Introduction
Throughout the history there have moments of choice for governments to either try war criminals by seeking justice or provide amnesty to the criminals for stabilizing the region’s or country’s atmosphere. The post conflict moments and decisions can be highly controversial as the emotions of the masses are under the test and the any decision comes with pros and cons. To think that someone would be allowed amnesty after conducting war crimes would be unjustified in the eyes of the law and for the people who have suffered. Therefore, the best solution for the post conflict situation is probably making sure that justice is served and anyone who has conducted war crimes is punished by their actions. Providing amnesty would dishonour the souls of people who have perished and endorses the probability of similar events occurring again in the future.
Importance of Justice
Conflict can end up where the winning side or their leaders are in a position to incriminate the losing side and their leaders and charge them for war crimes or provide amnesty. The decision is mostly based on the feelings of the masses who have suffered; the political gains of the winning side; and the level of crimes committed by the losing side. Law is one of the most logical ways to seek justice after the end of a conflict. Law also provides moral justice to people who expect the war criminals to be punished. One of the examples of law being utilized to ensure war crimes were punished in the past was the IMT (International Military Tribunal) trials held in Nuremberg by the judges of allied powers to incriminate the Nazi war criminals. The war criminals were tried for performing crimes against peace and humanity, and conducting a conspiracy to conduct such crimes (USHMM).
Seeking justice was helpful in the case of Nazi war criminals as it helped calm the sentiments of millions whose relatives and friends had perished in the Jewish extermination camps. It also ensured that Nazi war criminals paid for the crimes they committed. Also, it created an image that no matter how powerful an individual or country becomes; everyone remains equal in the eyes of the law. Trying criminals also ensured that peace and humanity could be restored globally by making sure the ruling was in the favour of the masses. Also, it ensured that Nazi power was eliminated from Germany and people could live peacefully (USHMM). On the basis of morality, it was a wise decision as history will recall it as a fair decision to try and punish the war criminals who conducted one of the most heinous crimes in the history of mankind.
In practical terms, punishing the Nazi war criminals for their mistakes was the only option for the allied powers as their people and the rest of the world expected them to be sentenced for their war crimes. If the allied powers decided to choose amnesty they would forever be termed as governments who let the war criminals free. Therefore, both in moral terms and practicality it made sense to punish the Nazi war criminals. It not only led to peace in the western world, but it also reinforced the trust of people on the allied powers and their justified cause to fight against the Axis powers in World War II. Overall, the choice of justice by allied powers post-conflict in the Second World War was justified as it was both moral and practical decision.
Failure of Peace
There have been post-conflict situations where conditions have escalated after the war criminals were provided amnesty. Under this condition the winning sides wilfully decided to let war criminals go after the end of the conflict and justice was not served. There are many conditions when this form of policy is followed, especially when geopolitical clashes are expected or the masses expect amnesty. Under such conditions, amnesty can be provided to ensure that the level of damage that has been conducted during the conflict is limited and immediate altercations are avoided. Peace can be useful in several conditions, but it leaves many people who are the victims of the conflict feeling dissatisfied with the decision. Further, there have been instances of amnesty that have turned out to be detrimental in the future for the winning side.
One such example is about the 1971 war between India and Pakistan, where Pakistani POWs were given amnesty after conducting war crimes in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). The choice of giving amnesty turned out to be sour for India who intervened and helped to save the East Pakistani population from the war crimes and genocide conducted by Pakistani military forces. The choice of giving amnesty was based on the geopolitical pressure on India to return the POWs, despite calls from the East Pakistani population for a trial. The result was that all POWs were returned and the relationship between India and newly formed Bangladesh deteriorated for years. In addition, peace was non-existent in the post-independence Bangladesh, as assassinations and coups were highly common. Possibly these instances could have been avoided if the war criminals were tried and the public anger was redirected towards punishing their criminals (Sloan).
Analysis
History has been an evidence of post-conflict decisions where war crimes have been either punished or amnesty has been provided. On the basis of the evidence presented it is clear that the moral and practical decision is to make sure that war criminals are punished and justice is served. This decision not only ensures that the masses feel satisfied with the decision; it also ensures that perpetrators pay the price for their crimes. It creates an environment of justice for all and ensures that every individual is equal in the eyes of law. In the long term, the decision of justice also ensures that people learn from their and other’s mistakes and similar actions are not taken during future conflicts. A current example of an upcoming amnesty deal is the peace talks between Columbian government and Farc (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) rebels. The peace deal has a tentative agreed date of 23 March 2016, but the date was missed after troubles continued over ongoing conflict and continuous killings in the country. It is another example where peace talks seen like failing as war criminals have not been punished and have been allowed to discuss peace with the government (Brodzinsky).
Conclusion
The decision of justice or amnesty post-conflict can be highly controversial as the geopolitical pressure and feelings of the masses can swing a sure decision. On the basis of morality and practicality it is fair to provide justice to people who have suffered at the hands of others. Making sure that the war criminals are punished ensures that the masses feel that they are living in a fair and ethical environment, where no one is above the law. The example of punishing Nazi war criminals suits to the scenario as a trial was conducted for performing crimes against humanity and peace. There have been instances where amnesty has been provided to war criminals due to geopolitical pressure and feelings of the masses. India letting Pakistani POWs go without a trial is one of the amnesty decisions. The decision causes uproar among Bangladeshis who expected a fair trial against the people who had conducted genocide of their countrymen.
Works Cited
Brodzinsky., Sibylla. Colombian activist murders create unease amid Farc peace talks. The Guardian. theguardian.com. 9 March 2016. Web. 3 April 2016.
Sloan., Alastair. India, Pakistan and the 1971 War POWs. The Diplomat. thediplomat.com. 1 August 2015. Web. 2 April 2016.
USHMM. War Crime Trials. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. ushmm.org. 29 January 2016. Web. 2 April 2016.
