Moderator: Professor Frank Chalk, Co-Director of the Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights

Panel: Dr Stephen D Smith, Beth Shalom Holocaust Centre, United Kingdom; Professor Daniel Bar-Tal, Tel Aviv University; Mr Youk Chhang, Executive Director, the Cambodia Documentation Center; Professor Elizabeth Jelin, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Buenos Aires.

Dr Stephen D Smith stressed the importance of putting the victims and their stories at the centre of our work. For victims, when the killing stops, the genocide is not over. That is, at the point when the visible crisis ends its consequences begin. Those who survive then have to live with it for the rest of their lives. Therefore, it is important to listen first to the victims and think of their long-term needs. Often we merely look at them briefly – we are touched but not destroyed – and then we get on with our lives. The person who tells us then has to live with it, and bears the burden of memory and reconciliation as well.
Dr Smith also spoke about the risks of turning memorialisation into a theorem. After World War II there was silence, and Holocaust survivors were marginalised and left without help, justice, recognition or reconciliation, for two generations. Fifty years later we started responding, creating books, memorials, museums, fora, etc. Now we have accommodated the Holocaust into our lives, and survivors merely become a phenomenon that come to our events occasionally – to represent the victims. Dr Smith expressed concern that we have now grown used to the Holocaust, and have thereby limited its impact, and inadvertently relativised its significance. At the point at which you can argue its relevance within political discourse in several different ways, the essence of its terrible meaning is lost. Similarly, we must not use and abuse the genocide in Rwanda to enlighten us academically, to add another ‘case study’ to our list of interesting tragedies and still leave the victims to carry its heavy load.

Professor Daniel Bar-Tal described the interrelation between the basic concepts of intractable conflict, collective memory, education and reconciliation. Every nation or ethnic group needs a common past. Without a common past a structured social identity and solidarity are impossible. Beliefs of collective memory are biased, selective and distorted and are expressed in narratives that provide a sense of the past and illuminate the present and serve as a means for planning the future. They almost always consist of black and white pictures. However, they are treated by the members of the group as a true history of the past. In conflict situations, beliefs of collective memory are the base for mobilisation, they fulfil an epistemic function in illuminating the conflict situation, and function as justification for the group. They create a feeling of superiority and preclude peaceful resolution. Since they serve as bases for school textbooks they are also instrumental in de-legitimising the enemy.
How can such a vicious circle be broken? Years of indoctrination cause internalisation of the beliefs of collective memory. Reconciliation requires a new common outlook of the past. Reconciliation does not require a complete change of collective memory, but the new collective memory must be in line with the reconciliation process. Memory modification requires an omission of myths. The product does not only have a symbolic value but has also practical implications. The rewriting of history must be agreed by both sides. They serve as a basis for history – and other textbooks and can affect the views and beliefs of new generations. The writing of historical accounts does not have to be symmetrical. Parties must not necessarily bear equal responsibility for the outbreak of conflict. It does happen that only one side is responsible for an outbreak of conflict and for atrocities performed. This party has special responsibility for history writing through acknowledgements. Such a revision is essential for building common ground and will contribute to satisfying both parties’ need for recognition, and will provide an important element for reconciliation.

Mr Youk Chhang presented the work of the Documentation Center of Cambodia, which handles evidence in any form from the time of the Khmer Rouge regime, including testimonies both from victims and perpetrators. It is important not only to collect information, but also to disseminate it back to the public, especially to the younger generations who do not have any memories of their own from the genocide. The Documentation Center therefore puts emphasis on educating the new generations – to make them read, visit historical sites and pursue their own research on the Khmer Rouge genocide. In an attempt to make the past more understandable to the youth, Anne Frank’s diary is currently being translated into Khmer. The aim of the Documentation Center is to restore the memories of the past, since one cannot live without memory – it is a part of us, just like our shadow. Memories are also crucial to the establishment of a rule of law in Cambodia.

Professor Elizabeth Jelin, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Buenos Aires, focused on three decades of activism in the extended southern cone of Latin America (Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, Brazil, Bolivia, Peru). Her aim was to present some basic points about dealing with past repression in a comparative perspective. Had the conference taken place 10 years earlier, Latin America would have been much more present. The international community seems to focus on places where violence and bloodshed are taking place now, while areas which recently held centre stage but have calmed down are now in the wings. There is, though, a strong connection between the legacy of dictatorships and the current focus on human rights and reconciliation in the region. Today a truth commission is working in Peru, a peace commission is working in Uruguay, and there are trials in Argentina (including the “truth trials”) and demands for trials in Chile, while the Brazilian government is involved in reparations issues.
The political conflict in the area was very intense during the 1960s and the 1970s. After coups d’état, military dictators took over in Brazil in 1964, in Chile in 1973 and in Argentina in 1976. When taking power, the military emphasised their salvational role and described themselves as bastions defending the nation. They described the threat as external, pointing, for example, at international communism. Thus, they were constructing the narrative of what they wanted the future to remember them for. At the same time, the struggle about meaning begins, with opposition forces trying to convey alternative and opposed interpretations of the coups. An example: year after year on 11 September there are struggles in the streets of Santiago, which mirror the confrontation of conflicting memories. For the Pinochetistas, 11 September is the day of the “salvation of the nation”, while the human rights movements want to remember 11 September as the day when state terrorism began. Corresponding memory confrontations are to be found in the other countries.

The 1980s was a period of political transition. The new elected governments tried to find ways to deal with past atrocities and the state terrorism that preceded them. In most cases, amnesty laws prevented justice through regular trials. Each country implemented specific policies. In 1984 “The National Commission for the Disappearance of People” was established in Argentina, with a mandate to collect information on disappeared people (estimates have numbered between 15 000 and 30 000). There were then trials of the highest military officials. In all countries, there were limits to the policies implemented to deal with the past.

The speaker indicated that there was a gender difference between male military perpetrators and female relatives of victims. The human rights movement was largely a women’s movement (although including many men) and they were not passive victims. The human rights movements have constantly pushed governments to learn about what has happened, for justice, and for recognition. Even when prosecution of perpetrators is impossible due to amnesty laws, the human rights movement tries to find alternative ways to promote truth and justice. This is the case in Argentina in connection with the “right to know” what happened. Denied by the Argentine judiciary, the human rights movement approached the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR), which recognised the right to truth, and in this way put pressure on the Argentine judicial system to initiate truth trials.

Since the mid–1990s, questions about how to deal with the dictatorial past have rekindled in the region. The detention of Pinochet in London in 1998 was part of a larger international effort to get back to the issues of human rights violations in the southern cone. The reopening of the past represents a continuous struggle for its meaning. There are contrasting and conflicting meanings of the past, which also change over time. When a new generation that did not live through the painful repressive events starts asking questions about that past, the older generations have to answer and thus reframe their memories. It is not possible to “impose” memories on younger people, because each generation and social group will develop its own meanings. At the same time, imposing a unique view of the past is antidemocratic, since democracy implies pluralism and the acceptance of diversity.

Her Excellency Tzipi Livni, Minister without portfolio of the Israeli government, described herself as representing the remains of a people that survived extermination, a people currently engaged in a severe conflict over its existence. Its country was established following international concern about the Jewish people after the Holocaust. The speaker referred to her personal feelings that were said to reflect national behaviour. She was born in Israel of parents who came to the country in 1925 before the Holocaust, but nevertheless the Holocaust is a central part of her life, fears and worldview and an integral part of her decision-making. The Holocaust is a national trauma and affects everybody. The meaning of being an Israeli is to wake up from nightmares and face a difficult reality. The people of Israel are still fighting for the existence of the State of Israel. The speaker expressed her true wish that the Israelis will reach an agreement with the Palestinians in the near future. Although if there were no national memory peace would come more quickly but remembrance is a tool for a better future. It is essential also to honour the dead and those who survived the Holocaust and are still among us.We cannot afford to live in the past, but on the other hand we cannot afford to forget it.

Losses of civilians in wartime must be prevented. But the rules of war are intended to prevent acts such as genocide. Nothing in history, at least not in the history of the 20th century, is equivalent to the Holocaust. Misuse of words, thereby minimising events like the Holocaust, will give legitimacy to events that hopefully will not occur in the future.To end a conflict it is necessary for both sides to understand the need for reconciliation in the future. Otherwise there may not be an end to today’s conflict. The future of the next generation in our region is based on education in peace. The children of Israel and Europe are educated to appreciate the same values as European children, with respect for man and the values of peace.

Incitement is not based on truth; it takes its strength from the darker side of the human soul and is used by leaders who want to continue violence and who will never let their people reconcile with others. The speaker ended on an optimistic note that we would all share the wish to “contribute to a better humanity.”

The Right Reverend Munib A Younan, Lutheran Bishop in Jerusalem (ELCJ) and the Bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Jordan, gave a short statement representing Palestinian Christians having lived in the Holy Land since the time of early Christianity. He pointed out that he was carrying in his body the pains and sufferings of his Palestinian people. Referring to the situation of today he stressed that the Israeli- Palestinian conflict is primarily of political, not of religious, nature. Coming with an olive branch in his hand, the speaker declared the time is ripe for an end to conflict, hatred, and dehumanisation. Religion is called for to contribute positively in search for a solution. He referred to Pope John Paul II as a prophetic figure, since he had made a mea culpa on behalf of those members of the church who had acted unjustly towards, and persecuted, the Jewish community. The time has come for religious leaders, locally and internationally, to take the lead in confessing and saying that injustice has been done to the Palestinians. This should be done in order to prompt the world community and the leaders of Israel to admit these wrongs as well. The occupation has to end. It is a sin against God and against humanity. The occupation is destructive to the occupier as well as to the occupied.We want security for the Israelis and freedom for the Palestinians. The security of Israel is dependent on the freedom of the Palestinians. Once we recognise the symbiotic relation between the two peoples, justice and reconciliation will become reality. We are called to be ministers of reconciliation. At present, Israeli children are told that their security is in military might. Today’s Palestinian child knows only one Israeli – the soldier. Peace education is a significant tool in securing justice and reconciliation. We are called to see God in others so that we can recognise the otherness of the other. The world community has to move from talk to action.

H E Mr Rouben Shugarian, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Government of Armenia, stated that reconciliation, in a societal, moral realm, is not possible without repentance and recognition of the crime. Mr Shugarian defined reconciliation as the moment of balance and truth between repentance and forgiveness on the scale of justice, i.e. the overcoming of denial. He also stressed that justice, truth and reconciliation must be threefold: legal, moral and political. These realms are interconnected but should not be randomly mixed.

On 24 April 1915, 1.5 million Armenians were slaughtered in the Ottoman Empire. The future of Turkish–Armenian relations will rely upon individual efforts, but it is also the social organisms of the two countries that need to change. A first step should be the transition by Turkey from the policy of denial to repentance. The second step should be forgiveness. The government of Armenia has repeatedly stated that it does not make the recognition of the 1915 genocide by the Turkish government a precondition for the establishment of bilateral relations between the two countries. The region of Turkey, Armenia and Azerbaijan faces new challenges today, after 11 September. There is a need for a new regional identity, and the regional future should be based upon legal verisimilitude, historical veracity and political pragmatism.

Mr Bülent Akarcali, Member of Parliament, Turkey, stated that the Armenian issue is discussed publicly and with diverging views in Turkey. The Turkish government does not fear the truth, but the truth can only be obtained by scientific methods, discussed and decided in universities by scholars and not in parliaments by politicians. To this end, there is a need to open archives: Ottoman and Armenian, as well as those of other countries and of churches. The Turkish government is ready to face the consequences of such a “real” truth. Reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia will be easier than expected if it is based on such a truth. Turkey is ready to start a governmental dialogue with Armenia with the sole precondition that the dialogue should search for a scientifically obtainable truth.

Questions to the panel
One group of questions to the panel concerned the relations between memory, justice and reconciliation. Asked about the role of forgiveness and memory Mr Chhang and Dr Smith stressed that forgiveness must be individually decided. According to Mr Chhang, the natural sequence is that first one must know, then judge, thereafter reconcile. Forgiveness comes last. Dr Smith asked whether memory would allow forgiveness. In response to a question about the bottom line of the needs of victims, Dr Smith first made the distinction between the memory of survivors, which is existential, and the memory of onlookers. What right do we have to impose our own interoperation on the victims? The situation of a victim is one of isolation and abandonment. The needs are many – psychological, memorial, material, physical, mental, as well as the need for justice. Any package directed at victims who have varying needs, will miss the goal.

Professor Jelin was asked to elaborate on trials and truth commissions from a Latin American perspective. After the transition, victims of state terrorism needed some sort of redress. Trying to achieve justice is a state-driven process, and the possibility of holding trials has been very limited by pacts and amnesties. The human rights movement (based on victims and their relatives, progressive intellectuals, politicians and some church members) have had the hard task of answering the victims’ needs. After years of denial by authorities, victims need to find ways that their voices be heard and recognized as legitimate. In the case of Peru, the current truth commission, when receiving testimony, recognizes the testimony by handing out an official paper stating that the testimony has been received. This symbolic action is important and gives legitimised recognition that they have been heard. Likewise, in Argentina, many witnesses during the trial of the Argentine generals have indicated that they felt that they could begin to work through their past painful experience when their voice was heard in the official setting of the witness stand. Their testimony in the court of justice gave institutional legitimacy to their voices.

Another group of questions concerned the role of the study of past atrocities and school instruction. Professor Chalk answered a question about the teaching of genocide. In doing so, he emphasised the historic dimension and the use of sources, including the study of the destruction of Babylon, the rhetoric of the Bible, the victims of Djingis Khan, and the annihilation of the Christian minority in Japan in 1637. Forensic archaeology is one tool. Asked to describe the application of his principles to real situations, Professor Bar-Tal referred to Israeli-Palestinian relations. We are now witnessing a tragic period with the collapse of the psychological foundations that are the preconditions for any type of reconciliation. There was a period of attempts at reconciliation from 1993 to the late 1990s involving joint projects with Israelis and Palestinians, including revision of school textbooks on both sides. The current situation demands international intervention since the parties are not able to conduct a dialogue, but a time will come when they will have to talk. Several remarks from the floor emphasised the importance of peace education in the process of reconciliation, especially for the younger generations.

The chairman, Professor Frank Chalk, concluded by thanking the members of the panel and the audience. He said that he felt very strongly that the participants in the session had demonstrated the good will and the intelligence that we will need to address these issues in the future.

Rapporteurs:
Dr Harald Runblom
Professor of History
Uppsala University, Sweden
Mr Jamal Alassaad
Desk Officer
Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Sweden