Tag: Truth and Reconciliation Commission

Truth & Reconciliation, Part III, by Ross Caputi

Posted on by kathiemm

 

 

Child at Fallujah Maternity and Children’s hospital. Photo by Dahr Jamail, used with permission
Child at Fallujah Maternity and Children’s hospital.
Photo by Dahr Jamail, used with permission

 

There was no casus belli (just cause) for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The leaders of the coalition forces treated the lives of Iraqi civilians with reckless disregard as they bombed and invaded Iraq, citing intelligence they knew to be questionable. The shock-and-awe bombing of Iraq claimed over 7,000 lives, and the subsequent occupation claimed hundreds of thousands more.

The occupation also shredded the social fabric of Iraqi society, exploited a social division in Iraq that previously held little significance, provoked a civil war between the Sunni and Shia communities, and has resulted in entrenched resentments and a divided country.

Entire communities have been displaced, uprooting people, robbing them of their historical bond with their locality. The agricultural system, the historic seed bank, the marshes, have all been forced to change.

The medical and educational systems have been destroyed too. Many Iraqi researchers, instructors, and doctors have been assassinated. Many others have fled the country, leaving these essential services understaffed and incapable of meeting the needs of Iraqis.

Worse yet, pollution from war has left Iraq with a crippling public health crisis. Rises in birth defects and cancers have been reported throughout the country, with extreme rates in cities like Fallujah and Basra. Iraq will remain contaminated with radiation for billions of years because of uranium weapons. And the extent of the contamination from other sources—such as burn pits and lead and mercury from conventional munitions—is still unknown.

The occupation has left Iraq divided, polluted, and silenced under a corrupt political system and an oppressive government that enjoys considerable support from both the US and Iran.

What was taken from Iraqis can never be given back to them in its entirety. The harm our society caused theirs is immeasurable. Reparations are a moral imperative. Though the cause of the harm may be unidirectional, the healing will not be. Assisting Iraqis in the rebuilding of their society will cultivate in us a culture of responsibility, solidarity, and caring.

Join us at Islah [http://www.reparations.org/projects/truth-reconciliation/ in collaborating with Iraqis who are rebuilding the social infrastructure of their society. Help us in confronting the public silence surrounding the crimes committed against the Iraqi people. By campaigning for an international war crimes tribunal too, we hope to collaborate with Iraqis to create the requisite conditions for a future truth and reconciliation commission.

Ross is currently on the Board of Directors of ISLAH. He is also a graduate student and a writer. In 2004, he was a US Marine in the US-led occupation of Iraq. His experience there, in particular his experience during the 2nd siege of Fallujah, compelled him to leave the US military and join the anti-war movement. His activism has focused on our society’s moral obligation to our victims in Iraq, and to the responsibility of veterans to renounce their hero status in America.

Truth & Reconciliation, Part 1

Posted on by kathiemm
Mujahideen in a parade after they forced the US to retreat out of Fallujah in May 2004
Mujahideen in a parade after they forced the US to retreat out of Fallujah in May 2004.
Photo by Dahr Jamail, used with permission.

This is the first of three posts on Truth and Reconciliation by guest author Ross Caputi.

Truth and reconciliation projects have proven to be a powerful ways of bringing closure to communities affected by violence, healing the psychological wounds inflicted by war, and taking the first steps towards bringing communities that have been torn apart by violence back together.

The most successful application of this idea of post-conflict restorative justice is the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa after the abolition of Apartheid. Many have attempted to apply this model to other conflicts involving protracted inter- and intra-group violence. Some have even tried to use it as a way of ending ongoing violence, as in the case of the Israeli occupation of Palestine.

However, much of the success of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa can be attributed to the fact that Apartheid had been abolished. The unjust system that had been fueling oppression had ended, creating an opportunity to build a new society based on equality, human rights, and dignity.

We at Islah believe firmly that reconciliation is not possible while violence and violent systems are ongoing and sustained. Furthermore, it is insufficient for reconciliation projects to try to affect cognitive, emotional, and behavioral changes in groups and individuals alone in order to achieve reconciliation. Dialogue, exercises in forgiveness, and the fostering of attitudinal and perceptual shifts about the conflict do not address the structural injustices that drive conflicts.

Reconciliation cannot lead to resolution; it can only be a result of resolution. Furthermore, the form of resolution called “peace,” is not desirable if the structural injustices that caused the conflict remain in place.

Ross is currently on the Board of Directors of ISLAH. He is also a graduate student and a writer. In 2004, he was a US Marine in the US-led occupation of Iraq. His experience there, in particular his experience during the 2nd siege of Fallujah, compelled him to leave the US military and join the anti-war movement. His activism has focused on our society’s moral obligation to our victims in Iraq, and to the responsibility of veterans to renounce their hero status in America.

Father Michael Lapsley addresses the healing of trauma, Part 1

Posted on by kathiemm

By guest author Dot Walsh

“UBUNTU” in the Xhosa culture means: “I am because we are.”

On Veterans Day, November 11, it is good to recognize that many of the women and men who have served at war in Afghanistan and other foreign countries return to their homes without adequate support for the trauma they have experienced.

Trauma is an invisible wound. We have learned a lot about post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and have identified it in individuals engaged in current wars. But soldiers who returned from Vietnam and Korea often remain victims of their pain and sometimes victimize others.

A recent visit, interview, and workshop with Father Michael Lapsley of South Africa gave me some insight into the effects of trauma and the possibility of healing. Father Lapsley is an Anglican priest from New Zealand who experienced his own trauma as a result of his active participation in speaking out against the apartheid regime in South Africa.

In 1973 during the height of apartheid, he was sent by his order to Durban, South Africa, to serve as chaplain for both black and white university students. As a witness to the atrocities and injustices of apartheid, he began to speak out on behalf of schoolchildren who were being shot, detained, and tortured.

Because of his public stand against the government, his life was threatened. It became necessary for him to leave the country and go into exile in Zimbabwe. In 1990, he received a letter bomb that was hidden inside two religious magazines. The bomb exploded with a force that blew off both of his hands and blinded him in one eye, along with covering his body with serious burns.

After a long recovery in Australia, he returned to South Africa to become chaplain of the Trauma Centre for Survivors of Violence and Torture, which became part of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). This work led to the creation of the Institute for Healing of Memories (IHOM), an organization that focuses on individuals who tell their stories in workshops where they can begin to work through their trauma.

[to be continued]

Dot Walsh is a lifelong peace activist and member of the Engaging Peace board of directors.

Blind justice–or blind to justice?

Posted on by kathiemm

Americans are expected to pledge allegiance to a flag that symbolizes “liberty and justice for all.” But, as one of our readers asked recently, “What is justice?”

One common distinction is between retributive justice and restorative justice:

Retributive justice:

  • Focuses on punishment for perceived transgressions
  • Is imposed unilaterally on a weaker party by a stronger party
  • Argues that the severity of the punishment should be proportional to the severity of the offense—e.g., an eye for an eye
  • Is viewed as having a strong basis in Western values, particularly those of men

Restorative justice:

  • Rejects the notion that punishment of an offender adequately restores justice
  • Views transgressions as bilateral or multilateral conflicts involving perpetrators, victims, and their communities
  • Recommends bringing together all parties to exchange stories and move toward apology and forgiveness.

Depending on our family and community values, we are exposed to varying levels of these forms of justice and develop ideas regarding which form is best. For example, in families:

  • Authoritarian parents expect their children to be obedient and to follow strict rules and punish them if they don’t—consistent with retributive justice beliefs
  • Authoritative parents are more democratic, more responsive to their children’s needs and questions, and favor understanding and forgiveness over punishment—consistent with restorative justice beliefs

And in nations:

  • The U.S. incarcerates the largest number of people, including the most women in the world
  • Under Nelson Mandela, South Africa created a Truth and Reconciliation Commission “to enable South Africans to come to terms with their past on a morally accepted basis and to advance the cause of reconciliation.”
  • The video above shows how the Rwandan government has approached the issue of justice in the aftermath of that country’s genocide

Which type of justice is embraced by each society? On what basis is one approach more just than the other? Which do you favor? Why?

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology