What I say may not be true, but it’s always for peace.


During a recent conversation with one of Ituri’s many local leaders, he said something that I keep thinking about. He was telling me about his role in the community. In his words, he was a man of the peace, working always towards la pacification. Here is a rough translation of his words:

I’m a man of peace, always working for the pacification of Ituri, even during the war! People know this about me, so they come to me with questions and for information. And I tell them things. Sometimes they’re true and sometimes they’re not true. But they’re always for peace!

I’ve been thinking a lot about this man (full disclosure: he’s not the guy in the photo, which I took…but I think this photo kind of speaks to the issue). He clearly was on the side of peace. Even during the war he would leave the capital, Bunia, to get messages of peace to the villages in his native territory (if what he told me was true of course…). On one trip he was attacked with a machete (that’s true–he showed me the scar). So his response alarmed me. He said it with a large grin, almost as further proof that he really was a man of the peace: willing to lie in the name of peace!

But then again, it didn’t really surprise me. We can say after some of our fieldwork here that “le mensonge” (the lie) has a central place in the general discourse. EVERYONE thinks that EVERYONE ELSE has lied, is lying and will lie. I think my favorite conversation on this point was when one group of local leaders outside Bunia said, “you have to start with all the communities apart because that group will lie, and that other group will lie too…” and then they paused, “and we’ll lie too!” At this point they all burst out laughing. It was like the fact that everyone does and will lie was so universally know that it was pointless to try and keep up a veneer of sincerity for the researchers from out of town.

This makes the work of researchers and investigators particularly difficult, not only for their actual work, but also for their local reputations. We’ve already mentioned the ubiquity of the “fake victims” in the discourse around the ICC’s investigations here. This is old news to most followers of ICL, but it’s not an old problem, as Human Rights Watch was reminded last month when it was accused of having ‘zero credibility’.

Another interesting aspect is that while pretty much everyone here in Ituri thinks that everyone lies, people also see something positive in that, depending on how you ask. We’ve asked, for instance, whether the different communities here have their own version of the war’s history, and if so, what’s good and what’s bad about that. Most have agreed unanimously that yes, each community has its own version of the history of the war. Most have also recognized the hurdles that this proliferation poses for reconciliation. But the community leaders we pose this question to have also generally agreed that it has a positive side: most have said that it’s good for a community to have its own history of the war because this can help its members come to know their identity.

This is particularly important in the Ituri context. Probably like most other societies ripped apart by mass violence, Ituri’s social fabric was dramatically altered by the war, and its customary relationships (hierarchies, sources of identity, etc.) have never returned and probably will never return to where they were before 1999. Most challenging is the presence of thousands of young, demobilized former soldiers who are mostly uneducated, who live on the edge of poverty and who are easily whipped into a fury, but who don’t necessarily respect the word of their community’s traditional leaders.

So while the proliferation of different truths poses significant risks to any process of truth and reconciliation (in a later post we’ll turn to how all these different truths fuel interethnic anger, mistrust and violence), it may in some ways ironically help to soothe some of the other scars left by war. Could a community’s own version of history be used to bring it together without confronting those of the other communities against which it fought? Maybe. It would certainly need to be well managed–and in the absence of the state, that job would fall to the NGOs.

4 thoughts on “What I say may not be true, but it’s always for peace.

  1. I think a community’s version history can be a tool for reconciliation, but if it isn’t inclusive within that ethnic group (ie. if it’s led by the educated, powerful, usually male population to the exclusion of women, children or others lacking that power), then the selective truth-telling can have dangerous repercussions. There has been a strong feminist critique of the selective truth-telling of post-WWII Germany which largely ignored the mass rapes of German women by Soviet and other soldiers, in order to “preserve the dignity” of those women, and of Germany itself (since rape is also often used as a tool to humiliate the men of the group/country that has been conquered)

  2. Yes, it’s a very good point, and in fact the discourse I reference here comes exactly from the older, male, traditional leadership, for whom “knowing one’s identity” is also a way to legitimate the traditional hierarchies that consolidate their hold on power. One thing we haven’t done yet is to compare the answers to this question from other groups, like members of civil society (including women’s groups).

  3. It it not completely related to the post, but years ago I was studying law of East Asia and I was taught something interesting about trials in Tibet and Nepal: there, the judge meets each party separately during different sessions and, trying to achieve a reconciliation among them, might as well distort what one said when reporting it to the other party.
    Of course, this “story telling” requires good narrative and negotiating skills, but it’s an interesting approach.

    Coming back to the topic, we experienced the same issue in Italy after WWII, when many crimes committed by Italians have been hidden and not prosecuted until the ’90: this was somewhat helpful for building a common basis, not a controversial one, but on the other hand totally failed to clarify some points and later allowed post-fascists to legitimately claim their political ideas.
    Nowadays, the same problem is going on in former Jugoslavia (as the demostrations in Zagreb after Gotovina’s first sentence show). But some interesting “common narratives” are taking place (like the Center for Documentation and Research in Sarajevo).

    From my point of view, probably due to my experience as Italian, I totally qoute Friedrich Heer who did say “only the truth shall set you free; the whole truth, which is always painful to listen to” (translation is mine, pole).

  4. Pingback: The Ntaganda confirmation of charges decision: A victory for gender justice? | Beyond The Hague

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s