More and more, most peace roundtables usually involve top politicians and military leaders, who negotiate, sign, and/or benefit from the agreement. What is usually and conspicuously absent from peace negotiations is broad-based participation by those who should benefit in the first place: citizens; more specifically, victims are usually voiceless.
This state of affairs has led to some arguments whereby some school of thoughts argue that peace negotiations with armed groups legitimize and reward violence, or give credibility to unreasonable or non-negotiable and unrealistic demands. This argument comes in the wake of the perception that the noble goal of bringing peace and justice has been lost to the objective of satisfying the warring parties. It is perceived more about political and economic needs of the warring parties. Although violent conflicts differ in complexity and ambiguity of their issues, although generally violent conflicts ensue as a result of interest-based and or value-based. Interest-based disputes can be framed by either broadening or focusing on the issues. Value-based disputes can be reframed either by reinterpreting the issues as interests, avoiding the value elements, or by appealing to broader shared values.
Since conflicts usually have their roots in the social systems of the society, in order to achieve long lasting solutions to violent conflicts, transformation should be staged on the level of both larger social problems and specific disputes. The primary goal should be to create a just relationship. This approach would form the basis for transformation of individuals, society, and build relationships and systems. With this goal in mind, the mediator ought to work with the parties to identify the best way to reach the desirable solutions to the conflict. In this model, mediation stops being a goal in itself, but rather, a moral framework for peace. However in situations of power imbalance, (which is often the case), and institutionalized violence, advocacy might be a better way of transforming the conflict to achieve peace and justice.
While the debate on merits and demerits of mediation rages on the best model of mediations and other related matters, the victims' views or perception on the model of mediation are often not sought. All attention is always on the factions. In some very informal manner I have consulted some victims on this matter. While this community believes engaging warring factions into a negotiated settlement is the best way to attain sustainable peace, they also feel that most peace agreements ignore victims' needs, and even if it is included in peace agreements, the victims' components are hardly ever implemented. Some victims believe that peace agreements only reward those that are responsible for their sufferings.
Another school of thought argues that even if mediation succeeds and reaches peace agreements, there is need to institute the equivalent of "Truth and Reconciliation Commission" to expose what happened during the violent conflict. They argue that truth-telling is important for the following reasons:
- To know the root causes of the conflict in order to prevent future conflicts;
- Bring closure – to learn what happened to loved ones that might still be missing;
- Bring closure – lay the spirits of the dead to rest and cleans the area of misfortune;
- Bring closure – give perpetrators opportunity to show remorse;
- Initiate reparations – receive symbolic as well as material compensation;
- Enhance the spirit of reconciliation.
But there are those who argue against truth-telling that it will:
- Open up old wounds and would make reconciliation difficult;
- Fear of retaliation from perpetrators, a case in point, the Rwandan Gacaca whereby 24 witnesses were killed;
- Fear of revenge on perceived perpetrators;
- Fear of re-traumatization – going back to what happened brings back tormenting memories and disappointment and might affect reconciliation process.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
