Source: Wikimedia Commons
I recently returned from a week-long course on truth, memory and conflict at the International Conflict Research Institute (INCORE), a joint project at the University of Ulster and the United Nations University in Derry, northern Ireland.
Brandon Hamber, INCORE’s South African chairman, gave a fascinating lecture on his home country’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, set up to bring restorative justice to the country. Under that system, the perpetrators who worked under the Apartheid government from 1960 to 1994 were granted amnesty if they confessed to their crimes in public hearings and proved that they were politically motivated.
A few scholars have proposed that a South African-styled truth commission would be more effective in Cambodia, given the quagmire that’s become of the Khmer Rouge tribunal. Supporters say that, because this mechanism is reconciliatory rather than confrontational, the worst abusers will come clean with their crimes and victims will get closure. Opponents argue it’ll rob the victims of long-overdue justice, since the perpetrators are let free.
But one brief example in Dr. Hamber’s lecture made me wonder if the dichotomy is that simple, or if a Cambodian truth commission may indirectly lead to both prosecution and reconciliation. He mentioned the case of Eugene de Kock, a South African police colonel who, despite confessing to multiple assassinations and asking for amnesty, was sentenced to 212 years in prison. In 1999, the commission upheld his conviction because he didn’t prove all his targets were political ones.
Since transitive justice isn’t my specialty, I’m raising a question for readers rather than drawing a conclusion. Could a Cambodian truth commission have a similar effect that is both justice-seeking and reconciliatory? Could it reveal far more dirt about the exact figures who ordered specific atrocities, while still punishing the worst of the worst who can’t prove all their actions were politically charged? Or is a truth commission a bad idea altogether, considering the historical and political gulf between South Africa and Cambodia?
While I wouldn’t want to belittle to horrendous Khmer Rouge period, it should also be remembered that this was not the only period in Cambodia when the government abused its power and abused its people. Lots of nasty things happened during the Sihanouk Period, and also during the Lon Nol Period. It seems to me that the abuses of those periods, which certainly helped bring Pol Pot to power, are frequently ignored.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
The South African Truth and Reconciliation Committee (TRC) proved to be a disaster, marred by one-sided rulings designed to propagate the interests and myths of the ruling party. At the time they were able to get away with it because of overwhelming international support, as well as a rosy sense of goodwill, hope and optimism for the new “Rainbow Nation”. The reality – like everywhere else in Africa – is proving to be quite different. I was a reporter at The Star, South Africa’s major daily newspaper, for much of the period. For a thorough analysis of the outcomes and achievements of the TRC, I can recommend a book by R.W Johnson, The Times’ correspondent in South Africa for many years, “South Africa’s Brave New World: The Beloved Country Since the End of Apartheid”.
http://www.amazon.com/South-Africas-Brave-New-World/dp/B005M4AQKI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1341133128&sr=8-1&keywords=R.W+Johnson+beloved+country
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
What was the alternative to the truth and reconciliation commission?
Quality comment or not?
0 
0