Reconciliation as a Political Concept : Some Observations and Remarks

This paper summarizes a number of observations and reflections on the phenomenon and practice called “reconciliation”, in connection to peace processes and peace-building initiatives. In particular it draws from processes followed by the author, in East Timor in particular, but also in Europe, the Middle East and, more recently, Colombia. It is a discussion paper. The purpose is to invite to reflection, both on the level of perspectives as well as concepts. It is developed from a lecture called “The Challenge of Reconciliation” held at Universidad Nacional, Bogotá, in December 2003. Following substantial revision since then (making the text more than double in length) I realize that today not many parts of the original text are still recognizable from that presentation, then organized by the Embassy of Sweden in Colombia, as part of its commitment to the peace process in that country. I have accepted the invitation of the Center of Political and International Studies (Centro de Estudios Políticos e Internacionales, CEPI), at Universidad del Rosario, to publish this work in progress, to reach a broader public in Colombia and contribute to the discussion on econciliation. The field of “political reconciliation” is evolving, definitions of reconciliation are abounding, and different contributors have different takes on the subject matter, quite naturally. It is the author’s view, that reconciliation can and should not be “held captive” of any particular field of study. It relates to fundamental, some would call it existential, issues of meaning, trust, contradictions, and suffering in the midst of a violent, political reality. It is wise to tread softly on ground with such a complex bottom

Trading Justice for Peace? Reframing reconciliation in TRC processes in South Africa, Canada and Nordic countries

Conflict in its various manifestations continues to be a defining feature in many places throughout the world. In an attempt to address such conflict, various forms of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) have been introduced to facilitate the transition from social conflict to a new dispensation. The introduction and subsequent proceedings of TRCs in South Africa, Canada and Norway are widely regarded as good examples of this approach. Against this background, a number of researchers from VID Specialized University and the University of the Western Cape had an exploratory meeting in Oslo in 2018 where the possibility for a joint research project under the broad theme of ‘discourses on reconciliation’ was first discussed. This led to two further research symposia in Cape Town and Tromsø in 2019. With the inclusion of specialists working on the Canadian Truth and Reconciliation process, these meetings demonstrated common ground and a shared understanding of the issues at stake. Moreover, it pointed to the differences between the South African, Canadian and Norwegian Commissions. In comparing the South African, Canadian and Norwegian experiences, researchers identified that these countries were, in fact, at different stages of their respective truth and reconciliation processes. This has prompted scholars to revisit and problematise these processes in relation to ongoing societal challenges. In all cases, it is quite apparent that reconciliation between individuals and groups remains a significant challenge

Trading Justice for Peace? Reframing reconciliation in TRC processes in South Africa, Canada and Nordic countries

Conflict in its various manifestations continues to be a defining feature in many places throughout the world. In an attempt to address such conflict, various forms of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) have been introduced to facilitate the transition from social conflict to a new dispensation. The introduction and subsequent proceedings of TRCs in South Africa, Canada and Norway are widely regarded as good examples of this approach. Against this background, a number of researchers from VID Specialized University and the University of the Western Cape had an exploratory meeting in Oslo in 2018 where the possibility for a joint research project under the broad theme of ‘discourses on reconciliation’ was first discussed. This led to two further research symposia in Cape Town and Tromsø in 2019. With the inclusion of specialists working on the Canadian Truth and Reconciliation process, these meetings demonstrated common ground and a shared understanding of the issues at stake. Moreover, it pointed to the differences between the South African, Canadian and Norwegian Commissions. In comparing the South African, Canadian and Norwegian experiences, researchers identified that these countries were, in fact, at different stages of their respective truth and reconciliation processes. This has prompted scholars to revisit and problematise these processes in relation to ongoing societal challenges. In all cases, it is quite apparent that reconciliation between individuals and groups remains a significant challenge

Foreword

Migration is a phenomenon as old as humanity. Conflicts, armed and non-armed, are similarly as old as humanity”. Both phenomena express the commitment of individuals and groups to change life – by necessity or ideology, and sometimes both. Most often at great cost for everyone involved.In this issue of JASS we will have the opportunity to reflect on these two cardinal aspects of social life as they appear in the modern world and in today’s political structures – with the European Union as a case in point.Migration and wars are among the most profound upheavals of social order that humankind has to address – migration as a long-term, steady movement of individuals, and wars as a comparatively short-term and organized imposition of political and social structures. What security is, under such circumstances, is in itself a complex matter; unfortunately worsened under a year of a global pandemic.JASS introduces in this Issue the concept of authors that are ”early career researchers”. It reflects an ambition of JASS editors to invite and introduce research-oriented advanced students, for example PhD level students, to the handicraft of article writing and early sharing of research findings – a skill that is of use throughout any academic career, and to the benefit of all the readers of JASS

Foreword

With this first issue of the Journal of Autonomy and Security Studies (JASS) we wish to introduce a journal which, as we see it, contributes to the shaping of an area that has up to now not been addressed by any other journal.JASS brings together and reflects three fields of study, which together make up a particular core problematique: autonomy, security, and minority issues. We believe that these issues are of great importance in the complex and multilevel world of today, and that by bringing them together new insights may be gained.In this first issue we present three articles, which may look thematically very different. Nevertheless, they all reflect perspectives on the outer world that emanate – although not totally, of course – from relations between perceived centres and peripheries in colonial, regional and multilevel settings characterised by some asymmetry.It should come as no surprise that asymmetry, whether formulated in terms of classical power terms, or as a globalization perspective, is likely to be a recurrent theoretical and empirical point of departure for studies in a journal that deals with autonomy, minority and security issues. This first issue of JASS is an illustration of this

Foreword

As citizens, with different backgrounds and identities, and as members of anything from modern interest groups to historic communities, to what extent should we allow states, global networks, and international organisations to regulate, guide, and control our lives?The question is classic, and without a fixed answer.When some hitherto non-regulated aspects of life become regulated by some type of external forces it is often said that they become politicised – or securitised, monetised, or maybe more recently – medicalised.Autonomous regions sometimes experience such a development due to the autonomy- based capacity to regulate life in more detail than state-level decision-making or legislation normally allows. Obviously, this can – or maybe should – be seen as a mechanism of protection, and not necessarily of regulation for its own sake.Be that as it may, in this issue of Journal of Autonomy and Security Studies (JASS)  we will be acquainted with the politicisation of travel as an international activity, of the external and internal application of conditions for daily life in Ålandic communities, and of the application of different perspectives regarding autonomy within a national security policy. In all three cases the external imposes itself upon the individual and upon the local – i.e. the two levels of existence for which autonomy vs imposition is the most critical balancing act.Besides the direct content of any one article, common links of the articles – such as those indicated above – give the JASS reading an extra dimension and add to our reflection of the global state of affairs. This seems of particular importance to note during 2020, which, in a sad way, has put the relation between the global and the local at the center of virtually any action and human initiative for a long time.Autonomy and security will therefore also in the future be very relevant concepts for understanding global relations and local politics. JASS is one of only a few platforms dedicated to analysis and discussion centered around these concepts. You are most welcome to send your contributions – such as articles, comments, or research notes – to bring forward our common knowledge development process in these matters

Foreword

Relations between the center and periphery is a classical political, legal and also cultural issue. As any observer of international relations in recent months have noted, these relations have come to the fore in a number of both national and international agendas.This is true not only for the European continent, but for on-going conflicts in Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America which as well are examples of the challenges that states are exposed to, when dealing with actors based on identity interests, not the least when they are expressed as cross-border political forces.In the Nordic region, the year 2017 has given a reason for a certain form of intro-spection in relation to the centenary of the Republic of Finland, which at the end of the First World War became independent from the position as a Grand Duchy of Russia. From then on, it was only Iceland that waited for its independence in the Nordic countries, something which was made possible in connection to the next major European War, WWII. Also in this context, the territorial dimensions of identity issues were critical dimensions in the processes that led up to settlements that also hold today.As the currently ongoing negotiations on a new Autonomy Act illustrates, the autonomy of Åland has been regularly revised and developed during the almost 100 years under which it is has been operative. This has kept the issue both alive and controlled. The autonomy – which in the case of Åland and Finland is part of a larger package of instruments – was at the time of its formation part of a rethinking of a wider international perspective on state formation, self-determination and the creation of a modern state system. The established European system of a balance of power was exposed to ideas of geopolitics and the rights of colonies, peaceful conflict resolution and modern state formation.Some of these dimensions are treated in detail in this Issue of JASS. It brings together autonomy and security dimensions on a time-line of one hundred years, thus analysing not only a way of thinking one hundred years ago, but also giving an example of how key actors in a center-periphery relation have dealt with the situation, up till today

Foreword

It is not far-fetched to assume that readers of this Journal reflect systematically on the concept of ”autonomy” and its relation to unfolding political developments in the world. The critical question is of course to what extent – if any – that the central idea of autonomy is useful in mitigating, managing and/or settling issues and conflicts that cause human suffering if unresolved. The starting point of any analysis along this line is, of course, that the state system – particularly in its more simplistic versions – is not able to deal with the multifaceted aspects of people's identity, traditions, and political history. The granting of ”autonomy” by a majority or a central state is in that context an expression of either self-interest or sensitivity, or maybe both. Such an assumption is a typical approach that autonomy studies take.But ”autonomy” can also be studied from another perspective. It is also a concept for self-reflection. Any territory or group granted a degree of autonomy has to decide, and to come to terms with, what it de facto means in the specific situation. The question is then what can be done when being autonomous under a set of given circumstances? This is the inner side of autonomy, and that is a perspective that in principle cannot be replaced, or obtained, by someone from outside, and in particular not from the autonomy-granting power. Autonomies have to think for themselves about what they want and what it is possible to do.Both perspectives – the internal and the external – are necessary for an autonomy to be effective and executed as intended. This is the challenge in analysis of, as well as in the political practice of, autonomy. If applied, ”autonomy” is probably one of the most flexible expressions available of a structural mechanism that can guide the organization of states and communities in a way that reflects respect and dignity for individuals and groups.As this issue of the Journal of Autonomy and Security Studies illustrates, political parties are important platforms for both internal reflection and external action. Along with other texts on autonomy implementation issues, we hope this issue demonstrates the many-faceted and therefore politically useful character of the autonomy concept

Foreword

Readers of The Journal of Autonomy and Security (JASS) studies are well aware of the widening content of the concept of “security” in recent decades. While this development has expanded the agenda of security studies, it has also resulted in a more developed understanding of the fact that “security” – whatever it means in a given situation – is the consequence of other circumstances than itself. Of course, this is a healthy development. It creates both empirical and theoretical challenges.It is no longer possible to talk about security in general terms in a meaningful way. Instead, more specific approaches are needed. This Issue of JASS is a very good example of this: it contains articles that range from a traditionally formulated context of security, to identity, collective security and ontological security.In particular, the context of security through demilitarisation is highlighted in some articles, while in other a more explicit or implicit comparative perspective is taken. Åland, with its international regimes of demilitarisation and neutralisation, is put in perspective in relation to Svalbard as well as to Nagorno-Karabakh. An equally important dimension is the possibility to link security to human rights, or vice versa – something that is developed in an article on North Korea. Finally – and in between all of this – stands an article analysing the development of the identity and ontological security of the Åland Islands.While this Issue of JASS keeps security as a conceptual thread throughout, the autonomy dimension is not set aside, but is actually explicitly present in most of the articles. In this way we believe, in the editorial group, that the issues raised by the title of the Journal are approached in new and innovative ways

Foreword

It is a common view, held by scholars as well as many others in the public debate globally, that there is in many networks and regions globally a tendency towards polarization and sweeping generalizations in the exchange of views. This may very well be a true observation, and many argue that the debate as social interaction is losing ground.From a scholarly perspective, cleaning up a debate is nothing new: it is a classic and critical task to keep an eye on the use of vague or generalizing concepts in the trade. This is so both for the risk of imprecise findings and the risk of debates where the parties talk past one another. Nevertheless, academic work, including theories, are full of vague concepts, sometimes inspiring in their openness, but normally in need of draconic operationalizations to be useful for a more precise conversation and analysis. Examples are probably not needed.This journal deals with autonomy and security studies.  Both the autonomy and security concepts are in themselves challenging a static and uniform concept of, for instance, the state. But exceptions from the idea that states are uniform constitutional constructs are rather the rule than something strange. For anyone believing otherwise, a good reminder is A.P. Blaustein’s inventory of Constitutions of Dependencies and Special Sovereignties.This issue of JASS covers areas of security and autonomy among groups and individuals with very different but constitutionally regulated relations to their respective societies. It is a palette of issues that demand to be addressed, that come to the reader from within very different material situations, but with clearly comparable theoretical and practical implications.Through the articles in this issue of JASS the editors hope that spaces for insightful debate and open discussion – without conversations at cross-purposes – can be held at a time of a trend towards another direction in the wider public sphere