The EU Politics of Remembrance: Can Europeans Remember Together?

Abstract

Over the last few years, EU institutions have taken on the task of promoting an ‘active European remembrance’ of Europe's twentieth century totalitarian experiences. At stake in this process is the possibility of constructing an EU-wide historical narrative. However, EU-level debates on the remembrance of European history are permeated by struggles between policy actors who vie for control over the telling of Europe's past. Using insights from the agenda-setting and framing literatures, the article examines the conditions under which memory narratives are able to become prominent or, conversely, lose ground in the EU's overall discourse. It concludes that, although the constellation of actors in place was a key factor in explaining fluctuations in the EU's remembrance discourse, the weight of their arguments also depended on how well their discourse resonated with existing memory cultures at the domestic and the EU levels.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank André Liebich, Wolfram Kaiser, Katarzina Stoklosa, David Berliner, Lisa Komar, Pavel Tychtl as well as two anonymous referees for their insightful comments on earlier drafts of this article.

Notes

 1. ‘Active European Remembrance’ is the name of the European action put in place by the European Commission in 2007. It is part of the 2007–2013 Europe for Citizens Programme.

 2. Maier (2002) differentiates between the hot memory of Nazism and the cold memory of Communism in Western Europe.

 3. There is however a debate between absolutist and relativist theories (Schwartz 1982).

 4. Schuman Declaration of 9 May 1950, available at http://europa.eu/abc/symbols/9-may/decl_en.htm.

 5. European Parliament Resolution on European and International Preservation of the Sites of Nazi Concentration Camps as Historical Memorials, 11 February 1993, OJEC C 72, 15 March 1993.

 6. European Parliament Resolution on European and International Preservation of the Sites of Nazi Concentration Camps as Historical Memorials, 11 February 1993, OJCE C72, 15 March 1993.

 7. Debates of the European Parliament, Sitting on 15 May 1995, Holocaust Remembrance Day and European Parliament.

 8. See http://www.osce.org/documents/cio/2005/06/16402_en.pdf, 99-103.

 9. P6-TA(2005)0180, Official Journal C92 E/392, 20 April 2006.

10. Ibid.

11. P6_TA(2009)0213, Official Journal C137 E/05, 27 May 2010.

12. Confidential document from the Commission services.

13. Website of the Executive Agency Education, Audiovisual, Culture, Programme Guide ‘Europe for Citizens’, 2007–2013.

14. Interviews with officials from DG Culture, Brussels, June 2010.

15. The portfolio is administered by three different DGs: DG Justice, DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities and DG Communication.

16. Today, however, MEPs from Portugal and Spain refer to their own experiences with Fascism as just another instance of twentieth century totalitarianism and do not seek to distinguish their experience from that of states that directly experienced Stalinism and Nazism (Debates of the European Parliament, 25 March 2009).

17. Interview with Pavel Tychtl, European Commission, DG Communication, 10 June 2010.

18. Confidential working document produced by the Commission services.

19. Habermas (1996: 360) defines the public sphere as ‘a network of communicating information and points of view’.

20. See for instance Kreppel (2000) for a presentation of the debate on the determinants of MEPs’ positions.

21. Speech of Guisto Catania, Debates of the European Parliament, 15 May 2005.

22. Speech of Pedro Guerreiro, Debates of the European Parliament, 15 May 2005.

23. Some representatives of the Verts-Alliance Libre Européenne (Verts-ALE), the Union for Europe of the Nations (UEN), and the Alliance for Liberals and Democrats (ALDE) groups also took part.

24. Speech of Katrin Saks, Debates of the European Parliament, Oral explanations of vote, 2 April 2009.

25. Interview with Pavel Tychtl.

26. See website of the ‘Reconciliation of European histories’ group: http://eureconciliation. wordpress.com/.

27. Interview with Michael Privot, President of European Network Against Racism (ENAR), Brussels, 23 August 2011.

28. Interview with Pavel Tychtl.

29. Ģirts Valdis Kristovskis (UEN), Debates of the European Parliament, 15 May 2005.

30. Interview with Jean Barth, policy officer, Education, Audiovisual & Culture Executive Agency, Brussels, 8 July 2010.

31. Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law.

32. Amongst the most important organisations supported under the ‘Active European Remembrance’ action since 2007 are the following: Clovek v Tisni (People in Need Foundation) (the Czech Republic), Jewish Museum of Deportation and Resistance (Belgium), Institute for the Study of Totalitarian Regimes (the Czech Republic), Holocaust Educational Trust (Ireland), Mauthausen Komitee (Austria), Mémorial de la Shoah (France), Swedish Committee against Antisemitism, Occupation Museum (Latvia), Lidice Memorial Institute (the Czech Republic), Yahad - In Unum (France), Jewish Museum in Prague (the Czech Republic), Krzyzowa Foundation (Poland), Forum Voix Etouffées (France), Comité International de Dachau (France), Holocaust Memorial Centre (Hungary), and Aktion Sühnezeichen e.V. (Germany).

33. Interview with Jean Barth.

34. Interview with Pascale Charrhon, former director of ENAR, Brussels, 28 September 2001.

35. Interview with Pavel Tychtl.

36. See for instance the Facebook group ‘Shoah, Holocauste, Auschwitz n’oubliez jamais!’, which begins the presentation of its activities by saying: ‘More than 60 years after the Shoah, at a time when witnesses’ words become seldom, it is necessary to reflect on the memory of one of the most important event of the 20th century’ [author's translation] ( http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=112834080465).