Rumiko Seya, Secretary General of the Japan Center for Conflict Prevention

Rumiko Seya

Born in Gunma Prefecture in 1977. Graduated from Chuo University and received an MA in Conflict Resolution from the University of Bradford in the UK. Specialist in post-conflict peacebuilding and reintegration of ex-combatants into society. In the past she held various positions in conflict areas, such as NGO staff (Rwanda), UN volunteer (Sierra Leone), Special Assistant to the Ambassador (Japanese Embassy, Afghanistan), and UN Peacekeeping Operations staff (Côte d'Ivoire). She became Secretary General of the JCCP in April 2007.

JCCP's website http://www.jccp.gr.jp/

Nearly everyone who responded to the question posed last time, about reconciling with a friend who stole something precious of yours, felt that making up wouldn't be possible if the friend wouldn't return what they had stolen. In my question, I said that it was a precious "thing," but in reality, it might be something other than money or material goods; it might be the lives of family members or friends that cannot be returned once they are lost.

In such circumstances, as Mr. Okada of Fukuyama City pointed out, the most important thing is to focus on the victims' wishes, not to force them toward reconciliation based on the views of others.

I once believed, in simple terms, that reconciliation is always positive and an essential step for building peace. However, through my research in Bosnia and Croatia that concerned reconciliation in post-conflict conditions, I came to feel that it may be irresponsible and unreasonable to speak of "reconciliation" to people who have lost their loved ones. It would be like asking the bereaved family of a murder victim in Japan: "How will you reconcile with the murderer?"

In areas of conflict, sometimes victims are able to reach a state of reconciliation with their attackers; other times, they can reconcile only halfway but manage to "coexist" without fighting. Both cases, though, require the strong cooperation of the victims to refrain from retaliating so that the cycle of violence can stop.

What can be done to improve such situations?

Photos of victims in Croatia have been posted in mourning by their loved ones. (Photo by Rumiko Seya, 2000)

As Gion Higashi Junior High School students, Haruka Yasunari, Sayo Nihonmatsu, and others, wrote, one important action is for the perpetrator to express heartfelt remorse and atone for their misdeeds to the extent possible. The dead cannot be brought back, but such acts of contrition may ease some of the anger and trauma felt by loved ones. Perpetrators might also offer financial compensation to the bereaved family.

Atonement, though, as many respondents pointed out, is founded on the perpetrator first clearly recognizing the reality of their misdeeds.

For this to occur, as Hiromi Hirahara, Misaki Shibata, Daiki Arikawa, and others from Gion Higashi Junior High School suggested, the facts involving why the perpetrators committed violent acts and how their victims have suffered must be brought to light.

Time may play an important role in easing the emotional state of the victims, but if these survivors are unable to learn why their loved ones were killed or went missing, the tragedy can't become part of their "past"; the pain will still linger in a continuous "present."

Because conflicts are rooted in complex causes, it is often difficult to confirm the truth. In such cases, apart from the court system, a "Truth and Reconciliation Committee" can be established where both perpetrators and victims share their testimony of the events. After hearing both sides, it can then be possible to arrive at some kind of understanding between the two parties.

The process of bringing the truth to light is essential for the bereaved families in order to move into the future and view the conflict as part of the "past."

Building peace in a society destroyed by conflict seems a lovely thing from a distance and a necessity in preventing the recurrence of conflict. At the same time, the "peace" we refer to is, in reality, built mostly on the accumulation of much hardship. Hiroshima has been called a city of peace for some time, but along the way, there have surely been many people who have experienced the same kind of adversity as in areas of conflict today.