Is reconciliation possible after violence and mass atrocities?

By

Is reconciliation possible after violence and mass atrocities?

Thesis Statement

Within the study defining reconciliation, it is a work in progress and it is very significant after violence and mass atrocities. There is no consensus on how to define reconciliation, nonetheless fair amount of agreement on its role in the aftermath of atrocities.

Introduction

The purpose of the study is to determine that whether reconciliation is possible after violence and mass atrocities or not. A futile desire to change the past often consumes people in a tortuous game of “what if” as does a desire for understanding what happened, why it happened and who is responsible. Blame is common in these circumstances.

So too is the quest for revenge and the quest for closure; some seek one or the other, some seek both (Eugenia, 2009, p.96). These quests can be found in the aftermath of the series of violent conflicts that plagued the people of Rwanda and former Yugoslavia in the nineteen nineties and thereafter. It can be also found in Cambodia and South Africa, Argentina, East Timor and Sierra Leone.

There is no shortage of trauma in the world today, just as there is no shortage of violent conflict. What to make of these emotions and how they intersect in the daily lives of people struggling in the present to face the past and carve out a future is a key question running through this inquiry. The particular people in focus in this inquiry are those of the countries of former Yugoslavia, particularly Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Serbia (Eugenia, 2009, p.99).

Reconciliation is frequently described as both a process and an end goal (Skaar et al., 2005; Dwyer, 2003), often with little explanation of the relationship between the two. There are those who place reconciliation within the contexts of truth and justice; others house reconciliation within conflict transformation and peace building settings.

The different ways of characterizing reconciliation suggest there may not be one phenomenon that is reconciliation, but rather a set of phenomena-reconciliation(s). The following provides a brief introduction to contemporary conceptions of reconciliation and how they are applied in after violence and mass atrocities contexts. To accommodate problems of definition, both Siri Gloppen (2005) and Tristan Anne Borer (2004) propose ways of thinking about reconciliation that are not too rigid and that encompass multiple meanings.

Discussion

In this section the researcher aims to determine the significance of the reconciliation after violence and mass atrocities. Furthermore, the researcher focuses on to determine whether reconciliation possible after violence and mass atrocities significance of the reconciliation after violence and mass atrocities Complexities are, of course, involved in attempting reconciliation, but it is not a grand or mysterious undertaking.

Study on reconciliation in the after violence and mass atrocities context, the researcher discusses: a) conceptions of reconciliation and attempts at definition; b) the significance of reconciliation in after violence and mass atrocities contexts; c) Reconciliation in Rwanda; d) Reconciliation in former Yugoslavia. The main purpose of this chapter ...