TRAUMA, JUSTICE AND RECONCILIATION LESSONS FROM RWANDA AND EX-YUGOSLAVIA.
-
Upload
stephanie-booker -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
2
Transcript of TRAUMA, JUSTICE AND RECONCILIATION LESSONS FROM RWANDA AND EX-YUGOSLAVIA.
WE ARE FORCED TO LIVE TOGETHER..BECAUSE OF THAT WEARE ALL PRETENDING TO BE NICE AND LOVE EACH OTHER.BUTIT IS KNOWN THAT IHATE THEM AND THEY HATE ME. IT WILL BE THAT FOREVER.
MOSTAR RESIDENT, 2001
I DON’T UNDERSTAND THIS WORD “RECONCILIATION”. I CAN’TRECONCILE WITH PEOPLE, EVEN IF THEY ARE IN PRISON…IF A PERSONCOMES TO ASK MY FORGIVENESS, I WILL PARDON HIM AFTER HE HAS RESUSCITATED THE MEMBERS OF MY FAMILY THAT HE KILLED.
GENOCIDE SURVIVOR, RWANDA, 2002
ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT TRIALS
• UNCOVERING AND PUBLICIZING TRUTH• PUNISHING PERPETRATORS• RESPONDING TO THE NEEDS OF VICTIMS• PROMOTING RULE OF LAW• PROMOTING RECONCILIATION•“HEALING” INDIVIDUALS AND SOCIETIES
RECONCILIATION
• WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO REPAIR A COMMUNITY?
• DO PEOPLE SEEK JUSTICE AND IF SO, WHAT FORMS DOES IT TAKE?
• DO TRIALS EQUAL JUSTICE?
• HOW IS TRAUMATIC EXPERIENCE RELATED TO RECONCILIATION?
Research Methods
• Surveys– Balkans: 1,600 people surveyed twice
12-24 months apart– Rwanda: 2,100 people
• Key Informant Interviews
• Focus Groups
• Ethnographic Studies
Research Question
How do societies torn apart by war, genocide, and ethnic cleansing pursue justice and, at the same time rebuild their divided communities?
Study Sites1999 - 2003
• Former Yugoslavia– Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina– Prijedor, Bosnia and Herzegovina– Vukovar, Croatia– Refugee Settlements, Serbia and Montenegro
• RwandaVaried exposure to genocide– Ngoma (Butare Town)– Mabanza– Buyoga– Mutura
Bosnian Judges and Prosecutors1999-2000
32 participants with primary or appellate
jurisdiction for national war crimes trials
Bosniak, Croat and Serb Areas
In-depth semi-structured interviews
KEY FINDINGS
• WAR EXPERIENCES OF PARTICPANTS, SELF-IDENTIFICATION WITH A PARTICULAR NATIONAL GROUP AND EXPOSURE TO DOMINANT NARRATIVES ABOUT THE ROLE OF THEIR GROUP PROFOUNDLY INFLUENCES ATTITUDES TOWARDS TRIALS
• THE CLAIM OF VICTIMHOOD OVERRIDES
• THOSE WHO ACCEPT INTERNATIONAL CORROBORATION OF ATROCITIES MORE LIKELY TO DEMAND INTERNATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY
BELIEVE ME THAT I AM TELLING YOU WHAT I FEEL BECAUSE I WASHERE DURING THE WAR AND I SURVIVED WITH MY FAMILY..AND IAM TELLING YOU NOW AS A HUMAN THAT PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE,ACCOUNTABLE AND GUILTY FOR ALL THOSE CRIMES SHOULD BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THOSE CRIMES BECAUSE PEOPLE NEED THAT.
WHEN SOMEONE WANTS TO FORGIVE SOMEBODY, HE’LL DO ITWITHOUT A COURT…IF WE ARE HUMAN, WE DON’T NEED A COURT.
PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THE TRIBUNAL. BUT IT ISTHE ONLY LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL. WITHOUT IT, THEREWOULD BE NO JUSTICE AND THIS WOULD BE THE FINAL BETRAYAL.
Community Effects of TrialsSocial and political effects
Reification of perpetrators
Collective innocence Protection of bystanders and beneficiaries
Hardening of nationalist (ethnic or other in-group perspectives)
Setting up an international court was a way ofpunishing the perpetrators of such crimes and at the same time hopefully establishing a cultureof law. However, because the court was inherently foreign to the very society that it was supposed to be helping, international justice has forfeited anyimpact on Rwandan society. By so doing, it has failed to achieve both its social and educational functions.
International Crisis Group
ICTR: Justice Delayed, 2001
DEFINING TRAUMAAT POPULATION LEVEL
• IN EX-YUGOSLAVIA, A VALIDATED SCALE WEIGHTED FOR EXPOSURE AND INTENSITY
• IN RWANDA, THE PCL (C) SCALE
Attitudes toward the ICTY and War Crimes
Figure 7: Attitudes toward the ICTY
2.762.75
2.072.02
3.464.16
4.074.12
2.161.76
2.382.94
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50
Serbs-Vukovar
Serbs-Prijedor
Bosniaks-Prijedor
Bosniaks-Mostar
Croats-Mostar
Croats-Vukovar
2000/1 2002
Figure 8: Admission of war crimes committed by own nationality
95.0%98.5%
56.3%52.5%
77.1%
69.1%
63.1%75.9%
56.1%54.7%
65.6%68.2%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
Serbs-Vukovar
Serbs-Prijedor
Bosniaks-Prijedor
Bosniaks-Mostar
Croats-Mostar
Croats-Vukovar
2000/1 2002
Figure 9: Acceptance of the members of the ŅopposingÓ nationality
7.847.92
2.645.64
4.883.28
3.604.80
3.284.48
4.725.12
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
Serbs-Vukovar
Serbs-Prijedor
Bosniaks-Prijedor
Bosniaks-Mostar
Croats-Mostar
Croats-Vukovar
2000/1 2002
PTSD SYMPTOMS IN RWANDA
WE MEASURED SYMPTOMS OF PTSD ANDEXPOSURE TO SEVEN TYPES OF EVENTS
24.8% OF SAMPLE SHOWED SYMPTOMS
PREDICTORS OF THE SYMPTOMS WEREAGE AND GENDERTRAUMATIC EXPOSUREPROXIMITY TO CONFLICTETHNICITY AND ETHNIC DISTANCE
ATTITUDES TO TRIALS IN RWANDA
• 87 % OF RESPONDENTS POORLY OR NOT INFORMEDABOUT ICTR• 52% OF INFORMED SAY IT FUNCTIONS WELL• 54% SAY IT CONTRIBUTES TO RECONCILIATION•29% SAY ICTR WILL CONTRIBUTE SIGNFICANTLY TORECONCILIATION VS 74% WHO SAY RWANDAN TRIALS WILL• HUTU MORE POSITVE ABOUT ICTR• MUCH MORE SUPPORT FOR GACACA
TABLE 5: ODDS RATIOS (95% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL) ATTITUDES TOWARDJUDICIAL PROCESSES AND RECONCILIATION ACCORDING TO TRAUMATICEXPOSURE LEVELOutcome Mean Traumatic
Exposure Level(Standard Error)
UnadjustedOdds Ratio(95% C.I.)
AdjustedOdds Ratio*(95% C.I.)
ATTITUDES TOWARD JUDICIAL RESPONSESICTR
Positive
Negative
3.35 (0.06)3.24 (0.05)
NS 1.10(1.04, 1.17)
Rwandan TrialPositive
Negative3.16 (0.04)3.56 (0.06)
NS 0.90(0.84, 0.96)
GacacaPositive
Negative3.24 (0.04)3.79 (0.13)
0.81(0.73, 0.89)
0.80(0.72, 0.89)
OPENNESS TO RECONCILIATION
Social JusticeSupportOppose
3.35 (0.05)3.18 (0.06)
NS NS
Non-violenceSupportOppose
3.19 (0.05)3.19 (0.05)
NS 0.92 (0.87,0.98)
Support CommunitySupportOppose
3.08 (0.05)3.49 (0.05)
0.86(0.81, 0.90)
0.92 (0.87,0.98)
InterdependentYesNo
3.18 (0.05)3.54 (0.06)
0.87(0.82, 0.93)
0.86 (0.81,0.92)
TABLE 4: ODDS RATIOS* (95% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL) OF POSITIVE ATTITUDES TOWARDJUDICIAL PROCESSES AND RECONCILIATION AMONG THOSE WITH PTSD SYMPTOMS
PTSD SYMPTOMSOutcomeNegative
n (%)Positive
n (%)
TOTAL UnadjustedOdds Ratio(95% C.I.)
AdjustedOdds Ratio*(95% C.I.)
ATTITUDES TOWARD JUDICIAL RESPONSESPositive Attitude TowardICTR
682 (43.4) 198 (38.2) 880 (42.1) NS NS
Positive Attitude TowardRwandan Trial
1111 (70.6) 306 (59.1) 1417 (67.8) 0.60(0.49, 0.73)
0.77(0.61,0.98)
Positive Attitude TowardGacaca
1453 (92.4) 446 (86.1) 1899 (90.8) 0.51(0.38,0.70)
NS
OPENNESS TO RECONCILIATION
Support Social Justice 988 (62.8) 341 (65.8) 1329 (63.6) NS NS
Support Non-violence 707 (46.3) 224 (44.6) 931 (43.9) NS NS
Support Community 817 (51.9) 191 (36.9) 1008 (48.2) 0.54(0.44, 0.66)
0.76(0.60,0.97)
DemonstratedInterdependence
1061 (70.0) 292 (59.6) 1353 (67.5) 0.63(0.51, 0.78)
0.71(0.56, 0.91)
TABLE 9: CONTRIBUTION OF ICTR AND RWANDAN TRIALS TORECONCILIATION
ICTR(%)
Rwandan Trials(%)
No Contribution 481(32.0%) 78(4.0%)
Limited Contribution 208(13.8%) 110(5.6%)
Moderate Contribution 370(24.6%) 317(16.2%)
Significant Contribution 324(21.6%) 787(40.3%)
Very SignificantContribution
119(7.9%) 660(33.8%)
Total with Opinion 1502(71.9%)
1952(93.4%)
Not informed 588(28.1%) 138(6.6%)Total Responses 2090 2090
Chi-Square= 467.59, df=25, p-value<0.001
TRAUMA, JUSTICE AND RECONCILIATION
• IN BALKANSNO DIRECT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
EXPERIENCE OF TRAUMA AND DESIRE FOR TRIALSFOR THOSE TRAUMATIZED, PRIOR
NEGATIVE EXPERIENCE WITH “THE OTHER” LEADS TO RESISTANCE TO RECONCILIATION
FOR THOSE WITH PRIOR POSITIVE EXPERIENCESWITH “THE OTHER” AND A WILLINGNESS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEIR GROUP COMMITTED WARCRIMES, THERE IS A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRIALSAND RECONCILIATION
TRAUMA. JUSTICE, AND RECONCILIATION
• IN RWANDA
PTSD SYMPTOMS INFLUENCE ATTITUDES TOCERTAIN TYPES OF TRIALS AND TO SOMEMEASURES OF RECONCILATION E.G. BELIEF INCOMMUNITY AND INTERPDEPENDENCE
TRAUMA EXPOSURE SIMILARLY INFLUENCES ATTITUDES TO CERTAIN TYPES OF TRIALS ANDTO INTERDEPENDENCE, COMMUNITY AND WILLINGNESS TO USE VIOLENCE
CONCLUSIONS
1. NO DIRECT LINK BETWEEN CRIMINAL TRIALSAND RECONCILIATION2. FOR SURVIVORS, THE IDEA OF “JUSTICE” IS MUCH MORE BROADLY DEFINED THAN TRIALS3. NO DIRECT LINK BETWEEN TRAUMA EXPOSURE AND DESIRE FOR TRIALS4. SOCIAL RECONSTRUCTION IS A SLOW PROCESSTHAT OCCURS AT MULTIPLE LEVELS.5. SOCIAL JUSTICE (ECONOMIC AND SOCIALWELL-BEING) IS CRITICAL TO SOCIAL REPAIR
Trials and Public AwarenessEducation of the population about what trials can do
Education of the public about the events that are revealed in the trial record
Countering the process of collective innocence
Education of the young about the history that led to genocide or ethnic cleansing
Truth commissions
ECOLOGICAL MODEL OF RESPONSE TO SOCIAL BREAKDOWN
Social BreakdownBreakdown of institutions (legal,
political, educational,social, economic)
Social ReconstructionJustice
DemocracyProsperity
Reconciliation
Legal InterventionsCriminal trials
(international and domestic)
Evidence CollectionExhumations
TestimonyCrime scene investigation
State-level AlternativesTo Legal InterventionTruth Commissions
Psychosocial InterventionsIndividual/Family
State-level InterventionsRestoration of political, legal,economic, social institutions,
refugee returns
Community InterventionsEducation, reparations to communities,
memorials, economic, development,restitution of cultural property,
conflict resolution
Community-Generated ResponsesExhumations of mass graves
Identification processesRituals of community
mourning
COMPONENTS OF SOCIALRECONSTRUCTION
•SECURITY•FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT•RULE OF LAW•ACCESS TO ACCURATE (UNBIASED) INFORM,ATION•JUSTICE•EDUCATION•ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT•CROSS-ETHNIC ENGAGEMENT