Moving forward: an assessment of ongoing initiatives

Text of a lecture by Prof Rajiva Wijesinha MP, adviser on reconciliation to the President given at the panel discussion on reconciliation arranged by the Consortium of Humanitarian Agencies’ Reconciliation and Development for Peace Section on December 15

Auden's reminder of the need for togetherness to avoid annihilation, which he expressed in ‘September 1939’, evoking the horrors of the war that caused such destruction in Europe, is of particular significance in Sri Lanka today. We have got over the horrors of the terrorism that plagued us for two decades and more. We have also got now to get over the bitterness and suspicion that prompted that terrorism.

What happened in Post-War Europe can perhaps provide object lessons for us, especially when contrasted with the settlements following the First World War, which led not to peace and reconciliation but to continuing confrontation. The victors of 1918 were determined to rub in their triumph, and engaged in self-aggrandisement of horrendous proportions. The pretext that they had fought for freedom was nullified by the even more oppressive controls they imposed on Asia and Africa and the Middle East. In the last named area, with continuing catastrophic effects on the world at large, exploitation of resources by the victors of 1918 replaced the comparatively benign and economically inclusive control of the Turkish Empire.

Ruthless power

The fierce competition to plunder Africa, sanctified by the preposterous carving up of the continent in the 1884 Treaty of Berlin, was refined by the elimination of Germany, and the incorporation of Tanzania and present-day Namibia and other entities into larger empires. And India saw the extraordinary spectacle of refined repression, combined with an insidious policy of sowing division and dissension through the presentation of the oppressor as the only hope for minorities - a game that continues to be played, to the finish as Noel Coward might have averred, in so many theatres of potential conflict around the world today.

That card had proved useful in the destruction of the great land empires of Europe. But while the creation of small nation states by the dismembering of Germany and Austria could have been justified by the burgeoning nationalism of the areas they had previously controlled, no such indulgence can be granted to the triumphalism that screwed down the nails on the coffin of German aspirations. The result was Hitler and September 1939, following on the swallowing of Austria and Czechoslovakia, where the race card had been played in reverse.

Contrast that with the settlement after the Second World War. Germany lay decimated, with what seemed indeed a screwing down of nails even more destructive than in 1918, given what we now know to have been the gratuitous bombing of Dresden. That was paralleled in Asia by Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which was an even more evil manifestation of ruthless power.

But then the miracle happened. Though there were instances of prisoners being treated appallingly, by the Americans and the French as well as the Soviet Union, as documented by James Bacque (the British seem I should note to have been comparatively decent), this was only in the immediate aftermath of war. Thousands died, over 50,000 according to a rebuttal of the worst case scenario, but it was not long before attitudes changed. So, instead of reparations we had the Marshall Plan, the development of economic integration and through these the entrenchment of political inter-dependency.

The result is what we can see now, a Europe in which reconciliation reigns.

I should I suppose note in passing, to indicate that some prejudices still linger, the claims of exponents of the theory of relentless German expansionism who aver that, through the imposition of Teutonic discipline on the self-indulgence of Southern Europe, Chancellor Merkel has achieved what Kaiser Wilhelm and Hitler failed to do. The theory is amusing, but even its proponents must grant that it was through logic and finance rather than violence that the Euro was sold to Europe (apart from the gloriously independent British shopkeepers), and there is at least some argument still that the benefits of this uniformity outweigh its disadvantages.

Great contribution

This indulgence to the vanquished, the co-option of the German people as equal partners in economic and social and then political activity, was not accompanied by any regrets about the war, and the necessity to have got rid of Hitler and the mindset he represented. This did not mean that the Allies failed to recognize the contribution their own behaviour, way back in the aftermath of the First World War, had made to the resentful radicalization of the German people. But despite all that, there was no excuse for the excesses in which Hitler had engaged, and one important aspect of asserting this perspective was the involvement of the German people themselves.

In this regard I should note the great contribution made by the Jewish people to universal acceptance of this view. The relentless assertion of Nazi guilt in this regard, as well as collaboration in this on the part of the German people - and indeed others in Europe, though they have got away comparatively lightly - has made it impossible for any except determined outsiders to resurrect Nazi philosophy or practice.

And with this failure, the understanding then that Nazism will not be resurrected, it has been easier for the Allies to recognize their own contribution during the twenties to the emergence of such extremism.

Concomitantly, the recognition by many European governments of the role their people too played in persecution of Jews has helped to limit sanctimoniousness about the Nazis. In passing I should note that the bending over backwards we see currently with regard to homosexuality may have something to do with the guilt felt about homosexuals too, given how the Nazis treated them, though sadly the equally deserving Roma have not benefited from such indulgence. But I suppose there are limits to what states will do to make up for abuse of minorities, when such recompense might be resented by voters. Acknowledgment of guilt with regard to the Jews was made easier one realizes by the fact that reparation was at the expense of Palestinians rather than the perpetrators of the excesses.

Former LTTE cadres

One significant aspect of the involvement of the German people themselves in the new mindset that the Allies succeeded in creating was the leading role played by former Nazis and Nazi supporters, particularly those who provided economic or philosophic input without having engaged actively in criminal activity (though it has been argued that that distinction too was not always observed, after Nuremberg had to all intents and purposes wiped the slate clean). I am reminded of this when I hear the Tamil National Alliance (or at least those elements in it who were not forced themselves into collaboration with or at least acquiescence in LTTE posturing or even activity) complain that former LTTE cadres are now with the government.

They should study the examples of areas in which reconciliation was achieved successfully after bitter conflict, and realize from what happened in Europe after the Second World War that forgiveness cannot be grudging or carefully calculated always.

Of course the process in Europe was helped by the onset of the Cold War. Perhaps one should not give too much credit to those who pursued reconciliation without reservations since the motive was as much self-defence against the Soviet Union as altruism. But even the recognition of the benefits of cooperation through democratic regimes rather than enforced allegiance was a remarkable achievement, and to have got it across to the population at large, a population that had been brainwashed into othering their historical enemies (as one noted in comics about the war as late as the sixties) was an achievement.

To be continued