The recent re-election of Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos brings hope to a country seeking to end a half-century of conflict. However, as with so many peace processes, finding a balance between creating a stable accord and acknowledging the terrible injustices that occurred during the conflict can be difficult to achieve.
Many countries and communities, from Nepal to Northern Ireland, have grappled with legacies of ethnic, ideological or religious division and violence, often with limited success. This is frequently the case because the mechanisms established to cope with post-conflict reconciliation, truth and justice, have proved inadequate.
In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) has made important contributions to truth-seeking. However, victims complain that its procedures are slow and abstruse; and many Bosnian Serbs are convinced that the tribunal is selective and politically motivated.
An agreement between Nepal’s government and Maoist guerrillas to establish a truth commission and investigate the “disappeared” was delayed for seven years. When legislators finally enacted the enabling legislation in May last year, victims were dismayed to discover that the commission would be allowed to recommend amnesties for crimes against humanity, in contravention of international principles and UN guidelines.
In Northern Ireland, the Good Friday Agreement, justly acclaimed for staunching the bloodshed and starting reconciliation, has — to the great frustration of victims — run into political resistance over one integral element of the peace process: the establishment of mechanisms to clarify past crimes.
TRUTH COMMISSIONS
Peace negotiators understandably fear that criminal accountability for past crimes will threaten their side’s leaders and supporters. Many have wrongly assumed — based on a misinterpretation of the South African experience — that truth commissions provide a “soft” alternative to justice. As a result, they have willingly incorporated these mechanisms into peace agreements (conveniently ignoring the fact that the victims are forced to choose between seeking justice and learning the truth).
Predictably, as truth commissions have become established components of transitional justice, former fighters have become increasingly worried that their reputations and political credibility could be on the line should past crimes ever come to light. Seeking the truth can be unsettling and painful for anyone, but it comes with serious consequences for those with reason to fear justice.
Indeed, conflict mediation and transitional justice rely on truth commissions as a fundamental building block of peace, not because such commissions provide impunity for the worst crimes; on the contrary, they reinforce comprehensive rights-based policies and access to justice.
As a recent symposium organized by the Kofi Annan Foundation and the International Center for Transitional Justice concluded, truth commissions contribute most to peace by reasserting the rule of law, recognizing victims and supporting institutional reform. However, to succeed, these commissions must be effective, independent and legitimate. Half-measures will not do.
INTEGRITY PARAMOUNT
Truth commissions therefore should never be established as “box-ticking” exercises to assuage local public opinion or the international community, as witnessed in Nepal.
Even when broad mandates and functions are established with the best of intentions, truth commissions are often deprived of the necessary resources, leading to further frustration and disillusion. Moreover, a commission should not be led or staffed by individuals of questionable integrity, thereby undermining the legitimacy of the process.
Above all, truth commissions must be adapted to a country’s particular circumstances. As seen in Bosnia, Colombia, Nepal, Northern Ireland and elsewhere, the nature of conflicts and how they are resolved differ widely; so should their respective commissions. A “one-size-fits-all” solution ends up fitting no one.
It is vital that the details of each case of post-conflict transitional justice are understood and implemented. It is all too easy for political leaders to ignore victims or suppress the truth in their quest for a peace deal, but recognizing victims’ rights is an indispensable condition for lasting peace. Human suffering and victims’ dignity are too powerful to be erased by others’ political pacts.
Eventually, the past demands its due: Justice is not just an ideal; it is an investment in a better future.
Alan Doss is a senior political adviser at the Kofi Annan Foundation and a former UN under-secretary-general. David Tolbert is president of the International Center for Transitional Justice and a former UN assistant secretary-general.
Copyright: Project Syndicate/Institute for Human Sciences
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.