This is the last entry you can comment on for the month of April.
What do you
think of government apologies for injustices committed in the past? Do you agree with the author in this
case? Is he right in being dismissive of
possible financial obligations for example?
I understand that some countries feel a grudge for actions done against them in the past. Nevertheless, I lack the sense of excusing the brutality committed by people in the past. The problem is that it is too easy for a government to excuse something not committed by it, what means that the value of the apology is quite low. Moreover, as the article shows, there is a danger of the "slippery slope" - nothing can determine what is serious enough to be apologized.
ReplyDeleteIn the recent Slovak presidential campaign, it was mentioned that Slovakia should apologize for allowing the NATO airplanes to fly over Slovakia and bomb targets in the Yugoslavia. It makes sense, as if one considers bombing of Yugoslavia a crime, Slovak commitment could be seen as a solid ground for apology. However, Yugoslavia war occurred 20 years ago, and people sitting in the government now are not the same ones as were in 1999. Hence, an apology would be far from being sincere. Moreover, the same way we should expect an apology and compensation for crimes done during the Second World War by the Soviet soldiers. So, in terms of direct influence, it doesn't make much sense to apologize for something done in the past by completely different government.
Nevertheless, the apology mainly consist of words, and words are usually the cheapest option. As the article states, an official apology can improve the relations between people, as it can effectively close the issue and allow scholars and scientists to study the issue more objectively. Moreover, as the result of an apology, the trade between the countries may increase because of improved relations between the citizens of both countries.
Hence, although the apology has no or even negative direct power, indirectly, it has good and beneficial effects for both sides.
In 14th of April, 2019, after exactly 100 years from the event, the British ambassador of India visited the memorial service of the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre and offered a flower to the victims of the incident. Of course, there was no official apology made by the ambassador in the event, although, he stated that “It is impossible to change what happened in the past. However, what we can do is to learn from the lesson, and we will never forget about what happened here ”.
ReplyDeleteJust like the statement made by the ambassador, the British government has constantly shown a sense of regret towards the massacre that happened in Amritsar. However, at the same time, despite the public demands, they have continuously avoided saying “sorry” for the event. In my opinion, there is a reason why the British government refuses to apologize, and that is because they are fearing to admit a fault. An apology towards the massacre in Amritsar would directly indicate that the British government have officially accepted the wrongdoings of their colonial rule, and renounced the legitimacy of it. By making themselves internationally recognized as the “antagonist” in history, it will create a ripple effect, making other numerous numbers of states that were under the colonial rule of the British Empire to demand a public apology, and eventually a financial obligation. This effect can be seen in this article, as the author’s biggest motive to demand the British government to apologize was because of the recent apology made by Queen Elizabeth to the Irish people regarding the Bloody Sunday.
A parallel can be drawn with the current situation between Japan and South Korea. After the continuous demand from South Korea for an official apology and compensation regarding the comfort women, in 2015, the Japanese government agreed to pay 1 billion yen for the issue (they have never made an apology), and both countries concluded this as the final and irreversible solution for the issue. However, this was the beginning of the ripple effect, as South Korea took this payment as the evidence that Japan accepted the crime. As the regime change happened in 2017, the South Korean government have demanded another compensation regarding the comfort women, stating that the previous agreement is now “invalid”. In addition, in 2018, the former conscripted workers have alleged multiple Japanese companies to pay compensation for the forced labor that was conducted in the Second World War. As this is only a conflict between two countries, the effect is very limited, although, in the case of Britain, the countries in concern would be relatively higher, and the British government would have to diplomatically negotiate with numerous numbers of state.
The author of this article stated that there is no worry for financial consequences, but I would argue for this statement. As we can see in the example of Japan and South Korea, once a country admits the sin, it will never able to change it again. The author’s argumentation using the Black nationalists are ineffective, as the issue already reached an irreversible agreement with the Slave Emancipation Act, and there is no such reason for the Black society to ask for compensation if the British government have accepted the Africans into the society, and admitted the past fault publically. However, in the case of the problems regarding the colonial rules, the British government have remained untouched until now, and it will be difficult for us to boldly conclude that the countries in concern would accept the apology and do nothing with it; we are simply impossible to assume what would be the international reaction towards the first apology ever made against the past colonies. I am not saying that the British government should not feel responsible for the massacre, although, I want to say that an apology is not merely a “word” as the author states; it is a significant factor that will greatly influence a country’s position in the society