ICTJ in the News

August 1, 2003

ICTJ Op-Ed: Moving on requires looking back

International Herald Tribune

By Alex Boraine and Paul van Zyl

In the wake of conflict, violence and human rights abuse, one would expect those committed to peace to embrace the idea of reconciliation. Yet the notion has become controversial in some quarters - not because of its true meaning, but because it has been exploited by those with cynical agendas and shady pasts. The leaders of abusive military regimes in Central and Latin America have often invoked reconciliation to mean "forgive and forget." An enforced national amnesia that masquerades as reconciliation should obviously be rejected by anyone who seeks to build a sustainable peace.

On the other hand, a proper understanding and implementation of reconciliation is crucial in coming to terms with a divided and violent past. Real reconciliation requires an honest examination of history to uncover and recognize past crimes. Rather than silencing and marginalizing victims, it demands that their voices be heard and their suffering acknowledged.

Argentina's new president, Nestor Kirchner, expressed this eloquently in his inaugural address, stating that he intended to rule "without rancor but with memory." Justice and accountability are also central elements of genuine reconciliation. Reparations should also be provided to victims, not only to compensate them for their losses, but also to send the message that violations are no longer acceptable.

Without truth, justice and reparations, victims and their communities will feel that the new order has failed them. Condemned to the perpetual status of victim, they can become vulnerable to unscrupulous leaders who seek to exploit their anger and insecurity. Both Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia reveal the deadly consequences of allowing a sense of historical grievance to be manipulated by nationalist and racist politicians. Without genuine reconciliation, yesterday's victims can all too easily become today's perpetrators. The recent apology and guilty plea by Biljana Plavsic, former leader of the Bosnian Serbs, at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, can play an important role in dispelling the myth that Serbs have been victims only and bear no responsibility for recent conflicts. By accepting punishment and expressing remorse, Plavsic has opened the door to real reconciliation in the region.

Reconciliation also requires a changing of the old guard. In societies where venal leaders have spawned abusive institutions, a secure peace will not emerge until the police, the military, courts and other organs of government undergo fundamental change. If the combustible mix of ethnic and religious groups in postwar Iraq is to hold together, it will require the creation of state institutions that have completely shed the repression and sectarianism of the past.

It is obvious that massive discrepancies in wealth and power lie at the heart of many intractable conflicts. Those who retain disproportionate privileges in the aftermath of violence often fail to recognize that reconciliation cannot be secured in a context of ongoing inequality. While nothing can excuse the reckless, cynical and counterproductive policies of President Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, they would be less accepted if, after independence, whites had adopted a more progressive approach to an equitable distribution of wealth.

In this context, it is amazing to consider how far South Africa has come in building a "rainbow nation" committed to reconciliation. But Zimbabwe should serve as a cautionary lesson for whites who continue to control the majority of South Africa's wealth. Real reconciliation involves painful sacrifice, including a commitment to remedying the inequalities that endure after the fighting stops.

Lasting reconciliation requires far-reaching legal, political and economic change. But it also depends on the actions of leaders who played a prominent role during the conflict. Visionary leaders, like Nelson Mandela or Aung San Suu Kyi, are able to show magnanimity even when it would be both understandable and expected for them to demand retribution. But rapprochement will not lead to reconciliation unless this generosity is reciprocated by a commitment to address and remedy a legacy of abuse by those responsible for it.

Alex Boraine is president and Paul van Zyl is director of country programs at the International Center for Transitional Justice.