Divided Memories in a Unified Europe?
Europe is more than a common economic area. But if the European project is to be successful and if a common identity is to develop, then the Europeans must talk about their history and their different interpretations of the past.
Gabriele Woidelko, EUSTORY coordinator, spoke with Sandra Kalniete about the 23rd of August which in 2008 was declared European Day of Remembrance for victims of Stalinism and Nazism by the European Parliament, and about the arduous journey to a common European understanding of history. Sandra Kalniete is a member of the European Parliament, served as former Foreign Minister of Latvia and as EU commissioner.
G. Woidelko: As the head of the European Parliament’s informal group on “Reconciliation of European Histories” which advocates the dialogue about history and remembrance in Europe, you are campaigning for the 23 August as a day of remembrance. What is it you do specifically?
S. Kalniete: In 2010, for instance, our group wrote letters on behalf of thirty-five members of the European Parliament to the national parliaments of all of the EU member states. In these letters we requested that, in accordance with the European Parliament's decision, the member state parliaments adopt 23 August as the official European Day of Remembrance for Victims of Stalinism and Nazism.
G. Woidelko: What was the reaction of the member states to your request?
S. Kalniete: Unfortunately, the group only received nine replies to those letters, of which the majority were sent from member states which had already implemented the day as a national day of remembrance, nations which for the most part had suffered under a communist regime.
G. Woidelko: What’s your interpretation of this outcome?
S. Kalniete: The outcome of this effort shows that, while the European Parliament commemorates this day and has made an official call to the member states to also adopt this day of remembrance, many member states, especially those who have not experienced communist regimes, do not feel that they need a separate day to commemorate the victims of both totalitarian regimes. This illustrates that, to this day, work to build a common European history is essential, as many member states do not see the tragic history of Communism as a part of their own history and, therefore, as the common history of Europe.
G. Woidelko: Do you think that the “new” member states which joined the EU after 2004 can play an intermediary role regarding the remembrance of Communism?
S. Kalniete: In the ten years since the enlargement of the European Union we were gradually able to develop our understanding of Europe’s common history. We owe that particularly to the contributions of new member states in the European Parliament and in other European institutions. Even though tangible differences still remain the development of a common European history and identity has considerably gained pace.
G. Woidelko: Can you give a specific example of the commitment of the new member states?
S. Kalniete: In 2011, under the Polish EU Presidency, a first European commemoration ceremony was held in Warsaw on 23 August. The current Lithuanian EU Presidency will follow this example and host a ceremony in Vilnius this year. This shows that there is a great interest in the member states once affected by totalitarian regimes to bring about reconciliation and to establish a common European narrative for these tragedies.
G. Woidelko: What do you think needs to be done to eliminate the imbalance of remembrance in Europe?
S. Kalniete: History education in the member states is an important element. It is my firm belief that if the general public were informed about the tragedies experienced by their neighbouring countries under Communism, as thoroughly as they have been informed of the crimes of Nazism, then there would be a public outcry for more efforts in commemoration, education, and reconciliation with the communist past.
For this reason, the Reconciliation of European Histories group has worked hard to establish a close relationship with EUROCLIO (the European Association of History Educators) and has held hearings on education on totalitarianism in European schools, because education is the foundation for true reconciliation.
G. Woidelko: The European Parliament is currently establishing a “House of European History” in Brussels. What do you think this museum will contribute to an overall European historical narrative and to a European way of remembrance?
S. Kalniete: Our Reconciliation of European Histories group is in contact with the Parlamentarium, the institution that is responsible for the content of the new museum. We were concerned that Nazi Germany’s role as aggressor and initiator of World War Two and its perpetration of grave atrocities against humanity would be extensively touched upon in the historical section of the Museum, while the equally important role that the Soviet Union played in initiating the war and the atrocities it committed during and after the war would be left out. Such biased interpretations of history are one of our greatest concerns when it comes to the content of the new Museum.
G. Woidelko: Were your concerns justified?
S. Kalniete: I know that the team of qualified historians working on the project includes persons of member states who suffered from Nazism, Communism or from both totalitarian ideologies. So I hold high hopes that the museum will find the right balance to represent the tragic history of all of Europe in the 20th century.
G. Woidelko: What does it take to achieve a new European narrative?
S. Kalniete: The two narratives, one from the west looking over the Iron Curtain and the other from the east caught in its clutches, are inseparable. Without a synthesis of the two narratives, a unified history of Europe cannot exist.