 Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Shani Jardin. I'm one of the editors of boing-boying.net, a funny-sounding blog that sometimes covers serious things, like we were live blogging from the genocide trial. I also teamed up with my partner, Miles O'Brien, to produce a series of reports for the PBS NewsHour from Guatemala. And we were down there for about six weeks observing the trial and interviewing victims, interviewing people like Patrick Ball and Pamela Yates and Kate Doyle and some of the other people that you see here, and also interviewing people like Zuri Rios and Harris Whitbeck. And it was an interesting experience. This afternoon, I am very honored to be here to moderate this conversation with Ben Kamin, Manuel Geronimo, who is from a community called Rabinal. His family is Achi, Maya. They are Achi speakers. And one afternoon during the trial, I literally sat at his feet while he gave a speech. All of us, press, were kind of crowded around his feet. And we were listening to him speak. I think it was on May 9th or May 10th. And he delivered this beautiful speech. I just want to read you the last couple of lines of this. I wish I could fully explain how emotional it was to listen to this inside the genocide trial. He ended his speech before the court. He said, we are not looking for vengeance. We're looking for a true peace with justice, with respect, with equality, with dignity. That is why we're here. So I ask you once again, he said to the court, the moral reparations to the victims, the protection of the witnesses of our lawyers, that all of the Maya people be respected and protected. And then he said, it is written that it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for un rico genocido, a rich genocidal person, to enter into the kingdom of heaven. And I remember when he finished that speech, just everybody on the side of the eschiel leapt to their feet and just screamed and clapped. And you might add another line that it is also easier for a camel to pass through an eye of a needle than it is to actually have a conviction that holds for a rich genocidal person. Also with us this afternoon, again, a great honor to welcome Roddy Brett, who is a lecturer for the Center of Peace and Conflict Studies at the School of International Relations at the University of St. Andrews. He is a scholar who's lived for the last 12 years in Latin America. He's an advisor to the United Nates High Commission for Human Rights in Guatemala. And he's an advisor to the UNDP in Guatemala and to the United Nations Peace Unit in Colombia. Those two countries, obviously, have some interesting things in common. He prepared a special witness report for Cases Against Truyosmont and Lucas Garcia on the Eschiel Maya people who were at the center of this trial, as I think most of you here know, and on Iskán for Caldeache. He's a specialist in human rights, genocide, indigenous peoples, peace processes, and the author of no fewer than eight books on the subject. Welcome to you, Roddy. So the theme of our conversation this afternoon is on building peace after genocide. And I imagine that if you pose this theme to a number of people in Guatemala, they would say, well, what peace? And what after? Because you could easily make the argument that the genocide didn't end. Yes, the mass killings in the sense that they happened during the time of Riosmont have ended. But one could argue, and in fact, there are indigenous groups who argue today, that the extractive industries, the mining in San Rafael and those four communities that are under state of siege, that were placed under state of siege, a military occupation during the trial, that this kind of activity is a form of genocide as well. And I thought maybe it would be nice to begin by asking Benjamin Geronimo for his thoughts on, well, all that has happened since that day, since he gave that beautiful speech, the conviction, the effective overturning of the conviction, and where we go from here to pursue peace after genocide. And we do have a translator here. Well, thank you very much for the space. From here to here, a people, for me, a very admirable people, for me, for the distance. Thank you so much for giving me the space to come here to talk to you. It's very important for me to be here. For my family members, for the victims, for the survivors, that's why we're here today. And in order to talk about what's going on right now, we still have to talk about what happened before. And in order to talk about what's going on right now, we still have to talk about what happened before. The experience that the genocide has left for me. After the massacre, I lost 14 members of my family. And that doesn't include my grandparents or my aunts, uncles, nieces or nephews. Después para construir la paz después del genocidio. And so after, in order to build peace after genocide, después que nos quedamos solos, cuatro hermanos, varones de mi familia, the four brothers that were left, the four of us, nos tuvimos que unirnos, organizarnos. We had to unite and we had to organize ourselves. Para ver qué se puede hacer. To figure out what we could do. Desde 1985, siete años o seis años después de la masacre después del genocidio, nos tuvimos que unirnos para ver si se puede denunciar lo que nos habían hecho. So in 1995, seven years after the massacre, after the genocide, we got together to try to figure out how to organize ourselves and do something and denounce what had happened. Por el tiempo ya no los conozco, pero han llegado varios en mi comunidad. Donde nos acompañaron. And thanks to the international community who came to help us, to accompany us. It was really them who were there to give us support and accompany us in this process. Y ahí son los que nos dieron fuerza para poder denunciar. And they gave us the strength to be able to denounce what had happened. Para presentar noches denuncias en el Ministerio Público. And to present the denouncement of what had happened formally at the public prosecutor's office. Mi experiencia de llegar en este caso en este momento sobre el caso colectivo del genocidio en Guatemala. And so my experience with this collective process of looking for justice for genocide in Guatemala. I also represented the members of my community, of the 200 some members of my community. Conexionado y un judicial de la JEDOS. Where five different military officials were condemned and they each have different stations. Fueron condenado con 700, 80 años por asesinato. And they were each condemned for 780 years for murder. Organizando ya se fue formando la asociación para la justicia de conciliación a JEDOS en Guatemala. And this is how we started our organizing by forming the Association for Justice and Reconciliation in Guatemala. Donde tiene cobertura en cinco regiones del país donde sucedieron las masacras. That is represented by five regions in Guatemala where the massacres occurred. En 2009 también fue representante legal de la asociación para la justicia a JEDOS en Guatemala. In 2009 I was also the representative for the AGR, the Association for Justice and Reconciliation in Guatemala. En 2011 también fue como reelect solo descansé dos años para ser nuevamente representante legal de la asociación para la justicia y la conciliación. And then in 2011 I was re-elected so I only had two years to relax before they called me again to represent them. And with my compañera who was then the president of the AGR, she was in charge of it when they issued the arrest warrants against Rios Mont. Impuesto, o sea, propuestas por los abogados defensores de los responsables de las masacras. And so we were always represented by Caldeache, our legal representatives in the case. In 2012 the legal representatives of the defense tried to put forward these legal stays on the case that Caldeache had to work around. El 11 de enero empezamos nuevamente ya conculiendo con los recursos que habían dejado, que se había quedado el año 2012. In January 11th all of those legal stops had been resolved and the case would move forward in 2012. Y también en el 2012 los abogados defensores pusieron más de 100 recursos donde el 95 por ciento les fueron rechazados, les fueron negados y fueron resueltos a favor de las víctimas. In 2012 the defense lawyers put forward more than 100 injunctions or legal stops trying to halt the process in which over 95% were found, were rejected out of hand, that there was no basis for them. De esa manera tuvimos, logramos avanzarnos para llegar en la fase intermedia, es donde se entregan las pruebas, donde se solicita, se entrega los documentos, elaborar por ellos. Para cometer la masaca. And after overcoming that obstacle we were able to move into the debate phase or the actual case hearing in the courts which opened the way for showing the evidence and having the testimonies to prove that there had occurred these massacres. Y gracias a un varón, guatemalteco, que se llama Miguel Ángel Galvez, que fue el que recibió las pruebas en contra de los responsables. And thanks to a young man named Miguel Ángel Galvez, there was very tangible proof to advance the case forward. Terminamos con los recursos que tenía en su mano y luego trasladó el documento, los expedientes al tribunal de sentencia. And he was able to turn in all of the evidence and once the evidence had been presented, the case moved forward into the final decision making moment. We were originally informed that the trial would open on the 14th of August of this year. But because of the magnitude and the gravity of the case. The judges, two very brave women and one very brave man, decided to speed up the process and move it along more quickly. They probably thought that if they waited until the 14th of August. That the defense lawyers would take that time to put in another hundred injunctions to stop the case. But because of the courage of the two judge women and the male judge, we were able to start in March. And the defense immediately started trying to put in other stops, stays, injunctions, anything to stop the judges from being able to hold the trial. But because of their courage and their understanding of the Guatemalan constitution and international treaties and conventions, the judges ruled in favor of us. And we won the sentence on the 10th of May this year. And in the moment that that happened, I was the legal representative. I was in front of everything as a protagonist. I saw that the defense lawyers and party acted like children in front of the tribunal. I can second that I was there. That they saw that they couldn't defend the generals and so they left. They left running. Because they had nothing they could say. But in Guatemala, there is always impunity. And the highest court in Guatemala annulled a part of the sentence. Last week. And that's the concern that we have right now. As the association, as the victims, as the survivors, as the lawyers, as the society. And I'm sure if the trial is completely annulled and we hope it's not, the army is going to be installed again. So it's being installed, but it hasn't been able to put the hands together. Because there is still something that is watching us. There is something that is accompanying us to not leave. And we can't let them annull all of the case, all of the sentence, because that would allow the military to do what it did before. And already it's installing itself in communities. We need this precedent so that the military can't just repeat what it has done in the past. So our time is limited during the session. I want to give Professor Brett a moment to respond to some of what Benjamin Heronimo was just saying. When we were in the quarter, I remember part of your speech, you spoke about a request or a demand that the army stop occupying indigenous communities, something that was renewed in a new way during the trial itself. Professor Brett, can you take us back? How was peace built after the peace accords? After the war, after the war, after the genocide as it was defined for this trial ended. And how effective was that? Thanks, Ginny. And thanks for coming. I think the short answer is that it wasn't built. I think peace hasn't been built in Guatemala. For many reasons, I think first of all, there wasn't even any significant agreement on the meta-conflict, and by what I mean by that, is really what the conflict was about, what it meant, how it was defined. And in terms of the fact that whether or not it was a genocide, and clearly what's happened over the last few months specifically has demonstrated that. So what does that mean? Well, I think it means that post-authoritarian change has been shallow. And I think that's also, and this is an important point, that's what makes the achievement of Caleache and the Ajo Teere so important, right, because of the context in which it's taken place and getting Rios Mont and Sanchez Rodriguez to the courtroom. So I think in terms of the peace, how I would see it is that it's really, it was a peace process that never engaged with the root causes of armed conflict. It was a peace process that debated and negotiated everything with the exception of that, right? It was a peace process that was effectively, I think, despite the important struggles of civil society organizations without those struggles, we wouldn't even have got to that peace process. I don't think, or at least it would have been a very different peace process, but I think that it was a peace process that was imposed upon a very reticent and reluctant elite, right? And clearly that's been demonstrated today and it's that elite today that still has a Cold War mentality, right? It's that elite that never exercised any ownership over the peace process. So I think one of the most acute weaknesses of the peace process has clearly been the fact that we failed in terms of achieving one of the principal goals of a peace process which was reconciliation. And I think, well, clearly as we know, historical and legal truth is still being debated, the perpetrators have never assumed responsibility for what they did. In any way whatsoever. And I think an important point here is that before rights mechanisms can actually, human rights mechanisms or normative frameworks can actually apply to individuals or collective groups, these individuals and collective groups must be recognized as humans, right? As rights bearers, as deserving of rights, and that hasn't happened in Guatemala. Precisely, I think, one of the key elements of what Marta was saying, because of racism. So that is an essential building block that we need to overcome 30 years after the massacres, 16, 17 years after the end of the peace process, right? So that would be- So we're still working with a state that doesn't define them fully as human beings? Absolutely right, no. So that would be the first point. The second point I wanna make is that in that regard, what I think the current crisis, if you wanna call it that, with the trial demonstrates, okay, it certainly demonstrates a weak judicial system, weak institutionality, impunity, which has been, have been requiring problems in Guatemala. But clearly for me, the crisis with the trial demonstrates the absolute failure of the peace process in that regard, okay? An impunity for genocide, as we will see and are seeing, and for crimes against humanity. What that means and what that brings about is validation for such crimes. Literally, these crimes are validated. There's no sanction for them, okay? Which ends up, I think, further dehumanizing indigenous peoples and bringing about, as I think some other people mentioned, the distinct possibility of repetition in the future, okay? In one way or another. And as I think we were talking on the phone yesterday, Jenny, I mean, what people in various parts of what the Milo have said recently is with the state of siege and the military interventions, it's like the 1980s all over again, as we were saying yesterday, right? So I think that's crucial. So I think we haven't yet in what is essentially a highly unconsolidated, violent, fragile, pernicious hybrid democracy in Guatemala, we haven't reached that level of irreversibility of rights guarantees, okay? And just to finish or to conclude with that in terms of what the future might hold, I guess. I think we're probably all in agreement that the trial could inevitably have represented quite a crucial building block to build a state and for reconciliation. And I think that the crucial gains have been achieved really because of what Otto was saying earlier on, civil society, the role of civil society, the role of victims and survivors organizations, the election of Claudia Paz clearly. And this is a trial that I think, despite how a lot of internationals have played a really crucial role in the trial, it's a homegrown Guatemalan trial. And I want to put that right on the table, okay? That's the biggest historic aspect here, this is the first time in history that a former head of state was placed on trial for genocide and crimes against humanity in a domestic court in that same nation. And a trial that isn't driven by the state that isn't pushed as some transitional justice processes have been, but it's pushed by survivors and that's crucial. So what does that mean when I think it means a few things? I think clearly we need to ask yourself whether or not we actually have the risk of losing ground as a result of this trial, do we? I don't know, it's a debatable point. The second question I think I'd like to ask is, is it only a genocide if a court of law says it's only a genocide? I don't think it is, all right? And I've spent 10 years accompanying the Ajo Te Eri and Caldera Eche and working in this trial and having listened to the stories and we all know them and the experiences of what happened. So I guess what the point I'd like to make is how do we start engaging with the fact that what would have, what came out on 10th of May, what may come out again depending on what happens is a legal truth and that's one kind of truth but we have other truths, right? So a legal truth is inevitably a partial truth. And I think as certain people have said the damage has been done to the elite. So literally to finish. In terms of continuity, okay? Because I think clearly what we've seen are the massacres and what happened in the court recently is really shaped by the way of history, okay? And by that so-called Indian threat and by racism as Marta was saying. So what we've seen is generally, and I say generally because it's not necessarily the case whilst the massacres or the systematic massacres stopped, generally stopped. Obviously Totonika Pan, Sam Rafael and other parts of Guatemala massacres are continuing particularly related to international and national extractive industries and the imposition of those in Guatemala's pernicious peace. I think whilst massacres have finished what we see today is indigenous people are still dying of preventable diseases of hunger. They're systematically having their right to autonomy violated. So I guess my question would be is the normative framework that talks about genocide enough? And do we need to start thinking about defining, preventing and how we define, prevent and punish what's going on today in Guatemala? Is it a cultural genocide? Is it ethnocide? How do we understand it? And how do we think about a normative framework that would engage with that? And the last point really would be how do we also start thinking about the role of international actors? Because clearly it's a double-edged sword, right? The Guatemalan elite constantly play the sovereignty card when it suits them. And I think if we all remember in 2006, I think it was June 2006, when Santiago Pedras went to Guatemala, maybe it's 2007, and was basically had to leave with his tail between his legs because the Guatemalan authorities would not cooperate saying that literally I remember the front page of Plensa Libre said that el trabajo de los españoles se terminó aquí en 1821, right? So the work of the Guatemalans finished here in 1821. Sovereignty. That same week, and this is crucial, that same week the Guatemalan authorities signed the last elements of the future aid agreement with the US. So how do we engage with this and the questions that supposedly de la Nese from C.Cig resigned yesterday relating to what he had allegedly said about various people involved in the genocide trial? So I think there are lots of challenges that really lie ahead, both conceptual but also obviously on the ground practical to these struggles. So I'm getting some very emphatic cues that we need to wrap up but I do wanna give Benjamín Geronimo the last word here, sir. What would you say to concerned American audiences who would like to support the struggle of the victims of these abuses? How do we help organizations like AJR build peace after genocide? However that genocide ends up being defined and by whom? What I first wanna say is that what we really need is the international community to be present and to accompany us because what we've achieved in the trial, what we achieved in the sentence was thanks to the fact that international allies have been accompanying us. So what we continue to ask for is for the international community to be present to show solidarity, to accompany the process, so that when the military officials and their families look around, they see that the international community is paying attention and that... And that this actually is coming at a time when it's increasingly harder for international organizations and solidarity to be as visible in Guatemala. They're accused, or they accuse us of being parasites, of living off of the international community and it's not true. What we want is peace in Guatemala. We want the best for our communities. We want justice. We want equality. También muy poco la participación de nuestras víctimas porque están de una distancia de 200, 300 kilómetros de nuestra ciudad capital. Entonces cuando hay audiencias no podemos, no tenemos la capacidad para movilizar un cientos o miles de personas para que ven a presenciar el debate o las audiencias. Entonces por la sencilla razón que no tenemos recursos financieros para poder sensibilizar en las comunidades y con la misma poder presenciar en las audiencias. Entonces también las sugeremos. Este es que tal vez tienen más espacios también que nos apoyen económicamente para poder seguir con este proceso. And also given that many of the people who have been affected that are the survivors, that are the protagonists in this struggle live 100 kilometers, 200 kilometers from the capital and don't have the ability to travel to the hearings. It's very difficult for us to transport a thousand people which is only a fraction of the people who have been affected to be able to witness these hearings. And it's hard for us to come back to the community and be able to tell everyone what exactly happened. So another way that the international community could really help given that there are more resources and we really do not have them to be able to mobilize people is that the international community help financially so that we can help bring the message back to the communities in which we live and continue this fight. There's a lot to tell, but the time is very limited. So I thank you very much and we hope that we will always be in communication to be able to understand and to know what happens in our country. Thank you very much. So time is very limited. Donbe Kamin and Roddy Brett, thank you very much, both of you. Thank you very much.