The status of state apologies

Human Rights Quarterly

Volumn 23, Issue 4, 2001, Pages 911-939

  Gibney, Mark ^a   Roxstrom, Erik ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0042884175     PISSN: 02750392     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1353/hrq.2001.0051     Document Type: Article

References (106)

1. This is not to ignore previous state apologies, most notably those involving World War II. Since the war's end, Germany has repeatedly expressed remorse for its actions during World War II. In addition, Germany has paid restitution to Holocaust survivors for decades. By way of contrast, it has only been fairly recently that Japan has issued an apology (of sorts) for its role in WWII. In June, 1995, as part of the ceremonies to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II, Japanese Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama stated that: "I would like to say that Japan is deeply remorseful for its past and strives for world peace." In July of that same year, the government apologized to the 200,000 "comfort women" forced into military-run brothels during WWII and it instituted a compensation fund as "an expression of atonement on the part of the people of Japan to these women." Apologies: Who's Sorry Now? 3 INDEX ON CENSORSHIP, 46-47 (1998). Depending upon how one interprets some of the language that has been used, since that time the Japanese Prime Minister has issued apologies to China, Korea and Britain. Japan Offers Apology to Britain Over War, N.Y. TIMES, 13 Jan. 1998, at 47; Nicholas D. Kristof, Japan Apologizes Forcefully for Its Occupation of Korea, N.Y. TIMES, 9 Oct. 1998, at A3; Nicholas D. Kristof, China Gets An Apology From Japan, N.Y. TIMES, 27 Nov. 1998, at A6. For an excellent discussion of these issues see generally, IAN BURUMA, THE WAGES OF GUILT: MEMORIES OF WAR IN GERMANY AND JAPAN (1994).
2. This is not to ignore previous state apologies, most notably those involving World War II. Since the war's end, Germany has repeatedly expressed remorse for its actions during World War II. In addition, Germany has paid restitution to Holocaust survivors for decades. By way of contrast, it has only been fairly recently that Japan has issued an apology (of sorts) for its role in WWII. In June, 1995, as part of the ceremonies to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II, Japanese Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama stated that: "I would like to say that Japan is deeply remorseful for its past and strives for world peace." In July of that same year, the government apologized to the 200,000 "comfort women" forced into military-run brothels during WWII and it instituted a compensation fund as "an expression of atonement on the part of the people of Japan to these women." Apologies: Who's Sorry Now? 3 INDEX ON CENSORSHIP, 46-47 (1998). Depending upon how one interprets some of the language that has been used, since that time the Japanese Prime Minister has issued apologies to China, Korea and Britain. Japan Offers Apology to Britain Over War, N.Y. TIMES, 13 Jan. 1998, at 47; Nicholas D. Kristof, Japan Apologizes Forcefully for Its Occupation of Korea, N.Y. TIMES, 9 Oct. 1998, at A3; Nicholas D. Kristof, China Gets An Apology From Japan, N.Y. TIMES, 27 Nov. 1998, at A6. For an excellent discussion of these issues see generally, IAN BURUMA, THE WAGES OF GUILT: MEMORIES OF WAR IN GERMANY AND JAPAN (1994).
3. This is not to ignore previous state apologies, most notably those involving World War II. Since the war's end, Germany has repeatedly expressed remorse for its actions during World War II. In addition, Germany has paid restitution to Holocaust survivors for decades. By way of contrast, it has only been fairly recently that Japan has issued an apology (of sorts) for its role in WWII. In June, 1995, as part of the ceremonies to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II, Japanese Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama stated that: "I would like to say that Japan is deeply remorseful for its past and strives for world peace." In July of that same year, the government apologized to the 200,000 "comfort women" forced into military-run brothels during WWII and it instituted a compensation fund as "an expression of atonement on the part of the people of Japan to these women." Apologies: Who's Sorry Now? 3 INDEX ON CENSORSHIP, 46-47 (1998). Depending upon how one interprets some of the language that has been used, since that time the Japanese Prime Minister has issued apologies to China, Korea and Britain. Japan Offers Apology to Britain Over War, N.Y. TIMES, 13 Jan. 1998, at 47; Nicholas D. Kristof, Japan Apologizes Forcefully for Its Occupation of Korea, N.Y. TIMES, 9 Oct. 1998, at A3; Nicholas D. Kristof, China Gets An Apology From Japan, N.Y. TIMES, 27 Nov. 1998, at A6. For an excellent discussion of these issues see generally, IAN BURUMA, THE WAGES OF GUILT: MEMORIES OF WAR IN GERMANY AND JAPAN (1994).
4. This is not to ignore previous state apologies, most notably those involving World War II. Since the war's end, Germany has repeatedly expressed remorse for its actions during World War II. In addition, Germany has paid restitution to Holocaust survivors for decades. By way of contrast, it has only been fairly recently that Japan has issued an apology (of sorts) for its role in WWII. In June, 1995, as part of the ceremonies to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II, Japanese Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama stated that: "I would like to say that Japan is deeply remorseful for its past and strives for world peace." In July of that same year, the government apologized to the 200,000 "comfort women" forced into military-run brothels during WWII and it instituted a compensation fund as "an expression of atonement on the part of the people of Japan to these women." Apologies: Who's Sorry Now? 3 INDEX ON CENSORSHIP, 46-47 (1998). Depending upon how one interprets some of the language that has been used, since that time the Japanese Prime Minister has issued apologies to China, Korea and Britain. Japan Offers Apology to Britain Over War, N.Y. TIMES, 13 Jan. 1998, at 47; Nicholas D. Kristof, Japan Apologizes Forcefully for Its Occupation of Korea, N.Y. TIMES, 9 Oct. 1998, at A3; Nicholas D. Kristof, China Gets An Apology From Japan, N.Y. TIMES, 27 Nov. 1998, at A6. For an excellent discussion of these issues see generally, IAN BURUMA, THE WAGES OF GUILT: MEMORIES OF WAR IN GERMANY AND JAPAN (1994).
5. This is not to ignore previous state apologies, most notably those involving World War II. Since the war's end, Germany has repeatedly expressed remorse for its actions during World War II. In addition, Germany has paid restitution to Holocaust survivors for decades. By way of contrast, it has only been fairly recently that Japan has issued an apology (of sorts) for its role in WWII. In June, 1995, as part of the ceremonies to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II, Japanese Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama stated that: "I would like to say that Japan is deeply remorseful for its past and strives for world peace." In July of that same year, the government apologized to the 200,000 "comfort women" forced into military-run brothels during WWII and it instituted a compensation fund as "an expression of atonement on the part of the people of Japan to these women." Apologies: Who's Sorry Now? 3 INDEX ON CENSORSHIP, 46-47 (1998). Depending upon how one interprets some of the language that has been used, since that time the Japanese Prime Minister has issued apologies to China, Korea and Britain. Japan Offers Apology to Britain Over War, N.Y. TIMES, 13 Jan. 1998, at 47; Nicholas D. Kristof, Japan Apologizes Forcefully for Its Occupation of Korea, N.Y. TIMES, 9 Oct. 1998, at A3; Nicholas D. Kristof, China Gets An Apology From Japan, N.Y. TIMES, 27 Nov. 1998, at A6. For an excellent discussion of these issues see generally, IAN BURUMA, THE WAGES OF GUILT: MEMORIES OF WAR IN GERMANY AND JAPAN (1994).
6. A state apology is usually given by the head of state speaking on behalf of the government of that country acknowledging some previous wrong. Even here, however, there has been controversy in terms of whether the apology was merely an expression of personal remorse or whether it represented official state policy. This has been a contentious issue involving Japanese measures to date. We purposely have avoided this endless and rather fruitless debate of whether an apology has - or has not - been issued. For an excellent overview of state apologies (as well as missed opportunities) see generally WHEN SORRY ISN'T ENOUGH: THE CONTROVERSY OVER APOLOGIES AND REPARATIONS (Roy L. Brooks ed., 1999). And for a wonderful treatment of the important role that restitution schemes have played in the creation of a new international morality see ELAZAR BARKAN, THE GUILT OF NATIONS: RESTITUTION AND NEGOTIATING HISTORICAL INJUSTICES (2000).
7. A state apology is usually given by the head of state speaking on behalf of the government of that country acknowledging some previous wrong. Even here, however, there has been controversy in terms of whether the apology was merely an expression of personal remorse or whether it represented official state policy. This has been a contentious issue involving Japanese measures to date. We purposely have avoided this endless and rather fruitless debate of whether an apology has - or has not - been issued. For an excellent overview of state apologies (as well as missed opportunities) see generally WHEN SORRY ISN'T ENOUGH: THE CONTROVERSY OVER APOLOGIES AND REPARATIONS (Roy L. Brooks ed., 1999). And for a wonderful treatment of the important role that restitution schemes have played in the creation of a new international morality see ELAZAR BARKAN, THE GUILT OF NATIONS: RESTITUTION AND NEGOTIATING HISTORICAL INJUSTICES (2000).
8. No doubt the most widely publicized religious apologies were those issued by Pope John Paul II in the spring 2000. The first was during a Sunday liturgy where he, along with seven cardinals and bishops, cited a number of Church lapses, past and present, including religious intolerance and injustice toward Jews, women, indigenous peoples, immigrants, and the poor and the unborn. The Pope's apology included the following lamentations: We cannot not recognize the betrayals of the Gospel committed by some of our brothers, especially during the second millennium. We ask forgiveness for the divisions between Christians, for the use of violence that some have resorted to in the service of truth and for the acts of dissidence and of hostility sometimes taken towards followers of other religions. We confess to our responsibilities as Christians for the sins of today. Before atheism, religious indifference secularism, ethical relativism, to violations of the right to life, to the indifference towards poverty of many countries, we cannot not ask ourselves what are our responsibilities. Alessandra Stanley, Pope Asks Forgiveness for Errors of the Church Over 2,000 Years N.Y. TIMES, 13 Mar. 2000 at A1. Subsequent to this, the Pope issued an apology at Yad Vashem, the saddest and starkest memorial in Israel, for the role played by the Church during the Holocaust. Included in his apology was the following: I have come to Yad Vashem to pay homage to the millions of Jewish people who, stripped of everything, especially of their human dignity, were murdered in the Holocaust. More than a half century has passed, but the memories remain. Here, as in Auschwitz and many other places in Europe, we are overcome by the echo of the heart-rendering laments of so many. Men, women, children cry out to us from the depths of the horror that they knew. How can we fail to heed their cry? No one can forget or ignore what happened. No one can diminish its scale. We wish to remember. But we wish to remember for a purpose, namely to ensure that never again will evil prevail as it did for the millions of innocent victims of Nazism. How could man have such utter contempt for man? Because we had reached the point of contempt for God. Only a Godless ideology could plan and carry out the extermination of a whole people. As Bishop of Rome and successor of the Apostle Peter, I assure the lewish people that the Catholic Church motivated by the Gospel law of truth and love and by no political considerations, is deeply saddened by the hatred, acts of persecution and displays of anti-Semitism directed against the Jews by Christians at any time and in any place. The Church rejects racism in any form as a denial of the image of the Creator inherent in every human being. In this place of solemn remembrance, I fervently pray that our sorrow for the tragedy which the lewish people suffered in the 20th century will lead to a new relationship between Christians and Jews. Let us build a new future in which there will be no more anti-Jewish feeling among Christians, or anti-Christian feeling among Jews, but rather the mutual respect required of those who adore the one Creator and Lord, and look to Abraham as our common father in faith. Alessandra Stanley, At Yad Vashem, Pope Tries to Salve History's Scars, N.Y. TIMES, 24 Mar. 2000, at A1. The Pope has also made symbolic gestures towards other religions. In May 2001, the Pope traveled to Athens to visit with the head of the Greek Orthodox Church at that time he offered "deep regret" for the misdeeds of the Roman Catholic Church and especially those carried out during the Crusades. Alessandra Stanley, In Athens Pope Voices Regret for Church Sins, N.Y. TIMES, 5 May 2001 at A1. A few days later the Pope attended a ceremony at a mosque in Damascus as a way of reconciling with the Muslim faith. Alessandra Stanley, Pope, In Damascus, Goes to Mosque in Move For Unity, N.Y. TIMES, 7 May 2001, at A1.
9. No doubt the most widely publicized religious apologies were those issued by Pope John Paul II in the spring 2000. The first was during a Sunday liturgy where he, along with seven cardinals and bishops, cited a number of Church lapses, past and present, including religious intolerance and injustice toward Jews, women, indigenous peoples, immigrants, and the poor and the unborn. The Pope's apology included the following lamentations: We cannot not recognize the betrayals of the Gospel committed by some of our brothers, especially during the second millennium. We ask forgiveness for the divisions between Christians, for the use of violence that some have resorted to in the service of truth and for the acts of dissidence and of hostility sometimes taken towards followers of other religions. We confess to our responsibilities as Christians for the sins of today. Before atheism, religious indifference secularism, ethical relativism, to violations of the right to life, to the indifference towards poverty of many countries, we cannot not ask ourselves what are our responsibilities. Alessandra Stanley, Pope Asks Forgiveness for Errors of the Church Over 2,000 Years N.Y. TIMES, 13 Mar. 2000 at A1. Subsequent to this, the Pope issued an apology at Yad Vashem, the saddest and starkest memorial in Israel, for the role played by the Church during the Holocaust. Included in his apology was the following: I have come to Yad Vashem to pay homage to the millions of Jewish people who, stripped of everything, especially of their human dignity, were murdered in the Holocaust. More than a half century has passed, but the memories remain. Here, as in Auschwitz and many other places in Europe, we are overcome by the echo of the heart-rendering laments of so many. Men, women, children cry out to us from the depths of the horror that they knew. How can we fail to heed their cry? No one can forget or ignore what happened. No one can diminish its scale. We wish to remember. But we wish to remember for a purpose, namely to ensure that never again will evil prevail as it did for the millions of innocent victims of Nazism. How could man have such utter contempt for man? Because we had reached the point of contempt for God. Only a Godless ideology could plan and carry out the extermination of a whole people. As Bishop of Rome and successor of the Apostle Peter, I assure the lewish people that the Catholic Church motivated by the Gospel law of truth and love and by no political considerations, is deeply saddened by the hatred, acts of persecution and displays of anti-Semitism directed against the Jews by Christians at any time and in any place. The Church rejects racism in any form as a denial of the image of the Creator inherent in every human being. In this place of solemn remembrance, I fervently pray that our sorrow for the tragedy which the lewish people suffered in the 20th century will lead to a new relationship between Christians and Jews. Let us build a new future in which there will be no more anti-Jewish feeling among Christians, or anti-Christian feeling among Jews, but rather the mutual respect required of those who adore the one Creator and Lord, and look to Abraham as our common father in faith. Alessandra Stanley, At Yad Vashem, Pope Tries to Salve History's Scars, N.Y. TIMES, 24 Mar. 2000, at A1. The Pope has also made symbolic gestures towards other religions. In May 2001, the Pope traveled to Athens to visit with the head of the Greek Orthodox Church at that time he offered "deep regret" for the misdeeds of the Roman Catholic Church and especially those carried out during the Crusades. Alessandra Stanley, In Athens Pope Voices Regret for Church Sins, N.Y. TIMES, 5 May 2001 at A1. A few days later the Pope attended a ceremony at a mosque in Damascus as a way of reconciling with the Muslim faith. Alessandra Stanley, Pope, In Damascus, Goes to Mosque in Move For Unity, N.Y. TIMES, 7 May 2001, at A1.
10. No doubt the most widely publicized religious apologies were those issued by Pope John Paul II in the spring 2000. The first was during a Sunday liturgy where he, along with seven cardinals and bishops, cited a number of Church lapses, past and present, including religious intolerance and injustice toward Jews, women, indigenous peoples, immigrants, and the poor and the unborn. The Pope's apology included the following lamentations: We cannot not recognize the betrayals of the Gospel committed by some of our brothers, especially during the second millennium. We ask forgiveness for the divisions between Christians, for the use of violence that some have resorted to in the service of truth and for the acts of dissidence and of hostility sometimes taken towards followers of other religions. We confess to our responsibilities as Christians for the sins of today. Before atheism, religious indifference secularism, ethical relativism, to violations of the right to life, to the indifference towards poverty of many countries, we cannot not ask ourselves what are our responsibilities. Alessandra Stanley, Pope Asks Forgiveness for Errors of the Church Over 2,000 Years N.Y. TIMES, 13 Mar. 2000 at A1. Subsequent to this, the Pope issued an apology at Yad Vashem, the saddest and starkest memorial in Israel, for the role played by the Church during the Holocaust. Included in his apology was the following: I have come to Yad Vashem to pay homage to the millions of Jewish people who, stripped of everything, especially of their human dignity, were murdered in the Holocaust. More than a half century has passed, but the memories remain. Here, as in Auschwitz and many other places in Europe, we are overcome by the echo of the heart-rendering laments of so many. Men, women, children cry out to us from the depths of the horror that they knew. How can we fail to heed their cry? No one can forget or ignore what happened. No one can diminish its scale. We wish to remember. But we wish to remember for a purpose, namely to ensure that never again will evil prevail as it did for the millions of innocent victims of Nazism. How could man have such utter contempt for man? Because we had reached the point of contempt for God. Only a Godless ideology could plan and carry out the extermination of a whole people. As Bishop of Rome and successor of the Apostle Peter, I assure the lewish people that the Catholic Church motivated by the Gospel law of truth and love and by no political considerations, is deeply saddened by the hatred, acts of persecution and displays of anti-Semitism directed against the Jews by Christians at any time and in any place. The Church rejects racism in any form as a denial of the image of the Creator inherent in every human being. In this place of solemn remembrance, I fervently pray that our sorrow for the tragedy which the lewish people suffered in the 20th century will lead to a new relationship between Christians and Jews. Let us build a new future in which there will be no more anti-Jewish feeling among Christians, or anti-Christian feeling among Jews, but rather the mutual respect required of those who adore the one Creator and Lord, and look to Abraham as our common father in faith. Alessandra Stanley, At Yad Vashem, Pope Tries to Salve History's Scars, N.Y. TIMES, 24 Mar. 2000, at A1. The Pope has also made symbolic gestures towards other religions. In May 2001, the Pope traveled to Athens to visit with the head of the Greek Orthodox Church at that time he offered "deep regret" for the misdeeds of the Roman Catholic Church and especially those carried out during the Crusades. Alessandra Stanley, In Athens Pope Voices Regret for Church Sins, N.Y. TIMES, 5 May 2001 at A1. A few days later the Pope attended a ceremony at a mosque in Damascus as a way of reconciling with the Muslim faith. Alessandra Stanley, Pope, In Damascus, Goes to Mosque in Move For Unity, N.Y. TIMES, 7 May 2001, at A1.
11. No doubt the most widely publicized religious apologies were those issued by Pope John Paul II in the spring 2000. The first was during a Sunday liturgy where he, along with seven cardinals and bishops, cited a number of Church lapses, past and present, including religious intolerance and injustice toward Jews, women, indigenous peoples, immigrants, and the poor and the unborn. The Pope's apology included the following lamentations: We cannot not recognize the betrayals of the Gospel committed by some of our brothers, especially during the second millennium. We ask forgiveness for the divisions between Christians, for the use of violence that some have resorted to in the service of truth and for the acts of dissidence and of hostility sometimes taken towards followers of other religions. We confess to our responsibilities as Christians for the sins of today. Before atheism, religious indifference secularism, ethical relativism, to violations of the right to life, to the indifference towards poverty of many countries, we cannot not ask ourselves what are our responsibilities. Alessandra Stanley, Pope Asks Forgiveness for Errors of the Church Over 2,000 Years N.Y. TIMES, 13 Mar. 2000 at A1. Subsequent to this, the Pope issued an apology at Yad Vashem, the saddest and starkest memorial in Israel, for the role played by the Church during the Holocaust. Included in his apology was the following: I have come to Yad Vashem to pay homage to the millions of Jewish people who, stripped of everything, especially of their human dignity, were murdered in the Holocaust. More than a half century has passed, but the memories remain. Here, as in Auschwitz and many other places in Europe, we are overcome by the echo of the heart-rendering laments of so many. Men, women, children cry out to us from the depths of the horror that they knew. How can we fail to heed their cry? No one can forget or ignore what happened. No one can diminish its scale. We wish to remember. But we wish to remember for a purpose, namely to ensure that never again will evil prevail as it did for the millions of innocent victims of Nazism. How could man have such utter contempt for man? Because we had reached the point of contempt for God. Only a Godless ideology could plan and carry out the extermination of a whole people. As Bishop of Rome and successor of the Apostle Peter, I assure the lewish people that the Catholic Church motivated by the Gospel law of truth and love and by no political considerations, is deeply saddened by the hatred, acts of persecution and displays of anti-Semitism directed against the Jews by Christians at any time and in any place. The Church rejects racism in any form as a denial of the image of the Creator inherent in every human being. In this place of solemn remembrance, I fervently pray that our sorrow for the tragedy which the lewish people suffered in the 20th century will lead to a new relationship between Christians and Jews. Let us build a new future in which there will be no more anti-Jewish feeling among Christians, or anti-Christian feeling among Jews, but rather the mutual respect required of those who adore the one Creator and Lord, and look to Abraham as our common father in faith. Alessandra Stanley, At Yad Vashem, Pope Tries to Salve History's Scars, N.Y. TIMES, 24 Mar. 2000, at A1. The Pope has also made symbolic gestures towards other religions. In May 2001, the Pope traveled to Athens to visit with the head of the Greek Orthodox Church at that time he offered "deep regret" for the misdeeds of the Roman Catholic Church and especially those carried out during the Crusades. Alessandra Stanley, In Athens Pope Voices Regret for Church Sins, N.Y. TIMES, 5 May 2001 at A1. A few days later the Pope attended a ceremony at a mosque in Damascus as a way of reconciling with the Muslim faith. Alessandra Stanley, Pope, In Damascus, Goes to Mosque in Move For Unity, N.Y. TIMES, 7 May 2001, at A1.
12. These run the gamut from the apology issued by the International Red Cross for the agency's "moral failure" in not openly denouncing the atrocities committed against Jews during World War II, Index supra note 1, to something like the rather bizarre apology for slavery unilaterally issued by the obscure Chipman Cunningham College for Youth, available at 〈http://www.slaveryapology.com〉.
13. See Hartford Courant Apologizes for Sale Ads It Published in Slavery Era, N.Y. TIMES, 6 July 2000, at B1, (noting apology by the Aetna Corporation for profiting from slavery by issuing insurance policies on slaves in the 1850s, and the Hartford Courant newspaper for profiting from running advertisements for the sale of slaves).
14. See, e.g., Ronald Steel, Sorry About That, NEW REPUBLIC, 20 Apr. 1998, at 9; James Bowman, Sorry about that, 16 NEW CRITERION May 1998, at 50; John Leo, So who's sorry now, 122 U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, 30 June 1997, at 17; Richard John Neuhaus, Apologies on the Cheap, FIRST THINGS: A MONTHLY JOURNAL OF RELIGION AND PUBLIC LIFE, 82 (Apr. 1998).
15. See, e.g., Ronald Steel, Sorry About That, NEW REPUBLIC, 20 Apr. 1998, at 9; James Bowman, Sorry about that, 16 NEW CRITERION May 1998, at 50; John Leo, So who's sorry now, 122 U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, 30 June 1997, at 17; Richard John Neuhaus, Apologies on the Cheap, FIRST THINGS: A MONTHLY JOURNAL OF RELIGION AND PUBLIC LIFE, 82 (Apr. 1998).
16. See, e.g., Ronald Steel, Sorry About That, NEW REPUBLIC, 20 Apr. 1998, at 9; James Bowman, Sorry about that, 16 NEW CRITERION May 1998, at 50; John Leo, So who's sorry now, 122 U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, 30 June 1997, at 17; Richard John Neuhaus, Apologies on the Cheap, FIRST THINGS: A MONTHLY JOURNAL OF RELIGION AND PUBLIC LIFE, 82 (Apr. 1998).
17. See, e.g., Ronald Steel, Sorry About That, NEW REPUBLIC, 20 Apr. 1998, at 9; James Bowman, Sorry about that, 16 NEW CRITERION May 1998, at 50; John Leo, So who's sorry now, 122 U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, 30 June 1997, at 17; Richard John Neuhaus, Apologies on the Cheap, FIRST THINGS: A MONTHLY JOURNAL OF RELIGION AND PUBLIC LIFE, 82 (Apr. 1998).
18. There are times when an apology is purposely not given. Such was the case in Australia when Prime Minister John Howard refused to issue an apology for the ill-treatment of the country's aboriginal population, although the government did issue a Declaration Towards Reconciliation and established various restitution schemes. Clyde H. Farnsworth, Facing Pain of Aborigines Wrested From Families, Many Australians Shrug, N.Y. TIMES, 8 June 1997, at A10. The decision not to apologize (but to take measures just short of this) can often be explained on the basis of the dynamics of domestic politics. Needless to say, however, the battle over whether an apology should be given (or whether an apology actually has been given) oftentimes tends to re-ignite old passions and does much to subvert the entire enterprise. The preferred course is discussed in Section III: asking forgiveness rather than issuing a unilateral apology that does not really include those who have been harmed.
19. During his speech in Uganda in March 1998, infra note 12, President Clinton also made some general statements with respect to the institution of slavery: " And . . . going back in time before we were a nation, European Americans received the fruits of the slave trade. And we were wrong in that, as well."
20. This is referring to several events. The first and most noteworthy was Queen Elizabeth's apology to the Maori people of New Zealand in 1995. The apology acknowledged that the Crown had acted "unjustly" by, among other things, attacking Maori forces and labeling them rebels and subsequently confiscating Maori land, all of which had a "crippling impact" on Maori life. "The Crown expresses its profound regret and apologizes unreservedly for the loss of lives because of hostilities arising from this invasion and the devastation of property and social life which resulted." The act admits colonial blunders, apologizes unreservedly to the Maoris, offers compensation for land illegally confiscated in last century's land wars, and goes so far as to describe colonial actions as a "crime." BARKAN, supra note 2, at 264. British actions since that time have been much more timid. In 1997, Prime Minister Tony Blair's expressed "remorse" for Great Britain's role in the Potato Famine in Ireland. Sarah Lyall, Past as Prologue: Blair Faults Britain in Irish Potato Blight, N.Y. TIMES, 3 June 1997, at A3. Later that year, Queen Elizabeth participated in a ceremony at Jallianwala Bagh in the Indian city of Amritsar honoring the victims of a British attack of 13 April 1919. John F. Burns, In India, Queen Bows Her Head Over a Massacre in 1919, N.Y. TIMES, 15 Oct. 1997, at A6. Finally, in November 1999 in Pretoria, South Africa, Queen Elizabeth voiced sadness over the loss of life in the Boer War, but she stopped short of issuing a full apology as demanded by many Afrikaner groups. Expression of Sorrow, but No Apology, N.Y. TIMES, 11 Nov. 1999, at A3.
21. This is referring to several events. The first and most noteworthy was Queen Elizabeth's apology to the Maori people of New Zealand in 1995. The apology acknowledged that the Crown had acted "unjustly" by, among other things, attacking Maori forces and labeling them rebels and subsequently confiscating Maori land, all of which had a "crippling impact" on Maori life. "The Crown expresses its profound regret and apologizes unreservedly for the loss of lives because of hostilities arising from this invasion and the devastation of property and social life which resulted." The act admits colonial blunders, apologizes unreservedly to the Maoris, offers compensation for land illegally confiscated in last century's land wars, and goes so far as to describe colonial actions as a "crime." BARKAN, supra note 2, at 264. British actions since that time have been much more timid. In 1997, Prime Minister Tony Blair's expressed "remorse" for Great Britain's role in the Potato Famine in Ireland. Sarah Lyall, Past as Prologue: Blair Faults Britain in Irish Potato Blight, N.Y. TIMES, 3 June 1997, at A3. Later that year, Queen Elizabeth participated in a ceremony at Jallianwala Bagh in the Indian city of Amritsar honoring the victims of a British attack of 13 April 1919. John F. Burns, In India, Queen Bows Her Head Over a Massacre in 1919, N.Y. TIMES, 15 Oct. 1997, at A6. Finally, in November 1999 in Pretoria, South Africa, Queen Elizabeth voiced sadness over the loss of life in the Boer War, but she stopped short of issuing a full apology as demanded by many Afrikaner groups. Expression of Sorrow, but No Apology, N.Y. TIMES, 11 Nov. 1999, at A3.
22. This is referring to several events. The first and most noteworthy was Queen Elizabeth's apology to the Maori people of New Zealand in 1995. The apology acknowledged that the Crown had acted "unjustly" by, among other things, attacking Maori forces and labeling them rebels and subsequently confiscating Maori land, all of which had a "crippling impact" on Maori life. "The Crown expresses its profound regret and apologizes unreservedly for the loss of lives because of hostilities arising from this invasion and the devastation of property and social life which resulted." The act admits colonial blunders, apologizes unreservedly to the Maoris, offers compensation for land illegally confiscated in last century's land wars, and goes so far as to describe colonial actions as a "crime." BARKAN, supra note 2, at 264. British actions since that time have been much more timid. In 1997, Prime Minister Tony Blair's expressed "remorse" for Great Britain's role in the Potato Famine in Ireland. Sarah Lyall, Past as Prologue: Blair Faults Britain in Irish Potato Blight, N.Y. TIMES, 3 June 1997, at A3. Later that year, Queen Elizabeth participated in a ceremony at Jallianwala Bagh in the Indian city of Amritsar honoring the victims of a British attack of 13 April 1919. John F. Burns, In India, Queen Bows Her Head Over a Massacre in 1919, N.Y. TIMES, 15 Oct. 1997, at A6. Finally, in November 1999 in Pretoria, South Africa, Queen Elizabeth voiced sadness over the loss of life in the Boer War, but she stopped short of issuing a full apology as demanded by many Afrikaner groups. Expression of Sorrow, but No Apology, N.Y. TIMES, 11 Nov. 1999, at A3.
23. The reference is to President Clinton's apology in Guatemala, infra note 13. It is important to note that the president himself never made reference to genocide. However, he was responding to, and essentially affirming the findings of, an independent Guatemalan truth commission that had found the United States guilty of complicity in the genocide of the Guatemalan government. Mireya Navarro, Guatemalan Army Waged "Genocide," New Report Finds, N.Y. TIMES, 26 Feb. 1999, at A1.
24. "The practice of states in this context embraces not only their external conduct with each other, but it is also evidenced by such internal matters as their domestic legislation, judicial decisions, diplomatic dispatches, internal government memoranda, and ministerial statements in Parliament and elsewhere." OPPENHEIM'S INT'L LAW 26 (Robert Jennings & Arthur Watts eds., 9th ed., 1992).
25. President Bill Clinton, Remarks by the President to the Community of Kisowera School, Mokono, Uganda, 24 Mar. 1998, available at 〈http://www.gpo.gov/nara/pubpaps/ srchpaps.html〉.
26. President Bill Clinton, Remarks by the President in Roundtable Discussion on Peace Efforts, National Palace of Culture, Guatemala City, Guatemala, 10 Mar. 1999, available at 〈http://www.gpo.gov/nara/pubpaps/srchpaps.html〉.
27. Marc Lacey, Clinton Tries to Subdue Greeks' Anger at America, N.Y. TIMES, 21 Nov. 1999, at A6.
28. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted 10 Dec. 1948, G.A. Res. 217A (III), U.N. GAOR, 3d Sess. (Resolutions, pt. 1), at 71, U.N. Doc. A/810 (1948), reprinted in 43 AM. J. INT'L L. 127 (Supp. 1949) ("The General Assembly Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations. . . ."); International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, adopted 16 Dec. 1966, G.A. Res. 2200 (XXI), U.N. GAOR, 21st Sess., Supp. No. 16, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966), 993 U.N.T.S. 3 (entered into force 3 Jan. 1976); International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted 16 Dec. 1966, G.A. Res. 2200 (XXI), U.N. GAOR, 21st Sess., Supp. No. 16, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966), 999 U.N.T.S. 171 (entered into force 23 Mar. 1976) ("Considering the obligation of States of the United Nations to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and freedoms").
29. U.N. CHARTER art. 1, ¶ 1, signed 26 June 1945, 59 Stat. 1031, T.S. No. 993, 3 Bevans 1153 (entered into force 24 Oct. 1945).
30. Id. art. 56.
31. See generally, Mark Gibney, Katarina Tomasěvski & Jens Vedsted-Hansen, Transnational State Responsibility for Violations of Human Rights, 12 HARV. HUM. RTS. J. 267 (1999); Sigrun Skogly, Transnational Human Rights Obligations (lecture at the University of Oslo School of Law, 16 June 2000. (On file with authors.)
32. See generally, Mark Gibney, Katarina Tomasěvski & Jens Vedsted-Hansen, Transnational State Responsibility for Violations of Human Rights, 12 HARV. HUM. RTS. J. 267 (1999); Sigrun Skogly, Transnational Human Rights Obligations (lecture at the University of Oslo School of Law, 16 June 2000. (On file with authors.)
33. See De Lopez v. Uruguay (Communication No. 52/1979), Human Rights Committee, Selected Decisions under the Optional Protocol, at 88-92, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/OP/1 (1985); De Casariego v. Uruguay (Communication No. 56/1979), Human Rights Committee, Selected Decisions under the Optional Protocol, at 92-94, U.N. Doc. CCPR/ C/OP/1 (1995).
34. Cyprus v. Turkey, 1975 Y.B. EUR. CONV. HUM. RTS. 82-124.
35. Id.
36. Military and Paramilitary Activities (Nicaragua v. United States), 1986 I.C.J. 14 (June 27).
37. Among the violations committed by agents of the United States were the following. By training, arming, equipping, financing and supplying the contra rebel forces, the United States had violated the obligation not to intervene in the affairs of another state. Through its actions in armed attacks at various locations in Nicaragua, the United States had breached its obligation under customary international law not to use force against another state. And in laying mines in the internal and territorial waters of Nicaragua, the United States was in breach of its obligations under customary international law not to use force against another state, not to intervene in its affairs, not to violate its sovereignty and not to interrupt peaceful maritime commerce. Id.
38. According to the Court: "In light of the evidence and material available to it, the Court is not satisfied that all the operations launched by the contra force, at every stage of the conflict, reflected strategy and tactics wholly devised by the United States." Military and Paramilitary Activities, supra note 22, ¶ 106 (emphasis supplied).
39. One of the issues in this case was whether the fighting in Bosnia and Herzegovina was "international" in nature for purposes of invoking the Fourth Geneva Convention. The trial court had found that the conflict was international in character prior to 19 May 1992, but not after Serbian troops had been removed. The question for the court was whether Bosnian Serb forces could be considered de jure or de facto organs of a foreign power, namely, the Former Republic of Yugoslavia. The Court answered this in the affirmative, employing the more liberal "overall control" standard.
40. Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic, In the Appeals Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, Judgement of 15 July 1999.
41. The Court held: control by a State over a subordinate armed forces or militias or paramilitary units may be of an overall character (and must comprise more than the mere provision of financial assistance or military equipment or training). This requirement, however, does not go so far as to include the issuing of specific orders by the State, or its direction of each individual operation. Under international law it is by no means necessary that the controlling authorities should plan all the operations of the units dependent upon them, choose their targets, or give specific instructions concerning the conduct of military operations and any alleged violations of international humanitarian law. The control required by international law may be deemed to exist when a State (or, in the context of an armed conflict, the Party to the conflict) has a role in organising, coordinating or planning the military actions of the military group, in addition to financing, training and equipping or providing operational support to that group. Acts performed by the group or members thereof may be regarded as acts of de facto State organs regardless of any specific instruction by the controlling State concerning the commission of each of those acts. Id. ¶ 137, available at 〈http://www.un.org.icty/tadic/appeal/judgement/index.htm〉 (emphasis in original).
42. "Of course, if, as in Nicaragua, the controlling State is not the territorial State where the armed clashes occur or where at any rate the armed units perform their acts, more extensive and compelling evidence is required to show that the State is genuinely in control of the units or groups not merely by financing and equipping them, but also by generally directing or helping plan their actions." Id. ¶ 138.
43. Article 27 of the International Law Commission's Draft Articles on State Responsibility. The commentary accompanying article 27 makes clearer the requirement of "intent." As the article states, the aid or assistance in question must be rendered "for the commission of an internationally wrongful act," i.e., with the specific object of facilitating the commission of the principal internationally wrongful act in question. Accordingly, it is not sufficient that aid o assistance provided without such intention could be used by the recipient State for unlawful purposes or that the State providing aid or assistance should be aware of the eventual possibility of such use. The aid or assistance must in fact be rendered with a view to its use in committing the principal internationally wrongful act. Nor is it sufficient that this intention be "presumed"; as the article emphasizes, it must be "established." The Draft Articles on State Responsibility, art. 27, commentary (1979), reprinted in 2 Y.B. INT'L L. COMM'N 104.
44. Article 27 of the International Law Commission's Draft Articles on State Responsibility. The commentary accompanying article 27 makes clearer the requirement of "intent." As the article states, the aid or assistance in question must be rendered "for the commission of an internationally wrongful act," i.e., with the specific object of facilitating the commission of the principal internationally wrongful act in question. Accordingly, it is not sufficient that aid o assistance provided without such intention could be used by the recipient State for unlawful purposes or that the State providing aid or assistance should be aware of the eventual possibility of such use. The aid or assistance must in fact be rendered with a view to its use in committing the principal internationally wrongful act. Nor is it sufficient that this intention be "presumed"; as the article emphasizes, it must be "established." The Draft Articles on State Responsibility, art. 27, commentary (1979), reprinted in 2 Y.B. INT'L L. COMM'N 104.
45. Soering v. United Kingdom, 161 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (7 July 1989).
46. "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or pinishment." European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, opened for signature 4 Nov. 1950, 213 U.N.T.S. 221, Europ. T.S. No. 5 (entered into force 3 Sept. 1953).
47. Soering v. United Kingdom, supra note 30, ¶ 91.
48. Infra notes 54-59 and accompanying text.
49. In many ways the principle that the apology stands for is consonant with US law with respect to state sponsored terrorism. Under the provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1 605(a)(7), a state can be held civilly liable to a US citizen for personal injury or death resulting from an act of torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, or hostage taking when the act "was either perpetrated by the foreign state directly or by a non-state actor which receives material support or resources from the foreign state defendant." The act does not apply to all governments that commit or support political terror, only those that have been designated as such by the US State Department.
50. Infra Section III.
51. See generally Mark Gibney & Daniel Warner, What Does It Mean to Say "I'm Sorry"?: The International and Domestic Law Implications of President Clinton's Apology to Guatemala, 28 DENV. J. INT'L L. & POL'Y 223 (2000)
52. President Bill Clinton, Remarks by the President to Genocide Survivors, Assistance Workers, and U.S. and Rwanda Government Officials, Kigali Airport, Kigali, Rwanda, 25 Mar. 1998, The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, available at 〈http:// www.pub.whitehouse.gov〉.
53. In so many ways the genocidal deaths of upwards of 800,000 Rwandans in the Spring of 1994 can be laid at the feet of Western cowardice. The best description of these events has been given by Philip Gourevitch. On April 14, 1994, one week after the murder of the ten Belgian blue helmets, Belgium withdrew from UNAMIR [United Nations Assistance Mission in Rwanda) - precisely as Hutu Power had intended it to do. Belgian soldiers, aggrieved by the cowardice and waste of their mission, shredded their UN berets on the tarmac at Kigali airport. A week later, on April 21, 1994, the UNAMIR commander, Major General Dallaire, declared that with just five thousand well-equipped soldiers and a free hand to fight Hutu Power, he could bring the genocide to a rapid halt. No military analyst whom I've heard of has ever questioned his judgment, and a great many have confirmed it. The radio transmitter of RTLM [Radio Television Libre des Mille Collines] would have been an obvious, and easy, first target. Yet, on the same day, the UN Security Council passed a resolution that slashed UNAMIR force by ninety percent, ordered the retreat of all but two hundred seventy troops and leaving them with a mandate that allowed them to do little more than hunker down behind their sandbags and watch. PHILIP GOUREVITCH, WE WISH TO INFORM YOU THAT TOMORROW WE WILL BE KILLED WITH OUR FAMILIES: STORIES FROM RWANDA 149-50 (1998).
54. In Gourevitch's view, the United States bears a special responsibility for the non-response of Western states. He writes: The desertion of Rwanda by UN force was Hutu Power's greatest diplomatic victory to date, and it can be credited almost single-handedly to the United States. With the memory of the Somalia debacle still very fresh, the White House had just finished drafting a document called Presidential Decision Directive 25, which amounted to a checklist of reasons to avoid American involvement in UN peacekeeping missions. It hardly mattered that Dallaire's call for an expanded force and mandate would not have required American troops, or that the mission was not properly peacekeeping but genocide prevention. PDD 25 also contained what Washington policymakers call "language" urging that the United States should persuade others not to undertake the missions that it wished to avoid. In fact, the Clinton administration's ambassador to the UN, Madeleine Albright, opposed leaving even the skeleton crew of two hundred seventy in Rwanda. GOUREVITCH, supra note 38, at 150.
55. Skogly has commented on the possible difference between positive and negative obligations. [I]n terms of transnational obligations, it would be fair to assume that the content of the obligation would be of a negative nature-states should refrain from actions in their international or transnational operations that will fail to respect human rights of people in other states. Whether this obligation would also include more positive obligations is more doubtful. To illustrate, there may be an obligation not to supply a foreign state with torture equipment, but not to send training personnel to train the police in non-torturous practices. Skogly, supra note 18.
56. "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." U.N. Charter, supra note 16, art. 2, ¶ 4. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters that are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to the settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.
57. Id. art. 2, ¶ 7.
58. Id. at ch. VII. What is noteworthy to the present discussion is that the very first invocation of Chapter VII economic sanctions for a "threat to peace" was against Rhodesia in 1965 immediately following the minority-dominated government's declaration of independence. Although there were no indications that the Ian Smith regime would engage in aggressive behavior against neighboring countries, the sanctions were rationalized (implicitly as well as explicitly) on the grounds that the human rights violations of a minority regime against 94 percent of its population essentially constituted an invitation for the international community to intervene. See generally, KATARINA TOMAEVSKI, BETWEEN SANCTIONS AND ELECTIONS: AID DONORS AND THEIR HUMAN RIGHTS PERFORMANCE 100 (1997).
59. On the other hand, the importance of the act of apologizing can be found in the United Nation's Report of the Independent Inquiry Into the Actions of the United Nations During the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda (15 Dec. 1999) which states: "The United Nations failed the people of Rwanda during the genocide in 1994. It is a failure for which the United Nations as an organization, but also its Member States, should have apologized more clearly, more frankly, and much earlier."
60. Clinton, Remarks by the President in Round Table Discussion on Peace Efforts, Guatemala City, Guatemala, supra note 13.
61. The report, GUATEMALA: MEMORY OF SILENCE, is available at 〈http://hrdata.aaas.org/cen/report/ english〉. Undoubtedly the most noteworthy finding in the report is that, among domestic forces, 93 percent of the human rights abuses were carried out by agents of the state. This, of course, does not include the role played by another government: the United States.
62. Susanne Jonas, Dangerous Liaisons: The U.S. in Guatemala, 103 FOREIGN POL'Y 144, 146-47 (1996).
63. John M. Broder, Clinton Offers His Apologies to Guatemala, N.Y. TIMES, 11 Mar. 1999, at A1.
64. John M. Broder, Clinton Apologizes for U.S. Support of Guatemalan Rightists, N.Y. TIMES, 11 Mar. 1999, at A12.
65. There were no stories reported from Central America on 10 March 1999, the day that the apology was issued, according to the Television News Archive at Vanderbilt University, available at 〈http://tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/cgi-bin/ abstracts.cgi?MONTH=3&DAY=10&YEAR=99.html〉. On 11 March CBS news correspondent Bill Plante filed a report from Guatemala City, but it concerned President Clinton's defense into allegations of security leaks that allowed military secrets to go to China. The only story dealing with human rights in Guatemala was filed by CNN reporter Harris Whitbeck.
66. In all likelihood, the vast majority of the US public would not know even the most rudimentary facts of the US government's involvement in Guatemala. In a seminal study conducted more than half a century ago, Martin Kreisberg categorized the American public's knowledge (or lack thereof, which he termed "dark areas of ignorance") of international affairs as follows: 30 percent of the population is unaware of almost any event in US foreign affairs; 45 percent is aware of important events but cannot be considered informed; and 25 percent consistently shows knowledge of foreign problems. Martin Kreisberg, Dark Areas of Ignorance, in PUBLIC OPINION AND FOREIGN POLICY 51 (Lester Markel ed., 1949). More specifically, a number of studies conducted during the 1980s also give very strong evidence that the US public would have virtually no knowledge of US involvement in Central America. See generally, MIROSLAV NINCIC, DEMOCRACY AND FOREIGN POLICY: THE FALLACY OF POLITICAL REALISM 28 (1992); RONALD HINCKLEY, PEOPLE, POLLS AND POLICYMAKERS: AMERICAN PUBLIC OPINION AND NATIONAL SECURITY 80 (1992), Howard Reiter, Unmobilized Constituencies: U.S. Public Opinion of the Nicaragua War, 18/19 NEW POLITICAL SCIENCE 125 (1990).
67. In all likelihood, the vast majority of the US public would not know even the most rudimentary facts of the US government's involvement in Guatemala. In a seminal study conducted more than half a century ago, Martin Kreisberg categorized the American public's knowledge (or lack thereof, which he termed "dark areas of ignorance") of international affairs as follows: 30 percent of the population is unaware of almost any event in US foreign affairs; 45 percent is aware of important events but cannot be considered informed; and 25 percent consistently shows knowledge of foreign problems. Martin Kreisberg, Dark Areas of Ignorance, in PUBLIC OPINION AND FOREIGN POLICY 51 (Lester Markel ed., 1949). More specifically, a number of studies conducted during the 1980s also give very strong evidence that the US public would have virtually no knowledge of US involvement in Central America. See generally, MIROSLAV NINCIC, DEMOCRACY AND FOREIGN POLICY: THE FALLACY OF POLITICAL REALISM 28 (1992); RONALD HINCKLEY, PEOPLE, POLLS AND POLICYMAKERS: AMERICAN PUBLIC OPINION AND NATIONAL SECURITY 80 (1992), Howard Reiter, Unmobilized Constituencies: U.S. Public Opinion of the Nicaragua War, 18/19 NEW POLITICAL SCIENCE 125 (1990).
68. In all likelihood, the vast majority of the US public would not know even the most rudimentary facts of the US government's involvement in Guatemala. In a seminal study conducted more than half a century ago, Martin Kreisberg categorized the American public's knowledge (or lack thereof, which he termed "dark areas of ignorance") of international affairs as follows: 30 percent of the population is unaware of almost any event in US foreign affairs; 45 percent is aware of important events but cannot be considered informed; and 25 percent consistently shows knowledge of foreign problems. Martin Kreisberg, Dark Areas of Ignorance, in PUBLIC OPINION AND FOREIGN POLICY 51 (Lester Markel ed., 1949). More specifically, a number of studies conducted during the 1980s also give very strong evidence that the US public would have virtually no knowledge of US involvement in Central America. See generally, MIROSLAV NINCIC, DEMOCRACY AND FOREIGN POLICY: THE FALLACY OF POLITICAL REALISM 28 (1992); RONALD HINCKLEY, PEOPLE, POLLS AND POLICYMAKERS: AMERICAN PUBLIC OPINION AND NATIONAL SECURITY 80 (1992), Howard Reiter, Unmobilized Constituencies: U.S. Public Opinion of the Nicaragua War, 18/19 NEW POLITICAL SCIENCE 125 (1990).
69. In all likelihood, the vast majority of the US public would not know even the most rudimentary facts of the US government's involvement in Guatemala. In a seminal study conducted more than half a century ago, Martin Kreisberg categorized the American public's knowledge (or lack thereof, which he termed "dark areas of ignorance") of international affairs as follows: 30 percent of the population is unaware of almost any event in US foreign affairs; 45 percent is aware of important events but cannot be considered informed; and 25 percent consistently shows knowledge of foreign problems. Martin Kreisberg, Dark Areas of Ignorance, in PUBLIC OPINION AND FOREIGN POLICY 51 (Lester Markel ed., 1949). More specifically, a number of studies conducted during the 1980s also give very strong evidence that the US public would have virtually no knowledge of US involvement in Central America. See generally, MIROSLAV NINCIC, DEMOCRACY AND FOREIGN POLICY: THE FALLACY OF POLITICAL REALISM 28 (1992); RONALD HINCKLEY, PEOPLE, POLLS AND POLICYMAKERS: AMERICAN PUBLIC OPINION AND NATIONAL SECURITY 80 (1992), Howard Reiter, Unmobilized Constituencies: U.S. Public Opinion of the Nicaragua War, 18/19 NEW POLITICAL SCIENCE 125 (1990).
70. The US Public Health Service's "Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male" represents an infamous chapter in the annals of US medical research. Starting in 1932, 399 indigent Southern black men were recruited by health researchers who led them to believe they would receive free medical treatment for what they called "bad blood." In fact, no such treatment was given, as the researchers carefully monitored as the disease claimed its victims. Alison Mitchell, Clinton Regrets Clearly Racist Study, N.Y. TIMES, 17 May 1997, at A10. Clinton's remarks indicated some understanding ot the wider ramifications of the "study." The legacy of the study at Tuskegee has reached far and deep, in ways that hurt our progress and divide our nation. We cannot be one America when a whole segment of our nation has no trust in America. An apology is the first step, and we take it with a commitment to rebuild that broken trust. We can begin by making sure there is never again another episode like this one. We need to do more to ensure that medical research practices are sound and ethical, and that the researchers work more closely with communities. President Bill Clinton, Remarks By The President In Apology For Study Done In Tuskegee, May 16, 1997, available at 〈http://www.gpo.gov/nara/pubpaps/srchpaps.html〉.
71. Mitchell, supra note 51.
72. In his political memoirs Brandt described his unexpected actions: I had not planned anything, but I had left Wilanow Castle where I was staying, with a feeling that I must express the exceptional significance of the ghetto memorial. From the bottom of the abyss of German history, under the burden of millions of victims of murder, I did what human beings do when speech fails them. Even twenty years later, I cannot say more than the reporter whose account ran: 'Then he who does not need to kneel knelt, on behalf of all who do need to kneel but do not - because they dare not, or cannot, or cannot dare to kneel.' WILLY BRANDT, MY LIFE IN POLITICS 200 (1992).
73. See generally STEPHEN SCHLESINGER & STEPHEN KINZER, BITTER FRUIT: THE UNTOLD STORY OF THE AMERICAN COUP IN GUATEMALA 65 (1982).
74. The effort to remove Arbenz began in early 1953, as the CIA initiated contact with Guatemalan exiles under the leadership of Carlos Castillo Armas, and began providing funds for training, equipment, and payment of a mercenary force. The pretext for overt American action occurred with the discovery of a small cache of Czech arms on the Swedish ship Alfhem. On 18 June 1954 "Operation Success" opened when Castillo's mercenary army launched an invasion from Honduras. To the surprise of American analysts, however, no popular uprising took place. Because of this, CIA operatives were forced to take a far more active role than what had been planned for, as agents began regular bombardments of the capitol and other cities. SUSANNE JONAS, THE BATTLE FOR GUATEMALA: REBELS, DEATH SQUADS, AND U.S. POWER 28-30 (1991).
75. Id. at 41.
76. Formal US counterinsurgency began as early as 1960, and US Special Forces set up a secret military training base in Guatemala in 1962. Id. at 69.
77. Jonas writes: "U.S. training, bomber planes, napalm, radar detection devices and other sophisticated technology . . . were decisive in smashing the insurgency." Id. at 70.
78. On 30 March 1995, President Clinton directed the Intelligence Oversight Board to conduct a government-wide review concerning US intelligence activity in Guatemala. On 28 June 1996 the IOB issued its report which found that in attempting to achieve US national security objectives in Guatemala: [T]he CIA dealt with some unsavory groups and individuals. The human rights record of the Guatemalan security services were widely known to be reprehensible, and although the CIA made some efforts to improve the conduct of the services, probably with some limited success, egregious human rights abuses did not stop. Anthony S. Harrington, Report on the Guatemala Review, INTELLIGENCE OVERSIGHT BOARD [hereinafter IOB Report], 28 June 1996, at 2. The report continues: [W]e found that several CIA assets were credibly alleged to have ordered, planned, or participated in serious human rights violations such as assassination, extrajudicial execution, torture, or kidnaping while they were assets - and that the CIA Directorate of Operations (DO) headquarters was aware at the time of the allegations. Id. at 3.
79. Anthony DePalma, Canada's Indigenous Tribes Receive Formal Apology, N.Y. TIMES, 8 Jan. 1998, at A3.
80. UN Charter, supra note 16.
81. IOB Report, supra note 59.
82. The reference here is to the consolidated suit Xuncax v. Gramajo and Ortiz v. Gramajo, 886 F. Supp. 162 (D. Mass., 1995). Xuncax and eight other Guatemalan citizens brought suit against Gramajo, the former Defense Minister of Guatemala, under the Alien Tort Statute, while Ortiz, a US citizen, brought suit under the Torture Victim Protection Act. In her suit Ortiz had claimed that while she was raped and tortured by Guatemalan security agents, a man she believed to be an American came in, cursed her tormentors and told them to leave her alone because she was a US citizen and that her abduction had been given wide coverage on the news, and then drove her away. During the course of this ride, Ortiz jumped out while the car was stopped in traffic and within forty-eight hours she had departed Guatemala.
83. Clifford Krauss, How U.S. Actions Helped Hide Salvador Human Rights Abuses, N.Y. TIMES, 21 Mar. 1993, at A1; Krauss, U.S. Aware of Killings, Working with Salvador's Rightists, Papers Suggest, N.Y. TIMES, 9 Nov. 1993, at A9; Tim Weiner, US was Still Training Civilians Tied to Killings, N.Y. TIMES, 14 Dec. 1993, at A1.
84. Clifford Krauss, How U.S. Actions Helped Hide Salvador Human Rights Abuses, N.Y. TIMES, 21 Mar. 1993, at A1; Krauss, U.S. Aware of Killings, Working with Salvador's Rightists, Papers Suggest, N.Y. TIMES, 9 Nov. 1993, at A9; Tim Weiner, US was Still Training Civilians Tied to Killings, N.Y. TIMES, 14 Dec. 1993, at A1.
85. Clifford Krauss, How U.S. Actions Helped Hide Salvador Human Rights Abuses, N.Y. TIMES, 21 Mar. 1993, at A1; Krauss, U.S. Aware of Killings, Working with Salvador's Rightists, Papers Suggest, N.Y. TIMES, 9 Nov. 1993, at A9; Tim Weiner, US was Still Training Civilians Tied to Killings, N.Y. TIMES, 14 Dec. 1993, at A1.
86. The President seems to have been "persuaded" to apologize by the surge of protests that accompanied his visit. Alessandra Stanley, Huge March In Athens Protests Visit By Clinton, N.Y. TIMES, 18 Nov. 1999, at A12; Marc Lacey, President's Visit to Greece Yields a Toast and a Tumult, N.Y. TIMES, 20 Nov. 1999, at A5.
87. The President seems to have been "persuaded" to apologize by the surge of protests that accompanied his visit. Alessandra Stanley, Huge March In Athens Protests Visit By Clinton, N.Y. TIMES, 18 Nov. 1999, at A12; Marc Lacey, President's Visit to Greece Yields a Toast and a Tumult, N.Y. TIMES, 20 Nov. 1999, at A5.
88. Clinton, Remarks by the President to the Community of Kisowera School, Mokono, Uganda, supra note 13.
89. Lyall, supra note 9. Among Blair's words of regret (apparently he stopped just short of issuing an apology) expressed in a letter that was read by the actor Gabriel Byrne at a concert marking the end of three years of events commemorating the famine were the following: "Those who governed in London at the time failed their people through standing by while a crop failure turned into a massive human tragedy. That one million people died in what was then part of the richest and most powerful nation in the world is something that still causes pain as we reflect on it today."
90. The reference here is to the decision by British authorities to refrain from issuing a frank admission of guilt for the Amristar massacre, Burns, supra note 9, lest a veritable "Pandora's Box" be opened and dozens of countries that were once British colonies could now come forward with demands for similar apologies.
91. J.M. Coetzee's Booker Prize winning novel Disgrace deals with the issue of apologies and forgiveness through fiction. Although never mentioned, the background for the book is South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission. In the penultimate scene in the book, the protagonist offers an apology to the father of a student he has had an illicit affair with, for which he has been dismissed from his university position. The father answers: But I say to myself, we are all sorry when we are found out. Then we are very sorry. The question is not, are we sorry? The question is, what lesson have we learned? The question is, what are we going to do now that we are sorry? J.M. COETZEE, DISGRACE 172 (1999).
92. Elie Wiesel made this point during a ceremony for the dedication of a Holocaust Remembrance site next to the Brandenburg Gate. According to a New York Times report: Mr. Wiesel concluded by urging Parliament to pass a resolution formally requesting, in the name of Germany, the forgiveness of the Jewish people for the crimes of Hitler. "Do it publicly," he said. "Ask the Jewish people to forgive Germany for what the Third Reich had done in Germany's name. Do it, and the significance of this day will acquire a higher level. Do it, for we desperately want to have hope for this new century." Roger Cohen, Wiesel Urges Germany to Ask Forgiveness, N.Y. TIMES, 28 Jan. 2000, at A3. Forgiveness is exactly what Polish President Aleksandr Kwasniewski asked for in a controversial ceremony honoring the killing of 1,600 Jews by Polish civilians near the outbreak of World War II. In his remarks Kwasniewski said: "For this crime, we should beg the souls of the dead and their families for forgiveness. Today, as a man, citizen, and president of the Polish republic, I ask pardon in my own name and in the name of those Polish people whose consciences are shocked by this crime." Ian Fisher, At Site of Massacre, Polish Leader Asks Jews for Forgiveness, N.Y. TIMES, 11 July 2001, at A1.
93. Elie Wiesel made this point during a ceremony for the dedication of a Holocaust Remembrance site next to the Brandenburg Gate. According to a New York Times report: Mr. Wiesel concluded by urging Parliament to pass a resolution formally requesting, in the name of Germany, the forgiveness of the Jewish people for the crimes of Hitler. "Do it publicly," he said. "Ask the Jewish people to forgive Germany for what the Third Reich had done in Germany's name. Do it, and the significance of this day will acquire a higher level. Do it, for we desperately want to have hope for this new century." Roger Cohen, Wiesel Urges Germany to Ask Forgiveness, N.Y. TIMES, 28 Jan. 2000, at A3. Forgiveness is exactly what Polish President Aleksandr Kwasniewski asked for in a controversial ceremony honoring the killing of 1,600 Jews by Polish civilians near the outbreak of World War II. In his remarks Kwasniewski said: "For this crime, we should beg the souls of the dead and their families for forgiveness. Today, as a man, citizen, and president of the Polish republic, I ask pardon in my own name and in the name of those Polish people whose consciences are shocked by this crime." Ian Fisher, At Site of Massacre, Polish Leader Asks Jews for Forgiveness, N.Y. TIMES, 11 July 2001, at A1.
94. Remarks by the President, supra note 13.
95. See generally JOHN TIRMAN, SPOILS OF WAR: THE HUMAN COSTS OF AMERICA'S ARMS TRADE (1997).
96. Marc Lacey, On Visit, Clinton Nudges Turkey on Rights, N.Y. TIMES, 16 Nov. 1999 at A6.
97. Clinton is not the first US official to do this. In 1977, Brady Tyson, the deputy leader of the US delagation to the United Nations Human Rights Commission, expressed "profoundest regret" for the role that the US government and private groups had played in subverting the Allende government in Chile. Tyson was immediately criticized and reprimanded by administration officials, including President Carter. U.S. Official Expresses "Regrets" for Role in Chile but is Disavowed, N.Y. TIMES, 9 Mar. 1977, at A1.
98. One of the most noteworthy aspects of the United Nations Millennium Summit was the degree to which the notion of the universalism of human rights was repeatedly underscored. One such indication of this is Paragraph 2 of the United Nations Millennium Declaration which reads: We recognize that, in addition to our separate responsibilities to our individual societies, we have a collective responsibility to uphold the principles of human dignity, equality and equity at the global level. As leaders we have a duty therefore to all the world's people, especially the most vulnerable and, in particular, the children of the world, to whom the future belongs. United Nations Millennium Declaration, G.A. Res. 55/2, U.N. GAOR 55th Sess., Agenda item 60(b), U.N. Doc. A/RES/55/2 (18 Sept. 2000).
99. For decades the United States has had legislation toward that end. Section 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act reads: "Except under circumstances specified in this Section, no security assistance may be provided to any country the government of which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights." The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, § 502B, 22 U.S.C. § 2304(a)(2). See the International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act of 1976, 90 Stat. 729, 748, § 301 (a), as amended by the International Security Assistance Act of 1978, 92 Stat. 730, 731. The escape clause that the law allows is that notwithstanding the existence of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights, assistance might still be provided to a country if the President certifies that "extraordinary circumstances" exist warranting the provision of such assistance. The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, § 502B(a)(2), 22 U.S.C. § 2304(a)(2). The "extraordinary circumstances" language was added to section 502B(a)(2) by §6(d)(1) f the International Security Assistance Act of 1978, 92 Stat. 730, 731. United States law also mandates a rights-aid linkage for multilateral economic assistance as well. International Financial Institutions Act, Pub. L. No. 95-118, § 701, 91 Stat. 1067, 1069 (1977) (current version at 22 U.S.C. § 262d (1982)).
100. Kenneth Christie calculates that there have been twenty truth commissions since 1971: ten in Africa and ten in the rest of the world. KENNETH CHRISTIE, THE SOUTH AFRICAN TRUTH COMMISSION, 54-55, & 58-59 (2000).
101. One of the common charges against the apology phenomenon is that it is counterproductive to dreg up "ancient history." On this point, it is remarkable how so many state apologies have been based on events in the fairly recent past. In the case of Rwanda the apology was issued only a short time after the genocide in that country took place. And a difficult diplomatic standoff involving an American spy plane was resolved by a carefully worded apology to the Chinese government only a few days after the incident occurred. David E. Sanger and Jane Perlez, U.S. Sends Beijing Formal Statement Expressing Regret, N.Y. TIMES, 11 April 2001 at A1; Erik Eckholm, Chinese Claim a Moral Victory, Describing a Much Bigger Battle, N.Y. TIMES, 12 April 2001 at A1. Moreover, if the results of the Millennium Summit are any indication, (see United Nations Millennium Declaration, supra note 75), world leaders also seem to be developing an unprecedented capacity for recognizing and articulating shortcomings in the present system of global governance, and the rarer ability, still, of envisioning different means of global governance. Barbara Crossette, Leaders Envision Broad New Role for U.N. Council, N.Y. TIMES, 8 Sept. 2000, at A1; Barbara Crossette, U.N. Meeting Ends With Declaration of Common Values, N.Y. TIMES, 9 Sept. 2000, at A1.
102. One of the common charges against the apology phenomenon is that it is counterproductive to dreg up "ancient history." On this point, it is remarkable how so many state apologies have been based on events in the fairly recent past. In the case of Rwanda the apology was issued only a short time after the genocide in that country took place. And a difficult diplomatic standoff involving an American spy plane was resolved by a carefully worded apology to the Chinese government only a few days after the incident occurred. David E. Sanger and Jane Perlez, U.S. Sends Beijing Formal Statement Expressing Regret, N.Y. TIMES, 11 April 2001 at A1; Erik Eckholm, Chinese Claim a Moral Victory, Describing a Much Bigger Battle, N.Y. TIMES, 12 April 2001 at A1. Moreover, if the results of the Millennium Summit are any indication, (see United Nations Millennium Declaration, supra note 75), world leaders also seem to be developing an unprecedented capacity for recognizing and articulating shortcomings in the present system of global governance, and the rarer ability, still, of envisioning different means of global governance. Barbara Crossette, Leaders Envision Broad New Role for U.N. Council, N.Y. TIMES, 8 Sept. 2000, at A1; Barbara Crossette, U.N. Meeting Ends With Declaration of Common Values, N.Y. TIMES, 9 Sept. 2000, at A1.
103. One of the common charges against the apology phenomenon is that it is counterproductive to dreg up "ancient history." On this point, it is remarkable how so many state apologies have been based on events in the fairly recent past. In the case of Rwanda the apology was issued only a short time after the genocide in that country took place. And a difficult diplomatic standoff involving an American spy plane was resolved by a carefully worded apology to the Chinese government only a few days after the incident occurred. David E. Sanger and Jane Perlez, U.S. Sends Beijing Formal Statement Expressing Regret, N.Y. TIMES, 11 April 2001 at A1; Erik Eckholm, Chinese Claim a Moral Victory, Describing a Much Bigger Battle, N.Y. TIMES, 12 April 2001 at A1. Moreover, if the results of the Millennium Summit are any indication, (see United Nations Millennium Declaration, supra note 75), world leaders also seem to be developing an unprecedented capacity for recognizing and articulating shortcomings in the present system of global governance, and the rarer ability, still, of envisioning different means of global governance. Barbara Crossette, Leaders Envision Broad New Role for U.N. Council, N.Y. TIMES, 8 Sept. 2000, at A1; Barbara Crossette, U.N. Meeting Ends With Declaration of Common Values, N.Y. TIMES, 9 Sept. 2000, at A1.
104. One of the common charges against the apology phenomenon is that it is counterproductive to dreg up "ancient history." On this point, it is remarkable how so many state apologies have been based on events in the fairly recent past. In the case of Rwanda the apology was issued only a short time after the genocide in that country took place. And a difficult diplomatic standoff involving an American spy plane was resolved by a carefully worded apology to the Chinese government only a few days after the incident occurred. David E. Sanger and Jane Perlez, U.S. Sends Beijing Formal Statement Expressing Regret, N.Y. TIMES, 11 April 2001 at A1; Erik Eckholm, Chinese Claim a Moral Victory, Describing a Much Bigger Battle, N.Y. TIMES, 12 April 2001 at A1. Moreover, if the results of the Millennium Summit are any indication, (see United Nations Millennium Declaration, supra note 75), world leaders also seem to be developing an unprecedented capacity for recognizing and articulating shortcomings in the present system of global governance, and the rarer ability, still, of envisioning different means of global governance. Barbara Crossette, Leaders Envision Broad New Role for U.N. Council, N.Y. TIMES, 8 Sept. 2000, at A1; Barbara Crossette, U.N. Meeting Ends With Declaration of Common Values, N.Y. TIMES, 9 Sept. 2000, at A1.
105. One of the common charges against the apology phenomenon is that it is counterproductive to dreg up "ancient history." On this point, it is remarkable how so many state apologies have been based on events in the fairly recent past. In the case of Rwanda the apology was issued only a short time after the genocide in that country took place. And a difficult diplomatic standoff involving an American spy plane was resolved by a carefully worded apology to the Chinese government only a few days after the incident occurred. David E. Sanger and Jane Perlez, U.S. Sends Beijing Formal Statement Expressing Regret, N.Y. TIMES, 11 April 2001 at A1; Erik Eckholm, Chinese Claim a Moral Victory, Describing a Much Bigger Battle, N.Y. TIMES, 12 April 2001 at A1. Moreover, if the results of the Millennium Summit are any indication, (see United Nations Millennium Declaration, supra note 75), world leaders also seem to be developing an unprecedented capacity for recognizing and articulating shortcomings in the present system of global governance, and the rarer ability, still, of envisioning different means of global governance. Barbara Crossette, Leaders Envision Broad New Role for U.N. Council, N.Y. TIMES, 8 Sept. 2000, at A1; Barbara Crossette, U.N. Meeting Ends With Declaration of Common Values, N.Y. TIMES, 9 Sept. 2000, at A1.
106. The biggest disparity, of course, is in terms of money. The richest fifth of mankind earns 86 percent of the world's income and the poorest fifth earns 1 percent. Roger Cohen, For Immigrants From the East, Europe is Today's New World, INT'L HERALD TRIBUNE, 3 July 2000, at A1.