The articles we recently read in class under the topic of "the banality of evil" bring to mind critical questions about the way in which a post-genocidal nation is to administer justice. Stanley Milgram argues that the innate human tendency of obedience towards authority is the key mechanism by which individuals become capable of genocidal action. Ervin Staub and James Waller propose similar notions that inhuman atrocities cannot simply be attributed to the evil personalities of the perpetrators. All three articles argue that genocidal killers are most often a typical cross-section of the human population. In this sense, could we not all be capable of committing mass murder if particular circumstances came to light?
The arguments of these authors illustrate a fundamental separation of an individual's conscience and an individual's actions. The question of responsibility thereby becomes much more convoluted. Can we charge a soldier with murder when he has been systematically trained to kill? Do we hold the bureaucrats of the Nazi regime equally accountable for the Holocaust as the guards of Auschwitz? Is a genocidal leader more criminal than the masses who carried out his orders? All of these questions pose immense challenges for how states are to deliver justice to the perpetrators and victims of genocidal regimes.
Countries emerging from human rights atrocities have taken various approaches to dealing with the question of justice. In post-apartheid South Africa, Archbishop Desmond Tutu headed the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Those facing charges did not have to admit they were sorry for their actions. If the perpetrators of apartheid violence offered an honest confession, they would be acquitted of all crimes, including murder. Furthermore, their confessions were often required to be in the presence of their victims' families. Many South Africans criticized the Commission in that they did not see this approach to deliver any sort of justice. What kind of justice did the Commission provide? Tutu's belief behind the commission was centered primarily on the idea of forgiveness and moving forward as "the rainbow nation." However, there was also an important underlying understanding that to prosecute only the direct perpetrators of violence would underscore the systematic nature of Apartheid. Nearly every white South African citizen took part, directly or indirectly, in the injustices of Apartheid.
The example of South Africa's TRC is important to keep in mind as we begin to examine the genocidal and post-genocidal experiences of Europe. The philosophy behind the TRC is grounded in the importance of recognizing the systematic nature of murderous regimes. While the experience of genocide is felt immensely at the individual level for both perpetrator and victim, it is carried out by a vast and blurred network of many different people.
I wanted to respond on the topic of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and how some people do not or did not see how it serves any form of justice. I think that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is one of the most revolutionary things that has happened in the wake of civil or any kind of war. TRC did what other treaties to end wars have not done- allow and even facilitate the victims' direct communication with the perpetrators of the crimes against them. I think really only when faced with a human face can someone truly forgive the actions that person has performed. Letting the victims hear the confessions of their perpetrators gives them more power to move forward, as they can face perpetrators directly and forgive them or not, and forgive is what happened more often than you would think. TRC put a human face on warfare, both of perpetrators and victims, and I think that is very valuable in a world society where we generally speak of people in groups, and where it is therefore very easy to hold a grudge or prejudice against all members of a certain group, instead of interacting on a more individual level where you can see and almost feel another person's humanity and the commonality between the victims and perpetrators as a result of their common humanity.
ReplyDeleteMy sister has fortunately met Archbishop Desmond Tutu a few times and he shared a story that came out of the TRC: during Apartheid, a woman's son had been killed and burned in front of her. During the TRC, the perpetrator of this crime confessed to doing it right to the face of that mother, and confessed his regret. And that mother, in response to the regret felt by the perpetrator, said that in order to repay what he had done, he was to come to her house for one weekend every month, so that she could treat him like the son that he took from her.
I haven't really ever heard a more powerful story, and I really think that it is because of the TRC that it happened. The TRC allowed that woman closure for what had happened to her- something generally denied in conflict, and that, I think, is justice in a sense. Justice can be the ability to move on, and I think that is what the TRC facilitated - moving forward in a positive direction.
Lily brings up some really pertinent issues about justice. Tuesday’s readings, especially the Waller article, made it very clear that any population, and any individual within that population, has the capacity to participate in a genocidal act. This is both a frightening concept and a difficult issue to deal with after that act has been committed. It is often difficult to identify the perpetrators, as many of them are “ordinary people.” In the case where the perpetrators are never found or confronted, the effects on the survivors, such as the Armenian diaspora community, are devastating. The priest in the BBC documentary The Betrayed says, “The genocide is not a memory- it’s something that we (the Armenians) live with every day.” They feel they cannot get past their suffering, especially when Turkey’s official stance is to deny that genocide ever occurred.
DeleteI was thinking about the Armenian question, and I have to wonder: how would Turkey’s admission of genocide be able to “cure” this problem in 2012? It has been almost one hundred years since the Armenians were ripped from their homes, tortured, starved, and killed. Most of the survivors are deceased and never received justice in any form from Turkey or the international community. Furthermore, most of the perpetrators are also deceased. If Turkey were to admit to the genocide, what would happen next? War crimes trials would be near-impossible, and Turkey would most likely not be sanctioned by the international community. The Ittihadist genocide of the Armenians proved that nations can get away, consequence-free, with genocide, even in the “modern” era. Who is to blame for that?
Lily’s post brings up many relevant concepts discussed in class this week, but what struck me is how it can help to shed light on and relate to our recent consideration of the role of recognition and acceptance in genocide remembrance and collective historical memory. In the South African example, by making these individual’s stories and truths a part of reconciliation the Truth and Reconcilliation Commission is also making these personal accounts and realities a part of the genocide’s history. Holding individual’s culpable while simultaneously forgivable, The Commission is incorporating individual responsibility into the history of the genocide.
ReplyDeleteReading this post made me think about the beginning of the BBC documentary when a quotation appears on the screen: “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?” –Adolf Hitler 1939. Although the documentary offers no historical context for this quotation, what exactly Hitler meant by this, it is placed strategically in the documentary after the priest discussing that in the case of the Armenians the genocide is not a part of history, therefore Armenians live with it everyday. This sequence can make us question: what do people learn from history? How do the consequences that genocidal perpetrators face frame what and how we think about genocides more generally? What does legally blaming leaders of genocidal regimes tell the world about individual responsibility in historical memory? How much justice does it serve a population if only the leaders of group are punished? I believe that this example brings up concepts of truth that can individualize and humanize genocide that can lead to reconciliation and a placement in historical memory that humanity can learn from.