The Mount Holyoke News » Vox Populi

Remembrance of genocide, two decades later

Kelsey Rogers — Sun, 08 Apr 2012 17:28:07 +0000

This weekend, the populations of two nations will come together to mourn those lost in two of the most atrocious conflicts of the 20^th century. On April 6, 20 years ago, the first shots were fired that marked the beginning of the Bosnian war and the Siege of Sarajevo. Meanwhile on April 6 1994, President Habyarimana was killed when his plane was shot down over Kigali, the capital of Rwanda, in preparations for landing. By the early hours of the next morning, April 7, the genocide had begun.

Yugoslavia in 1992 was a dissolving entity. The nation encompassed three distinct ethnic groups: the Muslim Bosnians, Christian Orthodox Serbs and Catholic Croats. On April 6 of that fateful year, these three groups gathered in Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia and Herzegovina, to join in a peaceful protest against the nationalistic policies of their politicians which was driving their nation farther apart.

Serb nationalists shot and killed two female protestors, and the siege of Sarajevo began. Over 100,000 would be killed in the course of the war. During the 44 month long Serbian siege of the city in Sarajevo alone 11,541 men, women and children were killed. In 1995, a peace accord was signed that brought an end to the violence of this war, but the ethnic issues were far from settled.

The Dayton Peace Agreement, was signed on Nov. 21, 1995 in Dayton, Ohio (and affirmed later on Dec. 14) by representatives of Bosnia, Herzegovina, Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. As a result, the nation of Bosnia-Herzegovina was “ethnically divided into two ministates – one for Serbs, the other shared by Bosniaks and Croats – linked by a central government,” according to the Christian Science Monitor.

Now years later, many say the nation remains divided by ethnic barriers that are only perpetuated by the current political and institutional system: Bosnia, according to Srecko Latal with the International Crisis Group, is “divided into virtual mono-ethnic enclaves.” This “bureaucratic monstrosity” includes a 3-way rotating presidency (one for each of the Muslim, Croat and Serbian ethnic groups), 13 prime ministers, over 130 ministers, more than 760 lawmakers and 148 municipalities.

Discounting the massively divided political system, many are concerned over the distinct lack of reconciliation, which remains an obstruction to peace. To this day, despite attending same schools, children of different ethnicities are learning completely different curriculums and versions of their shared history, which will only drive a deeper wedge between future generations. Even twenty years after the violence, Latal notes, “Radical nationalist ethnic rhetoric has been a proven recipe for winning elections, and many politicians have been winning elections since the end of the war this way.”

However, last weekends organizers of the “Sarajevo Red Line” don’t want the nation to forget it’s past. They hold out hope that it may learn from past tragedies of ethnic conflict to make peace for the future. For the anniversary of the start of the Siege, the organization has lined up exactly 11,541 red chairs along the main street in Sarajevo, to represent the lives lost during those 11,825 days where citizens were captive in their own city. Ahmet Alibasic, professor at University of Sarajevo, notes that he is “a bit worried, because many of the causes of the conflict are still there.”

Rwanda, a nation of three ethnic groups (Hutu, Tutsi and Twa) was long a multiethnic entity. In the years leading up to the genocide, however, Hutu extremist policies and fear of violence committed by the RPF, the Tutsi rebels from Uganda, began eroding the culture and lives of Rwandan citizens. When Juvenal Habyarimana, the Hutu President of Rwanda, was killed when his plane was shot down, it was the spark that set off the deaths of over 500,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus in less than 100 days.

Each year, Rwanda commemorates the senseless loss of life that occurred in 1994, when the spilling of blood was reliant only upon being a Tutsi, or perceived “alliances” or “sympathy” for them. The 18^th anniversary remembrance will begin on April 7 and end on April 14. The motto of this year is: “Let’s learn from our history to shape a bright future.” For these 7 days, both public and private television and radio stations will broadcast only material related to commemoration of the genocide; they will refrain from entertainment during this somber period of the nation’s history.

Businessman Emile Mulego comments, “It’s very hard to forget what happened during that time; it happened 18 years ago, although it seems like yesterday.” Instead of attempting to forget, this nation has rallied behind the belief that remembrance is the best method to halt the occurrence of genocide around the globe.

Survivor and Rwandan actress Didacienne Nibagwire tells her story in a poignant piece from CNN, and she emphasizes that Rwanda should be seen as much more than a nation with a history of genocide. “I think Rwanda is about something else,” Nibagwire depicts, “Rwanda is at a certain point… We have our culture, we have our history, we have many things… We have a developing country.”

This is certainly a sentiment echoed by many others who are seeking to educate the world about not only the past, but also the present and the future, of their nation. Mufti of Rwanda, Sheikh Abdul Karim Gahutu, emphasizes that “the biggest responsibility we have is educating ourselves and our children” against false information, colonialist rhetoric, and genocide denial. At a recent two day conference titled “18 Years after the Genocide Perpetrated Against the Tutsi: Testimonies and Reflections,” scholars and researchers from around the globe came together to seek “measures to counter genocide denial and revisionism, which they said is normally the last phase of a genocide campaign.”

While Rwanda seems to be marching firmly towards reconciliation and peace for their nation, many emphasize the need to continue these efforts. They believe that the world will never have the convenience of forgetting what happened in Rwanda, or in all the other instances of genocide committed around the globe over the past centuries. The nation is still pursuing criminal charges against genocide suspects, especially with the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda proving to be lacking in its effectiveness to bring accountability to the people of Rwanda for crimes committed against them.

In an opinion piece by Pan Butamire, published April 6, 2012, he says “We in Rwanda must keep that memory alive for, if we don’t, who will?”

A Faith Hijacked: How do we put SR Pandith out of a job?

Claire Boyd — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 21:18:52 +0000

U.S. Department of State’s Special Representation to Muslim Communities Farah Pandith’s recent visit to campus triggered my thoughts on the United States’ engagement with Muslim communities worldwide. Particularly in the wake of 9/11, it has been increasingly more difficult for many to distinguish between Islam as a religion and Islamism as a political ideology.

Muslims account for well over a quarter of the world’s population. On any given day, at least half of the headlines in the world news section of major newspapers concern issues relating to political or militant Islam. Why is the media’s portrayal of Muslim communities across the globe so polarized? Why is a doctrinally peaceful religion as a whole grouped with violent extremism? Better yet, what can we do to put SR Pandith and others with similar job descriptions out of a job?

The grouping of all Muslims with militants’ radical interpretation of jihad as a monolithic community contributes to the tensions and schism that Muslims worldwide face. To those vehemently opposed to the idea of Islam as a peaceful religion, I urge you to ponder a Times Magazine article published just twelve days after 9/11. Education is key to purging ignorance associated with various manifestations of religious extremism.

During her evening lecture, SR Pandith remarked that she wished her job did not exist, as I am sure most of us do. SR Pandith’s responsibility is not to win hearts. Rather, it’s to build, or restore, lasting relationships with the youth in Muslim communities abroad. As students we share the same mission: to cultivate meaningful relationships with Muslims around the world by appealing to educational efforts and personalized engagement. Extremists hijacked the purity of the Islamic faith over a decade ago. Yet over ten years later, our global responsibility to abolish the need for a Special Representation to Muslim Communities remains. To attain this seemingly lofty endeavor, Islam must first be restored universally to its status as a peaceful and pious religion, and as a paradigm for the walk of life of over 1.6 billion people across the globe.

Freedom of speech: how far is too far?

Claire Boyd — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 15:43:28 +0000

Have recent, not to mention extremely controversial, events led us to question whether there are limits to freedom of speech? At the Parwan Detention Facility, near the Bagram military base in Afghanistan, five American service members and one Afghan-American linguist have been accused of burning copies of the Koran – Islam’s holy book. Some argue that burning the Koran is simply an exercise of freedom of speech, representing opposition to Islamic extremism. So, who is responsible: the First Amendment or the soldier? Should the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution be held accountable for displays of these [equally radical] demonstrations?

South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham responded to 2011 burnings of the Koran in Florida by saying, “Free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war.” Should the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution differ in times of war and in times of peace? Burning the material symbol of the central tenet of the Islamic faith is, in times of war or peace, an unjustifiable act of poor judgment. It can only serve to incite anger and offend Muslim communities worldwide. It’s certainly not the message we should send to a country with which we [currently] have such unstable relations. New York Times co-authors Graham Bowley and Alissa Rubin suggest that the investigation into the service members’ actions is primarily targeting the chain of command, rather than all who were involved.

Sound familiar? The Nuremberg Trials of Nazi war criminals were handled similarly: making an ‘example’ out of high-profile officials rather than punishing all who were equally guilty. This isn’t to say that the actions at Parwan are anywhere near comparable to the horrific events of the Holocaust, but, as adherents to democratic rule, every citizen should be held accountable for his/her actions. Does it really take extreme consequences, such as physical harm or even death, for one to realize that his/her actions, regardless of their protection under the First Amendment, are morally wrong? Twenty-nine Afghan citizens and six American soldiers have been killed amidst the violence resulting from this lack of ethical prudence. How many more will die through the ensuing bloodshed?

November 2011 witnessed another tactless exploitation of freedom of speech. The satirical French magazine Charlie Hebdo published an issue with a special ‘guest-editor,’ the Prophet Mohammad. The cover portrayed an openly gay Mohammad and named the issue “Charia Hebdo,” playing off of the French pronunciation of Sharia [law]. The cover promised “100 lashes if you don’t die of laughter.” I don’t think Muslims were laughing. In fact, the magazine’s offensive comments sparked an aggressive response by radical groups, including the bombing of the magazine’s headquarters in Paris and the hacking of its website.

I’m a firm believer in the concept of freedom of speech so long as sound judgment and discretion are exercised. American citizens are entitled to their opinions, but they are not at liberty to endanger the lives of citizens at home and abroad, through their blatant abuse of a fundamental American right. Perhaps there is some merit to Senator Graham’s bold statement. However, during both times of war and times of peace, statements and actions legitimized by the notion of ‘freedom of speech’ must be grounded first in common sense, rather than by strictly constitutional conditions.

Two journalists killed in deadly day in Syria

Abby Wise — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 05:00:23 +0000

Two western journalists were some of the 74 civilians killed in Homs, Syria yesterday amidst an ongoing struggle between the government forces of president Bashar al-Assad and the civilian opposition. Marie Colvin, an American working for The Times of London, as well as French freelance photo journalist Rémi Ochlik, were killed in a secret media center located in the neighborhood of Baba Amr.

The center had been designed to keep the government from further crackdown on reporting current information in the almost year-long crisis. It comes on the heels of Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s trip to Tunisia to meet with upwards of 70 nations to discuss possible ways to combat the Syrian violence. This meeting is scheduled to take place tomorrow.

Colvin had previous experience covering dangerous conflicts as a journalist; she lost an eye in the Sri Lankan Civil War, which required her to wear an eye patch. Clearly both were incredibly dedicated to their work. Since Syria is no longer granting visas for foreign journalists, they had to sneak into the country–most likely with the help of some civilian activists–in order to get the real story. Colvin wrote about it in an article for the Times this past Sunday. Both had won awards for their work covering collectively political instability in Haiti, the Congo, the Middle East, Sri Lanka, Chechnya, the Balkansas well as Iraq.

The UN estimated in January that 5,400 people have been killed in the uprisings in Syria since their beginning less than a year ago. Since then, they have stopped updating the figure as there is no clear way to know for sure. Government forces are not only targeting foreign journalists, but their own as well. On Tuesday, a Syrian journalist was killed, after putting some of the footage he shot of the chaos in Baba Amr online.

It’s thought that two other Western journalists were wounded when the building was shelled.

I Do So Solemnly Swear

Claire Boyd — Sun, 19 Feb 2012 19:51:16 +0000

This past weekend I had the opportunity to attend a meet-and-greet, starring Massachusetts’ very own – Congressman Jim McGovern. When asked how he votes on issues, Representative McGovern replied, “If I don’t know how to vote on an issue, I say ‘What would Newt Gingrich’ do?” A relevant question for the Congressman’s constituency to be sure, but it serves only to exacerbate the growing rift between political parties in the United States.

What are the issues that are truly important to our country during this crucial election year? If you’ve watched any of the GOP debates this year, you’ve probably walked away from the TV with a sense of confusion (thanks Mitt), a renewed view of our incumbent president’s errors, complete denial of the previous administration’s flaws and frustration over the congressional impasse.

No longer is it ‘We the People.’ Rather, it is ‘We the Democrats’ or ‘We the Republicans,’ or, better yet, ‘We the Ron Pauls.’ Wasn’t this country built on the idea of reconciling differences, recognizing diversity and realizing potential? Are we no longer the United States of America? To our global counterparts, that surely does not appear to be the case.

When a president is sworn into office, he [she] affirms that he [she] will “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Maintaining national security is the president’s call to duty during the tenure in office. Thus, the primary concern of those vying for a chance to call the Executive Residence “home” must be national defense- no exceptions. You can guarantee that security is weighing heavily on the minds of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu. The national security of the United States is in peril – and it’s a risk that we’ve brought upon ourselves. If parties cannot unite in the name of the United, what chance do we have at protecting our citizens in the event of war?

We are fighting a war of attrition amongst ourselves. The “real danger” is right here on the home front. Despite the political affiliation of the Nov. 6 victor, it is the duty of all who reside in the United States to stand behind him [someday her]. Perhaps a more appropriate question for us to pose is, “What would George Washington do?”

New military opportunities for women

Kelsey Rogers — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 05:00:08 +0000

For decades, the military has long been regarded as the “boy’s club,” despite women’s involvement in many branches of the armed services in varying positions since World War I. Throughout the years, women have slowly broken out of the traditionally reserved roles offered during that time: nursing, administration and then, in very limited roles and numbers, in the service. While today women serve in all branches of the armed forces in substantial numbers, many opportunities open to their male counterparts have been restricted to women.

Today, the Department of Defense announced to Congress important new policies that could open a new realm to women who are looking to advance their careers in the Armed Forces. The current policy in place dates back to 1994, when Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Defense Les Aspin opened up more positions for women, but barred women from direct combat assignments. However much has changed in the world since the days of trench combat. Despite restrictions, women frequently end up in risky situations and come under enemy fire. With over 255,000 women deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, approximately 140 have been killed in the line of duty.

While women account for over 15 percent of the 1.5 million military personnel in this country, there remains large inequalities between the two sexes: men are allowed to collect the “credit” and combat positions required to attain high ranks within the military, while women may be passed over for promotions despite the fact that they may have the same experience as their male colleagues. CNN notes that, since women are not, “formally assigned to combat units, but rather informally ‘attached,’” they are prevented from having the official experience as being deployed in a combat zone.

Many within the ranks of the armed forces and in the Defense Department have begun to realize the glaring job inequalities. In response to a yearlong investigation by the Pentagon, women may now be permanently attached to a battalion in many facets: as radio operators, medics, tank mechanics, among other jobs. This decision will open up an estimated additional 14,000 job opportunities for women in the military and, in theory, bestow upon them the same chances for rising through the ranks in the Armed Forces. Congress must have 30 days in continuous session to allow time for any objections that might be considered.

Despite the fact that women are still not on completely equal footing, these new guidelines would affirm the fundamental belief that women contribute as much pain, effort and patriotism to their jobs as men do. One of the leaders of the review, Virginia Penrod, deputy assistant secretary for military personnel policy, noted that, “opening these positions implements lessons from over a decade at war, where women were proven exceptionally capable and indispensible to mission accomplishment.” Concurring, Army Major General Gary Patton says that the way he sees it, “as a former infantry battalion commander, I wish I’d had the opportunity to bring women into my battalion. It expands the talent pool.”

As we approach the anniversary of the momentous court decision of Roe v. Wade, it’s important to note that women’s roles are being continually redefined and expanded as they are increasingly regarded as autonomous equals who have the same rights as males. While gender roles and conceptions of women’s power and ability in the workplace still have a long way to go, this initiative is a leap forward in altering both perceptions of women as soldiers, as well as their opportunities for career advancement in a field that has favored men since women first appeared on the scene.

In an interview, 2^nd Lieutenant Yecenia Diaz said, “I don’t consider myself a female first, I consider myself an officer first.” Diaz brings to the fore one of the core issues behind inequality in the Armed Forces: a soldier, man or woman, has surrendered their life to the service of their country. They bleed the same, laugh the same and make the same sacrifices every day. Why, then, should one be treated any different than the other?

Dead heat: a look at swing states in 2012

Abby Wise — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 02:28:01 +0000

Those who avidly follow presidential politics or maybe just saw the Kevin Costner film Swing Vote, know that there’s some truth behind the old saying that, “every vote counts” (i.e. Election 2000). With the recent announcement that Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are tied in both national and swing state polling, it appears that once again, the swing – or battleground – states will be an important factor in Decision 2012. Here’s a closer look at some of the states where the Republican hopefuls will be trying to get a jump on Barack Obama this year.

Ohio: A traditional battleground state, it has 18 electoral votes up for grabs that could literally go to anyone. In 2008, Obama won Ohio by just five points. In the last 10 presidential elections, Ohio has gone Democratic four times and Republican the remaining six. In each of those elections, Ohio voted for the candidate that eventually won the presidency. With the primary set to take place on March 6, Newt Gingrich has already begun campaigning in Ohio, hoping to take advantage of early voters there.

New Hampshire: With the exception of 2000, this state has voted Democratic in every election since 1992. However, it’s still considered a swing state. Although it offers few votes (just four for the tiny New England state), its elections are often so close that they keep people on edge. Obama’s nine point win in 2008 could be considered a landslide after the one point win Bush had over Kerry in 2004. Furthermore, Romney won the New Hampshire primary last month, with Gingrich a distant second.

Iowa: Since this state holds the first caucus of any election year, it’s often viewed with elevated importance in regards to setting the pace for presidential nominees. It was reported after the Jan. 3 caucus that Romney had won, but about two weeks later, votes were recounted and it was determined that Rick Santorum had actually won by just 34 votes.

Which brings us to…..

Colorado: Before 2008, this state had voted Republican in every Presidential election since World War II. It’s considered a swing state because of its high number of political independents, whose choices for president can really make or break the election (again, Election 2000). The Feb. 7 caucus may be proof of the power of independents in Colorado as once again: dark horse candidate Rick Santorum managed to upset Romney taking the state as well as Minnesota and Missouri.

These are just a few of the crucial states for this presidential election, but already we can see how crazy this election cycle has been. Obama already has his strategists creating possible maps to victory with a number of different electoral vote combinations. For the second time in the 21st century, there may be an election where every vote counts.

What’s Next in the GOP Soap Opera?

Abby Wise — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 18:14:20 +0000

Herman Cain announced Saturday in Atlanta, GA that he would be ending his bid for the presidency.

After combating multiple accusations of extra-marital affairs, which he still maintains are false, Cain chose to drop out rather than continue with so many “distractions” surrounding his campaign. This was not the only questionable aspect of candidate Cain, however. His inability to answer general questions on the situation in Libya, as well as his lack of political experience left people wondering what the poll frontrunner would be like. But he’s not the only problem. What about the other Republican candidates? It seems as though the bid for 2012 has already gotten out of hand, and we still have 11 months until the general election.

Michele Bachmann believes that HPV vaccines cause mental retardation, Rick Perry does not know the names of some of the national government’s most important departments, and Newt Gingrich is facing accusations that he received up to $1.8 billion from connections to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Further more Mitt Romney has had a difficult time proving to conservatives that he is in fact, conservative himself, as he has shown to be very moderate. All the top candidates seem to have some sort of “problem,” yet they are still quite popular among voters.

Of course no candidate is going to appeal to everybody. The question is, how did this happen? Few of the presidential hopefuls seem to be taking this election seriously. Donald Trump is even going to be hosting a presidential debate, telling the Today Show‘s Matt Lauer that if the “right” candidate is not nominated, he’d consider running as an independent.

The 2012 election already seems to be more entertainment than news. We are still choosing the next leader of our country right? There seems to be some sort of drama surrounding everyone running. As we move even closer to the Iowa Caucus and the official start of the campaign season, it will be interesting to see how each candidate fares on the path to nomination.

Syria’s Continued Violence Draws Attention of Human Rights Groups; Protestors.

Kelsey Rogers — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 21:27:39 +0000

Despite efforts from the international community, Syria’s crackdown on protestors continued this week. Between 15 and 36 civilians were killed today in yet another shocking display of violence during clashes throughout the country. Most deaths were located in Homs, nicknamed the “the capital of revolution” by activist organizations.

This news comes via a report released by Human Rights Watch Friday accusing Syria of crimes against humanity. Protestors in Syria, and other Middle Eastern countries, took to the streets to urge the Arab League to suspend Syria’s membership, until human rights abuses have been ceased. Human Rights Watch has been one of the loudest of voices, calling on the League to consider harsher penalties for Syria; especially given the escalation of violence by the Syrian government, despite it’s November 2 agreement to the Arab League plan that included promises to remove all security forces from the streets and cease its firing on protestors.

As the New York Times reports, “the period has become one of the deadliest of the uprising, with activists counting at least 104 deaths.” After eight months of violence, citizens are growing desperate, and doubts continue to arise that the Syrian government will halt its actions until more concrete steps are taken.

American officials are backing up the citizens, hoping for a decisive act from the Arab League. Assistant Secretary of State Jeffrey D. Feltman testified to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this week stating, “If the regime continues to spurn this most recent ‘last chance,’ we hope that the Arab League will take additional, clear measures to express its condemnation of the Syrian regime and solidarity with the Syrian people.” In addition, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch, have both suggested that the Arab League refer Syria to the International Criminal Court for its crimes.

Despite Western support, an Arab diplomat told the New York Times that at this point, suspension of Syria seemed unlikely; especially with increased opposition by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Algeria, Yemen, and other nations who are concerned with the possible effect of an escalation in violence that might follow such action. The Arab League has called an emergency meeting for Saturday, to consider suspension among other alternatives such as economic sanctions, should the situation not improve.

Whether sanctions or suspension would have enough power to halt the regime, Arab League Secretary-General Nabil el-Araby expressed concern, noting that “If you want to tell a government — any government — to stop what they are doing and they are not persuaded and if you need to enforce — it’s outside our league. We don’t do that.”

Despite concerns, it is important for the Arab League to continue to make steps denouncing the actions of Syria. Symbolic or not, at this crucial moment in human rights history, the world must step up and let the people of Syria know their plight is not going unnoticed. The international community cannot afford to turn their heads to the systematic abuses being inflicted on the people of Syria by the al-Assad regime, and the continued action of the Arab League must pave the way for a move towards peace in this region.

A new chapter for Libya?

Kelsey Rogers — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 05:00:47 +0000

After news came about two weeks ago that Muammar el-Qaddafi was captured and killed by rebelsin his hometown of Surt, some expressed concerns over the question “what next?” After 42 years with the “Erratic, provocative” dictator, it’s time for the National Transitional Council to begin reconciling the past four decades of violence and oppression that has led to mass violations of human rights. And it seems as if they might be ready to take on that responsibility.

geology.com

Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary General of the United Nations, called on Libya to start a new chapter, “Based on national reconciliation, justice, respect for human rights and the rule of law.” These calls rang loudly as numerous heads of state and officials praised the Libyan people for their perseverance during this transition of power, and reflected on the abuses committed during the Qaddafi regime.

Things are looking promising from Libya; the transitional government has already issued a list of state crimes committed by Qaddafi, that include public hangings of students and other citizens, massacres of officers and mass executions of political prisoners. Many of these officials are, “Motivated by a conviction that a new nation cannot be built unless light is shed on the dark corners of the old.”

In examining post-conflict transformation and reconciliation models from other nations such as South Africa, Chile and Argentina, leaders such as Mohammed al-Alagi, the Libyan interim justice minister, prioritize coping with crimes committed by former regimes through an investigative committee. Al-Alagi hopes this body would show the public the realities of living under Qaddafi’s oppressive rule. “You can’t imagine how people suffered,” he said, “They raped women in front of their fathers and brothers.”

Yet the Transitional Council is being cautious not to impose massive waves of indictments to every guilty party, as some nations have done in the aftermath of past conflicts. Taking note of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that was largely successful in post-Apartheid South Africa, they are being careful to note that the indictments are not based on punishment and revenge.

The Council has begun by calling on the public to refrain from retributive actions against those whom they might believe to be guilty of crimes committed under the old regime, and it seems to be working. Alagi notes that “Most of the people who were with the previous regime are still walking around, which is a good sign of tolerance.”

There is recognition, however, that a well-structured justice system will need to be put in place to prosecute those with “blood on their hands,” or those who were responsible for killings and rapes. This standard of culpability, The New York Times notes, has been used in other nations struggling with reconciliation, including post-Holocaust Germany. The focus of the prosecutorial team will be, no doubt, on the officials responsible for the worst violations.

Alagi emphasized that, “What is most important to us are the people who are leading these crimes.” Fair, open trials that Alagi says he wants the entire world community to see will go a long way in legitimizing the new government, and it’s new place in the world.

In his speech, Ban Ki-Moon told the Libyan people that “the road ahead is full of challenges, but also opportunities.” The next few months will be the most crucial in determining if the Libyan government is ready and able to take advantage of these new opportunities.