Amnesty through violence
Posted by Rachel Hardesty on April 14th, 2009
In my crimes against humanity class, amnesty is often debated hotly. Should people who have committed crimes against humanity be granted amnesty? Merriam Webb Dictionary defines amnesty as the granting of pardons to large groups of individuals; pardon is defined as the remission of penalties by official warrant. Truth commissions have granted amnesties in exchange for truthful testimony about harms that have been done. My students often see these amnesties as grants of impunity rather than simply immunity from prosecution.
This weekend I read that in Zimbabwe, members of Mugabe’s party ZANU-PF, fearful that his protection will not last much longer, particularly now there are powersharing agreements, are using abduction and violence to barter for amnesty.
Researching crimes against humanity I discovered a massacre of Shona farmers that I did not know about: Matabeleland in 1983. Mugabe sent his 5th Brigade to Matabeleland and killed large numbers of people. Mugabe is Shona himself as were large numbers of these soldiers so I am puzzled as to the reasons for this massacre which the website CAHZ calls “genocide”.
This distressing Youtube film of testimony by survivors gives some details: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCdVLOmQFxI
CAHZ is a site maintained by Zimbabwean human rights attorneys who acknowledge that human rights abuses have abounded throughout the history of Rhodesia and Zimbabwe.
The genocide is called Gukurahundi which CAHZ suggests is a Shona word for “the early rain which washes away the chaff before spring”. http://www.cahz.org/genocide.html
The NYT article (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/10/world/africa/10zimbabwe.html) where I started to learn about the crimes against humanity in Zimbabwe suggests that while some in the opposition party are repelled by the idea of amnesties others want to simply move forward. The names are English and African respectively. I wonder again about cultural perspectives on restorative justice - is either necessarily not restorative in its intention?
And so amnesties become currency to be appropriated by the same means for which they are demanded. How tragically, cynically ironic. Surely they must be refused to those who deal this way. Surely! Otherwise impunity remains unchallenged.