Truth and Reconciliation Commissions: a Needed Force in Alaska?

• Publication year: 2017

§ 34 Alaska L. Rev. 27. TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSIONS: A NEEDED FORCE IN ALASKA?

Alaska Law Review
Volume 34, No. 1, June 2017
Cited: 34 Alaska L. Rev. 27

TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSIONS: A NEEDED FORCE IN ALASKA?

HEATHER PARKER ^[*]

INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 28

BACKGROUND AND DEFINITIONS.................................................................. 31

Truth Commissions ........................................................................... 31

Reconciliation ..................................................................................... 34

Context for Alaska ............................................................................. 35

History of Occupation ....................................................................... 36

Forced Assimilation Policies ............................................................ 37

Government-Endorsed Discrimination ......................................... 38

Aftermath of Assimilation and Discrimination Policies in Alaska ........................................................................................... 40

COMPARISON AND OVERVIEW OF SELECT INTERNATIONAL COMMISSIONS ...................................................................................... 42

South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission (1995)... 42

Commission on the Truth for El Salvador (1992)......................... 46

South Korea Truth Commissions (2000 and 2005)....................... 50

Canada Truth and Reconciliation Commission (2007)................ 53

TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION IN THE UNITED STATES ...............................57

Greensboro Truth and Reconciliation Commission (2004)........ 58

Metro Detroit Truth and Reconciliation Commission (2011)....

60 Maine Wabanaki-State Truth and Reconciliation Commission (2013)............................................................................................. 61

Alaska ................................................................................................. 62

CONCLUSION.................................................................................................... 66

ABSTRACT

Truth and Reconciliation Commissions are official, temporary bodies used for communities to come to terms with past violence, promote education and awareness of historic trauma, and to provide recognition and closure for victims and successors. By bringing past issues to light, such commissions promote healing and allow these communities to move forward. Although the Commission on Truth and Reconciliation in South Africa after the Apartheid-era is best known, several similar commissions have been established throughout the globe and within the United States. This paper compares commissions from South Africa, El Salvador, South Korea, and Canada with those that have been established in the United States to examine whether such a commission would be useful in Alaska to address current social problems in the state.

INTRODUCTION

Truth commissions are official, temporary bodies used to investigate human rights violations and to provide a mechanism for countries and communities to come to terms with a past marked by prolonged conflict, civil strife, and violence. ^[1] While often used after countries have experienced major political changes, commissions can also occur years after a discriminatory or racially-motivated policy or practice ceases to exist. ^[2] While the Commission of Truth and Reconciliation in South Africa after Apartheid is most widely known, ^[3] over thirty other examples exist, including the Commission on the Truth for El Salvador (1992), the Truth Commissions in South Korea (2000 and 2005), and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Canada (2007). ^[4]

Truth and reconciliation commissions can serve a variety of purposes. ^[5] Beyond providing an opportunity and forum for victims to speak, these commissions allow disadvantaged populations to have recognition of and closure for tragic or traumatic events. ^[6] Truth commissions are not courts-they cannot legally prosecute or punish people-but their findings and reports can result in states or jurisdictions prosecuting perpetrators of violence and promoting justice for victims. ^[7] Often vested with certain powers-such as granting partial or full amnesty to individuals, subpoenaing certain witnesses, sponsoring investigations or exhumations, and granting recommendations to national governments-truth commissions can be effective in uncovering details about a certain policy or period of time. ^[8] By raising awareness of historical inequities, bringing past issues to light, and educating the general public about former injustices, such commissions can stimulate dialogue and other reform. In many instances, there has been hope that the existence of such a commission would mend racial tensions, improve societal problems, ease relations between federal, local, and tribal governments, and effectuate positive social change. ^[9]

In recent years, truth and reconciliation commissions have been proposed in a number of communities throughout the United States, particularly to acknowledge slavery, racism, and treatment of minority populations. ^[10] A truth and reconciliation commission was created in 2004 as part of a community response to the November 1979 deaths of five black anti-Klan demonstrators in Greensboro, North Carolina. ^[11] The Maine Wabanaki-State Child Welfare Truth and Reconciliation Commission was established in 2011 and continues as the nation's first state-sponsored Truth and Reconciliation Commission to address child welfare and Native people. ^[12] Truth commissions to address racial injustice have been proposed or established in other states and communities, as well, including Detroit, Michigan; Wilmington, North Carolina; Rosewood, Florida; New Orleans, Louisiana; Abbeville, South Carolina; Tewa Pueblo, New Mexico; as well as statewide in Mississippi and Alaska. ^[13]

As racism became an increasing part of the political dialogue during the 2016 presidential election, ^[14] now may be an important time for communities across the United States and within the state of Alaska to consider establishing truth and reconciliation commissions. Racial stratification and polarization continue to shape the social landscape of the country. ^[15] Local truth and reconciliation commissions could help Americans confront the nation's or their community's past and address current racial injustices. ^[16]

In Alaska, the social landscape is also changing. As the state continues to face a serious budget deficit, its legislature must prioritize spending affecting all Alaskans. Some of those decisions-willingly or not-have underlying racial implications. For example, in January 2016, to reduce the budget deficit, one legislator proposed closing rural schools with less than twenty-five students, a move that would disproportionately affect the Alaska Native population. ^[17] This proposal perhaps highlights the lack of awareness of the historic injustice committed against the Alaska Native population in the state, and it demonstrates the need for an active, transparent dialogue to address racial injustice. Hence, the need for a full truth and reconciliation system should be examined. Such a system could address past wrongs and improve future relations between the state, federal, and tribal governments.

This Article will provide a general overview of truth and reconciliation commissions, and outline the context of why such a commission is needed in Alaska. This Article will then describe and compare select truth and reconciliation commissions used in the past two decades in four countries from across the globe: South Africa (1995), El Salvador (1993), South Korea (2000 and 2005), and Canada (2007). Next, this Article will address some commissions that have been used or attempted in the United States, including the Greensboro Truth and Reconciliation Commission (2004), the Metro Detroit Truth and Reconciliation Commission (2011), and the Maine Wabanaki-State Child Welfare Truth and Reconciliation Commission (2011). Lastly, this Article will examine previously-convened commissions in Alaska and will consider whether a truth and reconciliation commission could contend with historic injustice, promote healing throughout Alaska communities, and work to address current social problems within the state.

BACKGROUND AND DEFINITIONS

Truth Commissions

Generally, the term "truth commission" refers to a wide variety of temporary official bodies set up to investigate and report on past periods of human rights violations in a given jurisdiction. ^[18] As non-judicial bodies, these commissions aim to establish a factual narrative of past events, but lack any power to prosecute. ^[19] However, some commissions are granted quasi-judicial powers, such as the ability to award partial or full amnesty to individuals, subpoena certain key witnesses, request or sponsor investigations or exhumations, and provide recommendations directly to national, state, or local governments. ^[20]

Truth commissions can be established in a variety of ways. They can be convened as part of the outcome of a peace accord or judicial decision. ^[21] They can also be required by legislative act or executive mandate. ^[22] Truth commissions may be managed internally or can be sponsored and run by international groups. ^[23] Made up of a one or more...