Resources for AZAIS Members

2010 January 1
by Dave

I’ve compiled the following list of recommended resources as a starting point for educators attending my presentation at the AZAIS conference, but they really are advisable for anyone new to the field of transitional justice.  This is, obviously, an incomplete list; I have limited my selections to works that I have read and consider to be of significant quality.

On Transitional Justice (General):

On South Africa’s TRC:

On the Rwandan Genocide:

On the Military Dictatorships of Chile and Argentina:

On the Guatemalan Genocide:

On El Salvador:

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

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 → Uncategorized

2 Responses

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Kylie Batt
  2. Kylie Batt

Comments are closed.