Reconciliation

In the post Cold-War environment, inter and intrastate conflict resolution and reconstruction has faced some new and some old challenges to success. Whenever a third party is brought into the process, whether invited or not, the largest challenge and biggest burden to success is their ability to understand the nature of the conflict, to include its root cause as well as the enabling factors that contribute to the crisis.

This understanding is further expanded on the capabilities of the players and the roles that they try to play. Therefore, it is necessary of actors involved in conflict resolution, more specifically reconciliation, to interact not only with each other, but also with the primary parties of the conflict. So what challenges can these actors expect and how can they balance these challenges between one another as they divvy the responsibilities of reconciliation?

First and foremost, before the roles can be divvied up, it must be understood what reconciliation is, and more importantly what it is not. Reconciliation cannot be an excuse for impunity or exist in opposition of or as an alternative to truth and justice. It is not a quick solution, an excuse for forgetting crimes or simply a matter of forgiving. It is finding a way to live with one another with a vision of the future. It revolves around building, or as necessary rebuilding, relationships between the contested parties as they come to terms with the past. It must incorporate all of affected society as it matures into a long term process for changing perceptions and attitudes. It involves acknowledgement, remembrance and historical understanding. Most importantly, it must be voluntary.[1]

When actors examine reconciliation, it is necessary to differentiate punitive and reconciliatory measures as well as balance the approach of each. There are essentially four elements to be considered: restorative justice, reparations, healing and truth-telling. The first two are punitive measures where as the last two are reconciliatory steps[2].

But these cannot take place in a vacuum. They require coexistence, which requires the cessation of violence. It requires communication and the dissolution of stereotypes so as to overcome polarization. Through these it is possible to bridge together the parties as they manage their contradictions. Finally it results in a celebration of diversity as all involved reconstitute their relationship.[3] This requires the participation of the victims and the offenders as well as any beneficiaries.

So for justice to occur, which includes both the punitive and reconciliatory measures, it must bring the conflict before the parties. Forgive and forget is not a policy, rather it is denial and it inherently fertilizes future conflict. The other extreme is vengeance, which simply perpetuates the conflict as it fuels misgivings and feeds the negative image the opposing side maintains. The parties must find the center and publicly deal with the grievances to provide the justice sought and to prevent the suppression of the problem.[4]

In addressing the elements of reconciliation, it therefore becomes a case of tangible versus intangible. This falls along the lines of punitive versus reconciliatory.
Punitively, there is a focus on restorative justice made up of four primary elements: retributive through prosecution; restorative via mediation; historically with truth commissions and economically by reparations[5]. The punitive elements come more from international, national and local judicial bodies focused on the prosecution of perpetrators for crimes committed. But the need for care exists here in that if prosecution is overzealous, then the possibility exists for re-victimization, which counters the premise of reconciliation. The opposite is also true as under-prosecution does not address the needs for accountability with the victims.

Reconciliatory measures revolve around the notion of healing the individual and societal wounds caused by the conflict. It is a long term process focused on the psychological welfare of the victims as it helps move everyone involved towards closure. It is intangible in that there are few measurable quantities that can be used, rather it examines the general atmosphere of the parties involved and attempts to focus on certain aspects as they rise and fall. Some of the same tools used to punitively address the process can also be used in healing. For example, truth commissions allow victims to know the truth of what occurred and why, preventing false reconciliation. The punitive element s themselves provide for healing that they allow a notion of justice to be ascribed to the victim, but the overarching goal of the healing process is to allow for closure and forward progression from the conflict.

The nature of these components of reconciliation also inherently impacts the role of the actors involved. It is important to first identify the base characters, the victims and perpetrators, followed with an identification of the parties that can contribute to the reconciliation process. It is important to note the perspective and capabilities of the problem solving parties, which should constitute a collage of perspectives and capabilities and vary between supranational institutions such as the United Nations, national bodies like parliaments and social and religious non-governmental organizations.

The division of labor should then be partitioned based on the access, acceptance, and capabilities of the party. Supranational institutions, such as the United Nations, enjoy a capability of seeing the entire conflict in its fullest context. They therefore have the ability to view the crisis in a manner that doesn’t inject a biased emotional perspective. These types of institutions are also in the unique position of being able to coordinate global resources from multiple states and bring in non-partial security forces to secure a peaceful environment for the reconciliation process to grow out of. A key service the international community, and the supranational institutions in particular, can provide inter/intrastate conflicts is non-violent forums for dispute.

It is, however, the host nation(s) of the conflict that must carry the brunt of the responsibility in fully nurturing the environment of reconciliation. While the international community can provide support, the host nation(s) must ensure important governmental services such as effective civil services, fair judiciaries and efficient legislative structures exist. It is on the national level, most effectively through a parliament, that truth, justice and compensation can be handed out.[6]

But governmental bodies, both supranational and national, are not always perceived in a good light and so their access may be limited. This is where NGO’s have an advantage in supporting the process. NGO’s in general can support reconciliation in two ways. One, the can provide some checks and balances towards the elements involved that are capable of escalating the conflict back into violence, like governments or rebel groups. Two, they can often garner access to areas where the government may be limited or unaccepted, allowing them to more expeditiously deliver aid to those in need[7]. Faith-based groups also have a role to play in the reconciliation process as they can be especially effective in religious conflict, even though they will often follow secular policies. However their religious nature can shape their support to the process, so this element must be taken into consideration when using them to support reconciliation.[8]

Reconciliation is a long term process with the end goal of providing a environment that sustains peace. It requires the involvement of both the victims and the perpetrators and is constituted with both tangible and intangible benchmarks. Those involved in the reconciliation process must work together in a concerted effort to prevent the conflict from erupting back into violence.Supranational institutions are uniquely capable of fully coordinating and monitoring the reconciliation process with the national governments establishing and maintaining the environment necessary for the process to fully mature. NGO’s provide a more appeasing face of the process to the people and can therefore be a more effective conduit for success. These elements, when all exercised in a coordinated and cooperative environment, enjoy a much better chance of success in reconciling the parties involved and fostering long term peace.

[1] Bloomfield, David; Teresa Barnes; Luc Huyse. Reconciliation After Violent Conflict: A Handbook. International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. Pg 14. Box 1.1. 2003. 8 Feb 06. http://www.idea.int/publications/reconciliation/upload/reconciliation_full.pdf.
[2] Ibid, Pg 24.
[3] Ramsbotham, Oliver; Tom Woodhouse; Hugh Miall. Contemporary Conflict Resolution. 2nd Edition. Polity Press. Cambridge. 2005. Pg. 232. Table 10.1.
[4] Ibid, Pg. 235 Table 10.2.
[5] Bloomfield, David; Teresa Barnes; Luc Huyse. Reconciliation After Violent Conflict: A Handbook. International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. Pg 97. 2003. 8 Feb 06. http://www.idea.int/publications/reconciliation/upload/reconciliation_full.pdf.
[6] Mongbe’, Rene’ Valery; Robert del Picchia. “Promoting International Reconciliation, Helping to Bring Stability to Regins of Conflict, and Assisting with Post-Conflict Reconstruction”. Inter-Parliamentary Union 110th Assembly. Mexico City 15-23 April 2004. Pg. 11.
[7] “The Role of NGOs, National and International in Post-War Peacebuilding”. Report of a seminar held on 1st November 2001 at Islington Town Hall, Upper Street, London. Committee for Conflict Transformation Support Newsletter 15. 9 Feb 2006. http://www.c-r.org/ccts/ccts15/seminar.htm.
[8] “Faith-Based NGOs and International Peacebuilding”. US Institute of Peace. Special Report 76. 22 Oct 2001. 9 Feb 2006. http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr76.html.