FictionThatMatters.org

The New Justice

When justice rings true, it has the power to silence and to awe. And it can mean a lot of things, from ‘making things right’ by your neighbor to ending a culture of impunity in which lives are destroyed without a thought. Two new films screening at the Human Rights Watch International Film Festival explore the pursuit of justice in the 21st century. Justice in today’s world is no longer just about simple retribution but also about the restoration of entire societies.

My Neighbor, My Killer
Directed and produced by Anne Aghion
Gacaca Films, 2009. 101 minutes.

Anne Aghion’s My Neighbor, My Killer is a chilling, elegiac film that documents the struggle of a rural community in Rwanda to overcome the trauma of genocide. Over 100,000 perpetrators remained in prison ten years after 800,000 Tutsis were killed by Hutu militia in a few months in 1994. The masterminds of the genocide were removed to an international tribunal in Arusha, Tanzania, but many lower level genocidaires remained in Rwanda. The government decided to conditionally release these prisoners and try them through a community court system called the Gacaca courts. Suddenly, victims of the genocide found themselves living once again next to their killers. And these killers did not come asking for forgiveness:

We were told they would approach us in peace, in their own time. But not one has so far darkened my door! My brother’s murderer lives just near our home. Why hasn’t he come to ask for forgiveness?

If My Neighbor, My Killer is a work of filmic poetry, The Reckoning: The Battle for the International Criminal Court is fine prose. This film examines the turbulent origins of the International Criminal Court in the Hague. The tone is more educational than entertaining, but presents an air-tight case for the need for a credible international body of criminal justice.

Read the full review here.

A settlement has been reached today in the case Wiwa v Royal Dutch Shell. The amount has been announced as $15.5 million. The plaintiff’s have stated that the possibility of appeals could have dragged the case on for much longer. $5 million of the funds will be held in trust to rebuild the devastated Ogoni community in the Niger delta region of Nigeria. Rights groups are hailing the settlement as a victory for the cause of human rights.

Read the press release here.

I agree that this is a moment for celebration. But while a settlement is a positive step in any litigation, I think it’s good to be cautious about getting too excited. Here’s why:

– Shell has admitted to no liability on their actions
– a public record of Shell’s actions has not yet been made available, depriving the world of knowledge about the real perpetrators of the case (although plaintiffs’ briefs are available)
– the Alien Tort Claims Act still remains shaky: Talisman (Sudan), UnoCal (Burma), and now Royal Dutch Shell (Nigeria) have all avoided a judgment on the record
– $15 million pales in comparison to the nearly $1 trillion of oil revenue that has been produced at least in part by Shell Oil for the Nigerian government
– Shell Oil already dedicated funds to basic infrastructure projects, including schools, in the late 1990s; as far as I know these funds reached into the single digit millions
– $15 million is not nearly enough to clean up the rampant environmental degradation in the Ogoni area

How was the settlement calculated?

To put it simply, $15 million was weighed against the cost of continued litigation. This includes not only legal fees but also the emotional toll of continuing to litigate against a company which could drag the case on for another decade. Now the plaintiffs can get on with their lives, and the lawyers can clear their dockets to fight for justice in other areas. Is $15 million too low? Time will tell. Let’s see if Shell actually cleans up after itself and prevents such environmental degradation and human rights violations from happening again.

The lesson here is that corporations cannot act with impunity, and courageous rights groups will be watching them.

We’ll see what happens as the details of the case unfold.

Visit the home page of the trial at the Center for Constitutional Rights here.

Check out the film Crude here for the case against Chevron-Texaco in Ecuador. If this case is any indication, Chevron-Texaco made an enormous tactical error in transferring its own case to Ecuador, as a relatively low cost settlement could have been achieved in their $27 billion lawsuit

El Salvador and Honduras will square off today in an international qualifier match for the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa. Almost 40 years ago, the two nations became embroiled in a five day war in which 5,000 people were killed — sparked at least in part by two violent soccer matches. Tensions this time will be felt solely on the pitch. Both sides desperately need a win to qualify for the world’s largest soccer tournament.

Check out the Polish journalist Ryszard Kapuscinski’s classic work The Soccer War here.

UPDATE: Honduras narrowly defeated El Salvador in the win, reviving their hopes of qualifying for the 2010 FIFA World Cup. Thankfully, the war never left the field at this game. Read the match report here.

Today 22 indigenous Peruvians were killed along with 9 police officers in the northern Bagua region in the Amazon. The killings occurred after a group of indigenous protesters allegedly kidnapped police while they were refueling their trucks. Furious at a two month blockade of government roads, President Alan Garcia Perez ordered army and police into the region to dispel the protests. Details are unfolding, but there have been confirmed reports of police shooting live ammunition at the protesters from helicopters.

Why does this matter?

The indigenous Peruvians were protesting over a decision by the government to develop oil resources in the Amazon. They were concerned that the government would despoil their region — and they have very good reason to be worried.

A few hundred miles north, Chevron-Texaco and the Ecuadorian government polluted the rivers and streams of the indigenous peoples there. This is the subject of the film Crude, which will screen next week at the Human Rights Watch International Film Festival.

The killing of the police officers is also tragic. But sadly, the desire of the Peruvian government to exploit the resources of the indigenous is part of a tradition in Peru. Just over 100 years ago, the Peruvian Rubber company committed a genocide against the Huitoto Indians on the Putumayo river near the city of Iquitos. This slaughter is the subject of my short story, Indian Hunting on the Putumayo, which is itself a chapter of my novel. I try not to plug my own work on this site, but this is tragic.

If you don’t feel like reading, go see Crude.

If you want to give money to an organization that supports indigenous rights throughout Latin America, consider The Rainforest Foundation.

–Deji Olukotun

A few weeks ago, I posted my thoughts about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Namely, I don’t understand what we’re doing there.

Today, President Obama spoke in Cairo and specifically addressed the issue. (Read his speech here.) I am even less convinced than before that we should have a significant military presence in either country.

My solution to the problem remains the same. Mr. Obama should take a weekend to read The Photographer, by Emmanuel Guibert and Didier Lefevre, a landmark graphic novel about Afghanistan in the 1980s. Until that happens, here’s why I disagree with him:

Obama’s argument is that we cannot tolerate Muslim extremists that vow to annihilate America, and that an unprecedented trauma was inflicted upon Americans during September 11. I do not dispute the trauma. I ride the subway every day and think about it. It affected the U.S. in every facet of society. I also agree that violent extremists cannot be tolerated if they declare war on America, and threaten to take American lives.

But we have beefed up domestic security, as I’ve said before. And we had already spent $712 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan before Obama even entered office. Several hundred thousand civilians have been killed since the invasion of Iraq, some of them by American forces. Civilians also continue to suffer at the hands of NATO bombings in Afghanistan. This violates the principle of proportionality, which is fundamental to international law. Any act of retribution must be a proportionate response.

Here are the President’s words:

Now, make no mistake: We do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We see no military — we seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and now Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can.

So how do we measure the disappearance of ‘violent extremists’? At what point, exactly, will a victory be declared? If a harmless cook declares himself a member of Al Qaeda, and all he does is sell pancakes, is that enough? He is now a ‘violent extremist’? Come on, now! (One detainee at Guantanamo fits this profile, according to the Seton Hall Guantanamo Project.)

Mr. Obama also highlights the nearly $3 billion in development costs that Congress is offering to Afghanistan, but again, compare that to the $712 billion that has already been spent on fighting. The number is less than 1 percent.

The only other argument that a friend told me is fear of another failed state. If Al Qaeda was hatched form Afghanistan, then it could be launched again if Afghanistan crumbles, and so too with Iraq. I have not heard Mr. Obama provide this justification. Certainly not directly. And it immediately calls attention to Somalia, in which the theory can only be applied with mixed results. (Pirates!)

The rest of the President’s speech in Cairo is, of course, flawless. Nuanced and full of the considered words that make him such a delight to listen to.

But two wars! (Or, three wars if you include Pakistan, and Mr. Obama explicitly does so in his speech.) They have already cost the U.S. nearly $1 trillion and thousands of American lives.

I do not want attacks to occur against the U.S., or any nation for that matter. But why pull out of Iraq in 2012? That is three years from now, and far too late. The timelines need to be sped up. Otherwise the wars are merely ideological. That’s not good enough for me any more.

–Deji Olukotun