|
by Diana Francis
The following is a collection of thoughts (in no particular order) that arise from work undertaken under this heading. They are not necessarily original and are not intended to detract from received wisdom on what is necessary to reconciliation. Rather they acknowledge the difficulties and complexities related to them.
- There is no such thing as pure conflict resolution in complex socio-political contexts. It is impossible to take power in the negative sense (the power to hurt in some way) out of the equation. Specifically, deals have to be dealt with or between those who have the power to make the violence continue. Typically, it is ‘the men of violence’ who are represented in peace negotiations and who can deliver an end to hostilities. They will want to protect their power and position, if possible, or at least their life and liberty. They are unlikely to sign up to an agreement that lands them in court under charges of human rights violations or war crimes.
- The operation of this kind of power also means that the ‘justice’ that is delivered after wars is usually that of the victor, where there is one, whose own crimes go unaddressed.
- Victims of human rights violations and war crimes, often marginalised and abused before the fighting, are typically excluded from the ‘peace process’, except in so far as they are instrumentalised by others as moral levers or bargaining chips. They have no say in decisions about impunity and their victimisation (for example rape or displacement) exposes them to further suffering, abuse and exclusion. Their needs in the post-war context tend to be ignored, as they were before the war began.
- In this regard, as in others, gender plays a key role. Typically, more attention and resources are given to the reintegration of combatants than to the support of affected civilians. And the needs of female ex-combatants, whose future is exceptionally difficult, are not addressed.
- At the same time, when it comes to the needs of those who are traumatised, the psychological condition of combatants and the extreme trauma of fighting (and particularly of killing) are largely ignored. Levels of domestic and social violence, vagrancy and suicide are high among ex-soldiers.
- The urgent needs of the present, for survival, stability and development, make ‘dealing with the past’ a difficult focus in the early aftermath of widespread violence, psychologically, politically and logistically – even sometimes for those who have been particular victims of the violence.
- The need for achieving continuity in social administration and services may be at odds with agendas for holding to account all public servants associated with past abuses.
- Boundaries between guilt and innocence may not be clear. Victims may also be perpetrators, and vice versa, and there will be varying degrees of collusion as well as hierarchies and degrees of participation.
- Judicial or quasi-judicial processes – dealing with crimes – is but one aspect of dealing with the past, which also involves addressing the structural inequities, hostile attitudes and violent cultures that contributed to the conflict, as well as the violence of the conflict itself.
- To achieve reconciliation it is necessary to address the broader schisms in society. This in turn implies changes in attitude, in individuals, towards each other, and wide participation in re-establishing inter-communal connections and relationships ‘on the ground’, as well as addressing (through government rhetoric, the media etc.) broad public perceptions through shifts in the public discourse.
- The more participation in political and social life before the conflict, the better the chance that it will have taken place without violence. And the more participation at any of its stages, the easier it will be to have participation in the next stage. Specifically, if there has been public participation in building a peace constituency and negotiating the peace, this will help put in place what is needed for building the peace, including dealing with the past.
- Although information about and acknowledgement of what has happened may be very important to victims and to society, many aspects of ‘truth’ will remain contested. The reconstruction of any shared sense of history is likely to be difficult and to take much time. (This has direct implications for the education system.)
- Collective memory and memorials are part and parcel both of acknowledgement and of historical construction.
|
|