Moderator: Dr Stephen D Smith, Aegis Genocide Prevention Initiative, Notts., UK
Panel: Professor Alexander Boraine, President, International Center for Transitional Justice, New York
Professor Daniel Bar-Tal, Tel Aviv University
Dr Payam Akhavan, Debevoise & Plimpton, New York
Ms Aloisea Inyumba, Prefait of Kigali Rural Province, Rwanda

The panel responded to questions raised by various delegations attending the forum. The questions, invited by the moderator in advance of the forum, addressed general problems characterising the international debate on truth, justice and reconciliation. The central themes that emerged from the panel fell into several categories. These can be typified as: i “the possible methods of reconciliation and restoration”; ii “the relationship between justice, reconciliation and truth”; iii “the primary actors and conditions for a viable reconciliation”.

i. Possible Methods of Reconciliation and Restoration
Several questions concerned various methodologies and their compatibility or otherwise. For example, how should international criminal courts be viewed alongside truth commissions and alternative methods? the panel considered in what circumstances some methods are more suitable than others?

Payam Akhavan interpreted international courts as a basis for universal accountability over the long term, even though they are selective and limited to short term objectives. He suggested that one of the main purposes is forming effective deterrence by impacting the cost-benefit analysis of possible perpetrators hence conveying the message that crime does not pay. However, he stressed that the International Criminal Court should not be seen as a substitute for other measures that may work more effectively for other objectives. Truth commissions should be used with a greater emphasise on addressing the suffering of victims and their recognition within society, while courts should be used to as effectively as possible to address the acts of the perpetrators. Other measures still must also be utilised in parallel to meet the immediate needs of the victims.

Alexander Boraine cited “lustration” as a way of responding to situations where truth commissions are not sufficient to create restoration or be a sufficient part of a transitional justice scheme. Mr Boraine also referred to measures undertaken in Eastern Europe where the newly reformed states have turned to documents that were provided by the former secret police.

According to Daniel Bar-Tal the principle of reconciliation is to change the attitudes and beliefs among the people involved in the conflicts. The function of a truth commission is not just to make it possible to present apologies but also to change the psychological approach of people to the past and to each other. In this case one should also use grass roots joint projects, peace education, cultural exchange and tourism etc.

Aloisea Inyumba mentioned with reference to Rwanda that acts of reconciliation can take different forms such as encouraging the scattered people to return to their homes and presenting immediate measures to fulfil the urgent needs of victimised women. She suggested that it was important to use more than one method and not to rely only on a single activity, as different groups have different needs within the community and therefore require a variety of approaches.

ii. The Relationship Between Truth, Justice and Reconciliation.
Questions were raised concerning the relationship between truth, justice and reconciliation. Several in the panel agreed that retributive justice is often seen as a necessary condition of fulfilling restorative justice and therefore a viable reconciliation. Probing the historical circumstance in a bid to achieve a sense of the truth in a clear manner is also essential for tempering conflicts that have been saturated with denial, misinformation, ignorance or propaganda from previous contexts.

With reference to the specific question of how facts should be presented in order not to threaten the reconciliation process, Mr Akhavan distinguished between basic facts and moral accounts, or moral interpretations of the facts. People in a conflict can more readily agree upon the basic facts - for example how many people were killed in the conflict - but often disagree on how these facts should be interpreted. Furthermore, the interpretive process should be on-going and avoid the temptation of closure, or “official” historical records. He cited the Nuremberg Trials where there was a rather narrow interpretation of the Holocaust as a mere by-product of Nazi aggression; an “official” interpretation that has been rejected by several generations of scholars in the on-going discourse on the Holocaust..

Dr. Boraine claimed that basic forensic truths are often indisputable. but that it is important to encourage an open dialogue or exchange of ideas concerning the accounts of victimhood. A person from outside the conflict - someone with integrity acceptable to both parties - could be important as an impartial listener. Dr. Boraine also emphasised that one should not be scared of the truth or try to avoid it. This applies equally and especially in cases where wounds are still open. He suggested that in the same way a doctor has to be honest with his patients about their condition, one has to be open about painful truths in a conflict-laden society. New democracies are often more robust than we think and should not avoid these realities.

iii. Primary Actors and the Conditions for a Viable Reconciliation
One central question that was raised from the floor was “who are the conciliators and how is a mandate for reconciliation on behalf of collectives created?” In close connection to this question another problem was raised with the panel – the kind of role religion could play with reference to reconciliation processes and transitional justice.

Dr. Boraine stressed that conflict-laden societies that are struggling with painful past and present situations differ in terms of current moral capital available to them that could be used for reconciliatory processes. In the newly-formed South Africa, the reconciliation process was able to take advantage of the perception of Nelson Mandela as a reconciler. People knew that he had “been there too” and experienced the same kind of wounds as other people. It enabled the nation to also fulfil their roles in reconciliation when they saw the role of the leadership. Dr. Boraine also emphasised the ambiguous role of religions including the many examples of intolerant religious movements and institutions throughout history. Forgiveness is also a central theme in many religions, which may sometimes explain a lack of incentive to present more retributive and restorative measures in a scheme of transitional justice. On the other hand, there are also positive examples both in terms of individuals and moral resources. Bishop Desmond Tutu was for example essential for the Truth Commission in South Africa as an individual but also as a religious leader. The quest for peace are salient moral aims of most religious traditions. While religion plays a negative role sometimes it is often reasons other than purely religious motives involved in violent intergroup conflicts for example, as observed in the case of Northern Ireland.

Prof. Bar-Tal mentioned that some conflicts have obvious religious roots such as the Muslim-Hindu conflict in India and the violent conflicts in the Middle East. Religious leaders should be encouraged to participate in reconciliation processes, but these processes could be more efficient if the conflicts were defined more in non-religious terms. Ms Inyumba agreed that religions could have great potential in a reconciliation process. However she illustrated the difficulty by citing the fact that many religious leaders had been involved in the planning of the mass killings in Rwanda.

The panel also discussed questions about the context of a viable reconciliation Dr. Boraine stated that forgiveness should not be forced upon victims. Pressure only adds to the already heavy load of their painful experiences. On the other hand, others cannot replace them in this important act of forgiveness and reconciliation. It is only the victims that can forgive, not the Truth and Reconciliation Commission or political leaders. However, it is entirely another thing to strive to create suitable circumstances where forgiveness and reconciliation can take place. According to Dr. Boraine a reconciliation or restorative process may be desirable to strive for even when many years have passed since events took place. The Bloody Sunday event in Northern Ireland is an illustrative example.

Prof. Bar-Tal conceived reconciliation as an ongoing process with no clear starting point or obvious end. The reconciliation process is facilitated when formal agreements are in play and when important state agencies also accept them, but this neither starts it nor ends it. Empathy and the will to reconcile is more difficult to achieve when the parties in the conflict are focused upon their own wounds, fears and problems, so their needs to be shared experience and dialogue.

Rapporteur: Dr Hans Ingvar Roth