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).
"Rwanda Genocide 20 Years On: 'We Live with Those Who Killed Our Families. We Are Told They're Sorry, but Are They?'" The Guardian. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Nov. 2013.
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?
It is no mystery that Stalin’s brutal totalitarian regime costed the lives of millions of Soviet citizens. It is estimated that between 1930 and 1953, over one million Soviet citizens were executed, six million were deported to special settlements, 16 to 17 million were imprisoned in forced labor, and three to five million starved to death (131-132). However, the question is, do these crimes amount to genocide, the crime of crimes? Many scholars would not label Stalin’s crimes as genocide since they do not fit nicely into the definition of ‘genocide’ as stated in the Genocide Convention of 1948, which defines genocide as, “Acts committed with the intention to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.” (15-24). However, in his book “Stain’s Genocides”, Norman Naimark, argues that there is overwhelming evidence that Stalin’s crimes amount to genocide. To prove his case, Naimark brings up the controversy
Scheffer, David J. "Responding To Genocide And Crimes Against Humanity." U.S. Department Of State Dispatch 9.4 (1998): 20. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 19 Dec. 2011. .
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.
Paradigms of Genocide: The Holocaust, The Armenian genocide, and Contemporary Mass Destructions, 156-168. Sage Publications Inc., 1996. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1048550
This was a devastating event and it's near impossible just to forget about what happened. If you were to walk into Rwanda right now it would look as so that nothing went on. There’s communities with Hutus and Tutsis in it and living peacefully, even helping each other. The country started to come back together and look identical to what it once had been. The people who were the leaders of this mass genocide now getting convicted or already have been put to justice in the Gacaca courts. In gacaca courts they tried almost everyone. The courts had different levels, meaning if you admitted your guilt and showed remorse for what you did, you would be let free if you prove you have done so can prove the if there was an alternative you would do it then you were let free. there were some countries that helped. Places like Tanzania let the immigrants that fled Rwanda live in there country. However that’s the only countries that did help. After the Holocaust the whole world said never again. Never again will i let a mass killing happen like Hitler and his Nazi soldiers did to the Jews. The question being how did this happen. The claim that the United States made was they simply did not know. America genuinely felt bad, in 1998 President Clinton gave a formal apology which would later be known as the “Clinton apology”. In the apology Clinton tell Rwanda that he knows the U.S and the world did not do enough. The world sat there while Rwanda was in crisis. Lots of countries claim “they didn't know” but I don’t know if I am settled on that answer. So let's say they did know why would they not help. Was it because we did not want to start a war from intervening? Or because it was not our problem? Whatever the reason, we did not help and we owe the biggest of apologies to the people who were affected. The Origins of Conflicts
The Rwandan genocide was one of the most monstrous crimes against humanity. Driven by political issues, hunger for power and ethnic differences. The genocide is now over but remnants remain, showing the pain and suffering that
The tragic events that happened in Rwanda are vastly unknown to western civilization. Its tragic beginnings and suffering are often overlooked in world history. The casual chain of events led to the genocide’s outcomes are still being mourned today. From the vast killings by machete to the governmental ramifications after the genocide, Rwanda’s events ought to be remembered and should never be permitted from reoccurring. It should serve as a learning experience to the rest of the world in how an action could bring unforeseen effects.
Worried that with the absence of a tellable Holocaust story society could become malicious deniers or exceedingly ignorant, Jewish survivors maintain that to fail to recall the Holocaust undoubtedly escapes justice as well as culpability on the part of the German perpetrators. As it is necessary to face the scope of their own collective moral failure, Jewish survivors are adamant that German perpetrators have a duty to remember so as to see the Holocaust as a lesson of never again rather than as an incident that they can get away with. Within this essay, there will be a strong focus toward thoroughly analyzing whether or not the Holocaust should be consigned to history or if there is a need to preserve the truth. As well, by exploring the perspectives of both German perpetrators as well as Jewish survivors, this paper endeavors
Such mechanisms aimed at bringing closure of conflicts, healing the wounds of individual and society, preventing human rights abuses from repeating, and instilling trusts in the new judicial and political systems (Anderlini et al., 2004). Despite being on the opposite ends of the spectrum, the pursuit of justice and reconciliation are both an end to the cycles of conflicts (Anderlini et al., 2004). While retributive justice lays stress on punishment of wrongdoings, reparations and compensations (Elster, 2006), reconciliation could refer to remorse, apology, a political form of consensus, or a long-term process of psychological rebuilding within the community (Anderlini et al.,
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.
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
Assuming positive peace is desired, the movement towards peace must draw on the best traditions of society and emphasizes gradual change within an established political system. Therefore, within this perspective it is important that states understand the challenges they face, such as reducing their reliance on weapons and armed forces. The most haunting problem of the peace movement is the issue of addressing human rights abuses without using force during armed conflicts. The doctrine of Responsibility to ...