21 Mar Justice v. Democratic Amnesty
U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs had a very brief press conference in Algeria yesterday where he endorsed Algeria’s Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation (for a brief summary see here). The Charter was suspiciously but overwhelmingly endorsed by a referendum last year and ends judicial proceedings against alleged extremist Islamic terrorists. Of course, it also exonerates Algerian security forces that were alleged to have committed abuses in putting down the alleged Islamic terrorists.
The U.S. position squarely backs the Charter, as it must given the Charter’s democratic pedigree. But groups like Amnesty International just as squarely oppose it.
One problem with the Amnesty position: suppose the Algerian vote really was free and fair. If 90 plus percent of the population wants this deal to try to settle past grievances, shouldn’t they be able to? I understand the very real problems of impunity and justice, but isn’t there room for a democratically-endorsed peace as well?
Julian,
Perhaps you could provide a link to Helena Cobban’s comments at Transitional Justice Forum (under ‘Algeria’ in the topical index). She provides an interesting argument against Amnesty’s position.
And, for a sophisticated analytical treatment of the complex moral, legal, political and psychological issues raised in cases similar to the Algerian quandary or dilemma, one might look at Jon Elster’s Closing the Books: Transitional Justice in Historical Perspective (CUP, 2004). In particular, Part II (pp. 79-271), the longer (and non-historical) section of the book is most helpful. One cannot read this without concluding that there are no easy answers here and that it’s inevitable some parties to and victims of such conflicts will be left–whatever the ‘solution’ or way forward–(understandably) unsatisfied, unrequited, angry, and so forth.