The Baltic states and Moscow's 9 May commemoration: Analysing memory politics in Europe

Abstract

This article develops a three-level framework for analysing the role of memory in contemporary European politics. It tests the utility of this framework based on the three Baltic states and their public and political debates around the World War II anniversary commemorations in Moscow in 2005. Existing concepts for analysing the impact of memory on policy decisions are discussed first on the levels of domestic politics and bilateral relations. The article then provides a framework for researching a lesser acknowledged third level of memory politics within European institutions. The dilemma felt by the three Baltic presidents over whether or not to attend the Moscow ceremonies provides a unique opportunity to look at all three levels and demonstrate their relevance for understanding future memory struggles in an enlarged Europe.

Notes

¹For the most comprehensive discussion on the relationship of power and political ritual, see Kertzer (1988). Kertzer stresses the importance of political symbols and rituals in political life in general and for building political organisations, creating political legitimacy and solidarity throughout time in many different cultures.

²Quoted in Holbrook (2005).

³The term ‘level’ is deliberately chosen for this analysis in order to point out the manner in which each field concerns an ever-growing number of actors involved in the shaping of memory politics. If the first is purely within a single country, then the second is between two state entities and the third is across a whole continent. This does not mean, however, that the levels follow sequentially or are causally related. They are simply varying aggregate levels of activity, of which especially the last one—the European level—is still little studied.

⁴In order to keep the conceptual focus in this article, I will not go into any deeper analysis of the various distinctions between history and memory. I do not embrace social construction theory that argues that both are essentially the same. In the context of this research into memory politics, however, both are considered as sites of power and as means to legitimate certain propositions. A rather useful definition of memory in this connection is provided by Langenbacher (2003a, p. 27). According to him memory is an ‘intensification of history, consisting of some facts about the past coupled with “thick” interpretive elements: selection, deeper narrativistic framing, value dimensions and lessons’. Memory can thus be seen as ‘a way of packaging and operationalising shared history’.

⁵Coming from a methodologically different angle, in an earlier study I developed a quite similar concept using the term ‘democratisation of history’ (Onken 2003).

⁶European Parliament, 53rd EU – Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee Minutes, Strasbourg, 23 – 24 February 2005; See also Carnevale et al. (2005).

⁷If strictly following the analytical framework presented by Langenbacher, these memory regimes would have yet to be rigorously quantitatively verified through Europe-wide surveys and comparative analysis. A first such effort, focusing on young people in Europe, was undertaken by Magne Angvik and Bodo von Borries (1997).

⁸PACE (CoE Parliamentary Assembly), ‘Need for International Condemnation of Crimes of Totalitarian Communist Regimes’, Resolution 1481, adopted 25 January 2006.

⁹ 2006 Ordinary Session (First Part), Report. Fifth Sitting, 25 January 2006 [Verbatim records AACR5—AS (2006) CR 5].

¹⁰See the remarks by the ‘Left Party’ member of the Swedish Riksdag Mats Einarsson, 2006 Ordinary Session (First Part), Report. Fifth Sitting, 25 January 2006 [Verbatim records AACR5—AS (2006) CR 5].

¹¹This holds true for all three Baltic states. To date, according to the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, 174 Lithuanians, 37 Latvians and six Estonians have been accused of having participated in the mass murder of Jews during Nazi occupation, yet only a few are actually under investigation by local prosecutors and up until 2003 none was found guilty. See Simon Wiesenthal Centre, Third Annual Report on Worldwide Prosecution of Nazi War Criminals, April 2003, available at: http://www.wiesenthal.com, accessed January 2006. See also Budryte (2005, pp. 182 – 183).

¹²See Diena, 13 January 2005; also Konrad-Adenauer-Foundation (van Below 2005).

¹³The final report of the Commission on the time period 1940 – 45 was issued in English in 2006: see Hiio et al. (2006). At the end of 2004 another major historical fact-finding mission completed its work: the ‘Estonian State Commission on the Examination of the Policies of Repression’ under Vello Salo presented The White Book. The Losses Inflicted on the Estonian Nation by Foreign Occupations (Salo 2005), an account of all the damage done by successive regimes in the spheres of ‘population, culture, environment and economy’.

¹⁴See NCSJ (National Conference of Soviet Jewry), ‘Estonia Country Page’, available at: http://www.ncsj.org/Estonia.shtml, accessed February 2006.

¹⁵ BBC News Online, 20 August 2004, available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3585272.stm, accessed February 2006.

¹⁶A more thorough discussion of this for the case of Latvia can be found in Onken (2003, ch. 1.2) and for all three Baltic states in Budryte (2005, ch. 3, 4 and 7).

¹⁷‘Juhtkiri: Otsustamise koht’, Postimees, 25 May 2005.

¹⁸Comments and opinion editorials in local newspapers went from applauding the idea to take down the statue and/or move it somewhere outside the city to suggesting a re-interpretation of its meaning. Thus Rein Taagepera (2006) suggested ‘extending’ the interpretation of the soldier, not leaving him to the Russians who interpret him as the liberator, but rather seeing him as the Estonian ‘awaiting liberation’.

¹⁹On the impact of Russian rhetoric on domestic as well as European politics also see Budryte (2005, p. 202).

²⁰Documented in Khitrov (2005, p. 49).

²¹Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga, ‘Declaration’, Riga, 12 May 2005, available at: http://www.president.lv, accessed January 2006.

²²Arnold Rüütel, ‘Statement’, Tallinn, 7 March 2005, available at: http://www.president.ee, accessed January 2006.

²³See Postimees, 8 March 2005.

²⁴Estonia and Russia managed to sign the border treaty on 18 May 2005, but the Estonian parliament subsequently ratified it together with a declaration that once again referred to the illegal occupation of Estonia by the Soviet Union and the loss of territory that belonged to Estonia according to the peace treaty of Tartu of 1920. In response to this Russia declared in June 2005 the border treaty invalid (Postimees, 3 July 2005). A similar declaration had been passed by the Latvian parliament some weeks earlier, which led to an equally complete failure to agree on a border treaty with Russia.

²⁵Being born in 1926, as a teenager during the time of German occupation Adamkus edited an underground anti-Nazi newsletter. In 1944 he fled the country, yet returned shortly afterwards and became active against the Soviet troops re-occupying Lithuania. In 1949 he finally fled with his parents to the United States of America (see Williams 1998).

²⁶Valda Adamkus, ‘Statement’, Vilnius, 7 March 2005, available at: http://www.president.lt, accessed January 2006. The fact that for years Lithuanian political actors, and quite recently again Adamkus himself publicly demand compensation from Russia for ‘the damages of the occupation’ does further feed into this perception. See the Statement of President of the Republic of Lithuania Valdas Adamkus at the Second Europe – Russia Forum ‘Russia and the EU—Cooperation or Competition?’, 23 March 2006, available at: http://president.lv/en/news.full/6510, accessed July 2006.

²⁷All letters are documented on the president's website: available at: http://www.president.lv.

²⁸See Diena, 14 January 2005.

²⁹Quoted in: Press Release, 18 February 2005 [translation by author], available at: http://www.president.lv, accessed January 2006.

³⁰See BBC European Press Review, 10 May 2005, available at: http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4531655.stm, accessed January 2006; Baker (2005, p. A04).

³¹Quoted in: Press Release, 7 May 2005, available at: www.president.lv, accessed January 2006.

³²All three Baltic states have established paragraphs about ‘crimes against humanity and genocide’ in their criminal codes. These also include crimes committed by former members of the Soviet secret police. On several civic initiatives to achieve international condemnation of these crimes see Budryte (2005, pp. 182 – 183).

³³In December 2004 some Baltic and Polish MEPs from different factions had tried to gather signatures for a draft declaration on condemning the Molotov – Ribbentrop pact. Yet they failed to get the sufficient number of signatures among MEPs (The Baltic Times, 2 February 2005).

³⁴European Parliament, ‘P6_TA(2005)0180: The Future of Europe Sixty Years After the Second World War’, European Parliament Resolution on the Sixtieth Anniversary of the End of the Second World War in Europe on 8 May 1945, adopted 12 May 2005, Strasbourg, available at: http://www.europarl.eu.int, accessed February 2006.

³⁵PACE (CoE Parliamentary Assembly), ‘Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by the Russian Federation’, Resolution No. 1455, adopted 22 June 2005, available at: http://assembly.coe.int, accessed January 2006.

³⁶For more information on the project, its aims and results see: http://www.coe.int/t/e/cultural_co-operation/education/history_teaching/.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Eva-Clarita Onken

The author gratefully acknowledges funding for this work from an Estonian Ministry of Education and Research Targeted Financing Grant No. 0132116A. Special thanks are also due to Vello Pettai, George Schöpflin and David Smith for their reflections and critical remarks on earlier versions of the manuscript.