Reconciliation
When a civil war winds down, reconciliation, sometimes called restorative justice, is an essential element in efforts to establish civil society.19 Maynard (2000) proposes a five-step model for community reconciliation following civil war based on her experience in Bosnia.
Establishing safety for people and property is the first step because nothing is possible without it. Training an honest police force representative of the warring population has a very high priority. It leads to “communalization,” during which traumatic experiences are shared in a safe environment in conjunction with a period of mourning over losses.The third and fourth steps initiate the healing process itself. The third is reconstructing relationships with former adversaries. It starts small—buying bread from and selling milk to the baker who was on the other side, for example. Joint committees often work to eliminate disparagement and stereotyping in educational materials. Re-establishing personal and moral codes set aside in war is the fourth and perhaps the most difficult step. “Quick Impact Projects” [QIPs] rebuilding infrastructure require former adversaries to work toward a common end, gradually building trust.20 QIPs serve the same purpose as and may be indistinguishable from Confidence Building Measures [CBMs], the tool of traditional diplomacy. Osgood (1962) proposed a similar approach in gradual reciprocated tension reduction based on the tit-for-tat strategy devised by Rappaport to solve the Prisoners’ Dilemma (Chapter 2).
The fifth and final step is full restoration of civil society, including shared governance. Truth commissions have proved important to reconciliation. National governments or international organizations establish them to ferret out and report human rights violations that occurred during a specific conflict or period. Truth commissions take testimony from perpetrators, victims, relatives, and anyone else with knowledge of past abuses.
Their purpose is to promote national reconciliation. They often help distinguish a new government from the one guilty of abuses, legitimating its authority. Approximately two dozen have been established, and at least a dozen others suggested (Hayner 1994, Kritz 1995).Among the more successful instances is the South African Commission of Truth and Reconciliation, set up in 1995 to investigate apartheid-era human rights violations over the previous 35 years. Chaired by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the commission held public hearings in twelve languages throughout the country at which former victims of human rights abuses told their stories and 7112 individuals applied for amnesty (Hayner 1994). The commission granted 849 amnesties and refused 5392. The remaining 871 included duplicate or withdrawn applications, or reached other dispositions (www.doj.gov.za/trc).
The UN Transitional Administration in East Timor provides an example established by an international body. The Commission for Reception, Truth, and Reconciliation had three tasks. The first was to investigate human rights violations committed in East Timor between April 1974 and October 1999. The second was to facilitate reconciliation and reintegration of individuals who confessed to minor crimes. The third was to recommend measures to prevent future abuses and address the needs of victims. Some 30 regional commissioners completed their work in two years (Hayner 2001).