When working on political democratization of Burma, “National Reconciliation” are words always fluttering close to your ears and repeated over and over by every actor involved in the conflict: government officials, ethnic leaders, democrats and activists. This concept is clearly attractive to all as well as fundamental if one day the Burmese want to move forward in re-building a flourishing country. Indeed, only reconciliation of the nation and of individuals will create a stable and lasting peace for the future.

However is the concept of “National Reconciliation” clearly defined and understood by everybody? Daw Aung San Suu kyi once said, “It is only through meaningful dialogue between diverse political forces that we can achieve national reconciliation which is the first and most vital requisite for a united and prosperous country.” But how do you restart this dialogue and re-establish confidence between different factions of a society who have suffered from decades of civil war and dictatorship? Is dialogue the only wish of the people at the grassroots or can some additional mechanisms be put in place?

This is undeniably a very complex process that all people of Burma will have to embrace if they want to rebuild their nation. To reach such a goal, the issues of trauma healing and reconciliation need to be addressed.

Most individuals who lived through a civil war have suffered from it at different levels. These include soldiers trained to kill the “other side”, but the majority are civilians, women and children who faced a constant battle to survive. Many have lost relatives and property. People have had their culture and heritage destroyed. Families have been uprooted from their homes. This is particularly true for Burma where around two million people are displaced inside and outside of the country. The logical result of such a deadly and violent situation is the entrenchment of a profound and bitter hatred between different groups of people. It can be ethnically, religiously, or ideologically motivated but the anger is deeply rooted in everybody’s heart.

Only forgiveness will make reconciliation and a future possible. To choose to forgive is the only power left to victims of past atrocities. But when talking about the power to forgive, this doesn’t imply the wish to forget.

For Dr. John Paul Lederach, an eminent American specialist in conflict transformation and peace building studies, reconciliation is a process where peace, truth, mercy (forgiveness) and justice meet: “Truth is the longing for acknowledgement of wrong and the validation of painful loss and experience, but it is coupled with Mercy, which articulates the need for acceptance, letting go, and a new beginning. Justice represents the search for individual and group rights, for social restructuring, and for restitution, but is linked with Peace, which underscores the need for interdependence, well being and security.”

Then, for reconciliation to happen, people must first benefit from a certain degree of security and confidence that violence will not resume so that they can move forward. But to heal personal suffering and thus collective trauma, it is vital that truth is established to let forgiveness follow. For doing so, the new government need to implement a form of justice according to the wish of the grassroots.

Political transition from a repressive regime to a democracy has occurred in many nations worldwide during the past decades. Countries such as South Africa, Yugoslavia and Cambodia, only to name a few, have dealt with post war reconciliation processes. Even if each conflict is unique in all its aspects, some similarities between them can arise and lessons be learnt. So, to look at past mechanisms implemented by other new-born democracies may provide a pertinent insight for Burma in managing national reconciliation.

The main dilemma is how to deliver justice and “punish” the guilty without plunging the country into another spiral of violence. Again, people need to feel secure in an environment to achieve reconciliation. More than two decades after the Cambodian genocide, no prosecution has taken place despite PM Hun Sen’s government’s approval in 2001 of the establishment of a Khmer Rouge genocide trial with United Nations support. This tribunal is a fundamental step towards healing a traumatized country. But most Cambodians, while they remember the horror of past atrocities, are also worried that a trial might endanger the only period of peace they have known for years. Indeed, several hundred thousand of the former Khmer Rouge cadres are living in villages among people who may have been their victims. To prosecute all of them will only lead to bloodshed. This fear of justice as a threat to peace is also encouraged by the current government, where many top leaders are actually former Khmer Rouge members. Thus, is it better to maintain impunity and preserve an apparent “peace” within the country or to concretize the desire of justice which remains in everyone’s mind? The answer may lie in the next generation voice and its desire in knowing the truth, finally.

Bringing past criminals to national or international court seems a more respectful and effective tool in the search of truth and justice necessary for reconciliation. Again with the direct intervention of the UN, countries such as Rwanda and Yugoslavia have set up international courts to prosecute perpetrators of genocide. For victims of these atrocities, it is undeniable that the effect of testifying about their suffering as well as seeing their perpetrators being punished is healing. Justice has been done. It also sends at the international level a clear and deterrent message that no government or faction of any nature can exterminate a group of population and perpetrated human rights abuses in total impunity. However, some argues that such prosecutions are only perverted “victor’s justice”. It is true that NATO’s members are unlikely to ever face prosecution for their bombings in Kosovo in 1999.

In addition, it is sometimes very hazardous to delimitate the clear line between being guilty and therefore subjected to prosecution and being an innocent victim. What about the children who are filling the rank of the Burmese army? According to the US-based organization Human Rights Watch, there are around 70,000 children, mostly forcibly recruited, who are now serving in the army. Often sent to the frontline, they certainly had to commit human rights abuses and may be found guilty, but are they not also victims?

The aim of justice is to punish criminals. It may be limited in establishing the accurate truth if there is a lack of proof or testimony, and clear guidelines to determine criminal liability, as it is particularly relevant in Burma. Indeed, legal trials is may not be the most appropriate way to address the complexity of the healing process.

A better victim-focused approach can be found in the organization of a truth commission. This mechanism was first set in Argentina in 1983, then by Chile in 1991 and more recently by South Africa in 1995. These commissions are often established when a new government lack either the will or the means to prosecute past crimes. This can be attributed to several factors: a lack of proper financial resources regarding the huge number of criminals who could face prosecution, the risk of deeper communal chaos in case of prosecutions when a particular ethnic group or community was mainly involved in the atrocity, and/or an eroded confidence from the new regime that it possesses the ability to carry out a purge because some part of the power remains in the hand of the old order.

This truth commission facilitates a process of national “catharsis” during the hearings where past criminals and victims are called to tell their stories in front of a panel. In South Africa, criminals could seek amnesty if they succeeded to prove that their crimes were politically motivated. Victims were expected to “forgive” and to accept that no prosecution would take place.

Through the establishment of these commissions, the “full” truth about the conflict is sought. Various versions of events are told by all protagonists. They are analyzed and recorded. Then, a full report is published. Sometimes, these commissions also provide compensations to the victims such as cash payment, educational bursaries, better access to healthcare… This looks maybe insignificant compare to some past atrocities endured or to the loss of relatives, but this is perhaps an hugely unfortunate price that has to be paid to bury social anger and rebuild a peaceful nation.

Thus, the choice of actions that will be required to promote “National Reconciliation” in Burma will depend of the wish and the capacity of the new government to establish truth and justice. It seems unlikely that the current military regime will be overthrown tomorrow and that past military leaders will face court soon. Reform or compromises between the Burmese government and ethnic and democratic opposition groups is a more conceivable scenario. The level of control retained by the old power in the new government will largely determine what mechanism will be implemented: a general amnesty, a truth commission, or a new apparatus.

Indeed, “dialogue” is the first necessary step to reach reconciliation. However, a proper “healing process” must be put in place at the grassroots level. The people of Burma need to forgive, but to do so, they need to know the truth about who to forgive and for which crime. Some compensation must also be offered, land must be given back to the dispossessed, education and health-care must be provided for all. National, regional and local initiatives promoting a culture of peace, ethnic integration and nonviolence must be organized in the entire country. Without such components, it is unlikely that the Burmese nation will be able to move on and rebuild their whole nation on an equal basis.

To go to the other articles published in the September 2005 BI Newsletter click on the links below:

The End of the "Buffer Zone"
Sanctions for Regime Change