On a personal level, whenever I'm upset about something, I always have the dilemma of choosing between dealing with the situation at hand (whether that be talking about it, crying about it, or confronting the issue head-on.) and trying to ignore it as best I can, and move on. Everyone has this choice to make, and we all have different ways of dealing with things. And quite frankly, it's hard to say that one way is better than another. It's just an individual, personal way of coping.
Today in class we talked a lot about why people have felt the need for truth commissions, and I understand those, and even agree to an extent, but I also have no trouble understanding places where truth commssions were not wanted. In Unspeakable Truths, Hayner devotes a whole chapter to this, called "Leaving the Past Alone". In the chapter she expands on the case of Mozambique, where a truth commission never took place. There was a 16 year war, where 1 million civilians were killed and thousands were tortured, that was ended by a peace agreement in 1992. However, "there has been almost no focus in Mozambique on accountability for past crimes." One fear is that bringing it up again, and talking about it again, might mean that it could happen again, it might be stirring up issues and emotions that are just below the surface. Another reservation is that a truth commission wouldn't be able to recognize the truth, that it would just turn into these intricate story weavings and everyone would start pointing figures and blaming everyone else.
She poses a ton of really thought provoking questions in the chapter, "Should a society's right to know the truth be turned into an unbending obligation? That is, if those persons most directly affected, the victims themselves, are not interested or not yet prepared to revisit these horrors, should they be obliged to do so? Could there sometimes be aspects of a conflict, a transition, or a people's culture and history that would make such truth seeking unattractive and unhelpful?" (185) Just like the question posed at the beginning of the book of whether people wanted to remember or forget, perhaps forgetting isn't the worst thing, and may even be seen as a form of justice by some. Hayner quotes someone she met in Mozambique as having said, "For not, we prefer silence over confrontation, over renewed pain. While we cannot forget, we would like to pretend that we can." (185)
Another thought I had was that perhaps it depends on the nature of the conflict that took place, as to whether a truth commission would be effective. In repressive military rules like in Chile and Argentina, where there was more of an elitist ruling class, maybe it makes sense that people were looking for answers, and demanding that people be held accountable for the disappeared and other human rights violations. But in a conflict such as the one that existed in Mozambique, a war that was so intricate, so hard to describe, that even families were split up on opposite sides fighting, perhaps it would be too painful and difficult to punish everyone responsible. In Mozambique they came up with their own version of justice, and they called it reconciliation, and to them it meant that life would go on, and they would work together and govern together, but they would not speak of the past. Hayner said that eventually, "a policy of 'reconciliation' was agreed to, which was understood to mean that there were crimes, that they were forgiven, and that there would be a general pardon." (192) One man that she spoke to said that even if he wanted answers or to bring up the past, he didn't feel like he had that option. He said that none of his neighbors would back him, they would say that they had all been through the same thing, and this was a community decision to leave the past in the past and move on. Even if the way that they are dealing with it doesn't leave anyone accountable, and probably isn't what we would typically call justice, can we say that this attitude is wrong?
Also, I looked up the Truth Commission in Greensboro, here's the link if anyone's interested... http://www.greensborotrc.org/
The Greensboro Massacre took place on November 3rd, 1979. The Truth Commission didn't take place until 2005. After almost 30 years, why was the truth of what happened that day worth looking into? What made this truth commission necessary? After such a long time, isn't it possible that it might be more painful to bring it up again, and delve so deep into the atrocities (and the causes and effects) that happened that day?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that Hayner offers some really interesting insights that address your questions about why it is necessary to have a Truth Commission in Greensboro some 30 years after the event. Discussing Cambodia, Hayner mentions that one negative aspect of not having a truth commission was that the following generations began to forget what had happened, and believed accounts of the event that were not only false but potentially harmful. For example, without a clear documentation of the event, the Khmer Rouge people, those responsible for the deaths of millions of Cambodians, began asserting that it could not have been them who had done this, but rather spies from other hostile countries. This example shows that where the truth is not clearly and definitively addressed, that others accounts will naturally rise to fill this gap, accounts that may just dilute the real problems in the society and lead to an increasing likely hood that the atrocities could happen again. The case of Mozambique is a case where truth commissions might cause damage by opening up tender wounds too soon after the transition from war to peace. The example of Cambodia, though, shows the opposite, the dangers of avoiding the truth in order to keep the peace, but with the heavy cost of losing an important account of a past event without which past atrocities may never be addressed and accepted in a united and uniform manner by the population as a whole.
ReplyDeleteSome societies do find it necessary to have truth commissions in order to hope to move on but I do think it is important to note that it is impossible to get the absolute truth of the event looking back. We noted in class how each account is filtered through a different perspective and events hold a different "truth" to each observer. I also understand the clear documentation argument for having a truth commission but for the Greensboro one that happened 30 years later, it seems to be more for political reasons. The event had been well documented with accounts since then and the community had drastically changed in the last 30 years. For some it may have provided some comfort but I don't think the comfort was from the notion of "knowing the truth" but rather a comfort that a political body issued condolences.
ReplyDeleteI do think that, in the case of Mozambique, a truth commission probably would not have been beneficial to reconciliation. Mozambique is a very unique case, even in regards to the other countries that established truth commissions. The civilians that were captured and forced to fight against their own community, in my opinion, can't really be held accountable for their actions. So many of the atrocities committed were forced actions by civilians, so I almost think the line between victim and perpetrator becomes too blurred for a truth commission. Also, in a state like Mozambique which has been forcibly divided in a war with a staggering death toll, maybe revisiting those incidents would be to the detriment of the people who have begun to move on with their lives. While I believe truth commissions are capable of doing much good for a state, there are some places were it just wouldn't be realistic or wanted.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that a truth commission took place 30 years after the massacre in Greensboro. But I would like to address that in connection to what to do if a truth commission is not wanted. At the GlobeMed meeting last week, we talked about how gender issues that violate human rights need to be addressed even if the women themselves don't want the rights. I think it's the American idealist in me to think that forcing the rights on to the people could potentially damage their society. However, like with the Greensboro case, the introduction of a truth commission, like rights for women, is something that needs to be addressed and if the goal is strictly doing what best for that society then no matter if its 50 years after the event, the society would benefit without having damage done to the culture.
ReplyDeleteI feel like even if a commission were to stir up past emotions and bring that pain upon the victims years after the violation had taken place, it is important to their overall coping with it. If there is no closure and no retribution for those who were hurt, can they really move on and not hold resentment towards those who caused affliction? Maybe it's just me, but I feel like humans as a whole have too much tendency towards ongoing resentment, even if held deep down, for there to be no form of justice.
ReplyDelete