Reconciliation

Duncan Morrow in the US Institute of Peace Insight Newsletter (Fall 2014) noted “Reconciliation,” according to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, means “to make friendly again after an estrangement” and “to make acquiescent or contentedly submissive to something previously disagreeable”….. Classical peacemaking focuses on the first definition, with its emphasis on mutual friendship and the making of new relationships on all sides. Politics … has often seen reconciliation in the second sense, as something the loser in a conflict must do to come to terms with reality.”

There is a view, as outlined by Morrow above, that reconciliation aims at rebuilding fractured relationships after a conflict. This objective is pursued through dialogue, sharing stories, mediation, or other peacebuilding activities that convene individuals, groups, or communities. The purpose of such activity is to foster those deep and lasting connections across the society considered essential to sustainable peace.

It is challenging to think of political entities engaging in such work, as the Morrow quotation indirectly implies. In politics, claims Morrow, reconciliation has a harder edge and reconciliation is more about the loser becoming “contentedly submissive” with the victor after a conflict ends.

Relationships at all levels matter following political conflict, as they determine whether and how the progress to peace and stability will be made. In a divided society, building a new road is never simply a technical task—it invariably requires negotiation and discussion about the benefits for each actor. Inevitably, harms due to past violence, even in the most mundane of policy decisions, will surface during that process.

Reconciliation is not about a simple decision to cooperate, or designing processes so former adversaries can work together with the long-term aspiration that deeper connections will follow. This could result in a forgive-and-forget mentality or, if Morrow is right, an approach akin to getting on with “negative peace” in a resigned manner. This approach is not conducive to long-term stability or what I understand reconciliation to be.

In the short-term, coexistence and cooperation might be all that is possible. However, if lasting peace is to be guaranteed, we cannot avoid addressing relationships in a deliberate and strategic way. Justice, apology, reparations, acknowledgement, and healing are part of this process— issues that are not separate from reconciliation but central to it.

Published by Brandon Hamber in US Institute of Peace Insight Newsletter (Fall 2014), click the link to also see  alerie Rosoux's Response to my comments and other articles on reconciliation in the edition.

Charles Taylor guilty

Today Charles Taylor, former Liberian President, has been found guilty of 11 counts of aiding and abetting war crimes and crimes against humanity, when supporting rebels between 1996 and 2002. Here is a piece in The Guardian and a video.

My book launch in New York

My book launch in New York on 11 November 2009 went really well in New York. A "conversation" about the book with about 50 people. Also inputs from Graeme Simpson, Ruti Teitel, Alastair Ager. Chaired and organised by Jack Saul (thanks Jack). Great to also see some CSVR people.

New York Launch: Transforming Societies After Political Violence

My new book Transforming Societies After Political Violence will be launched in New York on 11 November 2009 at Columbia University. For details see Download invitation.

Transforming Societies after Political Violence

My book Transforming Societies After Political Violence: Truth, Reconciliation and Mental Health, now published by Springer in New York.

Transforming Societies after Political Violence offers a template for those tasked with providing truth, justice, reconciliation, and healing. This interdisciplinary study identifies complex relationships between recovery from political violence and the psychological processes that accompany widespread social change, showing how these can be integrated to strengthen both individual and society. Author Brandon Hamber draws on his extensive experience in South Africa and comparative examples from elsewhere to examine the centrality of mental health issues in transitional justice, and the social, cultural, and identity issues involved in meeting the needs of victims. In discussing reparations (what the author terms "repairing the irreparable"), the power of ambivalence, and especially concepts of closure, he eloquently sets out professionals’ roles in helping survivors move beyond the toxic past without covering it up or becoming mired in it. ISBN: 978-0-387-89426-3, Springer 2009

Available

Springer (Publisher)
Springer Online
Amazon (UK)
Amazon (US)

Endorsements
How to victims heal? We should not be too quick to presume. Those seeking truth and justice often prioritize victims’ interests – but without always fully understanding what those interests and needs are, or how different victims may recover in very different ways. Based on fifteen years of working with and listening to victims and survivors, Brandon Hamber helps us better understand the mental health backdrop to atrocity and recovery. With plentiful, poignant stories, and clear policy recommendations, this book should help shape – and greatly improve – future endeavors to confront unimaginable memories and pain (Priscilla Hayner, International Centre for Transitional Justice and author of Unspeakable Truths: confronting state terror and atrocity)

Brandon Hamber nails this tricky subject with humility, insight, learned insight, and golden recommendations..... if you are interested in how humans try to grapple with the consequences of man’s brutality to man, and ultimately the truth, read it! (Thulani Grenville-Grey, former South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission Mental Health Specialist)

Brandon Hamber's experience in multiple sites of transitional justice work, and his rare ability to bridge the academic and theoretical with the practical and logistical, ensures this publication is an extremely valuable contribution and a must read to those working in this fast evolving field (Piers Pigou, former South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission Investigator and Director of the South African History Archive).

Brandon Hamber has written a challenging and good interdisciplinary book, which will not only be helpful to those dealing with mental health issues during transitions from conflict, but also to lawyers and those concerned with conflict resolution more generally (Christine Bell, Director, Institute of Transitonal Justice, University of Ulster)

How countries recover from political atrocity is a question that has confronted dozens of regimes around the world for decades. The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission is an iconic symbol of what for some is a profound achievement in restructuring a “peaceful society.” In Transforming Societies After Political Violence: Truth, Reconciliation, and Mental Health Dr. Brandon Hamber applies his many years of experience both within the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and beyond it to a careful analysis of the complex issues – legal, historical, social, psychological - embedded in such a process. It is his astute attention to these complexities that make his book so rich. Hamber says that “if the TRC process and working with the victims appearing before it taught me anything it was that the psychological life of the survivor of extreme violence is cut through by this complexity." His work is clear testimony to that statement Transforming Societies After Political Violence is a valuable resource for researchers, practitioners, scholars and policy makers. If you read one book about countries emerging from their violent pasts, it should be Dr. Brandon Hamber’s Transforming Societies After Political Violence. I will rely on this volume in my ongoing work and I predict it will become a definitive text in this area (Nina K. Thomas, Ph.D., ABPP, Chair, Specialization in Trauma and Disaster Studies; NYU Postdoctoral program in Psychotherapy and Psychoanalysis; Co-Chair, Relational Orientation; NYU Postdoctoral Program in Psychotherapy and Psychoanalysis; Adjunct Clinical Associate Professor NYU Postdoctoral Program in Psychotherapy and Psychoanalysis)

Hamber brings an acute clinical sensibility and sophisticated research mind to a complex problem: state handling of reconciliation after a catastrophic upheaval. … his main focus in this book is the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) process. … a must read for any psychologist working with trauma survivors, especially postconflict trauma survivors. It calls upon a rich literature–from psychoanalysis … to trial transcripts of commissions; it integrates all these sources to provide a truly unique contribution to the psychology of trauma." (Don Dutton, PsycCRITIQUES, Vol. 54 (47/3), November, 2009)

Dealing with the Past: Time to move to a new level

 I began to explore the issue of how Northern Ireland should deal with the past shortly before the 1998 Agreement. At that time, when I asked policymakers and community groups whether the issue of dealing with the past was important or would become important in the future, responses ranged from bewilderment to hostility. More immediate issues were at hand. A discussion of the past was equated for some with suggesting unravelling the peace process while others were dogmatic they had nothing to account for. However, a decade on the issue of dealing with the past has become mainstream. The fact that PEACE Ill has a funding stream entitled 'Dealing with the Past' is proof in itself. The key question though is whether society is any closer to grappling with the past.

Brandon Hamber, Derry, September 2023 CC BY-NC-ND

Progress

Much has happened since the Agreement. The peace process has spluttered to a (seeming) finale marked by the unthinkable cooperation between Paisley and McGuinness as First and Deputy First Ministers in the new Assembly. In terms of dealing with the past there has been, among others, the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, commissions to investigate disappearances; inquiries into political murders north and south; cases before the European Court of Human Rights; the Historical Enquiries Team; and the Consultative Panel on the Past set up by the British government to provide ways forward on the dealing with the past question.

At the civil society level, the Healing Through Remembering initiative, which has brought together former loyalist and republican combatants, British soldiers, members of the PSNI, victims of the conflict, people from church and civil society backgrounds, academics and others, to debate ways of dealing with the past has made a significant contribution. The project has presented options for truth recovery, hosted a Day of Reflection, considered methods such as storytelling and provided ideas for a living memorial museum (Healing Through Remembering, 2002, McEvoy, 2006). The breadth and extent of this project, and its unique position in driving the dealing with the past debate from the bottom up, is unprecedented internationally.

Thus, it would be untrue to say this society is not dealing with the past. Rather, the question is whether more is needed and whether a structured collective process is necessary.

Resistance

Many questions remain about the past in terms of truth and the secrets of the 'dirty war'. For some victims the question of justice remains pressing. Although some apologies have been made, genuine acknowledgment from the governments, paramilitaries and wider institutions that had a role in the past such as churches, the judiciary, the media, the educational establishment, and those allocating services such as housing, has not been forthcoming.

• When the particular question of truth recovery is raised typical responses follow: 
• the truth is too damaging, everyone has secrets and it is safer to leave these alone;
• Northern Ireland is small and the violence intimate, truth-telling would be destabilising; 
• justice cannot be delivered; the Agreement has already granted early release;
• truth-recovery is too expensive;
• acknowledgement can only be forthcoming once culpability has been conclusively established; and
• no one would tell the truth anyway.

These resistances to truth recovery are interesting. Graham Hayes writes: "the perpetrators fear the truth because of the guilt of their actions; the benefactors fear the truth because of the 'silence' of their complicity; some victims fear the truth because of the apprehension of forgetting through the process of forgiveness; and other victims fear the truth because it is too painful to bear" (Hayes, 1998, p.46). Hayes' comments command respect for the difficulty of acknowledging the past, while at the same time they pose a challenge to us all.

Why is it that we are better at thinking of why not to address the past than arguing why we should? Giving the reason that people will not tell the truth as a justification why we should not interrogate the past is a case in point. Yes, lingering half-truths and lies, and a failure to take responsibility for actions and inactions is a reason why we should be wary when considering the issue of truth recovery, but it is also a reason as to why truth recovery is an imperative.

A new level

Dealing with the past can be a technical matter that could be dealt with by a legitimate and inclusive truth-recovery process. However, it is also about political will and courage. Being open to reasons why dealing with the past may be necessary is the first step. Having the courage to admit that not all that was done in the name of a just cause - whether you see that as your role as the state, defending the state or fighting against it - is the next.

So has the dealing with the past process moved on in ten years? The answer is a cautious yes. Dealing with the past is now squarely on the agenda and much is happening. However, risks remain that the debate about how to deal with the past will be self-defeating or the debate in itself may become the process rather than moving to a new level.

In 1998, after investigating different views on the matter of dealing with the past, I concluded the following on truth recovery: "Most political players demand truth from those they perceive as the other side or sides, but seem unwilling to offer the truth from their side, or acknowledge and take responsibility for their actions. This is mostly due to fear that such acknowledgement (public or otherwise) will weaken in the new dispensation and that the truth may be used against them within the context of the delicate peace that prevails. There are also those in Northern Ireland who refuse to accept that they did anything wrong or that their action (or inaction) was complicit in perpetuating the conflict" (Hamber, 1998, p.80-81).

I am not convinced many have moved beyond this. Surely the time has come to stop obfuscating, talking about whether we should talk about the past or waiting for another committee to report on what should happen next. Someone has to jump first, and that means at an absolute minimum, publicly admitting mistakes were made and acknowledging one's own role, either by commission or omission, in the conflicts of the past. This should be followed by a commitment to developing and participating in a process of truth-recovery.

Published by Brandon Hamber in the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission Review, 2007, Winter(6), 13.

Reference

Hamber, B. (2007). Dealing with the Past: Time to move to a new level. NIHRC Review, Winter(6), 13

Dr Brandon Hamber is  the Research Co-ordinator of INCORE, a United Nations Research Centre for the Study of Conflict at the University of Ulster and a Senior Lecturer at the University. He is the Chair of the Healing Through Remembering project. The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of all the membership of Healing Through Remembering.

References

Hamber, B. (Ed.) (1998) Past Imperfect: Dealing with the Past in Northern Ireland and Societies in Transition, Derry/Londonderry, University of Ulster , INCORE.

Hayes, G. {1998) We Suffer our Memories: Thinking about the Past, Healing and Reconciliation. American Imago, 55, 29-50.

Healing Through Remembering (2002) Report of the Healing Through Remembering Project. Belfast, Healing Through Remembering. Availableatw ww:healingthroughremembering.org

McEvoy, K. (2006) Making Peace with the Past: Options for truth recovery regarding the conflict in and about Northern Ireland. Belfast, Healing Through Remembering. Available at www:healingthroughremembering.org

Retributive justice: The Gacaca courts in Rwanda

I haven't read this yet, it was recommended to me by Cornelia from Trauma Research Net. I thought I would post it anyway...looks interesting. The article is written by Allison Corey and Sandra F. Joireman. The abstract reads: "After decades of cycling violence between Hutu and Tutsi groups in Rwanda and Burundi, violence peaked in 1994 with a genocide of Tutsis in Rwanda, during which the Hutu majority slaughtered 800,000 Tutsi and moderate Hutus, leaving the country with 120,000 accused génocidaires awaiting trial. Rwanda's gacaca courts were established as a response to the backlog of untried genocide cases. These courts disturbingly distinguish between genocide and war crimes committed during the same era, trying only those accused of genocide. This article argues that the gacaca process will contribute to the insecurity of all Rwandan citizens in the future, since it pursues inequitable justice, accentuates the ethnic divide and will be interpreted as revenge". More...

A Decade of Criminal Justice Transformation

An important national conference for people involved in criminal justice and crime prevention work in South Africa. The conference titled ‘A Decade of Criminal Justice Transformation – Reflecting on the past to shape the future’ will be held at Spier Estate, Stellenbosch, Western Cape, from 13 to16 July 2004.

US offers two million dollar reward for Charles Taylor

Read today that United States has included a two million dollar reward for former Liberian leader Charles Taylor in its 87.5 billion dollar special budget for Iraq and Afghanistan. Tricky one when you agree with bringing someone to book but wonder about the motives of those offering the funds...is it me, or is the world becoming more and more like the Wild West? Wanted, Dead or Alive.

No justice in amnesty without reparations

The last few weeks have seen a flurry of media reports on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's reparations policy.  Victims who testified before the TRC accuse government of moving too slowly on the TRC's recommendations.  The government blames the TRC for not spending all the money allocated to the reparations budget.  In turn, the TRC is accusing the government of failure to act promptly on its recommendations.  

Whichever way you look at it, the victims are getting a raw deal.  They have been victimised by what happened to them in the past and have had to watch perpetrators getting amnesty.  They waited for two and half years for so-called urgent interim payments, which, on average, amount to little more than R3500 for violations such as murder and rape.  To make matters worse, the TRC's long-term reparations recommendations, tabled in October 1998, still await substantial discussion that moves beyond political posturing towards exploring feasible options.

Recently victims groups have made some strong statements in the press.  The Khulumani Victim Support Group have taken to the streets to protest the slowness of government’s response to the TRC's proposals.  The Justice Ministry’s spokesperson, Paul Setsetse, admitted in the City Press recently that the long-term process has “moved slowly” and that “there are no intentions to scale down final reparations or to sweep the issue under the carpet”.  This remains to be seen. 

Concrete proposals need to be put on the table.   These must move beyond the focus on the minimal urgent payments, which have obscured the real issue.   A long-term reparations policy needs to be fleshed out and debated publicly.  If this does not happen, victims may have cause to consider different legal options.  One is to investigate the constitutionality of limiting reparations in light of the generous amnesty provisions.  The other option may be to appeal to the international human rights community, many of whom are itching to test more legislation following the relative successes of the Pinochet case. 

The right to reparation for wrongful acts has long been recognised as a fundamental principle of law essential to the functioning of legal systems.  In this sense the right to reparation is not new.  However, internationally the will to enforce it seems to have increased.  

The hiatus in the reparations process in South Africa is in sharp contrast to the importance that reparations is currently being given internationally.  The UN Commission on Human Rights will adopt in the near future a set of Basic Principles and Guidelines on the right to reparation known as the ‘Van Boven Principles’.  Furthermore, the International Criminal Court, to which South Africa is a signatory, will be the first international criminal tribunal to have the power to award reparation to the victims of crimes which come before it.

Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on Unsplash

Reparation is recognised under international treaties and customary law in decisions by the United Nations Human Rights Committee, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights and national law and practice, as well as in a number of other international treaties. Recent developments suggest that soon reparation will become an international standard not just a principle.  Therefore, if reparations are not granted to victims in the long run, and lets hope this is not the case, it may be possible for them to test whether this would contravene South Africa's international obligations. 

Another way in international law which may have relevance for the situation in South Africa is the developing concept of ‘legitimate expectations’. A 'legitimate expectation' is a tool of administrative law intended to provide procedural fairness. According to this concept, if a government publishes a policy or makes a representation about how it will proceed in making decisions, those affected by the decision must be given the opportunity of a hearing if the decision-makers act in a manner which is contrary to the policy.  Given the fact that reparations is enshrined in the act which gave birth to the TRC this may be a further route to consider if reparations are not granted. 

Australia has recently seen a successful case drawing on the principles of ‘legitimate expectations’.  This may set a precedent in which the ratification of international treaties will bind administrative decision-makers to take account of these treaties where they affect individual rights of their citizens.  For example, if the right to reparations is built into an international treaty, as it is in the Convention Against Torture of which South Africa is a signatory, the signatory will be obliged to make reparations.

Notwithstanding the reparations debate, there are also other international precedents that have developed recently which have implications for the TRC process.  Victims could, for example, challenge South African amnesties in the courts of other countries.  The reverberations from the Pinochet case in the UK has meant that the concept of ‘universal jurisdiction’ has become more widely recognised.  Certain crimes such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and torture are so universally abhorred that they constitute crimes against international law. A number of international treaties place signatory states under a duty to ensure that suspects who come within their borders are brought to justice, either by prosecuting them in their own courts, or by extraditing them for trial elsewhere.

Craig Williamson, for example, by admitting his responsibility for blowing up the ANC offices in London, is liable for prosecution should he ever come within British jurisdiction.   Other perpetrators given amnesty may also find that should they travel abroad from South Africa that the status of their amnesty will be challenged. There is also the possibility that amnesties granted in South Africa could be considered null and void internationally.

The survivors who came before the TRC have made an enormous sacrifice on top of the suffering they have endured. Our experience with survivors indicates what most of them want justice, not just truth.  The amnesty process has removed their right to criminal or civil action in the name of national reconciliation. Amnesty without reparations is tantamount to impunity.  Is the South African government now seriously asking them to forego their right to reparation?

At this stage, government would probably answer, no.  President Mbeki has stated they are committed to victims.  At the same time, however there is little evidence of a clear long-term reparations strategy waiting to be unveiled. 

The more victims feel frustrated by the delay in meaningful reparations, the more likely they will be to seek alternative forms of redress; a situation the government should closely attend to if it wishes to avoid international embarrassment. 

Originally published by Brandon Hamber &  Bill Dishington, Sunday Independent, 25 June 2000

Brandon Hamber was a former Programme Manager at the Centre for the Study of Violence & Reconciliation in Johannesburg.

Bill Dishington is Information Director from Redress in London.

Crime's worst horror is all in the mind

Crime has over the past few years dominated headlines in South Africa. But although the crime rate has risen over the past decade, the media's extensive coverage has created a skewed picture of it. Based on the reporting, most South Africans subscribe to the view that crime continues to spiral out of control. According to recent police statistics, however, the crime rate has been falling.

The statistics are debatable. It is probably more accurate to argue that crime is stabilising, making now a good time to examine some of our perceptions of it. We should not underestimate the impact and extent of violent crime. It has taken, and continues to take, its toll on our society. In almost all cases involving violent crimes in the home, post-traumatic symptoms follow. These can leave a person feeling powerless and out of control. People may experience nightmares, painful feelings and intrusive thoughts about the trauma. Most victims are left with a lingering sense of dread and a fear that they will be victimised again. Feelings of sadness, irritability, guilt and anger are common. Revenge fantasies are also typical. Although they are a normal response, they may be disturbing, especially to those who consider themselves to be nonviolent.

No community in South Africa has remained untouched by violence. In addition, very few people have been left unscathed by violence committed during the damaging apartheid years. It is therefore possible to argue that, at least on some levels, the entire population may be suffering from a collective post-traumatic response. This may explain the public's desire to take revenge on criminals, as well as their high levels of anxiety and guilt.

Revenge fantasies and revengeful acts are clearly reflected in the public's demand for more violent policing of criminals, in the rise of self-administered justice and in the wide public support for the death penalty. There is a risk that victims of violence who are not supported and treated may themselves become perpetrators of violence. The tragic aspect here is that, in most cases, victims turn their anger against friends and family rather than against the assailant. Rather than decrease the crime rate, however, revenge attacks on suspected criminals serve to continue the cycle of violence.

Olga Ernst, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

Ongoing fear, anxiety and obsession about possible victimisation are common re- actions to trauma. These may be exacerbated by unresolved feelings of distress and uneasiness created by many years of political and social violence. This, coupled with high levels of violence, could be contributing to growing feelings of anxiety in the population. It is this anxiety that can cause people who have not personally been victims to exaggerate the danger they face. It may explain why people feel that nothing is being done to curb increasing crime, even if this is not the case. Self-blame and guilt are also common in people who have suffered a trauma. Victims may wonder why they were targeted. In almost all situations, they feel they could have done something different to prevent the trauma from happening. This guilt is often made worse by friends blaming the victim for, typically, driving or walking in the wrong place or wearing the wrong clothes. 

If untreated, guilt and self-blame may lead victims to create a range of fictitious reasons to explain their victimisation. For example, many people in South Africa mistakenly believe their race is the main reason they have been victimised. Clearly, as we all seek to give our experiences meaning, it is difficult to accept that victims of criminal violence are largely chosen at random - although some communities, especially poorer ones, may be more affected by, or susceptible to, criminal violence. 

Flaws in the criminal justice system serve only to intensify these feelings. Insensitive and judgmental behaviour by police also discourages victims from reporting crime. This is particularly true for child victims and victims of domestic violence and rape. Under-reporting makes matters worse because, without accurate information, it is difficult for the authorities to figure out which areas need priority intervention. Under-reporting may also be reinforced by the fact that only the most gruesome crimes reach the newspapers or are discussed by South Africans. The result is a belief that all crime is violent and that violence is committed only by unknown assailants in the pursuit of a quick buck. This blurring means that common crimes in South African homes, like wife battery and child abuse, are concealed.

It is clear that we need unambiguous information about the extent of crime and the areas most severely affected. Obviously, we also need to improve the justice system. Equally pressing is the need to continue to treat the post-traumatic effects of past and present violence because its impact clouds our judgment and creates many misperceptions about crime. Perhaps, as the rate stabilises, we should all step back briefly and reassess our own beliefs about crime. This is not to say that we should abandon our fight against it or be soft on the perpetrators but, until we come to terms with the trauma of living in a violent society, a culture of fear, anxiety and anger is likely to prevail.

It is this situation, understandable and realistic as it is on some levels, that makes us see the violence in our society as spinning increasingly out of control, even when it is not. In the long run, this fuels a sense of helplessness in the society - in turn, psychologically empowering the criminals and preventing us from finding creative solutions.

Originally published by Brandon Hamber and Sharon Lewis, Sunday Times, 1 March 1998

Brandon Hamber and Sharon Lewis are both Clinical Psychologists.