Committee for Conflict Transformation Support

CCTS
Newsletter 18

Dealing with the past: seminar report

Report of a CCTS seminar held on 17th October 2002 at The Meeting Place, Drummond Street, London NW1

This seminar, organised by the Committee for Conflict Transformation Support (CCTS), was attended by 35 people and chaired by Michael Randle. The seminar began with presentations from the three speakers: Dr. Andrew Rigby, Director for the Centre for Forgiveness and Reconciliation at Coventry University, Roberta Bacic, Programme and Development Officer for War Resisters International and William Saa, International Fellow at Responding to Conflict.

Setting the scene

Andrew Rigby introduced the topic, first reminding participants of some of the many factors - personality, personal circumstances, culture, belief - that can affect how an individual or group chooses to deal with the pain of the past. Reliving the pain in a safe environment, a course frequently suggested by Western counsellors, may work, but may be unhelpful, or even counter-productive.

What is true for everyone is that 'the past' is not a fixed and independent entity but a construction - the way an individual or group remembers what has happened to them or around them. When people continue to relive the pains of the past they are unable to move on. Feelings of fear, grief, anger or revenge arising from past suffering dominate the present and over-determine not only their own future but that of their descendants. This excess of what Andrew called 'the wrong kind of memory' is one of the biggest obstacles to reconciliation. Removing this obstacle requires people to 'reframe' the past, to create a new type of memory that will allow them to come to terms with the pain and to move on - in other words, to forgive.

Andrew suggested that the conditions that facilitate forgiveness are essentially the same for groups as for individuals, and comprise:
Truth: an acknowledgement that wrong has been done;
Peace: a commitment that the wrong will not be repeated;
Justice: an attempt to make up for the wrong, by punishment and/or reparation.

These three conditions don't combine easily, and in any particular situation one of them tends to dominate, and often to cause the others to be sacrificed to some extent. An emphasis on truth can re-ignite anger and prejudice peace; it can also make justice harder to achieve (why should an aggressor tell the truth about what they have done if the result is that they are punished?). Too great a concern with peace can lead to a 'collective amnesia', in which the truth of past wrongs is never acknowledged and the perpetrators are not punished and may even continue to have power. The pursuit of justice can cause a return to violence and bloodshed and, perhaps because justice is inevitably meted out by 'the victors', often focuses on a rather one-sided version of the truth.

In his discussion paper Andrew explores further the conditions that are likely to lead to an emphasis on peace (often following civil war) and justice (generally only where the violence has ended with a decisive victory) and gives some examples of each. For a deeper understanding of the pursuit of truth in dealing with the past, he handed over to Roberta Bacic, who has first hand experience of the work of the Truth Commission in Chile.

The Truth Commission in Chile

Roberta's paper considers the circumstances in which truth commissions are most likely to be established (generally where the successor government cannot take direct retributive action, either because of lack of power or because they were implicated in the violence), and discusses the benefits that such commissions can bring, even when their terms of reference are quite limited. In her presentation, she concentrated on describing some of the problems and the outcomes of the Truth Commission in Chile, and on bringing to life some of the personal stories it recorded of the desaparecidos, the detained and disappeared victims of the Chilean junta. In addition to talking to the meeting she also played the recording of a poem written by a singer - Víctor Jara - who was arrested, tortured and executed by the junta, and showed part of a BBC documentary, Caravan of Death, that dealt with the desaparecidos.

The terms of the Chilean Truth Commission were certainly limited: the commission was active for only 9 months; no perpetrators were named; very few people have been prosecuted, and even fewer sentenced (not even Pinochet, despite the efforts of the Spanish Government and the promises of the current Chilean regime).

Even so, there have been some important consequences, chief among them being the acknowledgement of what was really done - after so many years of silence or denial. The presence of the name of each person who disappeared or was killed and a description (albeit brief) of their fate in the documentary record of the commission has done much to restore the dignity of their families and friends. The present Government has sent a copy of the commission's findings to the family of each victim, and the victims are commemorated on a national monument, as well as on more local and personal memorials. The remains of many of those who were killed have been discovered and identified, and have finally been buried and mourned by their families. New laws have been enacted that give the families of those murdered a number of rights by way of recompense for their losses, including immunity from military service, free health care and free education throughout their lives.

While these reparations are significant, and can even be seen as very progressive in a strongly military society, they have not benefited everyone who suffered. The survivors - those who were imprisoned but not killed, the many who lost their livelihoods or were exiled - are excluded from most of the benefits. Support for Pinochet is still strong, and many of those who served him are still in powerful military positions, making the Government nervous to pursue them. Furthermore, they are far from repentant for what they have done, and it is difficult for people to forgive when they see no hope of justice or even of shame.

Trauma healing and reconciliation in Liberia

After a civil war, in which families and communities are divided, displaced or destroyed, the search for peace, justice and truth is particularly difficult. As we heard from William Saa, who was himself caught up in the 1989-96 civil war in Liberia, one tenth of the entire population was killed, leaving a population of over 1.5 million traumatised. How can peace be restored when so many people are affected, and so many important relationships have been damaged? Who can be brought to justice when so many people have taken part in the violence? And how can the truth about what has been done be told without provoking more violence? Faced with the enormous scale of the problem in 1996, a number of outside NGAs apparently gave up - traumatised themselves by the seeming impossibility of offering counselling to so many individuals.

Notwithstanding these difficulties, the trauma must be understood and dealt with, because unless people can begin to imagine a better future they become paralysed in the past. William gave as a very literal example a mining community that was disbanded during the civil war. After the fighting ended the workers returned, but left their streets dirty. Cleaning had been the mining company's responsibility before the war and the people waited for the company to return instead of taking the initiative themselves. Fear continues even after the fighting has stopped - fear within families, between communities and between the governors and the governed - not only because of the grievances which 'justified' the war, but also because the atrocities of the war itself have generated new grievances.

In William's opinion, coping - finding ways of accepting the situation and living with it - is not enough: the residual paralysis, fear and anger must be resolved or the trauma will perpetuate itself and be passed on to future generations. He described a 'cycle of trauma' in which trauma instils fear in people, making them act defensively; this produces more aggression and leads in turn to more trauma.

This cycle is evident not only after war, but also after acts of terrorism such as the bombing of the Twin Towers on September 11th last year , and it is very important to find ways of breaking into it.

The presentations were followed by a plenary discussion, which was continued in groups during the afternoon (each led by one of the speakers) and concluded with a report-back plenary session. Plenary and group discussions are summarised together below:

Coping with trauma

At least one participant felt that coping was a more positive activity than William had implied, suggesting that we should not underestimate the effort survivors are making simply to cope day to day, that it can even be an empowering response to past trauma. Anger about the past can also be positive if its energy can be turned to creative ends. Suppressed anger is much harder to deal with because it leads to depression and paralysis.

Participants involved in victim/offender mediation spoke of the bereavement model of coping in which the victim passes through a number of stages: from shock or denial (equivalent to the paralysis William described) through emotion and repair to adjustment. The right time for mediation is when the victim is ready to assimilate what has happened. If it is attempted in the first (paralysis) stage it is unlikely to be effective. It was also noted that, although mediation can have a positive effect on people's feelings, it takes much time and effort for them to change their lives. Reconciliation projects typically don't last long enough to assist the process through to completion.

William has been working with a group of elderly Germans who, even now, more than 50 years after World War Two, have not managed to work through the trauma of it. According to one participant, the trauma of WW2 remains a significant issue in the Balkans too. William was concerned that this generation will have passed their unresolved feelings on to their children. This passing of trauma from generation to generation was confirmed by a number of participants. Psychologists know how often the battered child becomes a problem parent. Many of the Palestinian suicide bombers of the 2nd intifada are apparently the children of bombers of the 1st.

Different societies have different coping mechanisms, and western NGOs don't always pay adequate attention to this. It is always important for outsiders to remember that they are contributing help not solutions - the solutions have to come from within the traumatised community.

One participant formulated a new personal test as the result of the discussion: 'The future is hard to face. Am I using the past as an excuse for my failure to address it?'

Truth, justice and peace

Participants with experience of working with truth commissions spoke of the healing power of talking about the past. Someone preparing to talk to a Truth Commission needs to tell their story many times. In doing so they find new ways of telling the pain which, while they do nothing to make the testimony less horrific, help the individual to assimilate what has happened. It should be remembered, however, that most truth commissions have a rather short duration. The majority, whose stories are not told, also need help. Much can be done before the truth commission gets underway - even while the atrocities are still happening. In Chile, for example, peace activists were collecting and clandestinely publishing evidence while Pinochet was still in power, with support from the Catholic Church and other international bodies.

Truth commissions have mainly been used in circumstances where the successor government is weak. But some participants felt they could be useful in other circumstances too, for example as a way of publicly acknowledging the past and creating a climate for further reconciliation. They can be dangerous when used inappropriately, however. In situations such as Liberia, where so many people were involved in the violence and so many relationships are damaged, encouraging and publicising 'the truth' can generate more pain and deepen the cycle of violence. In Greece, too, the civil war is still too painful to be discussed. When Greeks talk about the past they focus on the more distant (and therefore safer) Ottoman era.

And one participant reminded the meeting that history is a contested set of truths, not a single entity. The best that a truth commission can achieve is, as Ignatieff said, 'to narrow the range of permissible lies'.

More than one participant wondered about the value of international courts or war crimes tribunals, both because the wrong people are meting out the justice and because such 'show trials' offer perpetrators a platform from which, far from showing penitence, they can continue to 'punish' their victims.

Forgiveness

One participant related the three approaches of truth, justice and peace to a time when he had wronged his wife. He acknowledged his wrong (truth); he tried to put the wrong right (justice) and he promised not to repeat the wrong (peace) but his wife was still unhappy. Reconciliation also required a fourth approach, which Lederach called mercy but which can also be called forgiveness - the willingness of the victim to carry the burden of what still can't be put right after the perpetrator has done all they can to make amends.

Forgiveness may not be easy. Roberta suggested that, from the point of view of the bereaved, it may even seem like an additional and unnecessary burden placed upon them, adding to their victimhood rather than relieving it. Others saw forgiveness as a benefit solely for the victim, not something for the perpetrator, and offered examples of how forgiveness and reconciliation can release victims from their victimhood. For example, a Northern Ugandan rebel, who wished to return to the village he had betrayed, came to a church service and confessed. The ability to give (or withhold) forgiveness gave power to his victims, and enabled them to accept him back with dignity. Similarly, a small community in Northern Norway reintegrated a young man who as a boy had murdered a toddler (in a case reminiscent of the Jamie Bulger murder in the UK). Of course, these two cases relied on the offender repenting. Forgiving is much harder when the offender is unrepentant. One participant contrasted forgetting, in her opinion a potentially dangerous thing to do, with forgiveness, which she regarded as a safe and necessary action connected to healing.

The British colonial past carries some of the blame for later violence in, for example, China and Africa. One participant has found it helpful, when working with these communities, to understand and to apologise for these wrongs.

Some victims may not want to forgive or be reconciled, preferring to rely on the social and emotional support of a group for whom victimhood has become a fundamental identity. In such circumstances, someone who attempts to move on can be ostracised and accused of 'betraying the martyrs'. Perpetrators are also unlikely to repent because to do so would destroy all they had stood for. This is particularly true for leaders (such as Goering and Milosevic).

There was some discussion of whether forgiveness could be seen as a 'two-way street' - something which both 'sides' could or should seek. While most participants sympathised with the Chilean woman (from the BBC video shown by Roberta) who, having lost loved ones, was outraged that she should also be expected to ask forgiveness, some felt that a victim, asked not to continue to bear ill will, might benefit from apologising. Others pointed out the power of an un-asked-for apology. One participant remembered a workshop in which a Frenchwoman who had been active in the Resistance found it hard to work with German workshop members. Next day she asked their forgiveness for having hated Germans for so long, with powerful effect. Another participant felt that it could be an advantage to acknowledge that neither side in a war held all the moral high ground. Each side then needs to forgive in order to free themselves to move forward, though maybe at different times and in different ways.

Reconciliation and healing

If a new, peaceful future is to be constructed, it is important that communities move beyond truth commissions, war trials and collective amnesia to find some new way of addressing the future.

One participant working in community mediation spoke about the value of 'constructive reframing' in assisting reconciliation. People involved in the dispute are the best placed to find a solution; the mediator helps by reframing the problem, focusing on the common interests and needs of the two sides.

William pointed out how even very small steps can make a significant contribution to breaking the 'cycle of trauma'. At the end of the civil war the violence did not stop instantaneously. Community leaders felt defensive when Government forces urged them to reduce the violence, even though they were already working to achieve this objective. When they understood the Government's needs and objectives more clearly, they were more accepting and better able to focus on reducing the violence. Similarly, trauma-healing workshops allowed people to understand something of the view of 'the other side' and thus created a possibility of change. Information must be presented in an acceptable way, however. When working with Liberian government officials, the workshops were renamed 'dissemination seminars', though the content was not changed!

Some participants felt that grieving is a necessary part of healing - almost a physical necessity - and that ceremonies and rituals assist this process. Others were unconvinced, pointing to the wide variety of ways in which individuals and societies react.

Roberta spoke about the importance of symbolism in healing, and gave some examples from Chile, where many communities have created memorials to the disappeared. In one village the names of 17 stone-workers who were murdered by the junta were carved on an enormous boulder that the whole community pushed to the top of a local hill. In another, a bus shelter constructed around the sculpture of a hand signalling 'stop' was built outside a house where people had been killed, simultaneously reminding survivors of the atrocity while offering shelter.

The difference between 'reconciled to' and 'reconciled with' was noted by one participant. It is important to achieve the former - to come to terms with the past sufficiently to stop feeling guilty that life goes on. The latter - with its implications of reuniting - is harder.

Andrew suggested that true reconciliation required structural change, that urging people to 'love thy neighbour' was too easy. At least one participant disagreed. She felt that structural change was the easy part; the difficult (and necessary) part was to change the attitudes of the individuals who make up a society. Reformed social structures might assist the attitudinal change, but they were in themselves inadequate. At the same time, healing might be impossible if the structures of everyday life reminded victims of the past. Clearly both structures and attitudes must change.

newsletter  |  ccts