six ``safe havens'' (protected cities) for the Muslims and 
     the Croats in 1993 (Donia and Fine 243).
       The U.S. helped to reduce the ethnic groups' fighting by 
     mediating the signing of a peace agreement between the Croats 
     and the Muslims in 1994 (``Fact Sheet: Human Rights Issues . 
     . .''). Finally after atrocities committed by both sides, 
     peace was reached in 1995, when, with the U.S.'s help the 
     warring groups agreed to peace (to end war) in Dayton, Ohio 
     (``Bosnia and Herzegovina''). To aid in peacekeeping, NATO 
     sent in 60,000 troops as part of ``multinational military 
     Implementation Force'' (IFOR) with U.S. soldiers comprising 
     one-third of the troops (``Why the Troops Should Go''). The 
     U.S. provided appropriate peacekeeping measures in Bosnia 
     through mediation, presence, and humanitarian aid. Today, a 
     reduced number of troops continues to remain in Bosnia to aid 
     in keeping peace (Burg and Shoup 387).
       The U.S. military has a vital role in international 
     peacekeeping. Because of U.S. military influence, U.S. 
     military involvement is critical to the success of 
     peacekeeping efforts (Fromkin 49). The U.S. has access to 
     resources that are essential to the peacekeeping process. In 
     Rwanda, the U.S. initially did not want to be involved, and 
     did not contribute troops, thus delaying peace in Rwanda 
     (Jenish 24). In Bosnia, the U.S. military successfully worked 
     through NATO to provide peacekeeping forces (Burg and Shoup 
     377-379). However, the U.S. should not dominate the 
     peacekeeping process. A ``middle ground'' must be found in 
     foreign policy. The ``middle ground'' policy involves the 
     U.S.'s contributing military troops and aid, in cooperation 
     with the UN, NATO, and other countries (Hull 77).
       The U.S. military must determine whether its involvement is 
     necessary in foreign conflicts. International peacekeeping 
     turns the U.S. military away from its primary duty to protect 
     the American borders and people. The U.S. must determine if 
     the results of the conflict will affect its interests, such 
     as national security (Fromkin 168). The U.S. military 
     recognized that unrest in Bosnia could eventually cause 
     conflict in Europe, whose stability is vital to the U.S. 
     (``Why the Troops Should Go'').
       However, the U.S. also sends in military based on its 
     ideals, such as recognition of a need for peace and stability 
     (Fromkin 171). The U.S. has been accused of not being 
     consistent in its involvement in international 
     peacekeeping, and of becoming involved only when benefits 
     are apparent for the U.S. The U.S. became involved in 
     Bosnia partially because civilians felt that great 
     injustices were occurring, and that peace was needed 
     (Vulliamy 118).
       Over the next decade, the U.S. military needs to continue 
     aiding in international peacekeeping. However, a ``middle 
     ground'' policy is a necessity when dealing with 
     international matters. By maintain a ``middle ground'' 
     policy, the U.S. can sustain a sufficient force at home for 
     national security purposes (Hull 78). The U.S. military can 
     also work with the UN, other countries, and regional 
     organizations in peacekeeping. By taking the middle course, 
     the U.S. military will be able to do its part in 
     international affairs, while still protecting the American 
     people.
       In cooperation with the UN, the U.S. can work to provide 
     mediation, presence, and material aid. Mediation was 
     important in solving the Bosnia conflict. The U.S. helped 
     arrange to have Bosnian leaders meet in Dayton, Ohio, acting 
     as a mediator at the peace talks (Burg and Shoup 408). The 
     U.S. can contribute military troops to the UN forces to help 
     local officials maintain peace. The U.S. military can help 
     ensure that minority groups are not threatened. As 
     illustrated in Rwanda, the U.S.'s hesitancy to send troops to 
     aid the UN forces in 1994 prevented the cessation of the 
     genocide in its early stages (``Rwanda Revisited: A Look Back 
     . . .''. Regional organizations should be utilized or 
     established to help in peacekeeping actions, such as the 
     distribution of humanitarian aid (Hull 93). When such 
     organizations are not employed, aid can be misdirected, as in 
     Rwanda, where corruption prevented appropriate distribution 
     (``Humanitarian Efforts Threatened . . .''). Regional 
     organizations are at the ground level of the problem, and, 
     therefore, know who needs aid. Misappropriations of aid, as 
     in Rwanda, can thus be avoided. These actions of mediation, 
     presence, and material aid will be vital in the next decade.
       The U.S. military has an important role in international 
     peacekeeping, which was especially apparent in the 1990s. The 
     U.S. military took an active part in Bosnian peacekeeping 
     efforts. In Rwanda, however, the U.S. military failed to help 
     in initial peacekeeping actions. The U.S. military should 
     have a ``middle ground'' policy in dealing with international 
     peacekeeping. This policy would allow the U.S. to maintain 
     national security and to be active in international 
     peacekeeping efforts. Because of the complicated nature of 
     peacekeeping, the U.S. goals may not always be realized; but 
     U.S. involvement is imperative for peace. As Theodore 
     Roosevelt said, ``. . . the man who really counts in the 
     world is the doer, not the mere critic--the man who actually 
     does the work, even if roughly and imperfectly, not the man 
     who only talks or writes about how it ought to be done.'' The 
     U.S. military aspires to take on this role in international 
     peacekeeping.


                              Works Cited

       Allen, Beverly. Rape Warfare: The Hidden Genocide in 
     Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia. Minneapolis, MN: University 
     of Minnesota Press, 1996.

[[Page S6860]]

       Borden, Anthony. ``The War in Bosnia: Seeds of Wars to 
     Come.'' State of the Peoples: A Global Human Rights Report on 
     Societies in Danger. Ed. Marc S. Miller. Boston, MA: Beacon 
     Press, 1993. 15-22.
       ``Bosnia and Herzegovina.'' CIA--The World Factbook 1 Jan. 
     2001. 27 Dec. 2001 <http://www.cia-gov/cia/publications/
factbook/geos/bk.html>.
       Burg, Steven L., and Paul S. Shoup. The War in Bosnia-
     Hercegovina: Ethnic Conflict and International Intervention. 
     Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 1999.
       Donia, Robert J., and John V.A. Fine, Jr. Bosnia and 
     Hercegovina: A Tradition Betrayed. New York: Columbia 
     University Press, 1994.
       Dragnich, Alex N. Serbs and Croats: The Struggle in 
     Yugoslavia. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1992.
       ``Fact Sheet: Human Rights Issue in the Balkans.'' US 
     Department of State Dispatch 15 Dec. 1995. Infotrac. Rapid 
     City Public Library. 27 Dec. 2001. <http://
infotrac.galegroup.com/menu>.
       Freeman, Charles. Crisis in Rwanda. Austin, TX: Steck-
     Vaughn, 1999.
       Fromkin, David. Kosovo Crossing. New York: The Free Press, 
     1999.
       Giles, Bridget, ed. Peoples of East Africa. New York: Facts 
     On File, 1997.
       Goble, Paul, ``Rwanda's Forgotten Genocide.'' United Press 
     International 8 Apr. 2001. 26 Dec. 2001. <http://
www.comtexnews.com>.
       Hull, Mary. Ethnic Violence. San Diego, CA: Lucent Books, 
     1997.
       ``Humanitarian Efforts Threatened by Security Problems: 
     International Tribunal Created.'' UN Chronicle Mar. 1995, 
     32.1. Infofrac. Rapid City Public Library. 26 Dec. 2001. 
     <http://infotrac.galegroup.com/menu>
       Lliffe, John. Africans: The History of a Continent. New 
     York: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
       Jenish, D'Arcy. `` `Preventable Genocide': A New 
     International Report Says the 1994 Slaughter in Rwanda Did 
     Not Have to Happen.'' Maclean's 17 July 2002:24.
       Mead, Margaret. qtd. Thinking Quotes 31 Dec. 2001 <http://
www.2think.org/quotes.html>.
       Onumah, Chido. ``Revisting the Genocide in Rwanda.'' Africa 
     News Service 11 Aug. 2000. 26 Dec. 2001. <http://
www.comtexnews.com>.
       Prunier, Gerard. The Rwanda Crisis: History of a Genocide. 
     New York: Columbia University Press, 1995.
       Ricchiardi, Sherry. Bosnia: The Struggle for Peace. 
     Brookfield, CT: Millbrook Press, 1996.
       Roosevelt, Theodore. ``Quotations of Theodore Roosevelt.'' 
     Theodore Roosevelt Association 30 Dec. 2001. <http://
www.theodoreroosevelt.org/life/quotes.html>
       ``Rwanda.'' CIA-The World Factbook 1 Jan. 2001. 27 Dec. 
     2001 <http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/
rm.html>.
       ``Rwanda Revisited: A Look Back at the Biggest Bloodstain 
     on the World's Conscience in the 1990s.'' The Economist 25 
     Dec. 1999: 5.
       Shawcross, William. ``The Deadly Sin of Staying Neutral.'' 
     Newsweek International 27 Dec. 1999: 21.
       Vulliamy, Ed. Session in Hell: Understanding Bosnia's War. 
     New York: St. Martin's Press, 1994.
       ``Why the Troops Should Go.'' The New Republic 18 Dec. 
     1995, 213.25 Infotrac. Rapid City Public Library. 27 Dec/ 
     2001. <http://www.infotrac.galegroup.com/menu>

                          ____________________