I. Introduction No one can possibly deny or ignore the overwhelming amount of mass atrocities that took place during the twentieth century. From the “Great Purge” orchestrated by Stalin in the former Soviet Union to the Holocaust of World War II led by the Nazis, South Africa’s apartheid, Argentina’s “Dirty War”, and the tactics of terror, repression, and torture used by many military regimes, not to mention Rwanda’s Genocide (Minow, 1998, p. 1). More surprisingly, these unspeakable and horrifying events took place during the past century. However, such unforgettable atrocities helped to raise consciousness among the international community, which led to the formation of needed international norms to protect, avoid, and prevent similar atrocities from ever happening again. In addition, several mechanisms were developed by the international community with the finality to repair, reconcile, and prosecute perpetrators. Such mechanisms include International Tribunals, Truth Commissions, Reparations, among others (Minow, 1998). But, how successful have these mechanisms been at achieving such intended goals? Professor Minow provides a compelling answer to this question in her book titled “Between Vengeance and Forgiveness”. Minow explores the formal responses of some nations to mass atrocities and argues that the acknowledgment of past event is of vital importance in the process of forgiveness, reconciliation, and reconstruction of a society as whole. In addition to that, she notes the importance of Truth Commission, International Tribunals, and Reparations for past damages. Nevertheless, she recognizes that such mechanisms have limitations that might, in some cases, hinder a nation’s healing process. Thus, the author concludes that ... ... middle of paper ... ...logical change. However, such reconciliation cannot emerge without a truthful acknowledgement of past events that permit victims to get closure as well as a shared vision of the future. Additionally, the reconciliation and the healing process of a society entail forgiveness that can only be granted by the victim himself. But what if a society is not ready to forgive or let go of the past? The unwillingness of a society as a whole to forgive hinders the process of reconciliation. In the absence of this willingness to forgive, truth commission could become compromised, reluctant, or simply turned into merely platforms to criticize old regimes. Chile, Uganda, and Chad are some examples where truth commissions were less effective in achieving their intended purpose of reconciliation due to the unwillingness of the society to forgive past actions (Avruch, 2010, p.35).
“Holocaust, 1933-1945, The” World Without Genocide. William Mitchell College of Law, 2013. Web. 15 Apr. 2014. .
The physical and mental intent to destroy another being often unveils the darkest side of human nature. In the memoir, “An Ordinary Man: An Autobiography” dedicated to the Rwandan genocide, war hero Paul Rusesabagina states: “A sad truth of human nature is that it is hard to care for people when they are abstractions, hard to care when it is not you or somebody close to you. Unless the world community can stop finding ways to dither in the face of this monstrous threat to humanity those words never again will persist in being one of the most abused phrases in the English language and one of the greatest lies of our time.” The United Nations promised never again would they allow genocide to occur after the Second World War. Unfortunately, less
Recent history is replete with egregious, widespread and often systematic wrongdoings: genocide, torture, and mass killing. Cambodia, South Africa, Afghanistan, Iraq, Rwanda, and Guatemala are examples where these grave political injustices have occurred. Histories of violence and humanitarian atrocities leave marks of damage, despair, and pain that can only justice can begin to heal. Hence the central question of Daniel Philpott’s book Just and Unjust Peace: An Ethic of Political Reconciliation: “What does justice consist of in the wake of its massive despoliation?” The answer, Philpott argues, is political reconciliation. However, in investigating two of Philpott’s six practices of reconciliation—apology
Bloxham's book ‘The final solution: A genocide’ has brought about much criticism and debate. In this book Bloxham “seeks to situate the mass-murder of European Jewry between 1941 and 1945 within the broader history of European genocide from 1875 to 1945” . In this, he challenges the uniqueness of the holocaust, and presents the argument that the full meaning of the holocaust and final solution can only be completely understood, if it is placed in the larger context of genocide. Bloxham argues that “the history of the holocaust is itself an international history, and international history always has comparative dimensions” . Furthermore, in the forum Bloxham states that the aim of the book was to bring the holocaust into a wider history of genocide and bridge together the holocaust and genocide studies. This analysis will look at each review in order of appearance in the forum, and the comments Bloxham reports back in reaction. However in light of this analysis, not all points that were raised will be able to be commented on, instead this analysis will focus on the key point’s aspect of each review.
The atrocities of the Belgian Congo and the Holocaust are two of the main events in history that have been responsible for the mass murdering of millions of people. Although these events significantly changed the course of humanity, and the story behind each one is very different, there are significant factors that make them alike as well as different. Many would agree that comparing two atrocities that affected the lives of so many people and gave a 180-degree turn to each of their countries would be something very difficult to achieve. However, by comparing the behavior of both the perpetrators and the victims of both cases we might be able to further understand the lack of morality and the inspiration that led to these awful events. The perpetrators in both atrocities tended to have a similar pattern of behavior when it came to the way they saw their victims. But, they also acted in ways where you can draw the conclusion that one set of events was not inspired by the other. These two sets of atrocities were reported to have a very similar number of victims. However, the Holocaust is one of the most reminded events in history as a period of shame, tragedy and sadness, while many still ignore the atrocities in the Belgian Congo.
The damage from the past may have been done; we may have tried to correct our mistakes. Criminals of war may have been persecuted for their wrongdoings. Apologies and reimbursements may have been endowed to the victims, but does it change anything? There will always be unforgettable trauma that will be left with the victims. As long as humanity exists and continues the way it is, or was, conflict will always occur. It will always occur due to society’s clash in beliefs as stated in paragraphs above. If we as humanity wish to stop inflicting such malice upon our brethren, we will first have to learn to not just tolerate, but also to embrace one another. But when it is all said and done, can we stop the harm that causes such physical, and mental trauma that was presented in Obasan?
For many victims of violence, human rights advocates and many others affected by human rights violations, amnesties represent the basest of pragmatic accommodations with former despots, murderers, and torturers. At first thought, amnesties do not give the impression of working at the victim’s favor but for the benefit of political leaders, elites and the perpetrators themselves. When societies accept amnesty, victims assume a position of forgetting the past actions of military and political power for the concept of forgiveness. Rights such as truth and justice are sacrificed for political stability. Where amnesties deny victims their rights to truth, justice, and reparations, they can potentially aggravate the victims’ suffering by shrouding the impunity cast by a blanket amnesty and denying victims full recognition of their suffering. The choice for transitional governments addressing past crimes is often framed in a false dichotomy: peace verses justice. This however, is not the case.
Bloxham, Donald. Genocide on Trial: War Crimes Trials and the Formation of Holocaust History and Memory: War Crimes Trials and the Formation of Holocaust History and Memory. Oxford University Press, 2001.
Greenfield, Daniel M. "Crime of Complicity in Genocide: How the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and Yugoslavia Got It Wrong, and Why It Matters." The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 98.3 (2008): 921-24. HeinOnline. Web. 18 Apr. 2011.
The concept of a truth commission was to provide a form and forum for those wronged in civil wars and dirty wars, to reveal the truth of what happened during them. Truth commissions’ function extremely well as political tools for transitional governments, it in basic has a dual purpose. To provide a form of catharsis for victim- survivors , and to give transitional governments a tool with which to draw a line in the sand; to create a clear distinction between the past and the present. The form of a truth commission and its capacity to fulfil its objectives, is dictated by the government requesting the report. This essay will focus on the truth commissions of Peru and Guatemala. As they provide a sample of the two different types of governments that order truth commission investigations. Governments that act as almost an obstacle to truth and those who aid it. This essay will assess whether or not truth commissions actually provide the appropriate closure, reconciliation and reparation for those who were most affected by the violations, and are not just political instruments used by the government.
Victims and citizens have the right to know the truth (Han, 2005). Criminal and administrative investigations serve as a legal response that provide spaces for truth inquiry, so that retribution and restoration could be carried out based on confirmed facts (Elster, 2006). In this sense, recognition, at least to a certain extent, of past wrongs is an indispensable part of transitional justice (Han, 2005). Social knowledge of the past is simultaneously reconstructed as the former regime being rejected (Anderlini et al., 2004). In other words, law and legal processes have a profound impact on shaping collective memory, which further contributes to reaching political consensus under the new politics (Teitel,
During a time of significant change and transition, Truth and Reconciliation Commissions address a harmful past so that the nation can move towards a better future.
After decades of war in Afghanistan in late 2001, first attempts have already been made by Afghans and international organizations to consult the Afghan people on how to build capacities in pace-building which was an encouraging sign. However, the people in general are still too reluctant to speak about their suffering during the war. Instead, their current priority is to struggle for economic survival in the highly competitive post-conflict reconstruction business with its emerging social injustice. This pragmatic attitude causes a basic problem. If the past is not addressed, efforts to build a lasting peace are endangered. As lessons from other post-conflict societies have shown, national reconciliation contributes to overcoming the past and reuniting a war-divided society (Schirch, Rafiee, & Sakhi, 2013). There are several ways to bring about peace, stability and harmony in Afghanistan. This paper reviews some issues crucial for discussing and designing a strategy of national reconciliation. Moreover, for narrowing the gap between the rival perceptions there is also a need for an Afghan peace process to prepare the ground for peace-building and a future reconciliation process and implementation of an Afghan mechanism of national reconciliation including the ‘’lessons learned’’ from the post-conflict societies.
One of the most important times in a nation’s history is the transition when a new government is established. This is when a country is very vulnerable to violence and instability. The wounds and anger suffered during the war are still fresh. There is often a cycle of retribution for past atrocities resulting in new violence that brings new hatred. Archbishop Tutu was asked to be the chairperson of the post-apartheid South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The goal was to lessen tensions between the two sides by bringing justice. Political criminals were able to request amnesty, and victims could be unburdened by telling their stories. War crimes were punished. Tutu’s ability to reconcile the sides was amazing. His faith that everyone could be forgiven and redeemed was tested as the commission heard tales of monstrous deeds perpetrated during the struggle. However, somehow they were able to heal many wounds (Tutu, Desmond, God Has a
Although pursuing peace and justice at the same time is ideal since the armed conflict would end, and the “bad guys” would have to pay for their wrong doing. Pursuing both at the same time is a difficult initiative due to the different paths undertaken when pursuing peace and justice, the two reasons this essay will focus on are the ideas of forgiveness within peace and fairness within justice.