Justice, reconciliation

DAVID E. MILLER THE MEDIA LINE

Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and Romania’s Nicolae Ceausescu were tried and executed in front of television cameras. In much of post-communist eastern Europe, former leaders avoided trial or received symbolic punishments. South Africa’s apartheid-era leaders were spared that when the country opted for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission empowered to grant amnesty. Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines opted for exile. The Arab Spring has so far cost the jobs of two longtime leaders and at least three others are eyeing the despot exit ramp. What happens next?

Former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak and his two sons have been arrested, as have other officials from his government. Mubarak could be executed if convicted of involvement in the deaths of anti-regime protesters, said Justice Minister Abdel Aziz al-Gindi.

In Tunisia, President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali fled to Saudi Arabia, but he has been indicted in absentia on counts of corruption and involvement in the killing of protesters. The International Criminal Court (ICC) is currently investigating charges against Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi and senior members of his regime for crimes against humanity.

“It’s still a bit early to assess, but it seems that post-revolutionary Arab measures have been more reactive than planned,” said Habib Nassar of the International Centre for Transitional Justice (ICTJ).

Under a plan mediated by the Gulf Cooperation Council, Yemen’s Ali Abdullah Saleh was offered immunity in exchange for stepping down within 30 days but, as of press time, no deal had been concluded. Qaddafi has rejected calls for him to step down, but the European Union sent an encouraging message to despots when it unfroze the financial and property assets of Moussa Koussa, Qaddafi’s foreign minister, after he defected.

Some analysts have said that the turn to violent pushbacks in places like Syria, Yemen and Bahrain reflects the growing anxiety of leaders for their future, now that they see what has happened to their peers. However, in Tunisia, whose president was the first despot to be forced out of office by the Arab Spring, has started to deal with the issue systemically. On April 14, ICTJ, the Arab Institute for Human Rights and the United Nations hosted a conference aimed at discussing ways “to translate demands for justice and accountability into concrete measures that address past human rights violations and that help prevent their repetition.”

“There is almost a consensus in Tunisia on the need for accountability for members of the former regime,” said Nassar. “Now, they need a strategy. Obviously you can’t prosecute everyone who was active in state apparatus, only the ‘big fish.’”

As communist dictatorships collapsed in eastern Europe at the end of the 1980s, transitional justice emerged as a multidisciplinary field as a means of addressing systematic abuses by former regimes without endangering the delicate political transformation to democracy. Transitional justice encompasses not only criminal prosecutions, but truth commissions and memorial efforts, such as museums and memorials for victims.

Nassar said demands for justice and accountability brought protesters to the streets and now these demands must be translated into judicial action. He said that, for transitional justice to take root, the legal process must enjoy broad legitimacy among the people.

“Now rulers should take a step back and consider international standards such as defendants’ right to fair trial and due process with clear criteria,” he said. “Achieving accountability is not enough – the process is as important as the outcome.”

The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda was established by the UN in 1994 to prosecute perpetrators of genocide in Rwanda during 1994, which cost the lives of at least 500,000 people. And South Africa has used the model of truth and reconciliation committees (TRCs), allowing abusers to own up to their crimes in return for amnesty. Victims listen to perpetrators’ testimonials and are expected to pardon their victimizers. Vimla Pillay, manager of the mediation and training department at the Centre for Conflict Resolution in Cape Town, has worked extensively with victims of South Africa’s apartheid regime. She said that, although TRCs were a great exercise in healing, allowing for reconciliation, they had shortcomings and that victims must receive both emotional and legal redress.

“One limitation is that victims’ wounds were opened during the process, with not enough follow-up,” Pillay explained. “Layers of trauma were revealed, but there was no post-TRC counseling. Even in terms of financial compensation, victims were not handled very well.”

Pillay said the notion of forgiveness is part of South Africa’s culture and religious belief system. In the post-apartheid era, president Nelson Mandela encouraged citizens to forgive and move on, she said, but added that such unconditional forgiveness is often more beneficial to perpetrators than to victims, who need some form of closure.

Nassar said that the South African model of amnesty for perpetrators was the exception rather than the rule and that transitional justice usually includes criminal proceedings against perpetrators. Following the conflict in the Balkans in the early 1990s, for example, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia was established under UN auspices in 1993, the first war crimes court ever created by the organization. The court allowed victims to recount the horrors they experienced while also ensuring justice was served against perpetrators: some 160 people were charged by the Hague-based court.

The court asserts that it has played a key role in rehabilitating former Yugoslav states in the postwar era. Explains the court website: “Simply by removing some of the most senior and notorious criminals and holding them accountable, the tribunal has been able to lift the taint of violence, contribute to ending impunity and help pave the way for reconciliation.”

^TOP