Director of Human Rights Watch discusses conflict between peace and justice at EPC briefing

On the first day of February in Brussels, the director of Human Rights Watch (HRW) addressed the conflict between peace and justice during a policy briefing at the International Press Centre.

Some would argue that seeking justice in the middle of a crisis – such as the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) indictment of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir – interferes with the peace process. The logic of that argument assumes the prospect of prosecution will make leaders like al-Bashir less willing to negotiate peace while offers of amnesty will encourage them to end the violence.

But HRW director Kenneth Roth argued the opposite, insisting that the pursuit of justice is not a hindrance to peace efforts, and, in fact, often helps. Roth’s cited four points from a recent HRW report that analyses numerous conflicts to refute the idea that justice impedes peace.

Roth first rejected the assumption that attempted prosecution of war criminals will derail the peace process, the belief that violent leaders will abandon peace talks if prosecution is likely.

The evidence, according to Roth, suggests otherwise. Leaders regularly engage in negotiations despite the looming threat of prosecution. In Sudan, peace talks continue even after al-Bashir’s indictment. And in Kosovo, the war concluded after Slobodan Milosevic’s indictment by the ICC.

Not only is prosecution not a hindrance, it actually helps foster peace, Roth said.  He explained that an indictment for war crimes often marginalises the accused.  Richard Holbrooke, broker of the Dayton Accords, claimed the absence of Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic – unwelcome at the negotiations because of their indictments for war crimes – made the Bosnian peace deal possible.  Roth also cited the indictment of former Liberian President Charles Taylor just as peace negotiations began. The indictment served as a “delegitimizing event” for him, “contributed to his flight two weeks later” and actually helped facilitate peace.

To facilitate peace, some argue for widespread amnesty.  But Roth used his final two points to attack that notion.  The assumption that amnesty furthers the peace process is false, he said.
“There are many cases where a lack of justice has made it more difficult to achieve peace.’’ 

He spoke of the violence in Afghanistan as unsurprising given that warlords and the Taliban routinely get away with horrific crimes and even receive jobs in the government.  Similarly, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, offers of amnesty operate more like incentives for violence.  When rebel leaders receive amnesty and then a position in the military, the message is sent that violence is not only tolerated, but can lead to a good job.  The violence in Sierra Leone offers still another example.  The Revolutionary United Front repeatedly followed concessions of amnesty with more violence.

Finally, Roth said, ‘‘amnesty (impunity) can fuel a cycle of atrocity and revenge. …’’ 

He highlighted the violence in Gaza as an example, where as long as no one is held accountable, the violence will continue.  In Kenya, as well, Roth explained that the instigators of post-election violence in 2007 have thus far faced no consequences.  There is concern that if these perpetrators are not brought to justice soon, even worse violence is likely after the 2012 elections.

Roth’s message was clear: peace and justice are not in conflict, but rather complimentary.
“Justice is an important value in and of itself,” he said, principle to the foundation of lasting peace. 

The policy briefing was hosted by the European Policy Centre (EPC) and chaired by Rosa Balfour, Senior Policy Analyst at the EPC.  Roth’s brief was based on the HRW report, Selling Justice Short: Why Accountability Matters for Peace.

—-
Flickr images from users Alkan Chaglar and Habeebee

Posted on February 12, 2010 by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
Filed under blogging.