[Jr_Bullit]

Hey there,

In my Task Force class, the summit of every undergraduate at the Jackson School of International Studies, we were assigned the task of putting together a state dept briefing recommending US policy towards Truth Commissions (TCs) in post conflict societies.

While my opinion is fairly solid, though not always in agreement with my classmates, I'm curious to hear what y'all think. Would make for an entertaining discussion methinks.

Quick background on what a TC is.
They've been around for slightly over 20 years, and there has been 28 different TCs held around the world, with varying standards and varying results.
Essentially the goal of a TC is to promote the healing of a nation, reconciliation between peoples, and justice provided to those who were wronged in some way or another after being war torn or repressed by a political regime. Some TCs tag on other goals as well.

Good example, and the one held to this day as the standard of TC's - South Africa in 1995. In SA they had two councils. The people who had been wronged by the previous regime in some form or other (family members who were 'disappeared', brutally murdered in front of family, tortured, maimed etc) had an opportunity to come forward and share their stories. This brings about the 'Truth' part of the commission. In most of these societies, these stories are never heard. They're repressed and hopefully, collectively forgotten. Well those of us in the US know quite well that the horrors of American forbears in terms of slavery and what was done against the native americans has not been forgotten, as it should not, but we also arguably never heard directly the stories from the individuals against whom the atrocities were inacted. To hold a TC now in the US would be fairly useless because those who lived it, are no longer with us. But think of how our collective memories would view the past atrocities if there had been a forum for those who had the crimes committed against them to come forward and formally share their stories which were recorded and made public. Okay, so following? hehe...
South Africa was unusual because it also created a commission to hear the stories of the perpetrators as well, and granted amnesty to those who came forward and were honest about their involvement in the crimes that were state sanctioned.

The problems with TCs is that they are very often not held public, or the findings aren't released because of the new regimes role in harming the citizens of the nation to come to power, or because of the role played by powerful nations like the US/France/Britain and so on was negative, or in support of the state sanctioned atrocities of the prior regime.

They haven't been around much, not tons and tons of history here, but they're probably going to be seen a lot more. Especially in Iraq and Columbia and Burma (three case studies my group specifically is looking at). My team feels that while a great start in healing a nation and bringing about some form of reconciliation, they are not the end-all solution to bringing everyone to terms with the past. You can't always kill/punish everyone who committed a crime, especially not when it's roughly half the population of people being told to do the crime...

Okay enough rambling...Here's some links to TC information:
http://www.worldpeacefoundation.org/truthcommissions.html
http://www.truthcommission.org/

 

[MTB_Rob_NC]

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
Essentially the goal of a TC is to promote the healing of a nation, reconciliation between peoples, and justice provided to those who were wronged in some way or another after being war torn or repressed by a political regime. Some TCs tag on other goals as well.

As impressive as the whole TC thing sounds, what RESULTS have they ever brought about? I ask that not as an argument, but think the results are very important when looking at the viability of future TC's.

You could easily draw an analogy to all kinds of "Commissions/Committees", Congressional, Corporate you name it.

My experience comes in the Corporate Committee realm. If you do not set out clear goals from the outset and then compare the goals to the actual results, what was accomplished?

What would the State Dept gain by conducting or being involved in TCs? Unless the TC is for a US issue, it sounds rather pointless.

Maybe I am missing the actual question, maybe I just really do not want to go back to work on my Federal Income Tax package.

ramble on

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Originally posted by Mtb_Rob_FL
As impressive as the whole TC thing sounds, what RESULTS have they ever brought about? I ask that not as an argument, but think the results are very important when looking at the viability of future TC's.

You could easily draw an analogy to all kinds of "Commissions/Committees", Congressional, Corporate you name it.

My experience comes in the Corporate Committee realm. If you do not set out clear goals from the outset and then compare the goals to the actual results, what was accomplished?

What would the State Dept gain by conducting or being involved in TCs? Unless the TC is for a US issue, it sounds rather pointless.

Maybe I am missing the actual question, maybe I just really do not want to go back to work on my Federal Income Tax package.

ramble on

You are exactly right in your assessment that a TC is a 'soft' approach to very real needs. It's hard I think for the pragmatists (and I do try to count myself as one of those, especially when facing my peers at school) to accept the fact that after bad things are done to a nation, there is a need for some kind of healing. Often just making a memorial, or many memorials is not enough, and obviously neither is doing nothing or ignoring the atrocities and moving forward, neither is simply putting on trial the worst of the bad guys and putting them to death or into prison.

For the US - well it makes us the good guys, even if we had a hand in doing some of the bad things. The goal of the TC is to make public the atrocities, no matter who did what, provide those who were exposed to the atrocities with some form of justice (in many cases justice is simply the acknowledgement that the bad stuff did happen, and it was bad), in some cases there are forms of reparations made to those who were damaged, in South Africa they also chose to 'cleanse' or provide some public form of forgiveness for those who committed the atrocities.

Again - the goals are soft, justice, reconciliation, and truth...at least acknowledging the truth that belongs to those individuals who had the atrocities committed against them or those who were the perpetrators. You're not gonna see a boost in the economy from one of those things, but you might see a boost in morale, you're not going to suddenly see the nation develop swiftly and become a major part of the world arena, but you might see a nation that is an ally of the US because the US chose to participate in the trial own up to its role in the preivous government and help with the nations healing, you might see a nation that will one day participate in the global community because the global community encouraged that nation to try and heal itself.

I think we (as in we western society folks) have a hard time comprehending the amount of hatred that is fostered between neighbors because of things done to one another. The amount of hatred, the lines drawn in the sand, because of state propaganda...what would it mean to you if your neighbor who happened to be a different religion killed your son because it was his right to do it under the state and the state told him to...what would it mean to you if you never got to tell anyone about what he did to your son...or your wife, or husband...and then what would it mean when the new government came to being and said, you know what...we wanna know what he did to your family and we want to do what we can, however small that is to make things a little better for you. Or to the man who committed the crime under the orders/encouragement from the state who now lives in shame and guilt for having done it, to stand up there and say yes, yes I did that, and I can't live with myself, but I did it, and I'm sorry....he may not go to prison, but you heard him apologize...

That's what a TC does...it creates an environment where the sharing of truths is okay, and your stories will not be forgotten.

 

[DRB]

A truth commission is nothing more than a way for a set of facts to be established for a society to then base its arguements as it moves forward. In and of itself it will not solve a society's issues or problems.

Nor does it heal a nation. Only those that were affected can do that by accepting that having their story told is enough to make up for whatever happened to them. For some this is not enough and it will eat at them that justice was not served.

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Originally posted by DRB
A truth commission is nothing more than a way for a set of facts to be established for a society to then base its arguements as it moves forward. In and of itself it will not solve a society's issues or problems.

Nor does it heal a nation. Only those that were affected can do that by accepting that having their story told is enough to make up for whatever happened to them. For some this is not enough and it will eat at them that justice was not served.

That is exactly correct...and the findings of my team in this as well is that a TC is not 'enough' but then how do you qualify what is enough. The South Africa truth commission is delivering reparations of a financial nature to those who had crimes committed against them. But then again, how can $$ be enough to soothe wounded souls, and how do you determine the amount of $$ given per person and who should receive some?

 

[RhinofromWA]

The Truth is Out There.................

*insert X-files music*

Sorry I couldn't resist.

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
The Truth is Out There.................

*insert X-files music*

Sorry I couldn't resist.

Always so helpful!

 

[MTB_Rob_NC]

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
You are exactly right in your assessment that a TC is a 'soft' approach to very real needs. It's hard I think for the pragmatists (and I do try to count myself as one of those, especially when facing my peers at school) to accept the fact that after bad things are done to a nation, there is a need for some kind of healing. Often just making a memorial, or many memorials is not enough, and obviously neither is doing nothing or ignoring the atrocities and moving forward, neither is simply putting on trial the worst of the bad guys and putting them to death or into prison.

I guess it is just too hard for me to break my ties (intended pun, think, shirt and tie) to the corporate world. Recently I have been a part of an "Employee Council Committee" that drives me nuts. As a manager, I am supposed to be involved only to facilitate the meetings. In the limited scope of our committee(s) it is VERY difficult to keep participants focused on goals. It ends up being a story telling affair of one situation after another, often the point that brought up the story in the first place is lost in the noise.

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Originally posted by Mtb_Rob_FL
I guess it is just too hard for me to break my ties (intended pun, think, shirt and tie) to the corporate world. Recently I have been a part of an "Employee Council Committee" that drives me nuts. As a manager, I am supposed to be involved only to facilitate the meetings. In the limited scope of our committee(s) it is VERY difficult to keep participants focused on goals. It ends up being a story telling affair of one situation after another, often the point that brought up the story in the first place is lost in the noise.

Believe me I'm there with you to a great extent. Many of my classmates are the bleeding heart idealists who have never worked a job a day in their lives...and quite often I feel like a big meanie for thinking "well...gosh isn't that sweet...but the world just doesn't work that way"...I was elected our 'coordinator' for the class because of my working experience ...and last night was my first test...one of the worst of the 'bleeding hearts' came in and tried to sell the class on her idea that we should not recommend a TC in Iraq and the focus of her paper was on creating a beautiful memorial that cherished every story and picture of each victim of Saddam. My response was...well gosh that's an awfully sweet idea, but it has nothing to do with what we have been commissioned to write about. How about making the focus of your paper your recommendation against a TC for Iraq and not make up another solution you think might be better...

She started crying!!!

Not a good night for me and my more pragmatic get the job done side.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
That is exactly correct...and the findings of my team in this as well is that a TC is not 'enough' but then how do you qualify what is enough. The South Africa truth commission is delivering reparations of a financial nature to those who had crimes committed against them. But then again, how can $$ be enough to soothe wounded souls, and how do you determine the amount of $$ given per person and who should receive some?

A Truth Commission is incapable of providing the "enough".

The enough part is when a society is able to transform itself from what it was. In the case of South Africa, this is has been a painfully slow process. Most folks are still living in the same conditions they were during apartheid. Insecurity, lack of justice, racism and extreme and widespread proverty still exist. Until those conditions are addressed and improvements made "enough" is not going to be realized. The truth commission is nothing more than a small part of the process.

The reparation part of the SA Commission has been slow (if non-existant) in practice. And in fact most of the architects now believe that this might have been a mistake in including monetary reparations into the scope of the commission.

Another weakness of the Truth Commission in South Africa in regards to amnesty was that no real threat of prosecution existed for those that did not seak amnesty especially senior level perpetrators. A more agressive prosecution was needed. Even now many of the individual perpetrators specifically named in the Commission's report have never been prosecuted.

 

[MTB_Rob_NC]

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
She started crying!!!

Not a good night for me and my more pragmatic get the job done side.

You WIN! I don't know what you get, but anytime you get a bleeding heart to break down and cry you should get something! Was it a... "I am frustrated that you can't live in my beautiful rose colored world cry?" or more of a "Damn YOU, I am right and you are wrong" cry?

I find myself repeating this phrase often (usually right after an employee has rambled on about how something went wrong and they were the brunt of the disfunctionality)

"That is interesting to hear, what are some SPECIFICS that YOU could recommend to stop that from being repeated.

 

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
My response was...well gosh that's an awfully sweet idea, but it has nothing to do with what we have been commissioned to write about. How about making the focus of your paper your recommendation against a TC for Iraq and not make up another solution you think might be better...

She started crying!!!

Not a good night for me and my more pragmatic get the job done side.

You are in a similar position I'm in. My group I'm collaborating with on a film project this quarter seems to want to create anything and everything other than a film about the biology of positive emotions. Why can't people do an exercise without trying to reinvent the wheel.


Back to topic.

The idea of using truth commissions is popular at Evergreen (go figure). The main arguement my instructor gave me is that, if and it's a big if, a commission can be allowed autonomy and access to the media to report it's finding there is an idea that other oppressive regimes in the region may be influenced to change their policies based on information coming to light that would now condemn them in the court of public opinion if it were made public they were using techniques of oppression that had been condemed in a TC. (Sorry about that sentence )


The particular prof. incidently got his Phd. from UW.


So, sure, there could be some benefit to truth commissions.

 

[Jr_Bullit]

lol...Rob - I think it was a combination of the frustration that I do not live in her rose coloured world (you should have seen her face the first day of class when I explained my leanings towards Hobbesian theory), and pure anger that I disapproved of her work - she is very much a "show stopper" ...I mean admittedly, I love attention and all that, but criminy, she gets the last chapter of a 500 page report...stop whining about not being able to be the ONE person in the world who saved iraq single handedly wiht your ideas (and yes, that is exactly how she described her idea).

And DRB - the one thing that I had a hard time with when first studying TCs, especially the one in South Africa, is that the point is to NOT utilize the findings of a TC to prosecute against those named in the report. You can prosecute using other means of information, but the TC itself is not to be used as evidence in a court hearing.

And no, no TC is ever 'enough' though it is a start and an effort, which is more than most countries have ever made in their past. It's a new thing, a trend, for countries to actually own up to their histories and make it a part of their official records. I'm still straddling the fence on the subject...on one hand, I support the concept, but on the other, there's no way that could ever be enough...just a start ...but at least the truth is known...

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
one of the worst of the 'bleeding hearts' came in and tried to sell the class on her idea that we should not recommend a TC in Iraq and the focus of her paper was on creating a beautiful memorial that cherished every story and picture of each victim of Saddam. My response was...well gosh that's an awfully sweet idea, but it has nothing to do with what we have been commissioned to write about. How about making the focus of your paper your recommendation against a TC for Iraq and not make up another solution you think might be better...

I would not underestimate the power of a memorial in the healing process of a troubled nation. The words in a report are sometimes lost to on a nation especially where literacy is a real issue. You are talking about restoring dignity to a oppressed people. The Hector Pieterson Memorial provides an example of how eventhough they were oppressed and downtrodden that they did fight back and try to improve themselves.

I would never suggest supplanting a truth commission with a memorial BUT the augmentation of the results of a commission with a memorial would not be a bad thing. Again, as you have pointed out, a truth commission is not enough.

Go build a bridge with the hippie.

 

[MTB_Rob_NC]

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
I'm still straddling the fence on the subject...on one hand, I support the concept, but on the other, there's no way that could ever be enough...just a start ...but at least the truth is known...

Again it comes down to what is the goal of the TC. If it is just a fact finding expedition, great.

Heck one of the easiest jobs (but most tedious) was as an auditor. All I had to do was find all the mistakes.

Now its my job to fix them! :angry:

 

[MTB_Rob_NC]

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
lol...Rob - I think it was a combination of the frustration that I do not live in her rose coloured world (you should have seen her face the first day of class when I explained my leanings towards Hobbesian theory),

Hobbesian theory? - we live, work and socialize together, but deep down its all about ME?


Its been a while and I was not a Poli-sci major

And I am looking for any reason not to work on my current project.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
And DRB - the one thing that I had a hard time with when first studying TCs, especially the one in South Africa, is that the point is to NOT utilize the findings of a TC to prosecute against those named in the report. You can prosecute using other means of information, but the TC itself is not to be used as evidence in a court hearing.

Ah not sure where you got that in regards to the South African commission but commission in its own words said

The TRC recommends that where there is evidence that an individual has committed a gross violation of human rights, and where amnesty has not been sought or has been denied, then prosecution will be considered.

Evidence gathered by the Commission that could be used in prosecution will be made available to prosecutors.

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Originally posted by DRB
Ah not sure where you got that in regards to the South African commission but commission in its own words said

My apologies, I may have misspoke....typical student trying to read too much and not quite catching all of it. Below is a quote from one of my books "Unspeakable Truths" by Priscilla Hayner

Few issues around truth commissions have attracted as much controversy as the question of whether a commission should publicly name those individuals it finds to be responsible for human rights crimes. This question has been hotly debated by many past commissions, and remains a point of tension for those crafting new bodies. The disagreement is between two contradictory principles, both of which can be strongly argued by rights advocates. The first of thes eis that due process requires that individuals accused of crimes be allowed to defend themselves before being pronounced guilty. Dueprocess is violated if a commission, which odes not represent a court of law and does not have the same strict procedures, names individuals responsible for certain crimes. The second princople is that telling the full truth requires naming persons responsible for human rights crimes when there is clear evidence of their culpability. Naming names is part of the truth-telling process, and is especially improtant when the judicial system does not function well enough to expecttrials.
While most commissions have had the power to name perpetrators, however, only a few have done so: El Salvador, Chad, the second commission of the African National Congress, and the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
...the South African Commission was mandated to inquire into "the identity of all persons, authorities, institutions, and organizations" involved in gross human rights violations, and to "prepare a comprehensive report which sets out its actvities and findings" which was clearly understood to include the names of perpetrators hwere known.

She goes on to describe how Guatemala was a direct contrast to that.

I believe my confusion set in when reading the book' Country of my Skull" by Antjie Krog, where she does provide that same information you did, but I was focusing on how ineffective a TC was in also being a prosecuting body...for the reasons Hayner goes into above.

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Originally posted by Mtb_Rob_FL
Hobbesian theory? - we live, work and socialize together, but deep down its all about ME?


Its been a while and I was not a Poli-sci major

And I am looking for any reason not to work on my current project.

Well kind of...I'm more in agreement with the fact that people are at our basest levels competitive creatures, and we have developed societal institutions because we have learned we advance ourselves and our quality of life by working together. But then again, I'm generally very much against ideas like social security, welfare, etc etc

Though, with all things ...I see all the world in shades of grey, so don't ever read that as my black and white point of view