Truth Commissions and U.S. Hegemony

  • Carlos A. Parodi


Truth commissions are institutions created to find the truth about past human rights violations committed by national governments and other organized forces, and to use such truth to punish perpetrators, heal victims, and bring about national reconciliation. Recent examples of truth commissions include Argentina (1983), Chile (1991), El Salvador (1993), Guatemala (1995), South Africa (1998), and Peru (2001). They share such common purposes as closing the gap between government and citizens; integrating victims and perpetrators into the national body; preparing a plan of national reparations; and restoring national trust and justice. A common assumption is that truth commissions investigate intranational human rights violations, not international human rights violations, that is, national groups committed violations against each other and, thus, national groups need reconciliation. Argentines violated the rights of Argentines, Guatemalans of Guatemalans, and so forth.


United States Foreign Policy State Sovereignty Truth Commission Guatemala City 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Babington, Charles. 1999. “Clinton: Support for Guatemala Was Wrong.” Washington Post (11 March): A1.Google Scholar
  2. Brown, Chris. 1992. International Relations Theory. New Normative Approaches. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  3. —. 1999. “Universal Human Rights: A Critique.” Pp. 103–27 in Human Rights in Global Politics, ed. Tim Dunne and Nicholas J. Wheeler. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buchanan, Patrick J. 1998. “Let Pinochet Go!” Internet Brigade, December 1 <>.
  5. Bush, George. 2002. The National Security Strategy of the United States. Washington D.C.: The White House (September).Google Scholar
  6. Chomsky, Noam. 1998. “The United States and the ‘Challenge of Relativity.’” Scholar
  7. Clinton, William J. 1999. “Remarks in a Roundtable Discussion on Peace Efforts in Guatemala City.” Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, vol. 35, no. 10 ( 377–418.Google Scholar
  8. Comisión de la Verdad y Reconciliación. 2003. Informe Final. Lima.Google Scholar
  9. Donnelly, Jack. 1999. “The Social Construction of International Human Rights.” Pp. 71–102 in Human Rights in Global Politics, ed. Tim Dunne and Nicholas J. Wheeler. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Evans, Tony. 2001. The Politics of Human Rights. A Global Perspective. Sterling, Virginia: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  11. Falk, Richard. 1999. “The Challenge of Genocide and genocidal Politics in an Era of Globalisation.” Pp. 177–94 in Human Rights in Global Politics, ed. Tim Dunne and Nicholas J. Wheeler. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gibney, Mark and Erik Roxstrom. 2001. “The Status of State Apologies.” Human Rights Quarterly 23, no. 4 (November): 911–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gibney, Mark, Katarina Tomasevski, and Jens Vedsted-Hansen. 1999. “Transnational State Responsibility for Violations of Human Rights.” Harvard Human Rights Journal, 12 (Spring): 267–95.Google Scholar
  14. Godoy, Lina. 2003. “CVR buscará apoyo del Banco Mundial.” La República, June 8 <>.
  15. Harris, Bob. 1999. “Guatemala: Clinton’s Latest Damn-Near Apology.” Humanist (May/June).Google Scholar
  16. Hayner, Priscilla. 2002. Unspeakable Truths. Facing the Challenge of Truth Commissions. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Henkin, Louis. 1979. How Nations Behave. Law and Foreign Policy, second edition. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  18. —. 1990. The Age of Rights. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Herman, Edward S. 1999. “The Godfather’s New World Order.” ZMagazine (March) <>.
  20. Huntington, Samuel. 1993. “The Clash of Civilizations.” Foreign Affairs 72, no. 3 (Summer): 22–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ignatieff, Michael. 2002. “Human Rights, the Laws of War, and Terrorism.” Social Research 69, no. 4 (Winter): 1137–58.Google Scholar
  22. —. 2001. “The Attack on Human Rights.” Foreign Affairs 8, no. 6 (November/December): 102–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kagan, Robert and William Kristol. 1999. “Clinton’s Sorry Excuse for a China Policy.” The Weekly Standard, March 22 <>.
  24. Kaplan, Robert D. 1994. “The Coming Anarchy.” The Atlantic Monthly 273, no. 2 (February): 44–76.Google Scholar
  25. Klare, Michael T. 1995. Rogue States and Nuclear Outlaws: America’s Search for a New Foreign Policy. Hill and Wang.Google Scholar
  26. Latin American Working Group. 1999. “Of Truth and Apologies. The Guatemalan Truth Commission & the U.S. Role” (March) <>.Google Scholar
  27. Lobe, Jim. 1999. “Rights: Time for a US Truth Commission.”, March 14.Google Scholar
  28. McGrory, Mary. 1999. “Apologies are U.S.” Washington Post (March 14).Google Scholar
  29. Nardin, Terry. 1983. Law, Morality, and the Relations of States. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Navarro, Mireya. 1999. “Guatemalan Army Waged ‘Genocide,’ New Report Finds.” New York Times (February 26).Google Scholar
  31. Radu, Michael. 1999. “An Apology Instead of a Policy: U.S. Blunders in Latin America.” CNS Information Services, March 23 <>.
  32. Reding, Andrew. 1999. “A Genocide Tribunal for Guatemala.” Journal of Commerce, March 18 <>.
  33. Rice, Condoleezza. 2000. “Exercising Power Without Arrogance.” Chicago Tribune, op-ed column (December 31).Google Scholar
  34. U.S. Department of State, Office of the Spokesman. 1999. Press Statement, March 9 <>.Google Scholar
  35. Vann, Bill. 1999. “Clinton’s Crocodile Tears for Central America.” World Socialist Website (March) <>.

Copyright information

© Janie Leatherman and Julie Webber 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carlos A. Parodi

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations