Tweet
This stood out to me:
Q: It seems you so firmly believe in this kind of justice in continuity?
A: And, not only because the outside world cares what happened in Srebrenica. We do. We clearly do. We also believe as a factual matter, as a historical matter – it is very difficult to see lasting peace and stability without this kind of justice. So the more Serbia recognizes, the Bosnian government recognizes what atrocities were committed by its forces, the Croatian government grapples as well, more progress you will see and the more forward we move.
My emphasis. It’s difficult to achieve peace with justice. The history of the world’s negotiated peaces is typically a history in which at least one side feels compelled to compromise what its constituents feel are its just rights. What if peace and two states in Israel/Palestine requires the division of Jerusalem? What if peace and reconciliation in Iraq requires the division of Kirkuk? What if peace and reconciliation in Afghanistan requires the most misogynist Taliban members entering the government? Etc.
That’s why it’s important not to view peace as something that breaks out when a document gets signed. It’s a process of reconciliation between people who have been wronged and who have every impulse to seek what they consider justice after that document is issued, with all the attendant risks of backsliding into war under the pretext of peace. That requires a recognition that peace and justice are daily struggles, without clear endpoints, and so valuable that they require the frustrating progress of inches when justice demands miles. But of all the slogans that masquerade as policy, “No justice, no peace” is actually a pretty useful one.
6 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
Well said.
The continued existence of Gitmo, policy proposals to allow for indefinite detention without charges or trials, and perceived if not actual lack of accountability for the actions of both US military and US contractors against civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan certainly make the prospect of any kind of reconciliation dim at best.
See, for example, this diary, about the appointment of James Mattis as Centcom commander: “We Have a Saying in Irak Which Translates into English As Follows“. He paints a picture of an Iraq where reconciliation is getting harder and harder to come by:
I’d be very interested in your reaction, especially to his proposal for peace:
“Dim” may be too hopeful a word.
One might almost get the impression that with official policies like the ones I listed above, US leaders (civilian and military) disagree with your view of what “peace” is.
Uberwacko Pam Geller argues that the Muslims of Srebrenica only got what they deserved.
I thought the official adminsitration position is that when evil is done and crimes committed, we are supposed to look forward and not dwell in justiceland?
After all, we’re getting ready to put Obama’s policy facilitator – who hasn’t seen and Exec branch crime she wouldn’t be willing to cover up if it was politically helpful, on the Sup Ct – a court that has already refused to hear cases from Khalid el-Masri and Maher Arar.
What does that say about the Democratic Party and American values when it comes to justice?
Thanks, Mary. I was afraid no one would make explicit the conclusion.
I once thought we needed to persuade Obama that “looking backward” and prosecuting wrongdoers is necessary to move forward, but now I don’t see the point. We’ll have to wait for someone else (yeah, I’m a cockeyed optimist sometimes) to get elected.
For what it’s worth, Dnevni Avaz is a Bosniak (Muslim) publication. Hence the griping about Tadic.
Thanks for the correction!