ICTJ in the News

December 5, 2005

Lebanon's post-conflict strategies debated

The Daily Star

Conference looks at ways to come to terms with the past
 
By Raed El Rafei
Daily Star staff  
 
BEIRUT: Fifteen years after the end of Civil War, has Lebanon come to terms with the crimes of the past? Have a general amnesty and policy of "turning the page on the war" proved the most effective strategies in building a new democracy and ensuring long-term peace?

Such issues were the focus of a two-day conference last week, during which civil rights associations debated Lebanon's post-conflict strategies in dealing with the lingering memories of the atrocities of the 15-year Civil War.

The conference was organized by the International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ), an organization which assists "countries pursuing accountability for past mass atrocity or human rights abuse."

With coordination efforts provided by the Lebanese Sustainable Democracy Center and the Lebanese Center for Policy studies, discussions focused on various examples of approaches to transitional justice used in countries such as Sierra Leone, Morocco, Peru and South Africa.

"Societies do not have the luxury of not dealing with their past," said Paul van Zyl, country programs director at ICTJ, adding "If not dealt with proactively, the past will always haunt post-conflict societies."

Van Zyl said the priority during a political transition phase after a period of violence was to "seek to restore and address the dignity of victims."

Van Zyl also spoke of justice and prosecution, truth finding processes, reparation programs for victims, institutional reforms, reconciliation and peace building and, finally, memory and memorialization.

In the case of Lebanon, where no formal processes were adopted to address the widespread suffering during the war, van Zyl said it is important to give voice to the war's victims, assuring such a move would "create cross-community solidarity."

Criticizing the amnesty laws passed in Lebanon after the war, attorney and civil rights activist Nizar Saghieh argued that instead of reconciling citizens with the principles of justice and rule of the law, Lebanon's authorities were always in favor of political leaders "consolidating their position as superior to the rest of the population."

"The victim was repeatedly marginalized and responsibilities for the violence were overlooked by amnesty laws after the war," he said.

Saghieh further slammed the "discriminating character" of the amnesty law passed in 1991, stressing the law suffered from a major flaw in that it stipulated that war crimes committed against the populace would be pardoned while those committed against political and religious leaders would not.

Noting how the government dealt with Israeli collaborators after Israel's withdrawal in 2000, Saghieh said the "fast trials" and "exemplary punishments" had "a political character" which neglected victims' suffering.

"Again, the logic of the winner, in this case Hizbullah, was consolidated" he said.

A similar amnesty was passed once more after Syria's withdrawal in April, he complained, in which Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea was pardoned for his alleged war-time crimes, an official decision Saghieh deemed "glorification of the crime."

However, MP Samir Franjieh defended the amnesty laws as a means by which to end the war, saying "the priority then was to put an end to the conflict." He added that a fear of a return to violence and further destabilization of the national peace had made amnesty a priority.

Luc Cote, the former chief of prosecutions to Sierra Leone's Special Court (established to try those accused of war crimes and human rights violations during the nations eight-year conflict ended in 1999), said that, while important for strengthening the rule of law, prosecution was only one form of transitional justice.

"Since not all criminals can be prosecuted after a conflict, prosecution is limited and symbolic, implying the importance of making a very careful choice of who to try," he said.