Peace and Justice in a prolonged war: Sierra Leone case

Can Justice and Peace co-exist in a prolonged war? But I would cast a doubt on the part which runs, in a case of prolonged war like Sierra Leone, - this phrase particularly the word in can be interpreted that still a war is going on. Then, Justice and Peace can not possibly co-exist if there is still a war. Thus, I would change the word in to after a prolonged war. Only then I would agree to the co-existence of justice and peace. Why?

I am an optimist. I believe that anything good is possible if the world including me wills it. Justice and Peace are human virtues. As human, I yearn for those virtues to exist in the world. All the parties involved in the war are humans or have humanity in themselves. Justice and Peace can be drawn from their humanity. How wonderful the human world will be if Justice and Peace reign in the world. Many human rights activists and peace workers will be out of job, but it will be perfectly fine for them since it is their and everyone's dream to have a world devoid of injustice and war.

It is often said that one can only understand and make sense of one thing through its opposite or absence of it. To understand Justice, let me talk about injustice then. Injustice occurs when one is deprived of what is due to her/him. It happens to a landless farmer, jailed "terrorists" like in Guantanamo Bay without trial, dismissal of employee without due process, demolition of houses without advanced notice, orphans whose parents are killed by either rebels or government forces, children who are forced to work or fight in wars, and many other examples of injustices. So the courses of Justice in these examples are land to the farmers, trial to the accused, due process to the dismissed employee, advanced notices to the informal settlers, court's conviction of the killers and traffickers, and emancipation and rehabilitation of children from the wretched conditions.

War like in Sierra Leone takes place because two or more groups compete for a resource/s and have a conflicting goal/s. So Peace can be understood here as the cooperation or partnership of two or more groups in communal resource/s and having common and shared goal/s.

I would argue that Justice and Peace can happen and co-exist after a prolonged war like in Sierra Leone. Then, what could have been done in Sierra Leone to make this a reality?

The peace settlement could have been the best venue for Justice and Peace to happen in Sierra Leone. But the parties involved bungled it with the blanket amnesty clause which would not address the crimes of the combatants and leaders. Unaddressed and unresolved crimes mean injustice to the victims. The parties were more concerned with ending the war, and not with the injustices. This was, in my mind, a blunder. Leaving the injustices unaddressed would result to a fragile and superficial peace. This is not the Peace I have in mind.

What could have been done in the beginning are the following; 1) call for ceasefire on all parties, 2) continue engaging the rebels and government to peace settlement without preconditions, 3) prosecute those rebels who were captured, keep Sankoh in jail and allow the rebels to choose and send their representatives to the negotiation, 4) familiarize the parties to objective and existing options such as Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Special Court, Amnesty and Pardon, and other matters relevant to the resolution of the war, 5) establish and define the role of the UN and national and international civil society in the negotiation, 6) cite the importance and necessity of a Special Court in a peace settlement to give justice to those who have been aggrieved and violated, 7) assure the parties of the wide-ranging and all-out support of the international community on the process and outcome of the negotiation, 8) plan out the DDR program for all combatants, and 9) after the DD, schedule a presidential election to submit the leaders' fate to the will of the people.

It would have been another story if these had been done in the beginning. I believe that it would have been a better story with both Justice and Peace reigning in Sierra Leone. Or am I being too optimistic here? I would say it does not hurt to yearn and desire the good things for the world like Justice and Peace. I believe that both can coexist because I dream of that scenario. That dream motivates me to pursue this program of peace studies.

Children commanders in post-conflict scenario

In conflicts, horrendous crimes are committed. Increasingly in recent conflicts, children commanders and soldiers are being used and ubiquitous in combat encounters. Should children be punished for their crimes committed during conflicts?

I would say that crimes, in whatever forms, should be addressed by a justice system that is credible, fair, and transparent. Regardless of age, gender, class, ethnicity and nationality of the offender, s/he should be brought to a "sense" of justice which entails punishment to the offender. Therefore, children are no exception in this case.

In the context of what happened in Sierra Leone, children commanders committed atrocities during its civil war in the 1990s. Should they be punished? Why? How?

Children commanders should be punished because what they did are heinous crimes. I have no reservation in saying this. Crimes are punishable by national and/or international law. How much more are the crimes of these magnitude and gravity! There should be no exception in addressing these horrendous crimes.

However, the case of children commanders in Sierra Leone merits a number of procedural considerations in addressing their crimes. First, they should not be tried along with the adult commanders and soldiers. Second, a specialized court should be created to hear the cases of these young offenders. This specialized court should be impartial and gain the consent and trust of the offenders. Third, the offenders should be represented by a counsel who has an understanding of child psychology and psychiatry. My concern why I propose this consideration is that by revisiting the dreadful memories of the civil war, it may trigger repulsive behaviors or thoughts from the offenders. These behaviors and thoughts may be incriminating and delay the proceedings.

If I were to act as a counsel in defense of the children commanders, I would argue the following; mandate and jurisdiction of the court, command responsibility, diminished culpability, proportionality of the crimes to the children's capability, and appeal to the tendency to be sympathetic to the children.

The first argument, mandate and jurisdiction of the court to handles such cases, assumes that a specialized court was created for the purpose of hearing these cases. I believe that these cases should not be lodged to an
ordinary court in Sierra Leone since any judge could have been a party to or victim of the civil war. The argument is designed to undermine the court and delay the proceedings. Any delay of the resolution of the cases is a gain for the defense. Still, I think it is important to lay out the source of the mandate and jurisdiction of the court. Without a mandate and jurisdiction, the court has no right to try and confer a resolution to the cases.

The second argument, command responsibility, asserts that these children did not act on their own. They were ordered to do those atrocious acts and they performed their duties as children commanders. It should be the leaders who were responsible for these crimes. If these children did not act on the orders, they would be killed. Kill or be killed, I think the children only chose to keep their lives.

The third argument, diminished culpability, invokes the characteristics of children as actors. It is widely known that children make erratic and irrational actions, can be easily manipulated and are driven by impulsive force. Testimonies of being drugged, kidnapped, trained, and brainwashed can bolster this argument.

The fourth argument, proportionality of the crimes to the children's capability, contends that these children could not do such crimes if they were on their right minds. They were not capable of doing those crimes without a threat and manipulation from the adults.

The fifth argument, appeal to the tendency to be sympathetic to children, draws the judge and court to see the damage of the war to these children. They are also victims of the war. They did not start it. They did not have any intention or motive except not to be killed if they defied orders. Plus, they have barely begun living and yet you will deprive them of their future.

In the end, these arguments, in my view, would not stand in the court to successfully defend what the children commanders did. What these arguments can do is to minimize the punishment that they will get. Because they committed crimes, they should be punished.

Again, these are children commanders who ordered and led other children to commit atrocious crimes. Fot the child soldiers who followed orders, this topic will be discussed in other blog entry.