Point VIII of the Letter of Peace expresses the need for institutions to publically state their regrets for damages that have been committed throughout history by institutions in an attempt to compensate for them. The responsibility held by institutions, not for the damages caused by former representatives- because, as point III indicates, such responsibilities cannot be passed on- but the responsibility to state regret and compensate for these acts, will help liberate them of past burdens and thus build a greater connection with reality and all the joy that comes from this. The institutional joy of existing, of having existed- hand in hand with all the mistakes and successes of the past- and of continuing to exist. Firstly this institutional joy comes from recognising the limitations of the institution- recognising the mistakes it made in the past; secondly it comes from publically declaring these errors- which are in many cases serious and may have produced victims, thus activating a humbling process; and thirdly, by taking the logical steps to willingly compensate and publically make up for the damages committed. In other words, it is not just a matter of shallow apologies, instead it is a process that makes people answer for institutional acts. We could say: “but the ones who did it aren’t around anymore… therefore, we bear no responsibility and don’t need to say sorry”. It is true, we have no moral responsibility because there is no moral desire to attack anyone, but what we inherit is the fact that it was done, not its moral value.

When we deal with this subject in the classroom students from different countries talk about different cases that relate to this point in the Letter of Peace. For example, when he learnt of the damage that his troops had caused in Valparaíso, admiral Miguel Ángel Vergara (Chile 1944) from the Chilean Navy, denied any kind of institutional responsibility and stated that responsibilities are individual, not institutional. This case was presented to us by a Chilean student in the context of the seeds of reconciliation.

Moral responsibility belongs to the individual, and for this reason institutional apologies cannot be made for them, however, the institution is responsible for the act itself- in ethical terms, rather than in terms of values. If today Chilean Navy representatives do not support these acts, then they must lament them publically in the name of the Navy. This is the difference between a lament and an apology. Whilst if we say sorry for something we are admitting responsibility or guilt for it, we can lament acts that had absolutely nothing to do with us. We can lament assaults that were carried out by third parties, about which we can demonstrate our indignation.

We are talking therefore about globalising public recognition of offenses that have been committed and a practise whereby political institutions publicly lament damages that they, as institutions, committed. Thus we can say we are democratizing the lamentation of past injustices and instituting this lament on a political level. It is essential for victims or their descendents to know that such acts have been expressly rejected, and this will help them in their process of reconciliation. This is what is done in many countries in “Truth and Reconciliation Groups”, where offenses have been carried out by people still alive today. Here aggressors and victims share their experiences face to face, in order to help find reconciliation. One of the clearest examples of this is in South Africa. The film In my country tells the story of these “truth and reconciliation groups” in a divided country.

Many societies remain divided after many years because at the time of conflict they didn’t say sorry or seek reconciliation. In some ways the ideas expressed in point VIII relate to these societies that stay divided because they didn’t go through a true process of reconciliation, when in fact the greatest form of reconciliation and forgiveness is to oneself. If we are able to work through forgiveness now then we can avoid having to make public statements of lament in the future as a result of unresolved processes. Therefore, if we effectively put point III of the Letter of Peace into practise in our societies then we will have no need for point VIII.

One point of contention on this subject lies between forgiveness and justice. Forgiveness is not at odds with justice, and it doesn’t relieve people, or institutions, of the need to compensate for an offense or respond accordingly. Therefore, public statements of regret do not absolve responsibility for the future- whilst it does absolve moral responsibility for the past- and therefore we can say that this is not merely a question of washing our hands of something and making a good impression, it does in fact create a commitment to take action in response to an assault.

Jankelevitch  said that the greatest form of forgiveness is given to oneself. Meaning that the greatest beneficiaries are those who forgive. Therefore, on an institutional level we can affirm that the institution itself benefits most from these statements of regret, because it is freed from the burden of stigma and the stereotype of being a collective that committed a serious assault and didn’t express its indignation at the time. This helps members of the institution recognise that it is liable to commit new injustices in the future and makes them more ready to recognise their errors and reconcile differences when they come up without having to resort to public statements of regret in the future. It is a way of owning up to the potential we all have to make mistakes.

The Dalai Lama says that if you do not forgive out of love, then do it out of selfishness, for your own wellbeing. In short, when we express statements of regret, as opposed to an apology, we should do so in the interests of institutional wellbeing, because when we free ourselves from the burden of regret, or institutional regret, our being, or the institution’s being can ground itself and regain peace, which is clearly our aim. The joy of existence can stem from here, for people and institutions, and this experience will be planted on the foundation of an accepted, reconciled and compensated past as opposed to an unaccountable one.