While many familiar with the TRC concept might have South Africa’s public hearings in mind, Canada will follow a different format.  The primary mandate of the commission is to document testimony from survivors and others affected by the schools so that their experiences can be added to the historical record.  Thus, there will be no face-offs between perpetrator and abused, nor panels of commissioners interviewing survivors in front of a large audience.  Smaller tents will be set up for testimony – potentially on video should the witness desire – as well as traditional healing, prayer, meditation, and other support services.

Beyond recording testimony, the event is also intended to serve as a celebration of indigenous culture, with musical performances, art exhibitions, and a traditional powwow.

The Legacy Project will be in attendance, interviewing officials and survivors and documenting events as they unfold.  Check back here for updates from the road!

Shockingly, the percentage of Lithuanian Jews killed during the Holocaust was a high mark for Europe, falling between 90-96% of the total Jewish population.  According to Zuroff, the “success” of the final solution in Lithuania was a product of strong local support.  There is support for this view.  The infamous Jaeger Report doles out extensive credit to local Lithuanians for eliminating Jews without any Nazi support.  While other European countries that committed grave crimes during the Holocaust – Germany foremost among them – have sought to make amends, to the limited degree possible, Lithuania remains largely dismissive.  According to one MP, “quite a large segment of Lithuanian society is still inclined to consider Jews as collectively responsible for the mass killings and deportations of civilians.”

The CNN report tracks the controversy into the present, outlining the struggle to prosecute accused criminals and to document the “truth” of what occurred.

The primary source of dissatisfaction has been the austerity measures demanded by the European Union in exchange for any sort of bailout.  That outrage culminated today in violent riots and the deaths of three Greeks, adding to the death toll that began last December when a 15 year-old was killed by an Athenian policeman.

What has been fascinating from the perspective of historical legacies has been the heated dialogue between Greece and Germany.  As the Greeks flinched at some of Germany’s proposed conditions, some Germans accused the Greeks of laziness and two German MPs suggested that Greece sell some of its islands to pay for its debt.  Greek leaders, including the Prime Minister, responded with anger, arguing that Germany has owed their country reparations for 70 years, dating back to the Nazi invasion and occupation in World War II.  That language resurfaced in news reports again today.

As anger in Greece boils over, one wonders if other historical sources of resentment, which hibernated during fruitful times, will resurface as the economic crisis continues.

Many remain skeptical of the commission’s viability.  In an editorial published in the Daily Nation, Gabriel Dolan expressed serious concerns.  First, he notes that truth commissions typically reflect a later stage of the transitional justice process and that Kenya is still early in its transition – if that transition has even begun at all.  He also bemoans the commission’s decision to restrict its focus to political matters instead of using its broader mandate to explore socio-economic abuses.  As Dolan writes, “In other words, the pain of millions of Kenyans is a result of the gain of a few dozen villains, who looted the country’s coffers and who must now be held accountable.”  However, based on the commission’s early actions, it appears those crimes will go unaddressed.

Dolan is highly critical of South Africa’s TRC’s failure to address the economic impact of apartheid, and it is a fair point.  Of course, efforts in that direction of South Africa may well have torpedoed the commission’s work and the peaceful transition to democracy.  Still, was that short-sighted?  Economic reparations and sanctions seem to be the most difficult part of the transitional justice process.

Meanwhile, to the west, Chileans elected their new president, Sebastian Pinera.  Pinera is the country’s first democratically elected conservative to win the presidency in more than five decades. The immediate response was to see this as a major setback to the human rights movement.  It undeniably represents the failure of the left-center coalition to accomplish meaningful improvements.  The return of democracy has brought little of any improvement to the economic circumstances for most poor Chileans.  And, many left-leaning Chileans feel as though their leaders have betrayed them politically.  Their candidate in this election, former president Eduardo Frei, simply promised more of the same.  The situation is akin, in some ways, to the candidacy of John Kerry in the US elections in 2004 – an uninspiring figure leading a party that had lost its vision and purpose.

The country would certainly benefit from a multi-party democracy in which both the conservative and liberal parties maintained a strong commitment to human rights and a continued pursuit of justice for the crimes of the Pinochet years.  But does Pinera promise that, or will his administration whitewash those misdeeds?  Andres Oppenheimer offers reasons for optimism: “Pinera opposed former dictator Gen. Augusto Pinochet in the 1980s and has been pretty liberal on social issues. During the campaign, Pinera supported civil unions for gays.”

Time will tell, of course.  But, at the very least, the pendulum has not swung back to the 1980s.  Meanwhile, in a case of interesting timing, the NY Times ran a profile on Saturday on Ana Gonzalez, a long-standing voice for human rights in Chile and a participant in outgoing President Bachelet’s DNA-matching program.  It’s an excellent profile, a reminder of how much has been done, and a symbol of hope that the momentum will carry things forward over the next four years.

On Transitional Justice (General):

• International Center for Transitional Justice – Website
• Strategic Choices in the Design of Truth Commissions – Website
• Between Vengeance and Forgiveness by Martha Minow – Review here

On South Africa’s TRC:

• Country of My Skull by Antjie Krog
• Coming to Terms: South Africa’s Search for Truth by Martin Meredith
• Forgiveness (Film)
• Long Night’s Journey Into Day (Film)

On the Rwandan Genocide:

• We Regret To Inform You That Tomorrow… by Philip Gourevitch
• The Key to My Neighbor’s House by Elizabeth Neuffer – Review here (Also deals with Bosnia)

On the Military Dictatorships of Chile and Argentina:

• Project Disappeared – Website
• Prisoner without a Name, Cell without a Number by Jacobo Timerman
• Nunca Mas – Report from the National Commission on Disappeared People
• The Dictator’s Shadow by Heraldo Munoz
• Death and the Maiden by Ariel Dorfman

On the Guatemalan Genocide:

• Guatemala: Memory of Silence – Website
• Guatemala: Never Again by the Guatemalan Archdiocese
• The Art of Political Murder: Who Killed the Bishop? by Francisco Goldman
• Harvest of Violence by Robert Carmack

On El Salvador:

• Mark Danner: The Truth of El Mozote – Website
• Massacre at El Mozote by Mark Danner

Websites for active Truth Commissions (again, an incomplete list):

• Liberia
• Canada
• South Korea

Below the fold, you can find the scenarios I distributed in the workshop:

Scenario #1: The Liberian Civil War

Liberia was ravaged by civil war from 1989 to 2003 – a gruesome, devastating conflict in which the country splintered into various armed factions, achieving little while killing many civilians, displacing many more, and spilling into neighboring countries. International pressure and general war weariness ultimately spelled the civil war’s end in 2003, but the underlying problems were largely unresolved. Charles Taylor – who had previously gained the presidency under the campaign slogan, “He killed my ma, he killed my pa, I’ll vote for him” – fled into exile where he was eventually arrested. But, the other warlords remained in Liberia, as powerful as ever.

When Liberia came up for air, its most pressing need was for leadership. Ellen Johnson Sirleaf filled that gap. Educated at Harvard, the Minister of Finance under the Doe administration, and a Director of the UN Development Program’s African Bureau, Sirleaf had impeccable qualifications. She had also become one of Charles Johnson’s staunchest critics, actually running against him in the 1997 presidential race (and subsequently, as a result, being charged with treason).

While she lost that election, she won in 2005, following two years of participation in the post-civil war transitional government. Her work has been roundly celebrated in the international arena; in some circles, she has been held up as a Mandela-like figure for her ability to build a sense of stability in a country where many competing interests exist – many of which are still armed. In fact, many of those former warlords now hold positions in the new government!

As part of the transitional process, President Sirleaf endorsed the creation of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) to investigate the civil war years and, among other things, make recommendations on those who should face prosecution. The TRC would eventually face two major dilemmas.

First, while President Sirleaf eventually became a vocal opponent of Taylor, she actually supported him in his initial efforts as a rebel leader. Sirleaf supporters defended the president. As the VOA subsequently reported, “President Sirleaf’s early support for then-rebel-leader Taylor was not unusual. Most civil society groups and opponents of then-President Samuel Doe backed the Taylor rebellion at its start and, like President Sirleaf, distanced themselves from his National Patriotic Front when civilian atrocities mounted.” However, one of the truth commissioners, Massa Washington, responded bluntly: “She told us, at best, 20 percent of the truth.  In fact, there was much, much more. And her support for Taylor lasted much longer than she told us.”

Second, the former warlords were not thrilled with any talk of prosecution. Peace in Liberia remains a tenuous affair. Do the law enforcement mechanisms exist to bring the accused war criminals to justice? Will the progress of the last few years be lost by an attempt to do too much, too soon?

Please respond to the following questions:

1) You are members of the Liberian TRC…

a) Do you choose to recommend punishment for President Sirleaf for the role she played in supporting rebel leader Charles Taylor? Your recommendations generally fall into three categories: no punishment, banning from public office for 30 years (following the conclusion of the current term, if the person is already in office), or prosecution. You have already recommended that others who provided similar levels of support should be banned from office.

b) Do you recommend prosecution for the former warlords?

2) You are President Sirleaf. In the event that the TRC recommends that you face banning or prosecution for your role in the civil war, what is your response? It is your responsibility as president to implement the TRC’s recommendations. Do you voluntarily step down? Do you remain in office and run for reelection, given the importance of your leadership to Liberia? Also, if the TRC recommends the prosecution of the former warlords, do you move ahead with this?

Scenario #3: The Stolen Children of Argentina

During Argentina’s military dictatorship, newborn children (often born while their mothers were in military custody) were taken away from abducted “dissidents” and given to military families and other childless couples friendly with the regime. All told, at least 500 children were kidnapped between 1976 and 1983. In nearly all cases, the parents were killed. Grandmothers were left searching and joined together to form the Abuelas de la Plaza de Mayo to coordinate and publicize efforts.

For many years, it was largely an exercise in futility. Even after the military dictatorship was removed from power, the former officials were largely protected and the covert activities of the government were allowed to be buried. Slowly, though, the Abuelas achieved success. The most recent figure announced is that 97 kidnapped children have been identified and reunited with their blood relatives.

It is a complicated and painful process, though. For the kidnappers, discovery means a trial. However, given their ages – most fraudulent parents are now in their 60s and 70s – punishments accompanying a guilty plea are often reduced or suspended altogether. The biggest surprise is that the very threat of punishment for the kidnappers actually discourages their victims from stepping forward. Regardless of the circumstances that brought them into their new “families,” real affection grows over the years for the people who in practice, if not in blood, legitimacy, or legality, were their parents. The abducted children – now adults – don’t want to see them punished.

Of course, the emotions are even more tangled for those abducted children. Having lived their whole lives believing that they were normal young Argentineans, they now find their world overturned. The people they believed to be their parents are kidnappers. Their real parents were murdered. Their phony parents supported – even knew – the people who were responsible for their parents’ murder. This is undoubtedly another reason many choose to stifle suspicion and avoid the bitter truth – it seems better to live a lie of normality than a brutal tragedy.

With that in mind, please respond to the following questions:

1) What is the most just outcome for this situation? Should all kidnapping victims be reunited with their blood relatives? Should all of the fraudulent parents be tried and punished? Should any consideration be shown to children who do not want the truth to come out?

2) Given that the fear of punishment for the fraudulent parents is an impediment to the truth coming out and the kidnapping victims being identified and reunited with their legitimate families, should the government offer amnesty to those who come forward and confess?

3) The following excerpt comes from a London Guardian interview with Buscarita and Claudia Roa, a grandmother and granddaughter reunited several years ago:

“Claudia continued to live with her adoptive mother who, being over 70, was spared the army prison and placed under house arrest. When she finally left home, it was to move far away. Her computer analyst job took her to Venezuela for two years. It was there she met and fell in love with Claudio, a work colleague. “He’s very solid and understanding. I talk to him about what has happened to me a lot. I drive him crazy!

“Questions about the wedding elicit the first awkward silence of the meeting. Gradually, the story trickles out. Claudia had wanted to celebrate with both her birth and adoptive families. Buscarita was adamant about not meeting the appropriators. Until now so controlled, Claudia bursts into tears.”

It’s not fair to ask what you would do in Claudia’s position. But, how do you respond, reading that even after learning the truth Claudia remained with her “false” mother and invited the woman to attend Claudia’s wedding?

Scenario #4: A “Coup” in Honduras?

Honduras, like many Latin American countries, suffered in the late 20th century from military control of the government and extensive cases of human rights violations. While civilian rule returned by the 1990s, accompanied by a Truth Commission to examine the country’s traumatic preceding decades, Honduras remains plagued by a culture of immunity. Annual homicide rates are among the world’s worst and 93% of murders committed in 2008 went unsolved.

Last June, the president of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, was removed from power by the military and ejected from the country in his pajamas. Elected in 2005 in the closest election in Honduran history, Zelaya was nearing the end of his term and, due to constitutionally imposed limits, he could not run for another. However, weeks before his ouster, Zelaya called for a national referendum on term limits, to determine popular support for an amendment.

Critically, the Honduran constitution goes farther than simply limiting presidents to one term. It actually prohibits any change to that restriction. The relevant section, Article 239, is explicit: “Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.” Thus, Zelaya’s proposed referendum could be seen as a first step towards a constitutional violation. The Honduran Supreme Court determined as much, calling it illegal; stating his desire to respect the law, General Romeo Velasquez, the country’s top military man, refused to provide support to Zelaya. Zelaya rejected the Supreme Court’s decision, announcing his intention to openly defy it and declaring that the court “only imparts justice for the powerful, the rich and the bankers, [and] causes problems for democracy.” And, he fired General Velasquez. Zelaya was overthrown soon after and replaced with Roberto Micheletti, the President of Congress and the next in line for the national presidency, who quickly announced his intention to organize elections as soon as possible. Zelaya supporters immediately labeled the event a “coup,” driven by Zelaya’s growing alliance – ideologically and politically – with Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez.

With that in mind, please respond to the following questions:

1) Should Zelaya have been removed from power?

2) How should the international community have responded to this, if at all?

3) At what point should the international community – individual countries or the United Nations – intervene in a domestic conflict? UN intervention is mandated in the event of genocide, but when else should it occur, if ever?

4) What other directions might you go in the classroom using this scenario? What types of questions might you ask? What connections (other events, issues, people, etc.) might you make?

From Kenya: Government, Kenya Human Rights Commission Disagree over ICC Investigation of Election Violence – When plans first surfaced in Kenya last summer for the creation of a Truth, Reconciliation, and Justice Commission, the primary debate centered on where responsibility would rest for the prosecution of those responsible for major human rights violations during the country’s post-election violence.  Would the TRJC specifically have power over this, would a Special Tribunal within Kenya be created, or would it be outsourced/seized by the ICC?  The TJRC was never a good option and the deadline for the Special Tribunal’s creation came and passed.  Thus, the ICC has stepped in and is preparing to prosecute – a step generally acknowledged as a necessary development, if not an outright positive one.  The Daily Nation profiled the major players in the ICC’s work in Kenya.

From Afghanistan: Mangled Shoes and Prayer Beads at Afghanistan’s ‘Holocaust Museum’ – While Afghanistan remains a long way from stability and even farther from the pursuit of justice for what has unfolded in that country throughout its recent history, the opening of this war crimes museum represents a clear step in the right direction.  The level of chaos and violence that has plagued the country makes documentation one of the greatest challenges – how can the lives lost or victimized be recorded and how can justice ever be achieved for them?  This collection of physical evidence and personal stories is a critical part of that process.

From Canada: New-Look Reconciliation Commission Settling into Winnipeg – While this is largely a rehash of the Canadian TRC’s struggles in getting off the ground, an important announcement comes at the end.  The TRC’s first national meeting will take place in Winnipeg from June 15-19.  This will be a critical moment for the commission – can it win a place in the national consciousness, or will it be another fumbled opportunity?

The committee’s rationale moved in several directions, and the Belfast Telegraph did not do a particularly effective job of presenting that rationale.  The story’s lead, that Northern Ireland is “not yet ready for a legacy commission to investigate its troubled and violent past,” suggests many possible underlying problems, including a lack of public buy-in for the concept.  As the committee members explain, though, their concern in this area focused on redundancy, given that “bodies such as the Police Ombudsman and the Historical Enquiries Team [have] been carrying out fresh investigations into unsolved murders going back over 40 years.”  In other words, the problem is not a lack of public will but a question of need – what would a new commission contribute and in what ways would it simply provide another layer of bureaucratic clutter?

That said, the committee did support exploring the consideration of the creation of a fund for victims and survivors.  The consulting firm’s original suggestion – 12,000 pounds to the closest relative of every person killed in the conflict, regardless of political affiliation – was immediately shot down by the government.  That will likely remain a sticking point as discussions proceed in this area.

An editorial from the same paper does a better job of unpacking the issues underlying the opposition to the legacy commission.  Most importantly, the original recommendation called for amnesty-for-truth for those speaking in front of the commission, similar to what occurred in South Africa.  It seems clear that the consulting firm, while promoting ideas recognized as valid by many in the field of transitional justice, called for too much, too soon, in a country that remains very much scarred by its past.  In other words, the opening premise of the Belfast Telegraph’s article might actually speak the truth.

The question, as always, is at what point has the scab reached the point where its work is done and it can safely removed without aggravating the original wound.  When is it in the best interests of a country to openly address the painful past and when will it only spark a return to instability?

Among the mild changes from the “unedited” final report to this one is the addition of ten names to the “Most Notorious Perpetrators” list and five names to the economic crimes list.  Critically, the commission did not change its stance on President Johnson Sirleaf, who remains in the group recommended for a 30 year banning from public office in Liberia.  While she has expressed consistent public support for the commission and tried to publicly acknowledge her regrettable support for Charles Taylor, she has not formally apologized to the Liberian people and it is curious that nearly $500,000 in salaries and related funding has not been passed from the government to the TRC’s staff.  And, despite that public support, it was announced in mid-December that President Johnson Sirleaf will stand for reelection in 2011.

Other prominent Liberians named in the report were more consistent in their views, condemning the commission’s work from all angles.  Prince Johnson, one of the more infamous figures from the civil war, who still maintains political power in Liberia today, demanded that “the entire final report of the TRC be discarded.”  Johnson – about whom there seems to be more compelling evidence of gross human rights abuses in the public record than almost any other Liberian – boldly declared, “They say I raped. Whom did I rape? Where is the evidence to prove that I raped. I never raped anybody in my life. Has the TRC brought forth my accusers to face me?”  In the midst of his public posturing, he raised some potentially serious claims about the TRC Commissioner, John Stewart, who Johnson suggested was a member of the military group, the Black Beret, during the civil war.

Two components of the report that have received excellent reporting are the Historical Overview of the civil war and the call for the creation of a hybrid domestic/international court, similar to what was created in Bosnia, to address the worst crimes committed during the country’s civil war.  Human Rights Watch endorsed the latter recommendation and offered a series of suggestions for the design and implementation, centered on narrowing the list of prosecutorial targets, the court’s composition, defining crimes, and fair trial standards.

Part of the challenge in any transitional justice effort is maintaining the appearance of even-handedness and fairness.  In almost every civil conflict, human rights abuses are committed by both sides; the specter of victor’s justice emerges if only one of those sides is prosecuted in the aftermath.  Claims of this very problem have circulated in Argentina.  Ferguson quotes a stock trader, who asserts that the trials are “totally political [and...] one-sided.”

In a separate article, published on Truthout, Ferguson profiles the most prominent figure on trial, the Blond Angel, Alfredo Astiz.  Astiz infiltrated many groups of desaparecidos’ family members, including the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo, and then reported on their activities.  Ultimately, “Astiz allegedly marked his victims with a kiss on the cheek, the traditional Argentine salutation, at which point intelligence agents waiting on the street stormed the meeting and kidnapped Astiz’s targets.”

The full article is well worth a read, providing an extensive overview of the full charges facing Astiz, his defense, and the general history of the attempts to prosecute him and other torturers from the military dictatorship.  It concludes in a particularly chilling manner: “As Astiz was lead out of the courtroom, he looked toward the protesters on the other side of a wall of bulletproof glass. Seemingly unrepentant, he provocatively waved the book he had been guarding all afternoon. The title: ‘Volver a Matar’ (’Return to Kill’).”