Congo and Colombia thread a peace needle

Rebels groups in Congo and Colombia each declared this week they would lay down their arms. But the hard part now is deciding what punishment – or mercy – they deserve.

Reuters
Congolese soldiers gather after M23 rebel fighters surrendered near the eastern town of Goma Nov. 5.

Both Colombia and Congo are home to two of the world’s most protracted civil conflicts. But this week, the main rebel groups in both countries announced they are ready to lay down their arms and rejoin society. While this brings hope to these violent trouble spots in Latin America and Africa, the hardest part may be yet to come.

Each country must now decide which of the rebels should face punishment for past atrocities, especially crimes against humanity. Government leaders must balance a desire for peace and progress with a desire for retribution and deterrence. They need to seek justice and expose the truth but possibly grant forgiveness to rebels who are contrite about the suffering they have caused.

In Colombia, the Marxist guerrilla group known as FARC agreed Wednesday that a final peace agreement with the government would “imply the prohibition on using violence as a method of political action.” Last August, it stated that it recognizes the “harshness and pain provoked by our forces.”

Both statements are a breakthrough after a year of difficult negotiations between the government and FARC, whose forces have dwindled to some 8,000. They mark a turning point in a conflict dating back to the 1960s that has killed an estimated 220,000 people.

In return, Colombian officials are offering a way for FARC to transform itself into a political party. Part of the deal is that FARC would run candidates in elections in temporary, special congressional districts, mainly in areas where it still has some popular support.

Still to be worked out are issues of reparations for victims and possible amnesty for most of the rebels. Some FARC leaders are accused of massacres, kidnappings, forced displacements, and child recruitment.

The government is leaning toward investigating atrocities and setting up a “truth commission” to allow rebels to admit past wrongs. This may rankle Colombians who seek vengeance or worry that any leniency might encourage rebellions in the future. For now, the government says justice will be applied to “the maximum ones responsible,” or FARC leaders with the worst records and exhibiting the least contrition.

“We want this to be a peace with everyone and for everyone,” said Humberto de la Calle, the government’s chief negotiator

In Congo, the rebel group called M23, which has about 1,700 fighters, said Monday it would lay down its arms after a 20-month rebellion that has terrorized the eastern part of the Central African country.

Made up largely of former Congolese soldiers, the group had been in peace talks in recent months. But a military offensive by Congo’s Army and United Nations forces helped push M23 to surrender. The group’s head, Bertrand Bisimwa, said M23 would “pursue by purely political means the search for solutions to the root causes which led to its creation.”

Now Congolese leaders must decide which rebels to put on trial and which to reintegrate into the Army. Last year, M23 took over Goma, a city of 1 million people, wreaking havoc until they were forced to flee.

Colombia and Congo each have unique political and cultural needs in striking a balance between reconciliation and justice. The rest of the world may have a voice in making sure the worst crimes, such as mass rape or wholesale slaughter, don’t go unpunished. But each nation must define how much of either mercy or retribution should be a tool of justice.

Justice and mercy have one similar goal – the rehabilitation of individual offenders. With that recognition, peace can come to these troubled lands, ending cycles of violence and revenge.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.