DISCUSSION PAPERS IN DIPLOMACY Apology Diplomacy: Justice for All? Shannon Jones Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael’ ISSN 1569-2981 DISCUSSION PAPERS IN DIPLOMACY Editors: Ingrid d’Hooghe & Ellen Huijgh, Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael’ Managing Editor: Jan Melissen, Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael’ and Antwerp University Desk-top publishing: Ragnhild Drange Editorial Board Cecilia Albin, Uppsala University Geoff Berridge, University of Leicester Erik Goldstein, Boston University Donna Lee, Birmingham University Evan H. Potter, University of Ottawa Biljana Scott, Oxford University Copyright Notice © Shannon Jones, No 122 September 2011 All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy, or transmission of this publication, or part thereof in excess of one paragraph (other than as a PDF file at the discretion of the Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael’) may be made without the written permission of the authors. THE DISCUSSION PAPERS IN DIPLOMACY ARE GOING 100% DIGITAL! Evolving with the times, the Discussion Papers in Diplomacy series is ceasing print publication and becoming online-only from 2012 onwards. Through this, costs and paper use will be reduced and it will also enable us to publish more quickly. If you do not yet receive the digital version of the Discussion Papers in Diplomacy, please send your name, affiliation and email-address to: [email protected] All back issues continue to be available for download free of charge at www.clingendael.nl/cdsp/publications/diplomacy-papers We hope to have you on board through the transition and are excited about the new possibilities this move will open up. The Editors ABSTRACT Reparative justice has been used increasingly in recent years as a mechanism of diplomacy and reconciliation. However, even in the context of the same atrocity, some victims receive apologies and material compensation and others do not. This casts doubt on whether reparative policies are sincere expressions of guilt and remorse. This paper investigates how states make decisions about whether or not to provide reparations for victims in an effort to compensate them for violations of their human rights. It examines the conditions that influence the type of reparative justice - material or symbolic - that a state is most likely to offer. A reexamination of two of the most frequently studied cases in the scholarship on political apology, those by Germany and Japan, reveals that the stratification of victims is a consequence of the fact that reparative policies, while cloaked in moral rhetoric, are the outcomes of political bargains. Reparative justice is most likely when a state believes it can enhance its security by restoring political and economic relationships with offended neighbors, or, or enhance its international prestige by demonstrating a commitment to its purported values. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Shannon Jones is a Ph.D. student at Georgia State University, United States. She holds a M.A. in Political Science from Georgia State University and a B.A. in International Relations from Agnes Scott College. She has studied human rights and migration law at Radboud University and participated in the EU Studies exchange program at the Université de Strasbourg. Her research interests include political apologies and reparations, identity politics, and transitional justice. APOLOGY DIPLOMACY: JUSTICE FOR ALL? Shannon Jones Introduction The late 20th and early 21st century witnessed a dramatic increase in the number of political apologies, so much so that it has been said that international politics is in a state of ‘apology mania’.1 This wave of contemporary political apologies began, in many ways, with German reparations to Israel and the subsequent apology to Jewish victims of the Holocaust. Since then political apologies for mass atrocities have become relatively commonplace: Canada and the United States have apologized for the internment of Japanese during World War II; Pope John Paul II issued an apology in 2000 for historic wrongs committed by the Catholic church over the last 2000 years; Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States have apologized to their indigenous populations; Prime Minister Blair expressed regret for the inaction of the British government during the Irish Potato Famine; and, during the Clinton administration alone, the United States apologized for its failure to respond quickly to genocide in Rwanda, the Tuskegee experiment and the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii. In contrast to these examples, there have also been a number of instances in which states have refused to apologize or provide reparations despite frequent demands: Turkey has repeatedly refused to acknowledge or apologize for the Armenian genocide; Australia long refused to apologize to the thousands of Aboriginal children who were forcibly removed from their families between 1910 and 1969; and the United States has resisted providing African Americans reparations for slavery. The goal of this paper is to illuminate how states make decisions about whether or not to apologize or provide financial compensation for violations of human rights. Reparative justice has been used increasingly as a mechanism of diplomacy and reconciliation. However, even in the context of the same act of cruelty, some victims receive apologies and material compensation and others do not. This ‘acknowledgement gap’ casts doubt on whether compensatory policies are sincere expressions of guilt and remorse. It                                                                1) Lee Taft, ‘Apology subverted: The commodification of apology’, Yale Law Journal Vol. 109, No. 5 (2000), p. 1135.    1 is only recently that scholars have begun to consider the motivations behind political apologies and reparation agreements. While these motivations are admittedly difficult to assess, a closer look at the recipients of apologies provides some insight. Even in the context of the same abuse, some victims receive apologies and material compensation and others do not. This article seeks to illuminate this ‘acknowledgement gap’ and explain how states make decisions about which categories of victims will receive reparative justice. In addition, it seeks to explain which type of restitution (material, symbolic, or both) will be offered by the perpetrator. The efforts of Germany and Japan to acknowledge and atone for the atrocities they committed during World War II have been widely studied by scholars of political apologies. This article will revisit these cases, disaggregate the categories of victims and assess the extent to which different categories of victims received symbolic or material reparations. It is argued that the type and quality of recompense offered is determined by an interaction between two explanatory variables: the extent to which a state perceives that reparation is in accordance with its security interests and the state’s evaluation of the potential domestic cost of atonement. Symbolic compensations - political apologies, memorials, and days of commemoration - are the least costly form of contrition. Therefore, they may be offered even when the benefits of contrition are low. Material compensations, however, which are most costly, will only be offered when reconciliation with the victimized party serves the state’s security interests. This paper first provides an overview of the existing literature on reparative justice and the motivations behind political apologies. It then provides a theoretical model, which is grounded in rational choice theory, as to how states make strategic decisions about restitution. However, the bargaining process can be influenced by changes in the normative environment which, over time, may lower the domestic cost of recognition. The paper proceeds to assess the extent to which different categories of victims during World War II have received material and symbolic reparations. It argues that Germany provided material and symbolic reparations to the Jewish people because these policies facilitated Germany’s foreign policy interests. Because reparative justice for other victims of National Socialism - forced laborers, homosexuals, the disabled and the Roma - was not linked with Germany’s security interests, it was repeatedly denied. Over time, normative changes lowered Germany’s domestic cost of recognition and symbolic and material amends were provided. To counter this example, the Roma in the Czech Republic have not received symbolic or material reparations, because the persistence of     2 xenophobic attitudes towards the Roma makes recognition politically costly, outweighing the potential benefits of recognition. Lastly, this paper will analyze the extent to which the ‘comfort women’ who were forced into sexual slavery by the Japanese during World War ІІ have received reparations relative to other victims of Japanese war crimes. In this instance, it is argued that because the benefits of providing reparations to these women are low and the domestic cost is high, the Japanese have provided, at best, ambiguous symbolic reparations and no material reparations. The evidence will show that reparative justice is often selective. The conclusion strives to illuminate what the implications of these findings are for scholars and policymakers. Reparative Justice What is Reparative Justice? In her extensive study of reparative justice, Teitel asserts that ‘reparatory practices have become the leading response in the contemporary wave of political transformation.’2 In accordance with The International Center for Transitional Justice, reparative justice is defined as mechanisms that ‘seek to acknowledge victims as right - holders entitled to direct redress’ and ‘to address the consequences as well as the causes of violations in material and symbolic ways.’3 There are two primary types of reparative policies: material and symbolic. Material reparations are those that involve concrete forms of compensation and ‘result in a final settlement between offender and victim and typically consist of specific agreements about compensating the victim.’4 According to international law there is a duty to provide redress for harm suffered in the form of restitution and compensation. Compensation ‘should be provided for any economically assessable damage, as appropriate and proportional to the gravity of the violation and the circumstances of each case resulting from gross violations of international human rights law.’5 Material compensation can include both economic and material benefits including                                                                2) Ruti G. Teitel, Transitional Justice (Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 127. 3) ‘Reparations’ International Center for Transitional Justice, available at http://ictj.org/en/tj/782.html. 4) Charles Barton, ‘Theories of Restorative Justice’, Australian Journal of Professional and Applied Ethics, Vol. 2, No. 1 (2000), p. 8. 5) See General Assembly Resolution 60/147, annex parag. 19-23.    3 individual and collective cash payments, trust funds, and redistribution of land or property. Material compensation is particularly important when victims are unable to work or maintain their livelihoods, either because their employment and property have been destroyed, or they were so badly affected psychologically that they can no longer meet the economic demands placed on them to survive.6 In recent years, as transitional justice is taking place in post - conflict developing countries like Uganda, Nepal, and Cambodia scholars have emphasized the necessity of material reparations in order to address ‘the predicament of victims whose poverty and marginalization is attributable to conflict or systematic repression…or who were already poor to begin with.’7 Yet others have suggested that material reparations by themselves are not sufficient, and that victims are more concerned with receiving a sincere apology that addresses their emotional damage.8 Material compensation does not address ‘the ways that symbolic denigration can reproduce the conditions that led to the violence in the first place’, and, in the absence of symbolic gestures, may be perceived by victims as little more than an effort to ‘buy them off without addressing the normative aspects of past wrongs.’9 Symbolic reparations refer to policies that attempt to restore to victims their sense of dignity and moral worth. They are measures through which the culprit takes responsibility for the suffering of the victims and offers gestures and expressions of remorse. There are numerous varieties of symbolic reparation including official apologies, setting aside a day for national                                                                6) Ernesto Verdeja, ‘A Critical Theory of Reparative Justice’, Constellations, Vol. 15, No. 2 (2008), p. 212. 7) Ruben Carbazza, ‘The Right to Reparations in Situations of Poverty’, International Center for Transitional Justice Briefing, September 2009. 8) Heather Strang et al. ‘Victim evaluations of face-to-face restorative justice conferences. A quasi-experimental analysis’, Journal of Social Issues Vol. 62, No. 2 (2006), pp. 281- 306; Kathleen Daly, ‘Mind the Gap: Restorative Justice in A. Von Hirsch, J.V. Roberts et al (eds.), Theory and Practice’, in Restorative and Criminal Justice: Competing or Reconcilable Paradigm (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2003). 9) Verdeja, (2008), pp. 212-213.     4