Richard Cornwell, Senior Research Consultant, International Crime in Africa Programme, ISS Pretoria

The international debate about the relationship between peace and justice has been especially sharp since the end of the Cold War and seemed to move us beyond the imperatives of global Realpolitik. There are those, of course, who could argue that it has done no such thing and that politics and international affairs remain firmly rooted in the realities of power relations. For the purposes of the brief argument stated here, that is little to the point, however.

Even if we accept that the idea of justice represents an unattainable ideal, in whatever form we give it, and there are many to choose from, we still have to consider its claims to attention in the resolution of conflict and the achievement of a lasting peace.

It has to be realised at the outset that the historical record of peacemaking in the post-Cold War era fits into too brief a period to draw any but the most conditional of conclusions - something that seems to have escaped the advocates of peace versus justice or peace with justice. Nor is there space here to consider their various and competing claims. Diplomats and others whose principal concern is to achieve peace accords relatively quickly may choose to defer matters of justice to a later date, but lawyers and human rights activists would tend to a different view. Both have a moral and professional interest in taking these positions. If one were to make a suggestion, however, it would be that while truces and peace agreements may be concluded without too much attention to demands for justice, this cannot be said for attempts to achieve positive and durable peace and reconciliation.

In the latter case, where a self-sustaining peace is sought, an element of truth-telling would seem to be unavoidable. This is not merely a matter of weighing the grievances of the victims and perpetrators, and sometimes the victim/perpetrators, though an acknowledgement of the suffering experienced is important both as an element of social healing and as an antidote to its repetition. It also allows us more accurately to address what are misleadingly referred to as root causes.

This is not to argue that a comprehensively objective truth is available. Beyond the most elementary of factual assertions, subjectivity becomes unavoidable, but what may be achieved is an understanding of the validity of contrasting historical accounts. Understanding different narratives of the same events can play a significant role in defusing tensions and hatreds that might contribute to future violence. What is important here is the contribution of truth-telling to the dissolution of absolutes.

In ways different from the advocates of violence, protagonists in the peace/justice debate may also be guilty of taking liberties with their deployment of historical evidence for their chosen causes. Something of which many historians themselves need reminding is that history, though it is lived forwards, is written backwards. Most of the logic of events is inserted after the event to make them intelligible, it does not necessarily inform actions as they happen. In other words, causation is a very elusive and dangerous concept, something that has major implications for people attempting to impute cause to correlation, as many scholars using regression analysis seem to do. (I pause here to wonder what in the real world an independent variable would look like.) We must come to terms with the limits to what is in any positivist sense “knowable� – indeed, much of what happens in the real world may be counter-intuitive. If we say that our reading of history is useful in making it possible to anticipate the future we are at once stating the obvious but, if we take the idea too far, also run the risk of making a cardinal error. As the great mid-20th century historian Sir Lewis Namier put it, “The enduring achievement of historical study is a historical sense … of how things do not happen.�

Let us take an example to illustrate this point. It has been argued, for instance, that leaders facing retribution for crimes committed while in office will tend to retain power at virtually any cost. Yet the historical record would suggest that even the most absolute of tyrants cannot do exactly as he pleases and must look to his confederates for support, whether coerced or willing. Under certain circumstances even the cruelest and most ruthless of regimes are vulnerable to upheavals near their core, and the political calculations of those involved in political intrigue of a potentially lethal nature are unlikely to be moved by strictly rational considerations of cause and effect. In short, political life even in authoritarian systems does not play itself out in a mechanistic fashion. Nor are the players in such systems immune to the influence of outside forces. Let us, for argument’s sake, imagine that a president is threatened by international legal action for crimes either real or imagined. While this may strengthen his personal resolve to defy international opinion and persist in policies inimical to the restoration of civil and legal order, he cannot safely do this without due regard to the interests of those supporting him. There may come a time when some among his lieutenants regard him as a liability and threat to their own future welfare and decide that his is a sacrifice they are willing to make. Thus do odious regimes seek to remake themselves.

Alternatively, the threat of serious personal sanction may persuade the dictator to modify his behaviour, adopting a more reasonable public line in an attempt to refute the allegations of the prosecution.

There are many variants upon this theme, and the course chosen is unlikely to be unambiguous or constant. Part of this may be a result of the deliberate obfuscation of policy choices, but a great deal will also be the result of changing whims and circumstances.

It would be very useful to be able to say that so much concession on the side of justice would lead to so many gains on the side of peace, or vice versa, but the equation is never that simple.

Lauren Tracey: Consultant, Arms Management Programme, ISS Pretoria Office

In Africa, the involvement of countries in international nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation negotiations continues to be fairly minor. Focused on other more pressing issues such as the alleviation of poverty, the provision of educational facilities, health care and the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons (SALW), African countries have side lined the need to actively engage and get involved in discussions on the risk posed by the threat of use or actual use of nuclear weapons.

Regarded as the corner stone of the global nuclear non-proliferation regime, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which entered into force in 1970 and was extended indefinitely in 1995 is a treaty based on three pillars that have been designed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology so as to further the goal of nuclear disarmament and promote co-operation in the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

With the upcoming 2010 Review Conference of the Parties to the NPT, African countries can now become more actively involved in such negotiations so as to progress forward. Over the years Africa’s electrical consumption has been growing at a rapid rate. In South Africa, a country that supplies approximately 60% of the rest of Africa’s electricity, the recent increase in electrical consumption as well as the extension of its power grid to rural communities has left the country struggling with serious power shortages. These power shortages, in turn, affected the country’s economic growth significantly from the period 2004-2007.

The lack of electricity in Africa has further served to compound the continents battle with the supply of electricity to many of its industries and inhabitants. By peacefully utilizing nuclear material and technology, Africa could substantially alleviate the continents increased appetite for electricity in the future. Identified as “one of the cleanest means of generating electrical power today, nuclear energy emits no controlled pollutants or greenhouse gases during electricity production at nuclear plants and has no impact on respiratory or other human health issues�. After decades of use and continuous assessment of adequate safety measures the benefits of such an electrical source from its contribution towards nuclear science and technology for agriculture, health and medicine to food preservation, hydrology and mining indicate that the long-term effects of such an energy source could assist Africa in its development.

Nuclear energy however does come with a few fears. The environmental impact nuclear energy may have on the world has been widely debated. Some fears cited range from scenarios on possible leakages of radioactivity occurring at nuclear plants, eventually harming or killing the surrounding inhabitants, or nuclear power plants being targets of terrorist acts or sites where nuclear material could be accessed for hostile purposes. There is also a concern surrounding the dumping of radioactive waste, which needs to be safely stored for hundreds of years before it can be disposed of effectively. Carbon dioxide emissions (CO2) resulting from the use of nuclear energy have also raised considerable debate amongst many environmentalists, nuclear energy however is among those energy sources producing very low levels of CO2 from its full life cycle. Nuclear energy can therefore be closely compared to renewable energies such as wind, solar and hydro in this respect. While the short-term effects of such an energy source may be challenging the long term outcomes associated with nuclear energy could be very beneficial to Africa. Nuclear fuel can be recycled which makes the energy source sustainable; furthermore the release of low level radiation when managed correctly and effectively are highly unlikely. The production and proliferation of nuclear weapons by criminal elements can also be curbed as in order to produce nuclear weapons the use of the radioactive element plutonium is required. “Modern technologies, however, allow the separation of plutonium from reusable uranium so that plutonium and other byproducts with which it is combined can be recycled back into fuel reactors�. In terms of the dangers associated with the dumping of radioactive waste it is important to note that under the Treaty of Pelindaba of 1995 declaring Africa a zone free of nuclear weapons, the dumping of radioactive waste anywhere within the zone is prohibited.

Nearly every aspect of human development such as health, agriculture, education and industries depend on reliable access to modern energy sources. African countries can no longer afford not to take the opportunity to peacefully use nuclear technology to assist its development while at the same time being concerned about nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. In Africa the peaceful use of nuclear technology to alleviate energy sources and develop a form of energy that will contribute effectively to the national interests of African countries, should be an area worth investigating.

Maendeleo, a Swahili term for development has been the catchword on most African states’ agendas for the better part of two decades. It is a force that drives the poorer nations forward in an increasingly globalised and smaller world. The potential nuclear energy has to catalyze this force is tempered by the darker side of nuclear development, that is, the production of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). African countries, poised to speed up their development, need to pay more attention to the thin line between the peaceful use of nuclear energy and the development of nuclear weapons.