Post-Conflict Reconciliation: Does Amnesty Really

Bring Peace?

Author: Vincent Lissu Mughwai

University of Bridgeport

2010

Introduction

During the past fifty years, the world has witnessed some of the worst

human rights violations against innocent people in many countries. In some

cases, crimes have been committed by repressive regimes against innocent

people whereas in other instances the human right violations have been

committed by dominant class against weaker groups. Although some progress

has been made over the years to resolve some of the intractable conflicts,

violence still remains in such as a religious conflict in Northern Ireland or the

apartheid regime in South Africa The question facing policymakers and

religious experts involved in post-conflict mediation is whether truth-telling,

repentance and amnesty help to bring long-lasting peace between warring

factions.

In Latin America, for instance, reconciliation commissions were created

to investigate crimes committed during the military rules in Chile, Argentina,

Brazil and other areas. Critics argue that these commissions have not

succeeded to bring peace and understanding among the people in the

communities in question. But, there seems to be a general consensus among

many experts that the South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission

(TRC) chaired by Archbishop Desmond Tutu and created to investigate

politically motivated crimes committed during the apartheid was greatly

successful.

This paper examines the role of religion in the reconciliations process. It

seeks to address the following questions: Why did some reconciliation

commissions fail to achieve their goals? Can true peace really be attained

after the perpetrators of some of the most heinous crimes against humanity

are let free after simply confessing their crimes and asking for forgiveness

outside the traditional court system? How can those involved in managing the

reconciliation process determine whether the confessions are sincere and that

the perpetrators are genuinely remorseful? In addressing these questions, the

paper focuses on the reconciliation experiences in Latin America, Africa, and

the Middle.

It should be noted right from the outset that these are not easy questions

to address nor is the issue of reconciliation. Notwithstanding, the concept of

post-conflict reconciliation needs to be looked at for it could help resolve some

of the longest conflicts in countries such as Somalia, Sudan and the Middle

Eastern conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. Despite the fact that billions

of dollars have been spent in an effort to bring peace in these areas, violence

persists and hatred between conflicting groups deepens.

Literature Review

Bringing closure and reconciliation between parties that have been

bogged by years of violence, hatred and distrust is one of the most difficult

issues for mediators. On the one hand, the possibility that violators of crimes -

murderers, abductors, torturers, and all those involved in perpetuating some of

the most brutal crimes against humanity would simply be let to walk freely

back to the very communities they abused is not well-received by some

people.

The argument raised by critics is whether justice is done by granting

amnesty to violators of crimes against innocent victims. The question to be

considered is, how can those accused of crimes against humanity be punished

for their crimes in such a way that would guarantee a long-lasting peace?

Wole Soyinka (1999), one of the most respected African linguists and

winner of the 1986 Nobel Prize in Literature, argues in his book titled “The

Burden of Memory, The Muse of Forgiveness”, that despite its complexity, the

issue of truth-telling and reconciliation seems to be the only viable option if a

society battered with gross violations of human rights is to reconcile and move

forward with justice and peace. Soyinka (1999) notes that forgiveness is a

value that is far more humanly exacting than vengeance. At the same time,

Soyinka (1999) seems to doubt whether granting full amnesty and letting

criminals walk freely with impunity would lead to ultimate peace so desired. As

he puts it, “will it really heal society? Will it achieve reconciliation that is an

ultimate goal of the initiators of this heroic process?”

Addressing what ought to be the steps in the reconciliation, Soyinka

(1999) argues that the first process is for the perpetrators to recount their

crimes before a truth and reconciliation commission and seek forgiveness.

But, that the remorse has to be accompanied with repentance, in order for it to

be seen as genuine. Notwithstanding, one wonders if at all, it is possible to

determine if those seeking forgiveness are, in fact, serious and truly

remorseful.

For instance, Soyinka (1999), who is a Nigerian native, cites one

particular incident experienced in his home country during a reconciliation

proceeding soon after the end of General Sani Abacha’s military rule in 1998.

According to Soyinka, one amnesty applicant expressed his forgiveness

before the commission only to be heard afterwards saying in private that if he

were to do it over again (the killing of innocent people) he probably would.

This raises an important question, and that is, how could a long-lasting

peace among groups in conflict be possible under these circumstances? An

argument can be raised that since those guilty of crimes against their fellow

countrymen are left free after amnesty, and possibly going back to interact

with their victims in one form or another, there is a likelihood that the victims

can “take back” their forgiveness offer upon learning that their abusers’

confessions made before the reconciliation commission were not real.

In terms of who has the jurisdiction to handle these cases, the issue to

be considered is on demarcation. Where does the commission draw the line

between those crimes that fall within their scope of authority and crimes are

beyond their jurisdictional powers? As for these concerns, Soyinka (1999)

argues that there are crimes that fall within local jurisdictions and these are

cases that can be handled by reconciliation commissions.

But that the international community recognizes there are crimes against

humanity that have ramifications beyond the borders of any nation, hence, can

be dealt with by international tribunals. One good example is the case facing

Charles Taylor, the former president of Liberia who is facing trial before the

International Criminal Court (ICC) for violations of human right in Liberia and

her neighbors during his rule.

Adding to Soyinka’s points, Liechty (2006) lays out steps that need to be

followed in the process of reconciliation. This process involves two

complementary dynamics of repenting and forgiving. Whereas forgiving

involves dealing with how we have been wronged and making peace with it by

letting go and extending forgiveness to the wrong doers; repenting involves

facing the truth and dealing directly with our crimes. Using the Northern Ireland

reconciliation experience as a model, Liechty (2006) recommends five stages

required to bring closure and understanding between groups in conflict.

First, the perpetrators of crimes to need acknowledge their wrong doing

and seek therapeutically from deep down in their soul, to off-load the secrets

of crimes they have been harboring. For example, during the South African

reconciliation proceedings, Soyinka (1999) contends that the first thing

president Mandela did was to acknowledge that crimes had been committed;

not only by white South Africans against blacks, but that black South Africans

had blood in their hands too.

In order to deal with the problem head-on, Mandela led the way by

demonstrating his commitment to finding a long-lasting solution. Soyinka

(1999) goes on to note that Mandela confronted his own party, the African

National Congress (ANC) with its own dismal record of needless cruelty and

abuse of human rights, especially, in prisons and detention camps often

against their fellow black South Africans accused of being the informants to

the apartheid regime.

Second, the seeker of amnesty has to be willing to take full responsibility

for the crime committed and that mere acknowledgement of a crime alone is

not enough. Third, the perpetrator of crimes should sincerely express remorse

and ask for forgiveness. In this case, the commission had to be satisfied that

the forgiveness request is genuine. An apology can play an important part in a

repentance process but this depends on how the apology is expressed. An

emotional apology could be viewed as authentic as opposed to an

emotionless expression of sorrow.

Fourthly, amnesty seeker is given the opportunity to change attitude and

behavior. The pre-reconciliation behavior has to be distinguishable from post-

reconciliation behavior. When Frederick De Klerk decided that it was the time

for Nelson Mandela to be released from prison after serving 27 years of his life

sentence, some people within his apartheid government opposed his decision.

Finally, whenever possible, those guilty of crimes should make

restitution. According to Soyinka (1999), the issue of restitution depends on

the type of conflict that is being resolved. For example, in cases of a prevalent

and systemic conflict and abuse such as the horrors of Trans-Atlantic slave

trade and colonialism, complete restitution might not be possible. In this case,

an apology or verbal expression of remorse or regret may be part of a

symbolic restitution.

Chile’s Reconciliation Experience (1973 – 1990)

The process of reconciliation in Latin American countries is regarded as one of

failed reconciliation attempts. Maclean (2006) asserts that oftentimes the truth

and reconciliation commissions were headed by people who were implicated

with the crimes that were to be investigated or that commission officials were

sympathetic to the abusers. In addition, Maclean (2006) contends that the

Latin American commissions were largely unsuccessful mainly because they

tended to grant amnesty to perpetrators and some compensation to victims

selectively and without fairness to the process.

When President Patricio Aylwin took office in May 1990, the

commission was set up to investigate all crimes against humanity perpetrated

during the Augustine Pinochet military dictatorship. This commission was also

granted the power and authority to examine death and disappearances for all

victims. According to Maclean (2006) 2,920 cases were reported. But before

the commission even finished its work, there were concerns within the

commission officials that the military would be exposed for the crimes they had

committed, therefore, the process was rushed and immunity granted to all

military personnel for all the crimes committed since the 1973 coup, a coup

that paved a way for the Pinochet military regime. What was even more

disturbing was the fact that Pinochet remained in power as the head of the

army during this period until 1998 when he was arrested in London and

handed over to Spain.

It is not surprising then, that the experience in Chile did not lead to a

desired outcome. Most of the victims were political activists who were opposed

to undemocratic military rule under Pinochet. Literature shows that the military

rule in Chile faced a great opposition from the very beginning after a coup. For

example, by 1977 all political parties were abolished and many opposition

political activists disappeared, murdered, tortured or detained.

The role of the church in the reconciliation process was mute. In fact, it

is reported that in Chile, the church was also implicated to some of abuses.

Maclean (2006) argues that the reconciliation process would have been

different had the church taken the leadership role and distanced itself from the

military regime. The commission would have been respected if it was believed

to be impartial in its deliberations.

Maclean (2006) estimates that one-third of Chilean bishops supported

the coup in 1973 and, subsequently, overtly supported the regime or kept

silent when crimes were being committed against innocent civilians. Since the

new government was weak with no much influence with the army which was

one of the most powerful institutions in the country, no any meaningful

reconciliation outcome was expected by the victims.

Argentine (1976 – 1983)

Argentine is another country in Latin America that experienced a great

deal of abuse and human rights violations during the military rule. The country

was under the military rule for much of the 1960s and 1970s during which

basic freedoms were denied to the people. The military did not allow any voice

of opposition and, like in Chile; the Argentinean army did not hesitate to take

any action they deemed right to silence those who challenged their power.

Following the internal pressure from within the country, with people

demanding democratic civilian rule, it became apparent that the military rule

was not going to survive any longer. The elections were set and Raul Alfonsin,

the presidential candidate was getting a lot of support from all over Argentine,

for people were tired of the military rule. But only three weeks before the

elections, the military government ordered amnesty to all criminal acts

committed between 1973 and June 1982.

After elections, the new elected president annulled the military amnesty

order and ordered heads of three previous military rules arrested. The

president’s actions against the status quo cost him. The new administration

had a difficult time governing a country that was largely run by military

institutions based on loyalty and secrecy that discouraged debate.

Subsequently, the president was replaced for what was viewed as liberal

agendas. The reconciliation commission, largely undemocratic, illegitimate,

and lacking impartiality failed to achieve the goal of reconciling the country

after years of abuses and crimes under the military regime.

Maclean (2006) argues that, in case of Argentine, the church did not do

much in the process of reconciliation either. Like their Chilean counterparts,

the Argentinean bishops had a close relationship with the military

governments. The church went on even further in its support of the regime

with the chaplains and clergymen actively participating in clandestine torturing

centers. This church-state relationship allowed for the violations of human

rights to go unchallenged. Since, there was no any other voice of dissent

directed against the military, the limited criticism of human rights violations did

not help.

South Africa’s Experience (1960 – 1994)

Maclean (2006) defines the TRC as an official body set up to investigate

past human rights abuses or violations of international law. These violations

should be investigated not for the purpose of exacting retribution but to

provide some form of public accounting to help heal the injustices of the past.

The TRC would, therefore, provide a forum that would attempt to bring the

balance between the conflicting demands of victims and reparations on the

one hand and perpetrators and amnesty on the other hand.

Meredith (1999) contends that Mandela’s government decided to link

amnesty to truth-telling. Only if perpetrators agreed to make full disclosures of

their crimes would they be granted amnesty. But on the other hand, Frederick

De Clerk had insisted that a guarantee of amnesty be written into the

constitution and Mandela conceded for without amnesty the whites might not

have agreed to give up power.

South African experience with reconciliation process is viewed as the

most successful. Three main factors are cited for the success of South

African’s reconciliation commission. One was the leadership provided by

Nelson Mandela following his release from prison and subsequently becoming

the president was instrumental.

According to Meridith (1999) the process of reconciliation in South

Africa was embedded in a serious soul searching and commitment among all

parties involved that the reconciliation was the only possible avenue to bring

peace in South Africa. Mandela carefully sought advice from countries that

had undergone this process, particularly, countries in Latin America to learn

about their experiences.

It should be noted that the reconciliation process in South Africa was

started in the 1990s after first elections that saw Mandela assuming the

presidency in 1994 after spending 27 years behind bars. The commission was

set up to investigate all politically-related crimes committed between 1960 and

1994. One of the major reasons for South African commission success was

not only based on political credibility but also the commission itself.

Archbishop Tutu was the right person to oversee the reconciliation process. As

one of the most revered civil rights leader and church leader, Tutu ensured

that his commission avoided the mistakes from previous commissions in Latin

America and elsewhere. A team of experts was dispatched to learn how other

commissions did their work.

Thirdly, South African officials utilized the experiences of religious

leaders and theologians for they realized that the only institution with credibility

to oversee the process of forgiveness, reconciliation and healing to the nation

was the church. In South Africa, the church had played an important role in the

liberation struggles. While all political parties and organizations were banned

in South Africa from 1960s to early 1990s, the church was the only institution

used as a platform for people to organize. Thus, when Tutu was chosen to

head the truth and reconciliation commission, there was a general consensus

that the process would be welcome by all and that its findings would be

credible.

With respect to the role of religion, and the Church in particular,

Mandela argued that reconciliation was a spiritual process that required

sinners to repent for their misdeeds and victims offer forgiveness. He also

argued that the process of healing and starting anew needed something more

than legal frameworks, and that no any other institution was better suited to

assist with this process other than thousands of religious congregations which

gathered every week in all communities in through out South Africa. To make

sure the leadership was balanced, Alex Boraine, a leading Methodist

clergyman and civil rights activist was chosen as the TRC vice chairman.

Solomon Schimmel author of “Wounds Not Healed by Time: the Power

of Repentance and Forgiveness”, argues that although South Africa does not

have an official state religion or church religion still plays a prominent role in

everyday life of South Africans. The establishment of the TRC reflected the

visionary leadership of Nelson Mandela but also a Christian religion ideology

that promoted forgiveness and reconciliation over punishment (Schimmel,

2002).

There is a great agreement within the new government that political

solutions alone would not help to bring long lasting peace. That in order for the

new country to transition from years of hate, violence, and killing, love and

compassion was necessary and no any other institution could do a better job

to making that transition possible than the church itself. In his gospel message

to the Galatians, Matthew says that when there are transgressions, people

should seek reconciliation first for that is not done everything else would not

be blessed. “Leave your gifts there before the altar, and go your way. First,

be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift” (Matthew

5:24). This message from the Bible is significant in the context of South

African reconciliation.

One could interpret it as telling the people of South Africa that their

nation would not be blessed moving forward unless blacks and whites

reconciled and forgave each other. That Mandela could not successfully lead

in a multi-racial, multi-ethnic nation if he did not first resolve the issues he had

with those who kept him in jail for 27 years of hard labor. First, he needed to

forgive them, them he would have the peace to move on as a new leader. He

could have sought revenge; after all he was the new leader with full support of

the majority of the South African population. But, would those actions of

reciprocating evil translate into unity, peace and harmony for all South

Africans?

Echoing Matthew’s message Apostle Paul preached the message of

forgiveness and reconciliation to the Romans. Paul says, “For if when we were

enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more,

having been reconciled, we shall be saved by his life” (Romans, 5:10). To

Christian believers the concept of forgiveness is what defined Christian values.

The belief that one who does wrong should repent for the wrong-doing and by

so doing God will forgive him or her sins, erasing the record of wrong-doing

and welcoming the new believer into His kingdom as a member of a Christian

family leaving in peace and harmony with other members.

Similarly, the concept of repentance and forgiveness was adopted in

South Africa during the TRC proceedings. However, amnesty was only

extended to only those who committed human rights violations for political

reasons. Other crimes committed not for political motives did not qualify for

amnesty. The TRC in South Africa was made up of three committees: the

committee of human rights violations, the committee for amnesty and the

committee responsible for reparations and rehabilitation (H-South Africa,

2000).

Another factor that helps to explain the success of South Africa’s TRC

is that South Africa, like other African traditional societies, has established

traditional modalities that guarantee the restoration of harmony after serious

crimes. But, again, one of the parameters used to grant forgiveness is that

those seeking forgiveness had to express remorse. Commenting on this point

Soyinka (1999) argues that even if by forgiving a criminal for the crimes

committed, justice might not seem to have been made. But the process itself

leads to good.

But studies show that one of the problems associated with amnesty

granting is the possibility that those who ask for forgiveness might in fact be

guilty of crimes that are not within the established scope of the commission.

Soyinka (1999) writes about the killing of an American female student

volunteer in Soweto South Africa by a group of young black South Africans.

According to Soyinka (1999) these were criminals who took advantage

of the TRC to seek amnesty even though it was not easy to determine whether

their crime was politically motivated. The American student volunteer, who

was actually believed involved in the anti-apartheid, was brutally murdered

after dropping off a friend in a black neighborhood. Soyinka (1999) questions

whether justice is served by setting other criminals free even if they confess

their wrong-doing. “Must the psychopathic opportunists of revolutionary

struggle become beneficiaries of the balm of victory?”

Conflict in the Middle East

The conflict between Jews and Palestinians dates back to the biblical

times and both groups claim the right to the occupation of the Holy Land.

Despite all the peace agreements signed so far, violence still continues.

Following years of conflict between the two groups, the UN passed a

resolution to partition Israel into a Jewish state and Palestine into an Arab

state that live in peace side by side but the resolution was not agreed upon

and in 1948 Israel unilaterally established a Jewish state and proclaimed

independence on may 15, 1948.

The Jewish army seized most of the land allocated to the Palestinians

through the aborted UN resolution. Fearing the Jewish attack more that

750,000 Palestinians fled to neighboring Arab countries. This was the

beginning of Palestinian refugee problem. According to Tschirgi (1998) the

humiliation of being landless made them feel lost, disoriented and torn from

their familiar ways of life.

A major peace agreement was signed between Israel and Palestinians in

Oslo on August 30, 1993. It was agreed that the only was the two sides would

have peace was for the two sides to work together and be willing to reconcile

and recognize each other as a neighbor with all equal rights. Marc Gopin (2002)

claims that one of the major problems for peace is when parties involved in a

conflict do not recognize the rightful existence of the other side. According to

Gopin (2002) critical to transition to peace requires that each side recognize

that not all the justice and truth, right or goodness reside with their group

Through out the period of this conflict the international community has

been involved to broker peace. International peace missions have been sent

to the region of the years unilateral and multi-lateral but peace has not yet

achieved. The Arab states have tended to supply aid Palestinians and the

West, mainly the US has been supplying money and equipment to Israel, a

country that is seen a closer ally of the US. According to Lesch and Tschirgi

(1998) by 1990s, Israel received $3 billion per year in US aid, approximately

one-third of the total annual US external aid.

The conflict between Arabs and Jews has taken too long despite of all

the money that has been used to broker peace. I find it irrational that after all

these years that the international community has been trying to bring peace to

this region, not much emphasis has been placed on reconciliation between the

two groups.

Literature shows that there is no single religion that does not seek

peace. Core values of Islam for example promote the idea that there ought to

be peace and tolerance in the society. Bhutto (2007) argues that Quaran is an

inclusive text that calls for respect of all human being. “Allah is not only God of

Islam but God of monotheism, God for all who believe that he is the creator of

universe”

According to Tombs (2006) the issue regarding the peace in the Middle

East has been largely approached politically but other methods need to be

considered to if peace is to take place. The author suggests conflict resolution

measures that explicitly embrace all cultures that are involved in the conflict.

That despite the plain evidence that religiously motivated violence, which is

against what most religious beliefs, on both Israelis and Palestinians side,

bombings, random violence, assassinations of higher leaders, is one of the

characteristics derailing peace process.

There is a general consensus that there will never be peace in this

region unless the two sides agree to reconcile and seek forgiveness for the

past crimes in order to move forward as neighbors living in peace. Obviously,

the issue that is the source of all violence is land and failure among the Arabs

to acknowledge and recognize the existence of the Jewish people for they all

belonged to this territory from the very start. There is no good future for

Palestinians without understanding that the Palestinian land is also dear to

Jewish people from all over the world.

This point is summed up well by Vorf (2006) author of Theology of

Embrace for a World of Exclusion who contends that the hope of the world

infested by the evil lies precisely in men and women who, despite the crimes

committed against each other could muster enough strength to want to invite

each other for a cup of coffee and repent ask the enemy “what has brought

him or her to do such an evil thing”

Quran has a lot of quotes on reconciliation. According to Herbert (2006)

although the use of force is prescribed in the Quran under specific and strict

conditions, nevertheless, the Islamic values systematically give higher ground

for forgiveness than to revenge of violence. “To recompense for an injury is an

equal injury thereto; but if a person forgives and makes reconciliation his

rewards are due to Allah (Quran, Sura 42:40). In addition, Herbert (2006)

argues that Islamic legal tradition including shura (mutual consultation) and

ijma (consensus) are particularly relevant to processes of reconciliation

because they involve non-violent methods olf settling disputes or for dealing

with post-conflict situations.

Conclusion

This paper has attempted to demonstrate that in order for a long lasting

peace to be achieved between groups involved in long conflict, reconciliation

is a desired approach. Although this approach has been tried before especially

in Latin America without much success, in order for there to be a true peace

those involved in the reconciliation process should be committed to peace.

The reconciliation process is likely to bring a desired outcome if the

officials involved in the process are free of bias. Commission need not be

influenced by those in power or those implicated to the crimes the commission

intends to investigate. The commission would be even stronger if religious

leaders are involved. The South African experience should be a model on how

this process is conducted. It is important, however, to understand that each

crisis is different and that reconciliation approaches to one country should not

necessarily apply to another country.

References

Bhutto, B. (2008). Reconciliation: Islam, Democracy, and the West.

New York, N.Y: Harper Collins Publishers.

Gopin, M. (2002). Holy War, Holy Peace: How Religion Can Bring Peace in the

Middle East. New York, N.Y: oxford University Press.

Herbert, D. (2003). Religion and Civil Society: Rethinking Public Religion in

Contemporary World. Burlington VT: Ashgate Publishing

Lesch, A. M and Tschirgi, D. (1998). Origins of Development of Arab-Israel

Conflict.

Westport, CT/London: Greenwood Press.

Liechty, J. (2006) Explorations in Reconcilition: New Directions for Theology.

Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.

Maclean, I (2006). Truth and Reconciliation: Hope for the Nation or Only as Much

as Is Possible. In Reconciliation Nations and Churches in Latin America.

Ashgate Publishing Company.

Meridith, M. (1999). Coming to Terms: South Africa’s Search for Truth. New

York, N.Y: Public Affairs

Schimmel, S (2002). Wounds Not Healed by Time: The Power of Repentance

and Forgiveness. Oxford University Press, Inc.

Soyinka, W (1999). The Burden of Memory, The Muse of forgiveness. New York,

N.Y: Oxford University Press

Tombs, D. (2006) Explorations in Reconcilition: New Directions for Theology.

Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.

Volf, M. (1996). Exclusion and Entrance: A Theological Exploration of Identity,

Otherness, and Reconciliation. Nashville, TN: Abingdon press