 |
Click Here to see video
 Richard J. Goldstone is a justice of the Constitutional Court of South Africa, which has been trusted with the task of interpreting the new South African Constitution and supervising the country’s transition into democracy. He is a member of the international panel established in August 1997 by the government of Argentina to monitor the inquiry into Nazi activity in the republic since 1938. Currently, Goldstone is chairperson of the International Independent Inquiry on Kosovo established in 1999; national president of the National Institute of Crime Prevention and the Rehabilitation of Offenders (NICRO); chairperson of the Bradlow Foundation, a charitable educational trust; and head of the board of the Human Rights Institute of South Africa (HURISA).
Before taking a seat on the Constitutional Court of South Africa, Goldstone served as chairperson of the Standing Commission of Inquiry Regarding Public Violence and Intimidation—later known as the Goldstone Commission. The Commission played a critical role in defusing the political violence that erupted when apartheid in South Africa began eroding in the late 1980s as the country moved toward its first democratic elections. From 1994 to 1996, Goldstone served as the chief prosecutor of the United Nations International War Crimes Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.
Goldstone joined Facing History staff, supporters, teachers, and students at the 1999 Annual Memphis Area Program Benefit Dinner. In a panel discussion with students, Goldstone discussed his first-hand experience with the methods various countries have used to prosecute perpetrators of collective violence. Acknowledging that there are both distinctions and connections between histories, Kristen (a student) asked, “How do the questions about judgment that we consider as we study the Nuremberg trials connect to your experiences of judgment in South Africa and elsewhere?” In his response, Goldstone highlights the differences between the Nuremberg trials and South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission while underscoring that what is key in the aftermath of any instance of collective violence is to learn the truth. This way, the generations to come will know the facts of that history and will be that much closer to achieving their own reconciliation with the past. (Please note: The final paragraph, in italics, is the video clip transcription.)
"T]he Truth and Reconciliation Commission was a compromise. The truth had to come out; an appropriate, official platform had to be provided for victims and the perpetrators would get individual amnesties only in return for full confessions of the crimes for which they requested amnesty.
"And I remember attending seminars in 1991 and 1992 and 1993, when it wasn’t clear whether there was going to be a truth commission in South Africa. And there was a fear that it wouldn’t work. There was a fear that the victims wouldn’t come forward and there was even a greater fear that the perpetrators wouldn’t come and confess. And the government decided to go ahead with it and Parliament, by an overwhelming majority—the first democratic parliament in our history, truly representative of the victims of apartheid—those representatives agreed on this compromise and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was set up. And beyond anybody’s expectations, over 21,000 victims came and gave evidence to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Over 7,000 perpetrators come forward and confessed their crimes and applied for amnesty. And there was an outpouring of facts which has enabled South Africa to face its history and to write a history which is going to be a shared history. Our grandchildren and the grandchildren of the victims in South Africa are going to be taught the same history of apartheid: the history that came out before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
"So, really, Kristen, there’s no simple answer to your question. The Nuremberg trials were appropriate for the Nazi leaders after the second World War. That was the judgment of the victorious powers. Whether other systems would have worked, it’s always easy with hindsight to be critical. But there was no choice at that time. The choice facing the Allied powers at the end of the second World War was to put the Nazi leaders up against a wall and execute them and that was seriously considered, certainly by the British and the French and the Russians. It was mainly the Americans who wanted a trial, to their great credit.
"But every country’s got to face its own history—and these are defining moments—and have to decide for themselves what form of justice they should have. One thing I can say in conclusion, in answering your question, is that the one terrible error has been committed by countries who have tried to forget—to forget their history, to forget their past and expect people simply to get on with living their history. That’s when revenge and hate begins and has its origin."
|
|
 |
|
|
|