Foreign Policy Blogs

Justice vs. Stability

Justice vs. Stability

It is a debate that invariably rears its head in parts of the world which have been scarred by the horrors of war, ethnic conflict, or genocide. Every government which assumes control of a country that suffers from the unfortunate reality of such a dark and tragic past must eventually confront how best to direct the nation on the path towards reconciliation. Do you go after the war criminals who committed acts of unspeakable revulsion, prosecuting them to the fullest extent of the law? Do you turn the page of history and resolve to look forward? These heavy questions will soon have to be answered by the political forces-that-be in Cambodia as the anticipated trials of four former Khmer Rouge members have now been scheduled for a late June commencement.

There are pros and cons to each choice and myriad case studies to provide empirical data for both perspectives. In Sierra Leone, for instance, an independent judicial body was established to try individuals who bore the “greatest responsibility” for crimes which were committed during the country’s civil war in the late 1990s. As of today, twenty individuals have been indicted. After apartheid was abolished in South Africa, however, the idea of a special court was never inculcated by African National Congress leaders. Instead, the country’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission was set up to give victims a voice whilst guaranteeing amnesty for perpetrators of the crimes in exchange for honest testimony. Truth commissions have since been replicated across the globe in areas of post-conflict transition, from Latin America countries such as El Salvador and Chile, to Asian states such as Timor-Leste and South Korea. Finding the nexus between ascertaining the truth, and providing justice for victims by way of criminal prosecutions is an exceptionally delicate issue requiring the utmost sensitivity for political leaders, many of whom may have been involved in abhorrent criminal acts during the conflict themselves.

In Cambodia, where the brutal Khmer Rouge regime was ultimately responsible for the deaths of approximately 1.5 million people (or 1/5th of the country’s entire population), legal analysts postulated that the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (tribunal, in Cambodian parlance) which was created in 2003 would be “seen as a model of international justice and reconciliation for mass atrocities like genocide.” But as of today, only five Khmer Rouge leaders have been indicted by the tribunal. While popular support for prosecution amongst survivors of the Khmer Rouge’s reign of terror remains high, political pressure from Phnom Penh has curtailed the extent of the court’s prosecution mechanisms. The trials, the government argues, will only serve to destabilize the country. In fact, it has been four long years since indictments were handed down on “Brother Number Two” Nuon Chea, former foreign minister Ieng Sary, his wife and ex-social affairs minister Ieng Thirith, and former head of state Khieu Samphan; only this past week has a date of June 27th been set to begin trial proceedings. The tribunal has also been contemplating bringing indictments against five additional unnamed Khmer Rouge members, a move which the government in Phnom Penh is vehemently against.

There is no right or wrong answer to the justice vs. stability debate, and opinions are likely to vary across the sociopolitical continuum on which they lie. On the one hand, past is prologue, and we must always be cognizant to remember the conditions in which such crimes were allowed to be cultivated. However, there is an argument to be made about looking forward and moving on. But can a people ever truly move on without closure? Ultimately, I believe they cannot, and it is why I disagree with the Cambodian government’s assertion that the Khmer Rouge trials will be a distraction to the country or, worse, will serve to ignite the tension, animosity and hatred that underpinned the Khmer Rouge regime. In addition to justice is the issue of forgiveness. From South Africa to Sierra Leone to Rwanda, truth commissions and reconciliation workshops have produced something – forgiveness – that is manifest to such an extraordinary extent in the context of decades of ethnic or social strife. No victim is ever mandated to forgive, but the possibility gives more credence to the proponents of the trials. With the trials of the four Khmer Rouge members scheduled to begin June 27th, here is hoping that pressure from the international community, as well as civil society, is enough to allow the trials to proceed so that victims can indeed obtain much needed closure.

 

Author

Tim LaRocco

Tim LaRocco is an adjunct professor of political science at St. Joseph's College in New York. He was previously a Southeast Asia based journalist and his articles have appeared in a variety of political affairs publications. He is also the author of "Hegemony 101: Great Power Behavior in the Regional Domain" (Lambert, 2013). Tim splits his time between Long Island, New York and Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Twitter: @TheRealMrTim.