Institute for Historical Justice and Reconciliation

With many pinning the hopes of underrepresented and marginalized people around the world on a single man, President-Elect Barack Hussein Obama has taken on arguably the most important job in the world.

Although the financial meltdown and continued concerns over national security top his agenda, Obama will make an impact in the realm of international justice, human rights and reconciliation.

As the world waits to see what this son of a white mother and black father will do, we can take heart in knowing that his role in historical justice and reconciliation will on the whole be positive. As the recent issue of The Economist pointed out “Because he is young, handsome and intelligent, and also because as the child of a Kansan and a Kenyan he reconciles in his own person one of the world’s most hateful divisions, Mr. Obama carries with him the hopes of the planet” (Jan. 17, 2009 pg. 11).

He will have a long list of things ahead of him, and while historical justice and reconciliation will not factor in as a campaign promise, they will benefit from the approach and style the international community can hope for from Obama.

In terms of foreign policy, Obama has already given us much to look forward to. His personality, education, demeanor and intellect have proven to be harbingers for a shift in America’s standing in the world.

His most telling move is to close Guantánamo, which he has promised to do. The New York Times reported today: “Saying that “our ideals give us the strength and moral high ground” to combat terrorism, President Obama signed executive orders Thursday ending the Central Intelligence Agency’s secret overseas prisons, banning coercive interrogation methods and closing the Guantánamo Bay detention camp within a year.”
Amnesty International USA had asked that in his first 100 days he: “announce a plan and date to close Guantanamo, issue an executive order to ban torture and other ill-treatment, as defined under international law, ensure that an independent commission to investigate abuses committed by the U.S. government in its "war on terror" is set up.” This is the first step to resurrect our moral standing in the world. We must rectify the wrongs from this disturbing chapter in American history.
On the larger international scale is the smoldering aftermath of the Israeli-Palestinian war. The recent flare up appears to be coming to an end, and it would be the ideal time to further talks about a peaceful solution. Past American presidents have stepped in to try to reconcile the two sides. Though his stance on Israel is not fundamentally different than his predecessors, we can hope he brings fresh perspective to this decades-old conflict. While much of historical justice and reconciliation lies outside of the realm of politicians, it is often their political wills that move and guide societies on these paths.

And, its’ the reconciliation in our American minds – that a man born of a union that was considered illegal not too far back in history has now risen to the ranks of the highest and most important office in the land, if not the world.

How far his character and intellect stretch to the corners of the globe remains to be seen. But most likely his voice will resound a little louder with nations mired in ethnic conflict with a vision of what reconciliation on some level can look like, especially on a social level. After all, he is living proof that vicious histories can be overcome.

There is often an uneasy tension between national sovereignty, political pressure, and international justice. The execution of Jose Ernesto Medellin in the United States yesterday highlights this often palpable strain.

The execution of Medillin, 33, in the state of Texas, occurred after a widespread international plea for leniency. At the root of this controversy lies the fact that Medillin was not informed of his right to a consular before and during the trial. The state of Texas earlier stated that while it was true that Medillin was not informed of his right to an attorney, as he did not raise a complaint during the trail, he may not do so after a verdict has been reached. The US Supreme Court also rejected an appeal from Medillin's lawyers, stating that "...(the) petitioner was not prejudiced by his lack of consular access."

The International Court of Justice, on the other hand, has long been against the execution in Medillin:

The ICJ told US authorities in 2004 that Medellin's case and that of other Mexicans facing execution violated the Vienna Convention because authorities failed to inform the foreigners of their right to consular access and assistance during trial.

While the US did not abide by the ICJ's strong suggestions, it openly supports the International Criminal Court's indictment of Sudan President Bashir. It does not officially recognize the ICC.

This insistence on the prosecution of President Bashir comes in the face of many African leader's insistence that a suspension of Bashir's indictment is essential in order to stop further bloodshed in the region. The Sudanese government has threatened to expel peacekeepers if Bashir's indictment continues. In response, US envoy Alejandro Wolff stated:

There is no compromise on the issue of justice...The crime of impunity has gone on too long and the United States felt that it was time to stand up on this point of moral clarity and make clear that this permanent member of the Security Council will not compromise on the issue of justice.

This irony has not been lost on many critics of the current system of international justice. In his recent opinion piece, Osama al Sharif, a journalist based in Jordan, lamented the political nature of international justice. Warranted or not, Bashir stated that many powerful nations, their allies, and their leaders are able to perpetrate human rights abuses with impunity. For him, this is the biggest problem with the current system of "international justice":

Legal experts will waste much ink explaining the differences and underlining the reasons why the ICC is focusing on Sudan now and not on Israel. But the fact of the matter is that we do not live in a perfect world and while the survivors of the horrors of Srebrenica will see justice served in the arrest and trial of Karadzic, the reality is many notorious war criminals are walking free in other areas of conflict because the big powers chose to let them off the hook.

While al Sharif's indictment of the international community may be controversial, there is no doubt that there is a considerable and unfortunate divide between what is politically acceptable, and what is judicially acceptable in current international justice proceedings.