Stockholm International Forum

”The tragedies of the past have left a deep and profoundly regrettable legacy of suffering. We must never forget those who have died or been injured and their families. But we can best honour them through a fresh start, in which we firmly dedicate ourselves to the achievements of reconciliation, tolerance and mutual trust and to the protection and vindication of the rights of all.”
Good Friday Agreement

”Few documents emerging from divisive and difficult negotiations have so well captured the importance of fairness in creating right relationships.”
Mary Robinson, UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights

I attended a conference in Dublin two years ago that was addressed by Nelson Mandela on the subject of reconciliation. I asked him what role he thought human rights could play in building reconciliation in a divided society. He thought for a while. He then said that a constitution and laws that named rights in order that there was a basic norm of respect and dignity as the entitlement of each individual came first. Equally important was the ability for the most vulnerable and the most invisible to access and use these rights. He said that the test of shaping a new society was enabling voices which had hitherto not been accorded respect or access, the ability not just to have rights but to be able to use them and own them themselves. He then said that primary importance should be to given to mechanisms that held the powerful to be truly accountable. He told the story of how a South African court had overturned one of his decisions when he was President of South Africa. He said he didn’t like it, but the test of a new and just society was that there were no exceptions to standards of accountability and the practice of justice.

When the Belfast Agreement was negotiated in April 1998, political parties found that human rights issues provided a foundation for building a bridge between the opposing positions. While compromise on the central question of the constitutional status of Northern Ireland appeared impossible, underlying fears of domination and discrimination could be addressed by providing for human rights protections. Human rights standards provide a basis for separating legitimate negotiating demands (for example, equality) from illegitimate ones (for example, domination). Because they are universal and thus transcend the parties in conflict, human rights standards provide an important touchstone for what is just.

This carefully crafted document arose as a result of political parties of different political persuasions recognising and endorsing principles of impartiality, accountability, equality, fairness and pluralism. The less well-known but equally important story is how these concepts and methods of shaping equality and human rights as practical effective mechanisms of change emerged and the mutual engagement between civil society and the various political actors.

However, not all conflict resolution initiatives use human rights as a basis for measuring justice. Some people engaged in conflict resolution regard human rights demands as an obstacle to the establishment of a peaceful settlement. Human rights activists are criticised for being too focused on principle; they in turn view conflict resolution practitioners as too pragmatic.

Lurking just beneath the surface of the “principle versus pragmatism” debate is a more subtle and fundamental division over the causes of conflict and the best ways to end it.
If one believes that a conflict is about interethnic hatred, then this leads to one set of solutions; if it is about the denial of justice and equality, that leads to another.
At first human rights activism centred on the civil rights of the Catholic/nationalist community in terms of equal opportunity to obtain jobs, voting, and housing – the issues at the heart of the conflict’s re-emergence. But after the state introduced security measures, a new wave of activism emerged, centring on issues concerning the rights to a fair trial, use of summary and arbitrary execution, mistreatment in prisons, abuse in detention, and police harassment and collusion with parliamentary groups.

Instead of viewing all difficult issues as political and subject to negotiation, human rights groups suggested that in some areas there were obstacles that, even if divisive, must be addressed. Dialogue between Catholics and Protestants, even on issues of justice and equality, was not an adequate substitute for the government actually delivering justice and equality. While dialogue between conflict resolution and human rights practitioners is valuable, it should not necessarily lead to a uniform approach. During periods of conflict elsewhere, domestic human rights groups claiming rights abuses are routinely dismissed, particularly by those they criticise, as partisan; this was certainly the case in Northern Ireland. If the human rights NGO is to have influence, it must generate legitimacy – both domestically, and – just as important – internationally by a disciplined and rigorous approach to fact finding and the application of international human rights standards. It will be more successful if it separates human rights issues from political issues.

On the other hand, groups with a conflict mandate can and should engage in a broader way with a range of political issues.

The case of Northern Ireland suggests that meaningful resolution of conflict requires strategies that adequately address underlying human rights issues. Human rights protections are not the whole situation; broad agreement on political institutions is also necessary to resolve the conflict. Yet human rights are too often not recognised as part of the solution. It does not serve lasting peace for human rights protections to be subjected to barter and exchange.

The biggest challenge facing us is how to turn the commitments to equality, fairness and participation made in the Agreement into lived realities.

Concerns around fairness and justice are a recurring theme. The Agreement is unique because of the centrality it accords to issues of equality and rights in the creation of a “fresh start”.

Mary Robinson, the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights, said some time ago at a conference in Belfast that “people should not be just docile subjects of rights: rights are never given to people. Rights must be asserted, and they must be asserted on one’s own behalf and on behalf of all other human beings”.

My work has brought me increasingly into contact with a wider world. Again I learned the hard way that upholding international standards of fairness and rights in theory was acceptable, both in the political process and in the workplace, but only in a minimal way. To apply these same principles in practice, through international solidarity, so that they would make a difference to those who needed them has proved much less acceptable. The theoretical assertion of rights means that power is ruffled and irritated, but putting into practical effect those rights means that those in positions of power would have to change. I have seen the reaction to the challenge range from abuse, harassment, and dismissal in the workplace, to political and personal vilification of effective human rights organisations and bodies when they are challenging an unjust status quo. Raising one’s head above the parapet of what is currently acceptable, when that status quo is unfair, is the definition of a human rights activist...my experience over many years has shown me that there are many bottom-up alliances engaging in a culture of co-operation and dialogue, but that these alliances are rarely visible. This lack of visibility is sometimes deliberate – some work requires confidentiality and sensitivity and does not benefit from being shouted about from the rooftops. On the other hand, many of these alliances would benefit from greater visibility. The very existence of alliances cutting across our many divides – black/white, nationalist/unionist, offender/victim, elderly/ young, gay/straight – is an important beacon to others in society that these divisions are not immutable. It is important that the simplistic pigeon-holing that we all engage in from time to time can be challenged, and that we are publicly and frequently reminded that people of seemingly different backgrounds and interests also have many common concerns.

It is not the mere existence of the alliance that needs to be more widely known. It is important that the fact that these groups have evolved in co-operation and dialogue is more widely shared. They themselves would benefit from learning from others, but they also have much to offer. What have they learned about which principles should underpin co-operation and dialogue? How have they challenged their own marginalisation? how have they ensured that by doing so they have not marginalised others?

I am making reference to a group called the Equality Coalition. This is a broad-based alliance of groups in the north that came into being out of a shared interest to place equality at the heart of government policy making in the run-up to the Good Friday Agreement. They are coconvened by my own trade union UNISON, and the Committee on the Administration for Justice. This coalition draws together groups working around issues of gender, disability, race, religious and political belief, age, and sexual orientation – and together we informally strategize. Now, the old “divide and rule” policy hasn’t gone away, and there have been many attempts to ostracise or marginalise one or more of these constituencies from each other. Members of the Coalition, however, do not need to be told that the pressures facing Catholic men suffering longterm unemployment is very different from that experienced by people with disabilities being denied mainstream education, or that suffered by Traveller women wanting to get decent living conditions for their families, or gay partners wanting to be treated with dignity when their loved ones are dying in hospital. Nor, however, do we have to be told that there are parallels – we experience it in our regular sharing of how we do our business and developing common programmes.

The experience of the Equality Coalition is that its strength lies in its diversity. Yet at the same time, the diversity does not blind and must not blind the very real, different experiences of each constituency. Another strength of the Coalition is that when one group is under attack and is the most unpopular group, all the other groups come together in solidarity and help cushion the blows for those under attack. That’s quite a road to have travelled, especially in the north….

Gradually, local alliances are building up to challenge practices of discrimination, exclusion, inequality, and human rights abuses. These same alliances are beginning to assert that people – as of right – must be involved in the decisions affecting their lives. They are saying that the goal of participation is no longer an option, or a radical and exciting possibility to be engaged in as appropriate, but is a matter of right. In asserting this right to participate, a person must, in the words of Mary Robinson once again, assert the right “on one’s own behalf and on behalf of all other human beings without distinction”. It is not therefore enough that I participate, but I have to ensure that others do too.

Last but not least, these local alliances are learning how best to use tools of right to challenge and change local circumstances. While many of the groups still do not use the language of rights, most use the principles underlying that vocabulary. Principles of equality, fairness, and respect for human dignity guide their work.

I believe that the rights discourse challenges power structures in at least two distinct but complementary ways. The first concerns those currently in positions of power. Human rights activists are not – or should not be – concerned about who is in power (whether it is Unionist or Nationalist or the local parents’ and teachers’ association) but they should be concerned about how that power is exercised. The language and concepts of rights require that those in positions of power be properly constrained in the exercise of that power and if (as was said at the beginning) we find a parameter of insider/outsider, then we need to understand that this constraint applies to all of us. Power is not good just because we exercise it. Those in power may not, whatever the alleged provocation, disregard the dignity of the individuals and of the communities that make up their society.
But the second way in which the human rights construct challenges current power arrangements – and one that has had less attention to date – is that it empowers people to participate effectively in changing their own situation. People can only be empowered to participate effectively when they know they have a right to do so, when they begin to assert their claim of right, and when they find practical ways of turning the legal right into a practical reality.

A cross-border women’s project I was involved in – Making Women Seen and Heard – also held many exciting lessons. It has been one of the most exciting experiences of my life. We examined whether the European Peace and Reconciliation Programme had met its intended objectives and whether women (amongst the specified intended beneficiaries) had benefited from the programme and just as importantly, been engaged in the decision-making around it. You will perhaps not be surprised to learn that the answer by and large was “no” to both these questions. There was a great deal of learning in that project, but let me just focus on one of the key conclusions – “Changes which allow women and other excluded groups to become part of the decision making process go to the heart of ending division in our society and thereby creating true peace and reconciliation.”

The lessons learned is that opposing what is wrong and unjust requires building new shapes of right and that those rights are asserted in conjunction with others. Currently there is a debate on what should be constituted in a new bill of rights that is mandated under the Good Friday Agreement. Part of that debate echoes the interethnicity of the conflict in demands and counter demands for identity and communal rights to be asserted. Those issues have to be dealt with and the parameters of the Good Friday Agreement in requiring parity of esteem set some, but only some benchmarks for us to work on. Other demands are coming through on issues such as the right to health, education, work, and housing. Issues that could be described as “solidarity rights” – that address the needs of individuals within main communities but also have the transformative capacity of creating solidarities beyond those communities.

Learning the lesson of the “bottom-up” coalition that came together to shape the equality provisions in the Good Friday Agreement – an ad hoc coalition of over 80 organisations, ranging from groups such as the family planning association, the carers association, anti-agreement groups such as Ulster Human Rights Watch, trade unions and local rights groups have come together to work with each other in trying to build shapes of right for the future.

None of this is easy. All of it requires giving respect and support to politicians emanating from existing traditions who are trying to manage the echoes of the past while glimpsing the possibilities of a new future.

The role of equality and human rights is to enable them and all of us to build those shapes in a basic understanding that the true accord of human rights is when we accord them to those with whom we fundamentally disagree.




You are here: 2002 / Workshops, Panels and Seminars / Seminar B: Is Reconciliation Possible Without Forgiveness / Presentation by Ms. Inez McCormack

	Participants Countries and organizations Conference documentation Conference programme	Report from Seminar B: Is Reconciliation Possible without forgiveness Presentation by Dr. Ludvig Igra Presentation by Professor Andrew Rigby Presentation by Ms. Inez McCormack Presentation by Ms. Inez McCormack McCormack, Inez The role of equality and human rights in shaping reconciliation – a Northern Ireland perspective ”The tragedies of the past have left a deep and profoundly regrettable legacy of suffering. We must never forget those who have died or been injured and their families. But we can best honour them through a fresh start, in which we firmly dedicate ourselves to the achievements of reconciliation, tolerance and mutual trust and to the protection and vindication of the rights of all.” Good Friday Agreement ”Few documents emerging from divisive and difficult negotiations have so well captured the importance of fairness in creating right relationships.” Mary Robinson, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights I attended a conference in Dublin two years ago that was addressed by Nelson Mandela on the subject of reconciliation. I asked him what role he thought human rights could play in building reconciliation in a divided society. He thought for a while. He then said that a constitution and laws that named rights in order that there was a basic norm of respect and dignity as the entitlement of each individual came first. Equally important was the ability for the most vulnerable and the most invisible to access and use these rights. He said that the test of shaping a new society was enabling voices which had hitherto not been accorded respect or access, the ability not just to have rights but to be able to use them and own them themselves. He then said that primary importance should be to given to mechanisms that held the powerful to be truly accountable. He told the story of how a South African court had overturned one of his decisions when he was President of South Africa. He said he didn’t like it, but the test of a new and just society was that there were no exceptions to standards of accountability and the practice of justice. When the Belfast Agreement was negotiated in April 1998, political parties found that human rights issues provided a foundation for building a bridge between the opposing positions. While compromise on the central question of the constitutional status of Northern Ireland appeared impossible, underlying fears of domination and discrimination could be addressed by providing for human rights protections. Human rights standards provide a basis for separating legitimate negotiating demands (for example, equality) from illegitimate ones (for example, domination). Because they are universal and thus transcend the parties in conflict, human rights standards provide an important touchstone for what is just. This carefully crafted document arose as a result of political parties of different political persuasions recognising and endorsing principles of impartiality, accountability, equality, fairness and pluralism. The less well-known but equally important story is how these concepts and methods of shaping equality and human rights as practical effective mechanisms of change emerged and the mutual engagement between civil society and the various political actors. However, not all conflict resolution initiatives use human rights as a basis for measuring justice. Some people engaged in conflict resolution regard human rights demands as an obstacle to the establishment of a peaceful settlement. Human rights activists are criticised for being too focused on principle; they in turn view conflict resolution practitioners as too pragmatic. Lurking just beneath the surface of the “principle versus pragmatism” debate is a more subtle and fundamental division over the causes of conflict and the best ways to end it. If one believes that a conflict is about interethnic hatred, then this leads to one set of solutions; if it is about the denial of justice and equality, that leads to another. At first human rights activism centred on the civil rights of the Catholic/nationalist community in terms of equal opportunity to obtain jobs, voting, and housing – the issues at the heart of the conflict’s re-emergence. But after the state introduced security measures, a new wave of activism emerged, centring on issues concerning the rights to a fair trial, use of summary and arbitrary execution, mistreatment in prisons, abuse in detention, and police harassment and collusion with parliamentary groups. Instead of viewing all difficult issues as political and subject to negotiation, human rights groups suggested that in some areas there were obstacles that, even if divisive, must be addressed. Dialogue between Catholics and Protestants, even on issues of justice and equality, was not an adequate substitute for the government actually delivering justice and equality. While dialogue between conflict resolution and human rights practitioners is valuable, it should not necessarily lead to a uniform approach. During periods of conflict elsewhere, domestic human rights groups claiming rights abuses are routinely dismissed, particularly by those they criticise, as partisan; this was certainly the case in Northern Ireland. If the human rights NGO is to have influence, it must generate legitimacy – both domestically, and – just as important – internationally by a disciplined and rigorous approach to fact finding and the application of international human rights standards. It will be more successful if it separates human rights issues from political issues. On the other hand, groups with a conflict mandate can and should engage in a broader way with a range of political issues. The case of Northern Ireland suggests that meaningful resolution of conflict requires strategies that adequately address underlying human rights issues. Human rights protections are not the whole situation; broad agreement on political institutions is also necessary to resolve the conflict. Yet human rights are too often not recognised as part of the solution. It does not serve lasting peace for human rights protections to be subjected to barter and exchange. The biggest challenge facing us is how to turn the commitments to equality, fairness and participation made in the Agreement into lived realities. Concerns around fairness and justice are a recurring theme. The Agreement is unique because of the centrality it accords to issues of equality and rights in the creation of a “fresh start”. Mary Robinson, the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights, said some time ago at a conference in Belfast that “people should not be just docile subjects of rights: rights are never given to people. Rights must be asserted, and they must be asserted on one’s own behalf and on behalf of all other human beings”. My work has brought me increasingly into contact with a wider world. Again I learned the hard way that upholding international standards of fairness and rights in theory was acceptable, both in the political process and in the workplace, but only in a minimal way. To apply these same principles in practice, through international solidarity, so that they would make a difference to those who needed them has proved much less acceptable. The theoretical assertion of rights means that power is ruffled and irritated, but putting into practical effect those rights means that those in positions of power would have to change. I have seen the reaction to the challenge range from abuse, harassment, and dismissal in the workplace, to political and personal vilification of effective human rights organisations and bodies when they are challenging an unjust status quo. Raising one’s head above the parapet of what is currently acceptable, when that status quo is unfair, is the definition of a human rights activist...my experience over many years has shown me that there are many bottom-up alliances engaging in a culture of co-operation and dialogue, but that these alliances are rarely visible. This lack of visibility is sometimes deliberate – some work requires confidentiality and sensitivity and does not benefit from being shouted about from the rooftops. On the other hand, many of these alliances would benefit from greater visibility. The very existence of alliances cutting across our many divides – black/white, nationalist/unionist, offender/victim, elderly/ young, gay/straight – is an important beacon to others in society that these divisions are not immutable. It is important that the simplistic pigeon-holing that we all engage in from time to time can be challenged, and that we are publicly and frequently reminded that people of seemingly different backgrounds and interests also have many common concerns. My work has brought me increasingly into contact with a wider world. Again I learned the hard way that upholding international standards of fairness and rights in theory was acceptable, both in the political process and in the workplace, but only in a minimal way. To apply these same principles in practice, through international solidarity, so that they would make a difference to those who needed them has proved much less acceptable. The theoretical assertion of rights means that power is ruffled and irritated, but putting into practical effect those rights means that those in positions of power would have to change. I have seen the reaction to the challenge range from abuse, harassment, and dismissal in the workplace, to political and personal vilification of effective human rights organisations and bodies when they are challenging an unjust . Raising one’s head above the parapet of what is currently acceptable, when that is unfair, is the definition of a human rights activist...my experience over many years has shown me that there are many bottom-up alliances engaging in a culture of co-operation and dialogue, but that these alliances are rarely visible. My work has brought me increasingly into contact with a wider world. Again I learned the hard way that upholding international standards of fairness and rights in theory was acceptable, both in the political process and in the workplace, but only in a minimal way. To apply these same principles in practice, through international solidarity, so that they would make a difference to those who needed them has proved much less acceptable. The theoretical assertion of rights means that power is ruffled and irritated, but putting into practical effect those rights means that those in positions of power would have to change. I have seen the reaction to the challenge range from abuse, harassment, and dismissal in the workplace, to political and personal vilification of effective human rights organisations and bodies when they are challenging an unjust . Raising one’s head above the parapet of what is currently acceptable, when that is unfair, is the definition of a human rights activist...my experience over many years has shown me that there are many bottom-up alliances engaging in a culture of co-operation and dialogue, but that these alliances are rarely visible. This lack of visibility is sometimes deliberate – some work requires confidentiality and sensitivity and does not benefit from being shouted about from the rooftops. On the other hand, many of these alliances would benefit from greater visibility. The very existence of alliances cutting across our many divides – black/white, nationalist/unionist, offender/victim, elderly/ young, gay/straight – is an important beacon to others in society that these divisions are not immutable. It is important that the simplistic pigeon-holing that we all engage in from time to time can be challenged, and that we are publicly and frequently reminded that people of seemingly different backgrounds and interests also have many common concerns. It is not the mere existence of the alliance that needs to be more widely known. It is important that the fact that these groups have evolved in co-operation and dialogue is more widely shared. They themselves would benefit from learning from others, but they also have much to offer. What have they learned about which principles should underpin co-operation and dialogue? How have they challenged their own marginalisation? how have they ensured that by doing so they have not marginalised others? I am making reference to a group called the Equality Coalition. This is a broad-based alliance of groups in the north that came into being out of a shared interest to place equality at the heart of government policy making in the run-up to the Good Friday Agreement. They are coconvened by my own trade union UNISON, and the Committee on the Administration for Justice. This coalition draws together groups working around issues of gender, disability, race, religious and political belief, age, and sexual orientation – and together we informally strategize. Now, the old “divide and rule” policy hasn’t gone away, and there have been many attempts to ostracise or marginalise one or more of these constituencies from each other. Members of the Coalition, however, do not need to be told that the pressures facing Catholic men suffering longterm unemployment is very different from that experienced by people with disabilities being denied mainstream education, or that suffered by Traveller women wanting to get decent living conditions for their families, or gay partners wanting to be treated with dignity when their loved ones are dying in hospital. Nor, however, do we have to be told that there are parallels – we experience it in our regular sharing of how we do our business and developing common programmes. The experience of the Equality Coalition is that its strength lies in its diversity. Yet at the same time, the diversity does not blind and must not blind the very real, different experiences of each constituency. Another strength of the Coalition is that when one group is under attack and is the most unpopular group, all the other groups come together in solidarity and help cushion the blows for those under attack. That’s quite a road to have travelled, especially in the north…. Gradually, local alliances are building up to challenge practices of discrimination, exclusion, inequality, and human rights abuses. These same alliances are beginning to assert that people – as of right – must be involved in the decisions affecting their lives. They are saying that the goal of participation is no longer an option, or a radical and exciting possibility to be engaged in as appropriate, but is a matter of right. In asserting this right to participate, a person must, in the words of Mary Robinson once again, assert the right “on one’s own behalf and on behalf of all other human beings without distinction”. It is not therefore enough that I participate, but I have to ensure that others do too. Last but not least, these local alliances are learning how best to use tools of right to challenge and change local circumstances. While many of the groups still do not use the language of rights, most use the principles underlying that vocabulary. Principles of equality, fairness, and respect for human dignity guide their work. I believe that the rights discourse challenges power structures in at least two distinct but complementary ways. The first concerns those currently in positions of power. Human rights activists are not – or should not be – concerned about who is in power (whether it is Unionist or Nationalist or the local parents’ and teachers’ association) but they should be concerned about how that power is exercised. The language and concepts of rights require that those in positions of power be properly constrained in the exercise of that power and if (as was said at the beginning) we find a parameter of insider/outsider, then we need to understand that this constraint applies to all of us. Power is not good just because we exercise it. Those in power may not, whatever the alleged provocation, disregard the dignity of the individuals and of the communities that make up their society. But the second way in which the human rights construct challenges current power arrangements – and one that has had less attention to date – is that it empowers people to participate effectively in changing their own situation. People can only be empowered to participate effectively when they know they have a right to do so, when they begin to assert their claim of right, and when they find practical ways of turning the legal right into a practical reality. A cross-border women’s project I was involved in – Making Women Seen and Heard – also held many exciting lessons. It has been one of the most exciting experiences of my life. We examined whether the European Peace and Reconciliation Programme had met its intended objectives and whether women (amongst the specified intended beneficiaries) had benefited from the programme and just as importantly, been engaged in the decision-making around it. You will perhaps not be surprised to learn that the answer by and large was “no” to both these questions. There was a great deal of learning in that project, but let me just focus on one of the key conclusions – “Changes which allow women and other excluded groups to become part of the decision making process go to the heart of ending division in our society and thereby creating true peace and reconciliation.” The lessons learned is that opposing what is wrong and unjust requires building new shapes of right and that those rights are asserted in conjunction with others. Currently there is a debate on what should be constituted in a new bill of rights that is mandated under the Good Friday Agreement. Part of that debate echoes the interethnicity of the conflict in demands and counter demands for identity and communal rights to be asserted. Those issues have to be dealt with and the parameters of the Good Friday Agreement in requiring parity of esteem set some, but only some benchmarks for us to work on. Other demands are coming through on issues such as the right to health, education, work, and housing. Issues that could be described as “solidarity rights” – that address the needs of individuals within main communities but also have the transformative capacity of creating solidarities beyond those communities. The lessons learned is that opposing what is wrong and unjust requires building new shapes of right and that those rights are asserted in conjunction with others. Currently there is a debate on what should be constituted in a new bill of rights that is mandated under the Good Friday Agreement. Part of that debate echoes the interethnicity of the conflict in demands and counter demands for identity and communal rights to be asserted. Those issues have to be dealt with and the parameters of the Good Friday Agreement in requiring parity of esteem set some, but only some benchmarks for us to work on. Other demands are coming through on issues such as the right to health, education, work, and housing. Issues that could be described as “solidarity rights” – that address the needs of individuals within main communities but also have the transformative capacity of creating solidarities beyond those communities. Learning the lesson of the “bottom-up” coalition that came together to shape the equality provisions in the Good Friday Agreement – an ad hoc coalition of over 80 organisations, ranging from groups such as the family planning association, the carers association, anti-agreement groups such as Ulster Human Rights Watch, trade unions and local rights groups have come together to work with each other in trying to build shapes of right for the future. None of this is easy. All of it requires giving respect and support to politicians emanating from existing traditions who are trying to manage the echoes of the past while glimpsing the possibilities of a new future. The role of equality and human rights is to enable them and all of us to build those shapes in a basic understanding that the true accord of human rights is when we accord them to those with whom we fundamentally disagree. >> Back to top	Introduction Opening Session Plenary Sessions Workshops, Panels and Seminars Seminar A: Reconciliation and Remembrance After Mass Atrocities Seminar B: Is Reconciliation Possible Without Forgiveness Seminar on South Africa Seminar on Bosnia and Herzegovina Seminar on Rwanda Seminar on Cambodia Seminar on German-Polish Reconciliation Closing Session


For information about this production and the Stockholm International Forum Conference Series please go to www.humanrights.gov.se or contact Information Rosenbad, SE-103 33 Stockholm, Sweden