The exiting and intense program of Humanity in Action came to its last day today, before we are to write our Action Research papers for the next week. The theme of the day was "Post conflict societies" and the discussions evolved around the question of how reconciliation is possible after horrible genocides, as those in Bosnia and Rwanda, which followed us as examples during the whole day. Furthermore, we explored the role of the youth in the process of building new democracies - a theme that to a great extend corresponds with our current focus as young HIA fellows, and therefore the whole day gave us insight with great importance for our future actions as HIA senior fellows, hopefully working for the promotion of human rights and the appraisal of minorities, in one way or another.
For our first lecture we had the chance of hearing about the Bosnian society before, under and after the war from 1991 to 1995, from two great experts in the field of the Bosnian society's challenges of today: that is our two Bosnian fellows, Inga og Igor, with inputs from Alena, who is a Bosnian refugee. Now we have track on Bosnians geography, history and political system, but even more important we got to know how the war, and the societal changes following upon it, has affected the Bosnian inhabitants, since we heard it from themselves in flesh and blood. An example of this is Inga's story on how she as a pupil in school participated in censuring schoolbooks around 1998, with a primitive black marking-pen, and Alena then added that the Bosnian refugees in Denmark, who received lessons in Bosnian, were reading the same books, only without the censuring. This experience shows which strength it is for us as HIA fellows to be together with people from different cultures and societies, with each of our unique story to tell. The Bosnian fellows' stories are without a doubt important to be told - and not the least heard!
Concentrating on reconciliation, the speakers, former HIA Fellows Elisabeth Moltke and Tine Brondum, presenting contrasting examples as to how countries who have faced human rights atrocities, such as genocide, move forward. They demonstrated through using two very different examples of reconciliation, presenting Bosnia and Rwanda more then a decade after the genocides in each had ended. Both examples had dramatic pitfalls. In Bosnia, the three governments dictated by the Dayton Peace Agreement are unable to effective come together. Each of the three government, for example, teach the history of the Bosnian War differently, but the Bosnian government, in stark contrast, pursues reconciliation in a far different manner then the Rwandan government. In Rwanda, the government has chosen to move past the genocide by eliminating a conversation about the topic. For example, the Rwandan government has made it state law and policy not distinguish ethnicity. While on the surface the efforts sound good, the people of Rwanda have no ability to properly address the anguish of the genocide. The strict authoritarian regime in Rwanda has implemented tremendous structure into the lives of the Rwandan citizens. Bosnia, on the other contrary, has attempted to maintain a free democracy to facilitate reconciliation. The two examples presented different ways in which governments try to move pass atrocities such as genocide.
With the day dedicated to reconciliation after atrocity, the next lecture featured Thomas Brudholm, PhD and researcher at the DIIS and Copenhagen University. His lecture focused on the concept of forgiveness. Dr. Brudholm argues, quite articulately, that forgiveness is over emphasized after atrocities. Arguing that the emphasis on forgiveness is, in many possible cases, detrimental to the long term emotional development of victims of mass atrocity. His argument presents the pressuring of victims by society and government to forgive as something contrary to the healthy development of victims. The victims are unable to properly go through the range of emotions necessary because of this forced forgiveness. Also, Dr. Brudholm refutes the argument that victims need to forgive their attackers in order to live a productive life. The lecture illustrated a seldom-discussed view of how governments and societies should seek to initiate reconciliation.
Associate Professor and Director of the Centre of Multi-ethnic Traumatic Stress Research at University of Copenhagen, Peter Berliner, presented the final lecture of the day. Peter has a lot of experience in working rights-based with vulnerable people in so different countries as Norway and Guatemala. Peter's main message, which frames the last day of our program in HIA very well, was how crucial it is always to listen to people and to learn from their stories - exactly as we did during the morning lecture by Inga and Igor. He puts emphasis on the important point that every situation is a new situation, and that we have to approach every new situation by listening to the people in it. As both an academic and a practitioner, he explored the balance between being the knowledge-bearer and undertaking an appreciative approach by saying that you have to put your knowledge in a bag and put the bag on your own back, so it does not get in the way of you and the person you meet. For us as HIA fellows, this is a lesson to be remembered. This very community-oriented, buttom-up approach is closely intertwined with the human rights-based approach and emphasise the importance of not only speaking human rights on the political level, but also - and just as important - on the community level with the civil society. In short, this can be highlighted in following imperative: Do not pretend to know about the other, but ask and listen!
No comments:
Post a Comment