Do Countries Apologize Like Individuals?

Why do the Germans feel so much pain and embarrassment in dealing with the legacy of Hitler? Can those involved in the Vietnam War heal from the wounds of war and be friends? Can the Palestinians and Israelis forgive each other’s misdeeds and work together for a shared future? We know that generations pass and time heals. But is it possible for a nation to atone for atrocities it committed in the recent past?

In literature and on celluloid, atonement originates from pangs of remorse felt by an individual. When misguided and selfish actions are motivated by the obsession to conquer the object of “love”, or when desire for gain and power leads to evil acts, the settings for a great tragedy are laid. This consuming tragedy brings immense suffering to all parties concerned. Yet, some principal agents of tragedy survive though often perpetually haunted by remorse to set about seeking atonement.

In addition to the inner sanctum of the human psyche, atonement or at-one-ment can be seen as happening on the social scene. On the social scene, we have in the last few years seen leaders of nations apologize for the horrors (usually during war) caused by their predecessors. If this apology aims at reconciliation with a large group then an apology represents a symbolic gesture whereby the wrongdoer voluntarily lowers his own status as a person like West German Chancellor Willy Brandt kneeling at the Jewish victim’s memorial at Warsaw Ghetto in 1970. Quite often other attempts at such atonement are often mere words like the ubiquitous “sorry,” which means nothing.

History is always written by the victors of wars. By winning wars, the victorious groups raise itself above the loser and they thus are in no hurry to humble themselves voluntarily for the sake of atonement even if they have committed horrendous atrocities to gain victory. Winners usually get haughty, and arrogance prevents them from seeking any reconciliation with the vanquished except in rare cases. There is only one case in entire recorded history of a king having a genuine change of heart, after winning a battle. Appalled by the wanton violence and rivers of blood he caused, Ashoka (304-232 BC), the Maurya emperor of India, embraced non-violence and actively advocated atonement.

In various forums on the Internet many individuals are demanding two strong and extremely arrogant Western leaders to be tried as war criminals for two ongoing wars. But, these are individual sentiments not shared by the majority of voters. Political leaders hardly ever take responsibility for the consequences of their actions unless they are forced to by consistent and organised pressure from masses of their own constituents. Do many people in Belgium feel a burning need to atone because their king Leopold II sent about ten million people in Congo to horrible deaths for his personal gain?