Over the past half century, dozens of civil wars have taken place in Asia, Europe and Africa. How have these nations dealt with war criminals after the wars ended? Which of the methods followed were more successful in healing the wounds of the civil war and achieving social reconciliation? This report explores the answers to these questions. One of the most challenging issues that civilizations face after emerging from civil war is the issue of addressing the impact of these wars on the social level, restoring collective memory and rebuilding a complete national identity. The most obvious models followed after the end of wars are amnesty and fact-finding committees. According to a researcher, the amnesty model has been followed in more than 30 countries and has caused countless risk because it is the foundation of silence and forgetfulness.
“Comprehensive amnesty; burial without justice”
This tactic to dealing with the legacy of civil wars involves the performing of laws and regulations aimed at forgiving crimes of a political nature during a certain period of time, whether during the civil war or during dictatorial rule. The amnesty represents a form of coexistence without justice, or serious efforts to restore social memory, preventing any social debate on the era and its material and moral consequences, since there is no public and organized debate about these behaviors and actions. So in reality, conflicts remain, and hate raises in people’s hearts. French writer and academic Pierre Bonissa says the modern amnesty model has been followed in more than 30 countries that have gone through civil war or dictatorship for a long time. He is the author of “Making the Enemy; or How to Kill with a Clear Conscience”, said: “This method of healing with the legacy of civil wars poses great risks because it is based on “silence and oblivion,” which produces dangerous contradictions and threatens civil peace. Also warns of the possibility of the return of the blindness of war at any moment. Another characteristic of this model is that it is subject to criticism and pressure from civil society organizations and international human rights organizations, which makes this solution to reveal the truth often subject to constant change, in order to expose the horrific crimes and genocides committed during civil war or dictatorship have happened.
In general, and by considering on the experience of other nations, it appears that agreeing to remain silent, forget and cover up the past without judging it, even if it is on a symbolic and spiritual level, does not ensure forgetting the past because each group of citizens tries to form its own memory to distinguish it from other groups, which leads to the development of hatred and revenge among social classes. While confronting the past, exposing and condemning the parties involved in crimes against humanity and providing justice to the victims allows for the restoration of social memory and moving beyond the past, by learning from it and reaching integration in a new social contract.
