Examine the Different
Means By Which a Post-Peace Settlement Can
Seek To Deal With a Legacy of Gross Human Rights Abuses During
The Conflict.
INTRODUCTION
As a normative issue, Human Rights abuses can, perhaps alone,
claim to be the most universally-charged issue of recent time
both in academia and in the field of prevention. The ‘CNN
Effect’ has highlighted within the international community
an apparent increase in the violation of Human Rights around
the globe in a rapidly expanding information environment .
The most obvious example of abuses is in situations of internal
conflict or political instability. However, conflicts and
instability are problematic to define. It can be argued that
they derive from actors with revolutionary intent. Revolutions
can be defined as a period of rapid transformational change
or as a revolt against authority1a. Although not a new phenomena
the post cold war era has highlighted a disaggregation of
conflicts and a rise in the concomitant issues surrounding
human rights. Rwanda, Liberia, Chechnya, Palestine and Israel
to name but a few are held culpable of abuses in the last
decade or so. Resolving conflicts necessitate the involvement
of a number of actors. These essentially involve the protagonists
and also a form of mediation. Often bilateral consensus is
problematic to achieve. Therefore, mediation frequently includes
an interested actor from the international political community.
This is mainly evident with the involvement of supranational
organisations, like the European Union (EU), intergovernmental
organisations (IGO’s), such as the UN, or nongovernmental
organisations (NGO’s). It is apparent that any movement
towards a peace settlement must accommodate the neoliberal
agenda of a post Cold War geopolitical landscape dominated
by western thought and ideology. Although to advance western
hegemony would suggest complicity. Post peace settlements
must seek to come upon a consensus that will contend with
the full extent of political instability and the issues that
derive from that instability. In the interests of this paper
we shall highlight the case of contending with the legacy
of Human Rights abuses during conflicts and the resulting
mandate of settlement implementation. Although, it is apparent
that abuses are merely one aspect of resolutions that needs
to be addressed. The resolution process, of course, takes
many guises and its chief aim is a long-term panacea for instability.
Democratisation, pluralism and institution building are three
fundamentals to the process. The international community also
have responsibilities in their commitment in securing lasting
peace. However, it becomes evident that post peace settlements
often fall short of the intended prescription. Often the agreements
are based on a loose knowledge of the deeply imbedded issues.
Practicalities dictate that speed is essential in ensuring
successful accords . With this in mind we shall outline and
analyse the methods of dealing with the legacies of Human
Rights abuses in post peace settlements.
Problems of Achieving Peace Settlements
Within the larger peace process, smaller sub goals have been
identified. Successful peace settlements, of course, are determined
by the success of dialogue. However, it is the smaller, but
no less important, aims and success of sub goals of peace
implementation that are componential to addressing abuses
in post conflict situations although they may not be critical
.
Human Rights, disarmament, economic reconstruction or civilian
security are advanced as fundamental to a settlement. Those
assisting in the settlement will need to review and decide between
the most salient issues and divide them into primary and secondary
tasks for ending instability and promoting peace. In some of
these situations, Human Rights issues are considered secondary
to ending the war. Citing a proliferation of interested NGO’s
in the 1990’s, the authors assert that sub-goals and their
success have no empirical validation . They further argue that
all goals in a peace process are contingent on available resources
and permissible strategies. Therefore, no matter the instruments
or mechanisms employed to achieve stability, its success is
based on practicalities. Although it is not the intention of
this paper to fully analyse the full peace process it is important
to highlight that the transition to a post peace settlement
is a fluid process. This fluidity results in a consensus that
is based on compromise. Sustainable compromise, therefore, is
also inherently fluid and necessarily so . Frameworks for peace
settlement, this paper will suggest, can only operate as a fluid
benchmark throughout the transition to post peace and beyond.
Indeed, fluidity is necessary due to the low density nature
of instability. Conventional warfare, it is argued, has become
obsolete. Trinitarian warfare has been replaced by non-trinitarian
warfare5a. Trinitarian warfare traditionally is battle between
two opposing armies circumventing civilian involvement. Non-trinitarian
warfare, therefore, utilises methods unknown and anathema
to traditional warfare. This is apparent in areas and territories
such as Africa, Chechnya and Israel and Palestine where guerrilla
forces and terrorists fight a war where collateral damage
is seen as significant to the cause. Therefore, human rights
abuses are a daily hazard in such situations. It may be that
the actors guilty of human rights abuses are belligerent fanatics
joyous in indiscriminate murder and blood lust, which in turn
increases the problem of abuses5b.
Post-Peace Settlements
As we have previously alluded to, NGO’s play a critical
role in the development and implementation of post peace settlements.
Perhaps the most active of all NGO’s in the field of
Human Rights issues is Amnesty International both in academia
and practice. They have advanced a fifteen point programme
for implementing Human Rights in post conflict situations
. Most of these points stand alone as guidelines in promoting
peace processing although a number overlap. Due to space restrictions
we shall outline and evaluate only the most crucial. Firstly,
Amnesty contends, the international community must energetically
accommodate issues of Human Rights in all post-peace keeping
situations. The onus is on the various international actors
to monitor and support both parties in achieving a full and
justifiable settlement. Indeed Amnesty state “[the international
community] must be prepared to publicly condemn human rights
violations during and after the settlement process and to
ensure that recommendations for institutional reform are fully
and properly implemented… [and] … properly evaluated
at the end of the operation .” The variation on theory
and practice, however, becomes transparent. Amnesty’s
guidelines are notably ignored in the case of Uganda for example.
President Museveni has stated a commitment to good governance
and economic reforms in keeping with the mandate of the International
Financial Institutions (IFI) and the majority of western governments.
The institutions required for good governance and liberalism
such as multi party democracy, free and open voting and transparent
mandarin-ship is absent. A no party ‘movement’
system exists whereby the President is autocratic. Any challenge
to the status quo is repressed, the Human Rights Watch (HRW)
agency has found. The President has also been implicated in
the oppression of his own people. This occurs with little
comment from the international community. Cynics would state
that this was due to Uganda displaying economic growth unparalleled
in that part of Africa. However, the main concern of HRW is
an international community disregarding abuses could dramatically
undermine the efficacy of HR across the continent . The main
concern, clearly, is democratisation and the positive work
on Human Rights could be diminished if the western powers
continue to lack resolve on a clear, coherent and consistent
policy.
However, the NGO’s themselves have been criticised
for their policy attitude in a post peace settlement situation.
Due to their level of experience and expertise and through
operating within a humanitarian ethic sans frontiers, NGO’s
demand, in many instances, that Human Rights issues must be
tackled at the earliest stage and also attain a central theme
in the peace dialogue. Indeed as Hugo Slim advances, “To
play this role, humanitarians try to become strangely disinterested
people – painted in the colours of impartiality, neutrality
and independence .” The contrast in views is illuminated
through Stedman’s analysis. He states that NGO’s,
paradoxically, are guilty of asking for both too much and
too little in the process . The charge, he found, is that
on the one hand their doctrinaire approach precludes implementation
in environments ill-suited or not ready for such work. And
have also strictly refused to aid newly democratising states
in improving abuse records and improving the human rights
quota in all the component parts of the process. It would
seem therefore that he is suggesting that Amnesty’s
15-point plan is akin to a ‘one size fits all’
panacea, which circumstantially can not attain the necessary
fluidity.
In contrast to the silence within the international community
on the abuses in Uganda, Amnesty declares that there should
be no international ‘silent witnesses’. This includes
the field personnel who witness or receive allegations of
violations. Military, civilian or humanitarian operatives
must communicate through official channels all reports of
violations, which the UN will address appropriately by way
of preventive measures. The contrast between the rhetoric
and reality becomes apparent if we take the Turkish/Kurdish
situation in the 1990’s as an example. It is suggested
that the EU is complicit in security and political interests
in the region thereby precluding concrete action by the Commission
on violations of Human Rights. Collusion at the highest level
has been accused despite a wealth of Human Rights violations
. Bilateral and multilateral initiatives have succumbed to
the greater interest of economics and politics, therefore,
which in turn makes the post peace settlement problematic
to achieve as the Kurdish internally displaced people (IDP)
continue to suffer alleged systematic abuse.
Amnesty has requested that all peace agreements should have
a Human Rights chapter nested within them. Based on International
Human Rights law all accords necessarily must cede to this
position to garner the support of the international community.
A set of standards to be laid down and met by the actors is
essential, in the view of Amnesty, to maintain peace and initiate
the building-blocks of long term panacea for previous instability
and Human Rights abuses. Furthermore, accords based on international
human rights law and standards must necessarily receive ratification
from the international community. This would involve all interested
actors from NGO’s, IGO’s and their agencies and
supranational actors. The result, evidently, is a proper and
effective mechanism for monitoring the improvement of Human
Rights in fledgling states and post peace settlements. Indeed,
it is argued that the EU should take a more proactive role
in developing models and frameworks which are based on international
human rights law and provides mechanisms for human rights
protection through a strong human rights provision .
The purpose of the chapters implemented within accords, as
outlined, need ratification and verification for its efficacy.
This would be achieved through an independent and effective
Human rights verifying agency. Bringing experience and expertise
to the process, the specialists would monitor the post-peacekeeping
operation. Alongside the verification and ratification of
human rights aspects, the mandate would be further legitimised
through assisting in the institution building necessary for
effective and good governance, legislative reform and education
and training of the mandarins charged with developing the
democratising regime. Validation of independent monitoring
is critical if the process is to be enhanced and a return
to the conflict is to be avoided. By conforming to international
standards a clear and consistent apparatus can be implemented
resulting in a new standard for the protagonists to attain.
An important component of the post peace settlement is building
the institutions necessary for good governance. Indeed, to
quote the USIP at some length, “Peace rests upon democratisation
and the creation of structures and practices which will, in
the future, prevent political exclusion, ideological intolerance
and polarisation… It is essential to overcome the deficiencies
and weaknesses in civil institutions, which are frequently
inaccessible to most of the population, and the prevalence
of patterns of thought and behaviour that have been detrimental
to the rights and freedom of the citizen. The signing of an
agreement on a firm and lasting peace provides a historic
opportunity to overcome the after effects of past armed confrontation
and ideological clashes and to rebuild and strengthen institutions
in accordance with the needs of national development and reconciliation.”
A developed and mature independent judiciary is crucial for
ensuring past human rights violations is brought to universal
justice, Amnesty asserts. Impartial investigations into human
rights violations aimed at uncovering the truth and attaching
culpability onto the perpetrators can only be achieved as
the institutions are sufficiently accomplished in the field
of justice distribution and administration. Therefore, external
assistance, certainly in the initial stages, is paramount
as the institutions evolve. Often the indigenous judicial
system is a source of major structural weakness. Faults and
deficiencies are inherent through an antiquated legal system
which displays slow proceedings, poor office management systems,
a lack of transparency which in turn leads to corruption at
worst and inefficiency at best . It is clear, certainly in
some occasions, that developing the necessary institutions
to best deal with a legacy of Human Rights abuses is at best
problematic.
To facilitate the process of implementing human rights in
a post peace situation, Amnesty advocate the use of onsite
human rights monitoring. The mandate for these actors derives
from independently verifying compliance of the obligations
bestowed upon the protagonists. Corrective actions should
be undertaken on an as and when necessary basis. The agency
responsible for this should also be allowed universal access,
within all sectors of society and relevant institutions, to
allow an effective functioning role of its tasks. Further,
this role is wholly expected to complement not supplant or
succumb to the larger peace settlement. It is evident that
all mechanisms for attaining and maintaining peace are interdependent
upon each other, although, as has been noted, some of these
instruments assume a greater role which is contingent upon
the circumstances. To further enhance the role of onsite monitoring
an international civilian police monitor with frequent and
public reporting of its actions and findings published. A
fundamental of democracy is transparency in all areas of the
state, with the exception of matters of security. Nascent
liberal regimes, arguably, are not well versed in the intricacies
of transparency and indeed owe their support to huge amounts
of mobilisation in toppling the old regime . However, a result
of maintaining its leadership a regime may feel compelled
to resort to tactics illegalised in liberal regimes. The responsibility
of the international civilian police monitor, therefore, is
firstly to ensure that there is no return to conflict and
secondly international law standards, objectives and criminal
justice standards are adhered to throughout the transitional
period. To guarantee the effectiveness and explicit mandate
of these actors an international analysis of its activities
should regularly be undertaken.
Critically, Amnesty appreciate that in the field of Human
Rights short term successes need to be translated into long-term
and lasting establishment of the underlying principles. The
mechanism’s the NGO advance include further institution
building for the long term protection of human rights and
the restitution of the rule of law. Having implemented a post
peace settlement it is vital that its success is countered
through long-term initiatives. The creation of national Commissions
and ombudsmen may encourage respect for Human Rights domestically.
It is important to note, at this point, that this is the first
initiative in Amnesty’s 15-point programme which allows
for domestic autonomy in dealing with Human Rights violations.
By allowing a domestically developed aspect of adjudication
it is hoped that the new regime will be socialised into accepting
the new parameters that have already been developed through
international facilitation. Moreover, while these new parameters
are being constituted, consideration should be given to interim
relationships with international tribunals specialising on
these issues.
To further enhance the smooth running of the transition,
education in Human rights issues and advisory assistance programmes
have been mooted by Amnesty. The newly developing institutions
of the judiciary and law enforcement and indeed lawyers should
be provided with education and technical knowledge in maintaining
the accepted international standard of Human Rights law. Although
it is just as important that the standard and guidelines are
made universally available. This is a process that people
in developed countries take for granted. However, in post
conflict situations, delivering vital information and education
of the citizens in an international standard has to be countered
with winning the battle for ‘the hearts and minds’
of the population. It is a fear of many that imposing beliefs
in a top down manner can be viewed as a hegemonic struggle
which may lead to a return to conflict and the concomitant
issues of human rights violations. Universal education, this
paper asserts, is the most critical tool that the international
community can contribute to overcoming conflict and distrust.
Protecting refugees, IDP’s and returnees allows an
accordance with international refugee law. In parallel to
international standards on Human Rights, international refugee
law should be adhered to at all times. Repatriation must include
a monitoring programme to allow for the most effective and
least harmful method of protection. Amnesty contends that
repatriation must only derive from a voluntary basis and be
supervised internationally thus disbarring refoulement within
instable territories. However, the Declaration of Principles
(DoP) developed in Oslo to assist the Middle East peace process
has been criticised for failing in this area. It is proposed
that the DoP lacks an independent international dimension
in ensuring the safe return of Palestinian refugees or Israeli
guarantees for its withdrawal from Palestinian declared territories
. Even though Amnesty have provided a working guideline for
smooth transitions it is clear on this evidence that again
the international community reacts in instances where it is
economically or politically prudent to do so. Amnesty, as
an NGO, has developed a Universal Principle on Peacekeeping
operations. It seems unfortunate that there is not an intergovernmental
approach that is either coherent or consistent with these
issues.
Gender issues are important to the transitional process.
Approaching the gender dimension includes educating, firstly,
the peacekeeping personnel on local cultural traditions of
women. Clearly this includes observing the rights and dignity
of woman in conflict and post conflict situations. Components
of post peace settlements, it is expected, will include experts
on violence to women, including rape and sexual abuse. However,
in Uganda it has been reported that, as discussed earlier,
Human rights abuses continue within the ‘movement’
system. In contrast, the movement system allows for a greater
deal of involvement by women. The National Resistance Movement
(NRM) administration has greatly empowered women and continues
to do so by increasing the voice of women in government .
It is evident that the rhetoric of an NGO is becoming a reality
in the dynamics of Ugandan administration. Although it has
not been possible to discover what Uganda has learned from
Amnesty and vice versa.
The UN is obliged to adhere to its own UN Declaration of
Human Rights rather surprisingly. Amnesty states that the
UN should declare its adherence to the international standard.
A sense of paradox exists here as it was the UN originally
who initiated the international standard through its Declarations
and Charters and continues monitoring throughout the world
the adherence to those values - although not always successfully.
However, Amnesty asserts that the UN should ensure that all
peacekeeping personnel be trained and educated in the universal
principles of human rights. Mechanisms to achieve these goals
should be implemented at the earliest time to allow for international
monitoring and evaluation. Any violations by peacekeeping
personnel, therefore, should be detected early and brought
to justice. Moreover, any attacks on the international peace
keeping personnel by the protagonists of the peace settlements
should be dealt with similarly. National or international
jurisdiction should be meted out in accordance with international
law on war crimes and international norms and values. War
crimes, of course, should be tried in a fair and transparent
manner as not to compromise the international community in
any underhandedness. Encouraging a permanent institution for
the prosecution of such crimes would go some way to facilitating
theprocess.
Finally, it may seem like a common sense approach but that
does not detract from the advice that international actors
should seek to promote and protect human rights throughout
the post peace phase. By a continued evaluation of its own
agencies the UN should continue to develop its own policies
towards assisting nascent post conflict states in achieving
peace and dealing with the legacy of human rights abuses.
Assistance should last as long as necessary to allow for the
most effective implementation of the settlement.
Conclusion
As we have seen post peace settlements are hugely problematic
to achieve successfully. Post conflict situations display
a number of issues that go beyond merely managing human rights
abuses. As the reports of human rights abuses continue to
grow, the ‘orphans of the cold war’ often require
multilateral assistance in achieving political, social and
economic stability. Evidence would seem to suggest that achieving
all three together is idealistic but empirically problematic,
perhaps impossible, to achieve. No matter the level of intervention
or assistance offered by the international community it would
seem that the peace process is a fragile long drawn out affair,
which necessitates a deeper understanding of the issues surrounding
the conflict and the resulting Human rights violations. It
seems clear that a ‘one size fits all’ panacea
is highly unlikely. The intricacies of local and regional
conflict do not translate into all conflicts. The existence
of nontrinitarian warfare in these situations further problematises
the progress of successful settlements. Therefore it is a
more fluid process that is required to; firstly, achieve peace
then a lasting settlement that is multilaterally agreed upon.
However, although NGO involvement has been criticised for
its lack of consistency in policy formulation and implementation
it seems the framework developed by Amnesty International,
through its team of experts and specialists should go some
way to providing a benchmark for future resolutions in this
field. A legacy of Human Rights abuses is managed within newly
developing institutions. Institutionalising the transition
to peace and evolving and maturing institutions and constitutions
does not take into account the reaction of belligerent and
intransigent individuals, however.
-
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
-
15-Point Program for Implementing
Human Rights in International Peace-Keeping Operations
http://web.amnesty.org/web/web.nsf/printpages/AboutAI_recs_peace
-
A Political and Economic Role
for the EU http://www.badil.org/Publications/Monograph/Pol.Eco.Role.EU.pdf
http://www.badil.org
-
Barnes (1997) EU Member States:
silent witnesses to Turkey’s human rights record
http://www.oneworld.org/amnesty/press/5mar_turkey.html
Cate (2002) http://www.comminit.com/ctrends2002/sld-7007.html
-
Hostile to Democracy: XI The Role
of the International Community http://www.hrw.org/1999/Uganweb-11.htm
http://www.hrw.org/1999/uganda/uganweb-02.htm
-
Last (2003) The Online Journal
of Peace and Conflict Resolution http://trinstitute.org/ojpcr/5_1last.pdf
-
Laquer, W., (2001) ‘The
Changing Face of Terrorism’ in Kegley & Wittkopf
(2001) The Global Agenda: Issues and Perspectives New
York: McGraw-Hill pp 82-88
-
Malone (2001) Preface to Implementing
Peace Agreements @ http://www.ipacademy.org
http://www.trinstitute.org /ojpcr/5_!tures.htm
-
McClelland, J.S., (1996) ‘A
History of Western Political Thought’ Hampshire:
Routledge
Nelson, B.R., (1992) ‘Western Political Thought:
From Socrates to the Age of Ideology’ London: Prentice
Hall
-
Stedman (2001) Implementing Peace
Agreements in Civil Wars @ http://www.ipacademy.org
Slim (2003) Humanitarianism with Borders? NGO’s,
Belligerent Military Forces and Humanitarian Action http://www.jha.ac/articles/a118.htm
-
Tures, J., (2003) To Protect Democracy
(Not Practice It): Explanations of Dyadic Democratic Intervention
(DDI) http://www.trinstitute.org /ojpcr/5_!tures.htm
Van Creveld, M., (1991) ‘The Transformation of War’
New York: TFP
-
United States Institute of Peace:
Agreement on the Strengthening of Civilian Power and on
the Role of Armed Forces in a Democratic Society. http://www.usip.org/library/pa/guatemala/guat_960919.html
|
