APOLOGIES FOR PAST WRONGS AND GRIEVANCES

PREAMBLE: Disputes over past conflicts often overshadow present and future relations of peoples and states for generations.

Contemporary political debates concerning recent and past conflicts are extensive in number, demonstrating that perceptions matter in today’s politics, and that conflicts do not necessarily resolve by ending a war or signing a treaty.

Negotiating an agreement can send a positive signal to the parties involved that they are willing to end the injustices and violence, but the emotional issues created can set the stage for resumption of hostilities even after a negotiated settlement is reached. Thus, in order for a conflict to be truly resolved there needs to be a lengthy process of reconciliation aimed at eradicating the emotional barriers between those involved and resuming trust between the victims and perpetrators.

In this blog we offer an overview of the underlying issues, mostly from a generic standpoint, keeping in mind that there are numerous conflicts of this nature around the world. In preparation, references 1, 2 and 3 were used extensively, while references 4 and 5 also gave additional valuable perspective.

We also include extracts from a Case Study by Frank Brennan S.J. (reference 1) as Visiting Presidential Scholar, Santa Clara University. He is a professor of law in the Institute of Legal Studies at the Australian Catholic University and officer of the Order of Australia (AO) for services to Aboriginal Australians, particularly as an advocate in the areas of law, social justice and reconciliation.

APOLOGIES FOR PAST WRONGS AND GRIEVANCES
Disputes over a common history after past conflicts often overshadow the present and future relations of peoples and states for many generations. Contemporary political debates concerning conflicts in the recent as well as the more distant past are extensive in number, demonstrating that past perceptions matter in today’s politics, and that conflicts do not necessarily resolve by ending a war or signing a treaty. Negotiating an agreement can send a positive signal to the parties involved that they are willing to end the injustices and violence, but the emotional issues created can cause a danger of resuming hostilities even after coming to a negotiated settlement. Thus, in order for a conflict to be truly resolved there needs to be a lengthy process of reconciliation aimed at eradicating the emotional barriers between those involved and resuming trust between the victims and perpetrators.

But what measures can most effectively bring about reconciliation and accommodate the process of restoring trust? Justice generally demands that the perpetrators are punished, and that victims are restored to the position they were in before the injustice occurred. Often this is done either by restoring a stolen property, or, when this is impossible, victims should receive compensation equal to the value of what was unjustly taken from them, possibly accompanied by compensation for the harm resulting from the wrong. This is considered to be sufficient enough to address the moral trauma incurred by the victim and satisfy feelings of vengeance. But what if the initial perpetrators and the victims cannot be clearly identified because they no longer exist? Who should be held accountable for past injustices, what measures should be taken to correct the wrongs committed in the past, or indeed should anything be done at all?

National apologies serve as official acknowledgments of collective responsibility for historical injustices delivered by states to other states or communities. An apology is usually delivered by individuals representing the state, but having a distinctly political character is perceived to be indicative of the opinion of the collective – usually, the nation. National apologies have received a great deal of attention in a variety of academic disciplines such as law, sociology, psychology and philosophy, triggered by the large number of apologies issued lately as well as the perception that they could in a way repair the past thus contributing to settling the emotional issues brought about by historic injustice. However, have apologies become too commonplace, such that what it means to deliver or receive a national apology is likely to be vague and ambiguous? Further, are we in an “age of apology” for nations and other institutions, or is there a greater historical consciousness operating; or, are we witnessing simply a trend of a “culture of confession”, which at another level, accessible media sites and celebrity hosts bring to the forefront?

Happily, or at least optimistically, we are progressing towards ensuring emerging human rights globally and a role for morality in international affairs. In recent decades, aggrieved groups have made claims for the recognition of past or present victimization, seeking apologies as the means by which their history is officially acknowledged, and their identity reclaimed. As the distance between event and apology lengthens, the “apology moment” is made more possible as present leaders who were not personally implicated in past policies enable the separation of the personal from the political.

The collective or political apology has emerged as a rhetorical tool in international relations, national politics, truth commissions, and the self-reflective practice of a range of institutions, including churches. The stated purpose is usually reconciliation, though damage control or self-justification may also be suspected. Yet how do we make sense of what is happening, and develop an accounting of the possibilities and limits of such apologies?

There are many examples of political leaders expressing regret, remorse or apologising to the victims or their descendants for past wrongdoings. The Vatican remains the leader in the number of apologies issued by a political body, having delivered more than 300 apologies for the crimes perpetrated by the Catholic Church throughout years; Queen Elisabeth II apologised for the wrongs done to Maoris in New Zealand; British Prime Minister Tony Blair apologised for the lack of help during the potato famine in Ireland in 1840s; German Chancellor Willy Brandt in 1970 acknowledged responsibility for the Holocaust; In 1988, the US Congress apologised to Japanese Americans for their internment and discriminatory treatment during World War II. In 2008, the US Senate passed the Indian Health Care Improvement Act acknowledging "a long history of official depredations and ill-conceived policies by the United States Government regarding Indian tribes" and offering "an apology to all Native Peoples on behalf of the United States." Following a number of separate apologies by states, the US congressional apologised for slavery in June 2009; in Australia 2008, the national Parliament apologised to the Aboriginal people; in 2008 an apology was made by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to former students of Indian Residential Schools.

To the extent that representatives of institutions view apologies as a sign of strength rather than weakness, residing in a moral universal larger than the narrow interests of any one group, then collective apologies are likely to proliferate. Yet, political apologies may also reflect a particular historical moment. What are political apologies about, at root - justice, or reconciliation? Are they about collective memories, or psychological healing? Are complicated calculations of self-interest involved? Are they about meeting a need for a victimized group? How have particular apologies affected a situation? What does effectiveness look like? And do they provide previously unrecognized windows into the nature and function of the institution apologizing? Clearly, further work needs to be done when constructing, analyzing and determining the outcomes of an “apology”.

For some, national apologies are seen as empty symbolic politics, a way of winning favour without paying a real price with (practical) monetary restitution. Others perceive symbolic gestures such as apologies as an important element in acknowledging responsibility, but insist that they ought to be followed by material commitments.

In the academic literature, an apology is perceived as the central and most important element in rectifying past injustices, without which attempts to renew the relationship between the parties involved remains focused on retributive means, based on punishment and easing the feelings of vengeance. Ideally, rectification and reconciliation should be aimed towards establishing positive relations in the future, rather than settling the debts with the past and instituting punishment. Therefore attaching worth to only practical and financial means of rectification can contribute to justice but is not sufficient to eliminate the emotional barriers between the victims and the perpetrators. What is crucial for any conflict to truly be resolved is the phase of reconciliation, which morally accommodates the victims and the perpetrators, establishing new relations of trust, not tainted by past misconducts.

If closely examined, how far do national apologies go towards the “ideal”, and how much does self-interest motivate the act, with little necessary dialogue from both sides, and diminished moral meaning?

Reparative action should only be motivated by the wish to repair the implications of injustices, instead of being means of achieving a potentially favourable result: using a theoretical framework of “virtue ethics”, it expresses the agent’s moral character and acts as the starting point for further discussion.

One of the basic reasons for scepticism about national apologies, transgenerational responsibilities and reparative action in general is the objection that they misidentify the victims and the perpetrators, with the present players “standing in” those acting out and being on the receiving end of past transgressions. However, ignoring past wrongdoings simply because the perpetrators or the victims are no longer alive seems blind to the role historic debates and outcomes play in contemporary politics and life. The basic moral principles of responsibility should apply to all transgenerational searches for justice alike. In order for apologies to be taken seriously, certain guiding principles or standards to follow would enhance their effectiveness.

Until more consideration and discussion is devoted to this research, the debate around national apologies will remain contested and divided, and past discriminations and injustices will continue to hinder progressive relationships beneficial to all.

Extracts - A Case Study by Frank Brennan
In Australia 2008, "the Parliament of Australia" uttered the performative "sorry", and only after all State and Territory Parliaments, churches and other social welfare agencies had done the same. It apologised in its own name acknowledging that earlier parliaments and governments had "inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss" on persons who were their "fellow Australians." The parliament saw its apology as a first step acknowledging the past followed by a second step: "laying claim to a future that embraces all Australians." The parliament pledged itself and future parliaments to "a future based on mutual respect, mutual resolve and mutual responsibility." This apology by the elected parliament came eleven years after individual citizens had started a concerted national campaign of personal apologies for past wrongs and present ongoing consequences.

Brennan suggests the following lessons from the Australian experience:
1. A national apology must be a response to sustained requests by identifiable victims.
2. A national apology must build upon individual apologies and apologies by agencies involved in previous wrongdoing, and not substitute for them.
3. The "we" who apologise must not speak on behalf of the living who are not willing parties to the apology.
4. The "we" who apologise must not presume to speak on behalf of the deceased, applying contemporary moral standards to past behaviour which was legal and judged justifiable at the time.
5. The "we" who apologise must intend to express through their performative utterance of the word "sorry" not only sympathy and regret but also collective responsibility for the ongoing effects of past actions, which "we" now have cause to regret, offering sympathy and entitled assistance to the victims still living and their descendants who have also been affected by those past actions.
6. The "we" who apologise should identify with the collective "we" of the past, who, being the same agent in the polity, approved these past actions or who, at least, failed to counter these past actions when having a duty to act in the interests of the victims.
7. The victims and their descendants should be willing to accept the apology.
8. The "we" (binding the future collective "we") and the victims and their descendants should be prepared to commit themselves to putting the past behind them and working together for a new future.
9. The apology should be backed by a firm commitment by the "we" to make resources available to put right the ongoing adverse effects of past actions, while also leaving open the possibility of payment of compensation (reparations) in proven cases of wrongs committed on identifiable persons.

REFERENCES
1. Brennan F. Stepping Forward to Right Historical Wrongs: National Apologies - Lessons From Down Under. Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. Santa Clara University. March 2008 http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/focusareas/global_ethics/apologies.html Accessed April 14, 2012.
2. Kaleja A. The Role of National Apologies in Rectifying Historical Injustices. MSc International Political Theory University of Edinburgh. August, 2010 PDF document http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&sugexp=frgbld&gs_nf=1&cp=66&gs_id=4&xhr=t&q=The+Role+of+National+Apologies+in+Rectifying+Historical+Injustices&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&site=&source=hp&oq=The+Role+of+National+Apologies+in+Rectifying+Historical+Injustices&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=1d8e567df3a74d9a&biw=1280&bih=822 Accessed April 14, 2012.
3. Bergen JM. Reconciling Past and Present. A Review Essay on Collective Apologies.
Journal of Religion, Conflict, and Peace. Volume 2. Issue 2, Spring 2009
http://www.religionconflictpeace.org/node/52 Accessed April 14, 2012.
4. Pettigrove G. Apologies, Reparations and the Question of Inherited Guilt. Public Affairs Quarterly (2003), 17,4: 319-348. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/40441363?uid=3739400&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=3737720&uid=4&sid=56037396173 Accessed April 14, 2012.
5. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Bringing Them Home: The Stolen Children Report. Australian Government Publishing Service, 1997. http://www.hreoc.gov.au/social_justice/bth_report/index.html Accessed April 14, 2012.