 holistic transitional justice. That's what we have today with Danuta Kalarczyk, and she is Polish, and she is in Kraków right now, joining us by Zoom. Thank you for joining the show, Danuta, as I told you before, it's a beautiful name, Polish name, yeah. Thank you for having me, thank you. Absolutely, so tell us how you got associated with Project Expedite Justice and whether you are the only one in Kraków or whether there are others in Kraków or other parts of Poland? So I believe at the moment, I am the only one from Kraków, and as I know, I am the only Polish member. And I really wanted to work with an organization to work with an organization that is predominantly focused on victims and on victims of international crimes. And through the search, I found Project Expedite Justice and I applied and I got the chance to work with the organization. Why are you interested in Project Expedite Justice and its work? I am interested in the broader topic of international criminal justice and international humanitarian justice. And both of these subjects are the work of Project Expedite Justice. And with this predominant focus on the victims, I thought I can approach international criminal law and also international human rights law from this victim-centric perspective. So, but you're different. Your orientation is different. You're into this kind of holistic approach to it. Can you describe the difference for me between your approach and other people's approach? I mean, for example, we've had many shows, many talk shows like this with Project Expedite Justice and some of their are into commissions. Some of them are into investigations of war crimes, prosecution of war crimes and various jurisdictions. I guess people have different approaches. Your approach seems very different. So, tell me what it is. Well, in terms of transitional justice, I believe that transitional justice is an approach in itself. It's not really a type of justice. And it can be a set of processes or one process. It can be both judicial and nonjudicial kind of mechanisms that are going to be designed and implemented. But what I mean by a holistic approach is that there is a number of avenues that can be pursued. And ideally, I believe that they should be pursued simultaneously and should complement one another. So, to establish and design a realistic view that is going sort of to be best adapted to the specific cultural or historical context of a conflict in question. Yes, let me ask you about that. Historical context, is there some history here? Is there history that suggests that holistic transitional justice has had success in the past? Or is it something we're inventing right now? Well, I think that in general, when, for example, there was a country which suffered from our hostilities, or where there was an, for example, international conflict between two sovereign states, or when there was a regime change. I believe that usually how the old or new governments try to approach the top of the issue or kind of the way to move forward is by the adoption of a set of different measures. So I try to see it as more of a holistic approach, not sort of narrowing down to one specific, for example, I don't know, prosecutions, but also, for example, thinking about truth commissions, thinking about reparation schemes for the victims. So I believe it's sort of like a broader set of approaches. So it doesn't rule out some of the other approaches. Sometimes you have to have a hybrid, right? Where you're using more than one approach at the time. But I take it from our discussion that when we say holistic, that would be your primary way of looking at it. Although you may look at it through other lenses, your primary approach is through a holistic approach. Yeah. Okay, do you believe that a holistic approach with a hybrid version of a holistic approach is the most effective way to deal with war crimes and violations of human rights? Why is that? Tell me your analysis. So well, I believe that every avenue towards this browser goal of achieving sustainable peace has its pros and cons. So for example, we can look at prosecutions. So one can make a division between international prosecutions and also domestic prosecutions. And I believe if this is possible, it is ideal to organize both in the same time. So both international prosecutions and domestic prosecutions can complement one another and can sort of try to share the caseload to prevent undue delay. But there are some weaknesses in this approach to transitional justice. And I believe that one of the main weaknesses is that the mandate of the court is limited. And the primary kind of emphasis is put on the perpetrators and on finding them guilty or proving that they're committed atrocities. And sort of, and in this approach, the victims are treated as tools sort of for the case of the prosecution or the defense. And also the testimony that they can share before the court is very fragmented. And so there are also other approaches that are a bit more victim-centric. For example, truth commissions. And these are, they can be a mixture of judicial and non-judicial bodies, but usually they are non-judicial inquires. And they sort of try to, the members of the commission try to understand the root causes of the conflict, try to understand the history, especially the conflict spread over decades. Then they really try to also understand the societal divisions and they are much more flexible than courts. So also in terms of the, kind of like the sketching a broader picture of the atrocity and of the crimes, they can also provide a sort of a more flexible engagement with the victims and with the public. Also, they can act even if, for example, there are court proceedings in the country and there is also a truth commission. The members of the truth commission can act as intermediaries between the court and the local public. So from this perspective, if there are plenty of victims and the conflict was spreading over decades and was very complex, it's also of value to establish, for example, such a body as a truth commission. Are you focusing your efforts in Poland or Eastern Europe more than Africa, Latin America or other places? Actually, when I was thinking about truth commissions, I was thinking about Columbia. Because there was a civil conflict going back from 1960s, I believe. And only recently, there was a report issued by the commission and the report was detailing very exhaustively the history of the conflict because it was spreading over such a long time. So I believe also when there are some, when there are internal conflicts between the government and the rebels, they are really taking a long time. I think having a truth commission that is really trying to kind of look beyond the prosecutions of the selected individuals and try to understand really and try to sort of also propose the way to move forward, I believe that it is really of value. Oh, have you been there? Have you been to Latin America? I talked last time, we talked to Stella. Did you meet Stella? I think her name is Pizarro, Pizzatto in Italy. She's in Verona. She's also with Project Expedite Justice. Is it Sylvia? No, Sylvia is in Spain. We've met Sylvia too. And all you guys are great, by the way. Thank you. Have you traveled to Colombia? Have you traveled to Africa? No, never been. Okay. So I want to talk about Poland for a minute. Poland has sort of a rough history. In the 19th to 20th century, there was a lot of violence in Poland. There were atrocities in Poland, around the war and the Nazi occupation and so forth. Does this color your view of it? Does this motivate you in any way? Are you a student of Polish history? Well, of course, I used to have Polish history in school. But actually, I would like to sort of use Poland as an example, one example of a case study for now. And I would like to talk about sort of when I believe that the fundaments of any talk or any more meaningful conversation about transitional justice is establishing kind of an open and inclusive debate about what has actually happened in the past. And I believe that the societies that don't manage to get the accountability right start from a very wrong direction. And it is important to sort of try to balance this desire of revenge, but also with this kind of aim and goal of healing the nation, of trying to unify a nation, trying to really engage the entire public in this broader debate. We have a word in Hawaiian, the Hawaiian language. And it is opono, which is the same notion of healing. But if you have healing and if you have holistic approach, aren't you, isn't it necessary for you to exclude revenge? Isn't it necessary for you to temper punishment that you would otherwise meet out? Like after the war, there was some people, some defendants were put to death for what they had done. Would you not do that now? Would you exclude violent retribution? No, I believe that also, why should we look at actually what the nation and what the victims desire and what the general public wants? I also believe that definitely international or domestic prosecutions are key to sort of bring this feeling of justice, of bring this feeling of trying to sort out what happened in the past and move to the future. So I believe that if there is this possibility of having prosecutions and there are perpetrators that can be caught, I think definitely a country or a government should consider having trials. And punishment? Well, I believe that prosecutions is not only about this kind of actual or material punishment of the perpetrator. I think it's this broader symbolic process because prosecutions also carry this more of a broader meaning to the public. And I believe that this is also trying to bring peace to the nation. So I told you before the show, I wanted to have a case study with you and we can explore the corners of all that. And for this case study, I'm making myself a Ukrainian survivor. Imagine me, I come to see you. I guess I talked to you on the phone or maybe I visit you or we have a Skype or Zoom call or some kind of meeting. And I tell you that I've been wounded and maimed and I tell you that my children and my family have been killed or tortured or removed, deported into Russia. I tell you that my home has been destroyed and that all my assets are gone. I am impoverished. I really don't know what to do. I want to see the Ukrainians win. I want to see retribution against the Russians because I don't believe there's any excuse for what they have done to me, my family and virtually millions of other Ukrainians. And I need justice. That's why I'm here talking to you. I need justice. What is the conversation like and what can you offer me? Well, so there is this principle of approaching any of the victims. The principle is called do not harm. And this is about sort of the approach is centered around the psychological kind of well-being of the victim. And it's about not trying to push the victim towards the edge of testifying many, many times. So definitely if a victim such as you presented have suffered from such horrific crimes in their home state, definitely whenever anyone would approach such a person, they would try to gather the testimony in one go and they will try not to father harm the victim because as you presented it, then to kind of prevent the victim from father suffering, the investigators should approach such a victim very cautiously. And in terms of the desire of the victim or sort of the ultimate aim that the victim believes is important, I feel that this is sort of approached on a case-by-case basis because definitely there would be this feeling of revenge, of holding the perpetrators accountable for what has happened. But one should also keep in mind that they are also victim because when it comes to, for example, prosecutions, one has to remember that the perpetrator is that ultimately tried in court, is only a selected number of individuals that were caught and then also against whom the prosecution built a solid case. So there are also victims, for example, whose perpetrators, who perpetuate the crimes against them, for example, were never caught. And this was also the situation after the Second World War II. Only a few were actually tried, some were never caught. So it's also important that unfortunately, prosecutions are not only this key to justice and it's also important to have also other initiatives. Yes. Well, are you going to try in this conversation of ours, are you gonna try to open the subject of forgiveness? Because, you know, in some ways, that 18-year-old kid, a Russian soldier who is doing atrocities, in a way he's being encouraged, if not forced to do what he's doing. He may go much further, you know, just by virtue of the human-animal aspect of it. But, you know, if he was standing there in the street in Bukha and seeing them, you know, shoot people in the back of the head, it would be hard to forgive. And many other circumstances in Ukraine, that's just one of hundreds, thousands of examples. But, Query, would you talk to me about finding room in my heart to forgive? What has happened? I believe that there is going to be part of the society or part of the victims that will never really be able to forgive. And I believe that this is sort of not the responsibility of those who try to bring justice, but also convince those who suffered because no one can put themselves into the shoes of the victim. No one can really experience what they have suffered. I also believe that there are going to be victims who will ultimately decide to forgive, even though, for example, they lost a family or they lost a beloved ones. So it's all sort of assessed on a case-by-case basis. And it's a very, very delicate and sensitive subject. But this forgiveness can also come with time. It can also come with, yeah, for example, with different avenues for accountability. It can also come from the broader public engagement and discussions about the topic, this sort of trying to engage in an open and inclusive debate about what has happened. Also the survivors, for example, who are willing to talk about their experiences and their point of view. If they are, of course, in a position, for example, to share what has happened with those who did not experience and sort of like to show their approach, their vision, or whether there is any room in their mind or heart to try, at least, maybe not to forgive, but maybe to understand also the way in which the perpetrators tried or were sort of motivated to, maybe not to try to understand, but try to look at it also from a different perspective. Well, it strikes me that you must be under a lot of pressure to deal with the various outcomes that you can have. You can make me understand, conceivably, you could make me understand to the point where I appreciate the human condition, and therefore I regard what happened with some sympathy, some empathy, forgiveness. On the other hand, you also imply that we wanna bring this to the attention of the community. We want the community to know about it. And finally, you talk about prosecution and justice and punishment, and you mentioned also early on that different circumstances call for different approaches, a different mix of all these missions, these goals. But I think at the end of the day for me, as I appreciate you and Project Expedite Justice, I am thinking of the Jewish slogan after the Warsaw uprising, the Warsaw massacre in the ghetto was never again. We must never let this happen again. And for many years, people, not only Jewish people, but people of good heart remembered that and said, we are not going to let this happen again. We'll do what we have to do. But here we are today, Danuka and Danuta, and we find that it is happening again as a member of a human rights organization. You know that, we all know that. It is happening again, there are atrocities. And so, how do you reconcile that ultimate goal of preventing the atrocities from ever, ever, ever happening again with the reality they are happening again? What else can you do? What can we do if I shouldn't say finally, but to at least for a while stop these atrocities? I believe that having open and honest conversations about what has happened in the past, trying constantly to educate people about the actual history, both about the bright and dark sides of what has happened in the past and sort of learning those lessons, not to forget about them, because the history unfortunately tends to repeat itself. So it's important to remember about what has happened in the past and to look kind of backwards, get this knowledge, get this acknowledgement and then try to use it in the future. I hope so, knock wood as they say. But you know, where is it going for you? I mean, do you feel that your work is effective? Are you having gratification? Do you believe that your work will continue through your life, that you will make a material difference? You know, it's a race, isn't it? It's a race of violations of human rights versus those who would oppose the violation of human rights. And sometimes, just me now, sometimes I think we're losing that competition. How do you feel about it? And how committed are you to spending your life dealing with it? Well, of course, one can look at this from the perspective that human rights violations are constantly ongoing, but I believe it's a constant struggle. It's, there are people who are going to claim that it's, I don't know, that it's ineffective or inefficient, but I believe that the society can change and through the open conversation, through the inclusive debates and also through these conversations, more people are becoming intrigued by what is going on. They want to be involved. They want to kind of give their peace to this broader talk. So I believe that no one should give up. It is important to keep kind of the flow going and it is important to talk about it with the broader public. I feel that history moves on and the news cycle moves on and we have so many distractions. The United States is replete with distractions every day. The news cycle is filled with distractions that take us off what we should be thinking about and doing. And a few weeks ago, Ukraine was the top of the headlines every day and the outrages that were happening there, Vladimir Putin's insanity and that is happening there was on everybody's mind. But the news cycle moves on. The atrocities continue, but they're not on the headlines. And people forget about it because they are distracted with other news. It's the way it works. It's the news stack, the stack of priorities in the news and you get tired, you get fatigued with hearing about atrocities all day. And so the result is that despite the efforts of the EU and NATO and various Western countries including the people of Poland who I know care a lot about taking care of the Ukrainians, that's been clear. But it just seems to me that as time goes by the interest of the world in Ukraine is less. And I feel this itself is the news story. We can't stop thinking about it just as we can't stop thinking about climate change. We can't stop thinking, we must continue. So therefore, it seems to me that part of your work and the work of Project Expedite Justice is to have conversations just like this one, Danuta, that we need to get the word out. We need to remind people that the atrocities continue even as we speak, that the effort must go on. Don't you agree and are you involved in that? And are you speaking to the press? Are you speaking to the public? I think what is important to remember is not to let the public get used to that situation. I think this is important to all the time to talk about what is going on, to kind of try to remember that this situation is... It cannot be normalized, it should not be normalized. It's still war of an unprecedented scale since the Second World War II. That also, of course, other conflicts happening around the world. But when it comes to Poland and when it comes to Europe, this is a conflict that is very close to us. So definitely we can kind of feel, feel it's maybe not its presence, but we can feel the impact of it. Yeah, are you one of a number of people that you know that feel this way? Is your view well-held in Poland? Or do you find yourself alone? No, I believe there is the majority of the public. Definitely wants to talk about the war. There is also a big feeling of solidarity between Poles and between Ukrainians. I can give an example of my family, for example, we were hosting refugees from Ukraine to a marriage. So there is this bigger feeling of trying to unite when the war is just happening. And I believe that in Poland there was a huge wave of trying to help people were shocked. Definitely still people are shocked. And now this is the time to not let them kind of get used to the situation because it's still an unprecedented war and no one should normalize it. No, amen to that. Well, you find that this has a dynamic resonance in your own thinking. I mean, for example, if I put myself in your shoes now, I would say that my experience in dealing with the issue, my investigation, my discussion with people who have been victims in one way or another would change me, would change my way of looking at things, change me permanently, change my view of the world, humanity of the Russians of Western Europe, of Eastern Europe, I would be a different person after a while, has that happened to you? Definitely, I changed definitely the situation, also the erection of my friends. I also have friends, for example, from Russia who are also very personally affected by what is going on. They also oppose the government. So I believe this is this mixture of my own feelings and interpretation of what is going on but also of people surrounding me and also of my friends who also have gone through a lot. And so definitely I'm trying to take kind of on track and all the time try to think about what is going on. Yeah, well, you know, truth is that although it's pretty awful in the Ukraine, Putin's invasion, attack of perfectly peaceable people, peaceful people, fact is I'm sure you know from Project Expedite Justice that it happens around the world. Different degrees in different ways, different circumstances but there are human violations, violations of human rights everywhere. And there are people who live their lives behind barbed wire in suffering in the world. And so I'm wondering whether your view of it is global or is it European or is it Eastern European? I mean, how do you see this? Is this a global thing for you or is it more European thing for you? I don't try to look at it from the perspective of a region. I try to maybe also it's not really from this kind of global preview but I am trying to look at each case in a separate way. And I also know that one suffering, for example is not comparable or similar in any way to the suffering of someone else. And each conflict has its, the roots of each conflict are very different and each society and each conflict really deserves to be studied in a separate way and receive its own individual treatment and kind of this creation of a specific avenue for moving forward and for healing. And that's why I believe the approach that should be pursued when it comes to transitional justice is really to approach everything from this holistic perspective and to try to look at the broader picture but also remember that every conflict has its own peculiarities. And it's important to design the measures that are really adapted to this context of the conflict. You know, just a comment from me. I hear about these stories and I give thanks and that I can wake up in the morning and not be the victim of this kind of human rights violation but for the grace of God, go I and you and everyone. And it's hard for me to believe there are those who would spend their time violating the rights, the human rights of others. It's very hard for me to believe that. I'm sure you have the same problem. Okay, we're about out of time. Can you just give your closing message to people in the United States? What should they be thinking about? What should their priorities be about this? What would you offer them to, you know, to have a better understanding of what is going on in your world? I believe that what is the key to sort of any approach to healing and to moving forward is to engage in open conversation with everyone with all the stakeholders which are involved, not only in, for example, conflicts but also when it comes to societal divisions. And this, I believe, this is... You mean societal divisions like we have here in the United States, those divisions too? We also have them in Poland, unfortunately. Unfortunately, it's not only the problem happening in the US. So I believe that trying to have those as inclusive and as honest debates as possible, I believe that this is really the key to move forward and also to learn from the past mistakes. Thank you, Danuta. And Danuta Palachek, we really appreciate your joining us for this discussion and we appreciate your work and your service to humanity. Thank you very much. Aloha. Thank you so much for watching Think Tech Hawaii. If you like what we do, please like us and click the subscribe button on YouTube and the follow button on Vimeo. You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and LinkedIn and donate to us at thinktechhawaii.com. Mahalo.