HISTORY, RECONCILIATION AND PEACE
What is the relation between history, history teaching, reconciliation and peace? Even if people and especially politicians would agree on historic facts, the evaluation of these facts and of the roots and causes leading to these facts vary extensively. In a Europe which was for centuries characterized by wars the interpretation of history was particularly sensitive. The different, often antagonistic evaluation of past wars lead to new wars. The experiment to build a common Europe, beyond national, ethnic and cultural cleavages could come only with difficulties. And the same was and is true for a region like the Western Balkans.
It was in 2009 when my colleague Jan Marinus Wiersma and myself edited a book, called Politics of the Past: The Use and Abuse of History. Background of our decision to deal with the relation between history and politics were debates in the European Parliament, of which we were members. As we were both engaged with the enlargement of the EU after the breakdown of Communism and the Soviet Union, we wanted to bring some balanced approach into the debate between representatives of the ”old” and ”new” member states.
East – West debate
For some of our colleagues – especially from the founding members of the EU – the prime reason for a united Europe was overcoming nationalism and especially fascism and the nazi ideology. They often neglected the evil done by communist regimes. They could not see, that the Soviet Army after liberating countries from the Nazi occupation became in several countries an instrument of a new form of occupation – by the Soviet Union.
Others again neglected or minimized the evil brought to Europe and its citizens by the different fascist regimes and especially by Nazi Germany. And this neglect provoked many representatives coming from the West and South of Europe. Indeed, some of the opposition to the EU enlargement towards the “East” was motivated by the determination to preserve the anti-fascist foundation of the EU. They feared attitudes and ideologies introduced by Eastern European countries into the European debate would dilute the clear anti-fascists basis of the EU. Many representatives of the new member countries on the other hand, argued that Europe without the countries who suffered by communism was incomplete. Europe must develop a clear and decisive anti-communist attitude.
Past or Future
One could argue, that Europe should think more about its future than about its past. But, all the different proponents of the necessity of dealing with the past, also on a political level, were following the words of the American writer William Faulkner in his “Requiem of a Nun”: “The past is never dead. It is not even past.” And as the famous Oxford historian Norman Davies, whom we interviewed as editors said to us: “I think history is essential to thinking about the future.“
We dedicated our book to our colleague Bronislav Geremek, who tragically died during the preparation of the book in a car accident – much too early. Geremek was a Polish historian and a – liberal – politician. In his contribution, which we published post mortem he wrote: “Ignoring history will make way for populists and demagogues to use it as a message of hatred and discord. The present is – whether we like it or not – rooted in Europe’s past. We cannot allow the memories of West and East to remain separate, turning their backs on each other. The only way of changing this is to introduce these separate and sometimes contradictory accounts into a shared, common education.” Any valuable European narrative must bring the different histories together.
South Eastern Europe
With the accession talks between the EU and the countries of the Western Balkans, the European debate about history and politics got another, additional dimension. The efforts undertaken especially by French and German politicians and historians for a constructive dialogue on their “common” past, had to be transferred and adapted to South East Europe. The work done by the Joint History Project, organized by the Center for Democracy and Reconciliation in South East Europe, located in Thessaloniki, was of prime importance.
The leading historian in that project, Christina Koulouri made it clear that the work must deal not only with different views of different countries but must also address debates inside the countries of the region. The work of the history team tried to present the various approaches and attitudes of different nations, ethnic or religious groups. As the afore mentioned Norman Davies explained: “The best chances of getting near the truth, is to construct different perspectives before making a judgement”.
The foreign influence
The history of South Eastern Europe was not only made by the countries and politicians of that region itself. Many powerful “outsiders“ like Austria – Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, Russia etc. decided the fate of the Balkan people. They had their dominant influence on different regional and national political forces. And again today, we find different and often antagonistic influences. The European Union is offering – unfortunately with much hesitation – an integration into the Common Europe. But at the same time Russia, Turkey and even China want to set foot in the region. And at least Russia and Turkey come with their own historical interpretation.
In this connection it is interesting, that Turkey, who was in the framework of the Ottoman Empire, an occupation force, uses its past role to extend its influence today. Similarly, the Turkish President Tayip Erdogan argued and explained his recently concluded alliance with Libya with the past colonial role. Turkey has also a vastly different interpretation of the recent events in Cyprus – in contradiction to the Greek interpretation. The victims of these different interpretations and of course power politics are predominantly the citizens of the Eastern/Turkish part of Cyprus. They are under occupation of Turkish troops, who are according to the Turkish interpretation preventing any annexation by the Greek side.
Russia on the other side underlines the orthodox religious connectivity especially to Serbia and partly to Greece, which resulted in some strange position or rather positions to the Prespa agreement between Greece and Northern Macedonia. Russia fought against the agreement, which should and also did solve the name – dispute with totally contradictory arguments in Northern Macedonia and in Greece.
A special case of contradictory views on the recent past concerns the events in Kosovo and the widely but not universally promoted independence of Kosovo – some would say: Kosovo and Metochia. For many Serbs, Kosovo is the homeland and origin of today’s Serbia. For the Albanian majority, belonging to Serbia, was a result of political machinations of Great Power politics, which added Kosovo to Serbia and indirectly to Yugoslavia for their own strategic purposes. And anyway, Serbia lost any moral rights on Kosovo by its oppressive behavior. Serbia was just a colonial power. And the declaration of independence of Kosovo was a justified act of decolonization. For Serb nationalists in the other hand, the heart of Serbia has been taken away from Serbia by force – by Albanian terrorists supported by Western powers and Nato bombs.
Although the majority of EU countries did recognize Kosovo as independent country, those member states who have unsolved issues with a minority inside their borders did not. For them the past is definitely not past, they fear that their own border issues could be raised again. And in the case of Catalonia it was indeed recently raised strongly. On the other hand, concerning the United Kingdom and specifically concerning Scotland and Northern Ireland these challenges were no reason not to recognize the independence of Kosovo. So, it is always a question of interpretation if and how strong the past could unravel again, which leads to reactions today.
The colonial question
The independence of Kosovo could be interpreted as an act of decolonization – although there are some specific characteristics. Anyway, the relations between – former colonial – powers and their – former colonies – is always difficult. That can be seen at various relations between European and many African states. The love-hate relation between France and Algeria is a special example. The French-Algerian historian Benjamin Stora argues in this connection, that a joint culture of remembrance is very difficult: “After all, on the one hand we have French nationalism, which to this day does not want to accept the withdrawal from Algeria. Algerian nationalism, on the other hand, legitimizes itself on the basis of the victory over its former colonial master. This means for the moment, at a time when those who were involved in the wars are still alive, it is highly unlikely that they will reach agreement. Both sides feel they are right. We will have to wait another few generations to arrive at a common view of things. Naturally, all of this has to be countered in a progressive, educational manner.”
The question of decolonization in its multiple dimensions is of course not only something for politicians and historians. Art plays today an important role. So asks Kara Walker – who also designed some years ago a safety curtain for the Vienna State Opera with critical reference to the “Austrian African Imaginary” – “What Do We Want History to Do to US.” And the writer Zadi Smith takes up this question and enumerates many possibilities of what history can do to us – teach us – from creating and promoting new antagonisms to underlining the connectivities between oppressor and oppressed. It is always a choice, what “history should do to us”, what we want to learn from history or not to learn. There is no automatic learning process from history.
Zadie Smith shows also in her contribution how many monuments praise explorers and exploiters in countries where victims of their actions have to live amidst these „heroes“ in stone. And there is no unique and self-evident way how to deal with the way past generations have dealt with the past – if in history books or by erecting monuments for former leaders. It would help to strengthen the basis for peace and reconciliation, if the new knowledge about and the new evaluation of past events and political actors would become visible and present in history books and in public spaces alike.
The nationalist counter reaction
We must also be aware that any kind of apologies of nations for their deeds in the past will stir and promote nationalistic forces at home. These forces misuse any balanced and self-critical attitude to ones own history, for identifying themselves even with the most horrific past in order to combat political correctness. For them recognizing facts and crimes of the past and apologizing for horrible acta is an offense to national pride.
And as politics is very much depending on emotions, this emotional, revanchist attitude of the nationalist extremists will get support beyond those voters, who are agreeing with the extreme content. The support for nationalistic forces is widely connected with emotions due to feelings of exclusion, fears and anxiety.
As Martha C. Nussbaum demonstrates in her book “The Monarchy of Fear” we live in times of increased fear, supported by globalization with its increased competition, including by migrant workers, and climate change with its risk to our environment and welfare. What we would need – for example presented by historians- are “correct facts, informed public debate, and, most important, a spirit of dissent and independence on the part of the citizens. Fear, however, always threatens the spirit of dissent. Fear makes people run for cover, seeking comfort in the embrace of a leader or a homogeneous group. Questioning feels naked and solitary.”
And this is today’s challenge for politics and history science alike. Many citizens want clear – mostly nationalistic – answers by strong leaders and no dissent amidst politicians and even less amidst historians. The ambivalence concerning history and its events is for many citizens difficult to accept. And they are supported in that resistance by nationalist politicians and media. But especially in times of such nationalistic trends of simplifying history and of rejecting responsibility and guilt, we need an approach of differentiation and of presenting alternative and even contradicting views (but not “alternative facts“) to the same event. Moral judgement – as important as they are – should come after, as Norman Davies underlined, and not before.
Morality and facts
Certainly, there exist limits for a pro and con, for a balanced and understanding attitude towards certain historic events. There are crimes like the Holocaust, where irrespective of nationalistic backlashes, only a clear and unequivocal condemnation is morally acceptable. Historians and politicians should also make it clear which moral guidelines they use for evaluating facts and different approaches to certain events. For an open debate it is interesting to know, if the relevant personalities support democratic institutions and decision making or rather authoritarian and „illiberal” attitudes.
The ideology and moral compass of politicians but also of historians is interesting because they may influence the choice of documents defining and characterizing historic events.
Let’s take the peace agreements after the First World War. Immediately after the agreements, the extreme nationalists in Germany reacted fiercely against the unfair treatment of Germany. And Hitler and his regime undermined the fulfilment of the treaty and violated the conditions set to prevent German rearmament. But there was also another less ideological but more pragmatic criticism of the conditions of the peace agreement, which were not negotiated but unilaterally imposed. The later famous economist John Maynard Keynes analyzed in his “The Economic Consequence of the Peace” the peace agreements and forecasted another war as consequence of the conditions put on Germany.
Also, several representatives of the newly established small states were bitterly disappointed about the way they were treated in Paris. “Agreements” which were dictated by the victors have always some flaws in it, even if they would be balanced in content. Anyway, one and the same event can be criticized out of different angles and perspectives. In the case of the Paris treaties, some feared negative consequences and wanted to prevent new wars – like John Maynard Keynes. Others used reactionary arguments and wanted to justify new wars in revenge of the conditions set by the Peace treaty. They wanted to undo and destroy the shame of having lost a war.
The Western Balkans
Inside the European Union we have undertaken many steps towards reconciliation and peace, even if we have to acknowledge several steps backwards promoted by right wing extremists and nationalists. On the Balkans on the other hand we are even farther away from reconciliation. The name issue between Greece and Northern Macedonia has been officially solved. But in both countries, there are people including state officials who are declining to use the official name of Northern Macedonia. And there is still no reconciliation between Serbia and Kosovo with hugely different interpretation about what happened in the past decades. And inside Bosnia and Herzegovina there are forces who would like to dissolve their country instead of working towards national integration.
As mentioned above, the Centre for Democracy and Reconciliation for South East Europe – CDRSEE – in Thessaloniki asked historians from several Balkan countries to elaborate history working books, which should show the different approaches one could have to the same historical events. As the Centre had to close due to lack of finances a „concluding“ event took place recently in Athens. The Konrad Adenauer Stiftung presented the Greek version of the history books/manuals elaborated in the framework of the Joint History Project. One only can hope that the end of the Centre is not the end of history teaching with the intention to contribute for reconciliation and peace in the Western Balkans.
France started an Initiative in the Council of Europe called HOPE – History Observatory for Peace in Europe. Let’s hope it will be conducive also for reconciliation in the Western Balkans. The endeavor of the IIP to promote the Western Balkans 2030 Project will continue to be helpful for bring young people together for overcoming past cleavages.
Outlook
In the framework of the discussion I could moderate in Athens, there was one issue raised which was of general importance: is it wise if political institutions like parliaments „decide“ on historical facts. Starting point was a recent resolution of the EU Parliament, which put Nazism and Communism on the same level. Both systems certainly have been terribly totalitarian and brutal. Nevertheless as one of the panel members, Costa Carras, who was also the „father“ of the Joint History Project, explained there are differences. The Marxist roots of Communism was an ideology which did not lead automatically to a cruel dictatorship. Contrary to Marxism, Hitler’s ideological attitude already had in its genes the extermination of Jews and other enemies of the German race.
Anyway there are three terrible historical events which are still influencing our present political conditions: Nazism and other forms of Fascism, Communist dictatorship and Colonialism. They all have different roots and forms of expression. But all of them were extremely inhuman and killed all those, whom they declined the right to live – out of racial or political consideration. Discrimination was practiced until extermination. The right to live was subject to the will of the leaders. In the end, all these ideologies and their political implementation have had and have nationalism in the center. The own nation and race are superior to others. Also, with Communism, there was a clear national hierarchy, where Moscow was demanding clear leadership – maybe with some competition from China. The communist ideology in the Moscow interpretation was mixed with nationalism and colonialism.
To teach history today, must not naively put all ideologies and dictatorships on the same level. But we should show how ideologies and especially nationalism and the feeling of superiority can lead to cruel and devastating political systems. To destroy others – who are supposed to be inferior- leads in the end to self-destruction. Nationalist forces will continue to fight against “political correctness” which is to their mind undermining national interests. But history shows that in the long run, all people will be the victims of nationalism and racism. Europe has the chance to learn from this self-destructive ideologies. It should not miss the chance.