[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 90 (Friday, June 25, 2004)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1269-E1270]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    CONGRATULATING TYLER TAPPENDORF

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. JERRY F. COSTELLO

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 24, 2004

  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Tyler 
Tappendorf of Belleville, Illinois on winning the National Peace Essay 
Contest in Illinois.
  As my colleagues may know, the essay contest is sponsored by the 
United States Institute of Peace, an independent, non-partisan federal 
institution that promotes research, education and training on the 
prevention, management and peaceful resolution of conflict. First 
conducted in 1987, the essay contest is the Institute's primary 
outreach program to high school students.
  Contestants this year were asked to analyze the process of rebuilding 
societies after conflict. Tyler's essay, Rebuilding from Past 
Conflicts, was selected as the best from the state of Illinois. Tyler 
attends Belleville East High School and plans to attend Valparaiso 
University and study actuarial science and Spanish.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish Tyler the best of luck in the future and again 
congratulate him on this great accomplishment, and I am entering his 
essay into the Record so it can be enjoyed by others.

                     Rebuilding From Past Conflicts

       From the sheer numbers of a post-war death toll to the 
     immense destruction of buildings and infrastructure, 
     conflicts leave their mark on the world. The work that' 
     continues once the fighting has stopped determines whether 
     more problems will erupt or whether an ultimate peace will 
     triumph. This post-war reconstruction is often a complex and 
     difficult process. From the players in the rebuilding to the 
     system of governance, each aspect of reconstruction impacts 
     the final outcome. Though some attempts have failed and 
     others have succeeded, humankind can learn a great deal from 
     past reconstruction efforts. The analysis of the aftermath in 
     Japan after World War II and the reconciliation in Rwanda 
     following the 1994 genocide suggests that plans for 
     successful rebuilding must include a branching network of 
     peacekeepers, an effective system of justice, and an 
     impartial system of governance.
       On August 15, 1945, the largest war in the history of the 
     world reached its end onboard the U.S.S. Missouri after the 
     United States unleashed on Japan the world's most powerful 
     bombs. According to W. G. Beasley, with the swipe of a pen, 
     the Japanese handed over power to the United States beginning 
     a seven-year occupation feared by many Japanese as the end to 
     their country, but ultimately recognized as ``a fresh 
     beginning'' (214).
       Embarking on what political scientist Robert Ward calls 
     ``the single most exhaustively planned operation of massive 
     and externally directed political change in world history,'' 
     the United States commenced reconstruction with trials of war 
     criminals (Nardo 91). These trials quickly eliminated outside 
     cries for revenge. Concurrently, new officials removed old 
     leaders from the country, and the occupational government 
     forced Emperor Hirohito to resign his position and denounce 
     his supposed godliness (Dilts 294). This eradication of 
     opposition laid the cornerstone for a smooth 
     reconstruction.
       Along with the United States' system of justice, the means 
     of governance also helped assure the success of the 
     reconciliation process. W.G. Beasley noted that though the 
     United States controlled the country, it chose to govern 
     indirectly through a modified body of Japanese leaders (215). 
     The government also avoided unpopular laws, therefore evading 
     much opposition (216). In conjunction with this, the U.S. 
     also reassured safety and the betterment of the people. This 
     not only initiated future friendliness, but also generated 
     cooperation by the Japanese people (Dilts 294). In ruling 
     through the country's own people and recognizing the 
     citizen's views, reconstruction planted democracy while still 
     maintaining support of the people.
       Together with fair governance, a primary country 
     controlling the process eased the reconstruction. As noted in 
     Modern Japan, numerous countries such as Britain, China, and 
     the Soviet Union would have an influence in the 
     reconstruction, but the large majority of the power fell into 
     the hands of the United States and General Douglas MacArthur 
     (92). This separation between major and minor influences 
     resulted in easier governance along with fewer disputes over 
     insignificant details. By simply gathering the world's 
     suggestions and channeling them through one enforcer, the 
     reconstruction leaders simplified the process.
       With a system of justice, a fair and respected government, 
     a purpose of overall improvement, and one major peacekepper 
     backed by other nations, the peacekeeping process reached it 
     ultimate goal on April 28, 1952. With over fifty nations 
     present, a treaty granted Japan freedom to pursue democracy 
     peacefully and prosperously. Over fifty years later, Japan 
     reigns as a world power while still remaining a peaceful, 
     democratic nation.
       Similar to Japan, Rwanda faced a massive reconstruction 
     following its 1994 genocide. Unfortunately, its outcome 
     proved to be less successful. In April 1994, the murder of 
     Rwanda's Hutu president, coupled with an unsettled past, 
     instantly incited Rwanda's two tribes--the Hutu and Tutsi--to 
     violence. As reported by Bitala, the Hutu, with revenge in 
     mind, murdered nearly 800,000 Tutsi in a span of about three 
     months (6). Though the Tutsi also murdered many Hutu, the 
     numbers of their killing was significantly lower than the 
     genocide carried out by the Hutu (Santoro 11). The violence 
     only reached its end after the Tutsi-led government, the RPF, 
     gained control of the capital (11).
       In a 2001 issue of World Press Review, Michael Bitala also 
     noted that almost immediately the remaining Tutsi pleaded for 
     the RPF to implement a system of justice (6). These requests 
     forced Rwanda's minister of justice to lock up over 100,000 
     suspects, and, consequently, Rwanda's prisons immediately 
     became overcrowded and unsanitary (6). In order to achieve 
     actual justice, leaders derived a new system called 
     ``gacaca'' in which small village courts would hear cases. 
     Discussed in The New Republic, here at the gacacas the 
     killers would face a panel of village leaders who would 
     decide their fate (11). Though the plan began over three 
     years ago, Rwanda has since made little progress (11). Many 
     killers refuse to admit their crimes, many villages simply do 
     not use gacacas, and many RPF leaders discourage the 
     tribunals (11-12). Though the new system of justice in Rwanda 
     can accommodate the masses, it unfavorably plots killers 
     versus victims therefore destroying any hope of fair trials.
       Together with a poor justice system, the govemment, led by 
     the RPF plays unfairly to the Hutu, disrupting hopes of 
     reconciliation. From its beginnings in 1994, the RPF-led 
     government quieted nearly all resistance to its policies. 
     According to Santoro, the totalitarian regime even hindered 
     the planned gacacas (12). In mid-2003 the first election with 
     more than one political party was held in Rwanda, yet despite 
     this apparent improvement, election fraud in all forms belied 
     the progress proving once again the authoritarianism of the 
     government (Coleman n. pag.). Without a government willing to 
     benefit all people of the reconstruction, little progress can 
     be made.
       The division of authority among participants in Rwanda's 
     reconciliation also has hindered its success. As written by 
     Fedarko, immediately following the genocide, French troops 
     served as protectors to the survivors (56). Following this 
     the German government agreed to lead the process for gacacas 
     (Santoro 11). Numerous non-governmental organizations (NGOs) 
     played a similar role throughout the peace process as well 
     (11). All these forces coupled with the Tutsi-led government 
     created an overload of influence without one primary 
     overseer. No government--besides the RPF--was in complete 
     control. Without one dominating mediator, the process was 
     delayed and complicated.
       Rwanda, despite its many efforts, has not reconciled 
     completely. Although no formal fighting has since broken out, 
     the Hutu and Tutsi tribes still stand divided inside the 
     country's borders. Until Rwanda can establish an effective 
     system of justice along with an unbiased government, little 
     progress will occur.

[[Page E1270]]

       Though the reconstruction efforts in Japan and Rwanda 
     contrasted in many aspects, society can learn many of the 
     same lessons from them. First, both wars present evidence 
     that reconstruction must include an effective system of 
     justice. An international group, such as the United Nations, 
     must establish a permanent world court that reviews major 
     war crimes. This court should consist of judges from 
     numerous nations and serve as the authority over post-war 
     justice. Impartiality must be maintained. Along with this, 
     the reconstruction government must establish lesser courts 
     within the damaged country to deal with lesser criminals. 
     Only justice can suppress victims calling for revenge and 
     remove insurgents opposing peace. Hence, a system of 
     justice allows for a smoother rebuilding process.
       Along with a system of justice, one major authority should 
     control reconstruction, although numerous others should have 
     an input on large decisions. Through this branching system, 
     reconstruction becomes more effective and efficient. When one 
     government enforces policies and bears the final authority 
     decisions avoid delays in arguments. The other players, 
     however, must choose the country or NGO to become the primary 
     force. This chosen group must seek to benefit the war-torn 
     country and its people. Similarly, the ultimate goal of the 
     main regulator must focus on plans for a peaceful future as 
     well as reconstruction of structures and government.
       Finally, the players must institute a reasonable and 
     impartial government. Though the major authority should 
     assist the new government, the ruling body should consist 
     only of natives. This prevents opposition to outside 
     governments and eventually encourages self-rule. In 
     conjunction with this, the new or revised government must 
     recognize the needs and wants of the citizens. Governments 
     must also establish fair laws as well as democratic elections 
     and processes. If at any time the reconstruction leaders feel 
     that the new government is failing, then they should have 
     authority to revise or remove it. Through an evenhanded 
     government, a country can reestablish itself while protecting 
     the rights of its citizens.
       With the implementation of a primary reconstruction leader, 
     an operative system of justice, and an impartial government, 
     post-war countries can begin to rebuild more effectively. 
     Though numerous others aspects will also dictate the ultimate 
     success of the process, these three areas will only benefit 
     the reconciliation. Assuredly reconstructions will remain a 
     part of society in the future because countries will continue 
     to fight numerous wars and battles for years to come. Though 
     conflicts will continue to arise, mankind can learn from the 
     past in order to protect peace for the future.

                          ____________________