United Europe, United History, January 22, 2008

György Schöpflin MEP

Most people set the past through national spectacles - they believe that history is about what their particular nation and their country has experienced. But this is no more than one particular way of understanding past and what the emphasis on national history does is to exclude other perspectives.

As against this, national history gives nations and states a clear focus in current political activities. People who share a past are better capable of acting together in the present.

This proposition obviously applies to Europe. Integrating Europe self-evidently means political action in the present, with aspirations in the future. Logically European integration, therefore, should be firmly anchored in a particular European idea of the past. Some of this does exist, especially when it comes to European institutions but very little of this resonates with the wider public, for whom Europe is either a desirable or an undesirable abstraction.

What is needed therefore is a way of structuring Europe's past to give recognisability as European by the great majority, as something that affects the great majority. However, another issue is raised by this idea. Any European history of Europe worthy of the name must bridge the deep gulfs - reflecting real experience - that different parts of Europe regard as key aspects of their European pasts.

The central challenge in this context is to unite history, these histories, to offer a coherent version of the past regarding the countries that experienced communism and those that did not. A simple account of what communism did, broken down country by country, including the major anti-communist upheavals, would not give us this, especially when placed side-by-side with contemporary events in the West.

One illustration: the year 1968 was an upsurge against the conformity of the immediate post-war years and its political content, while not absent, was relatively weak - relative that is to the events of 1968-69 in Czechoslovakia and those of 1968 in Poland, both of which were primarily political.

It follows that a different, more persuasive focus is needed. Here the one I prefer is Human Rights, whether violations of Human Rights or their gradual entrenchment as the key yardstick by which to assess political behaviour.

Human Rights is quintessentially European because it places the individual at the heart of the political process; Human Rights implies procedures and institutions by which these rights are implemented; Human Rights makes a claim that the power of the state and its officials is not and cannot be absolute, that there are certain thresholds that those with cannot power cannot cross. And vesting Human Rights in the individual assumes an equality between the individual and the state, as well as among individuals.

No system of power is perfect and every state in Europe has Human Rights violations in its past that it would prefer to forget. At the same time, the movement towards giving Human Rights their due respect is impossible to deny. Indeed, Human Rights, which were not considered a part of democracy until well after 1945, have now come to constitute a necessary component of it. Rule by consent is not enough; once in power, the ruler must exercise that power with certain constraints in mind, Human Rights being pivotal in this respect.

How, then, would this reconsideration of Europe's past through the prism of Human Rights help to establish a united history of Europe? Basically, an approach of this kind would allow every European country to see its past acts in a both positive and negative light. It would potentially serve to dilute the strong prevailing sense of injustice in the former Communist states to be eased by being placed in a European context, it would allow the victims of injustice to see their fates as remediable.  It would serve notice on today's backsliders that Human Rights must be implemented as a central aspect of being European. It would offer all Europeans an evenhanded way of measuring their fates against a commonly agreed standard and that would allow us to differentiate between trivial and serious abuses of power. The consistency that makes the exercise of power tolerable could be measured by an external criterion. The great Hungarian political writer, István Bibó, wrote of the need "to domesticate" power.

By making our experience of Human Rights the centrepiece of our past and present, by insisting on Human Rights being at the heart of Europe's identity, we would go a long way both towards domesticating power and towards constructing a shared European past that is open to all.

On the "United Europe - United History" Initiative

at the European Parliament

            Bearing in mind that:

            1. The European Union is a community of nations with different, and frequently conflicting, histories. There have been injustices committed and bloody wars fought in Europe for centuries but the EU of 15 has managed to overcome the difficult past. This was so not because the West Europeans have forgotten their history but because they have reassessed it and because they have found common values to share;

            2. With the extension of the European Union a number of East European countries have been included along with their different historical experience. While the main problem of the 20th century history for Western Europe might have been the overcoming of Nazism, for Eastern Europe it is also important to overcome the totalitarian Communist past.

            3. Whatever is common in the European Union is based on the concept of truth. The wider the scope of a common understanding of our difficult past is, the stronger the European identity will be. France and Germany were the first to start reconciliation on the grounds of common economic interest but also through a sincere reconsideration and overcoming of their bad history;

            3. History is important because the way history is presented tells a lot about credibility of those who present it;

            4. The contemporary neglect of history teaching in Europe poses a threat to the common values elaborated in the decades of the EU development. Historical amnesia is not the way to prevent an instrumental use of history. It may rather draw closer the moment when ghosts of historical reclaiming will be awaken.

            A group of MEPs - Tunne-Valdo Kellam from Estonia, Girts Valdis Kristovskis from Latvia, Vytautas Landsbergis   from Lithuania, Wojciech Roszkowski from Poland and Gyoergy Schoepflin from Hungary - initiated foundation of a working group on "United Europe - United History".

            On 22 January 2008 a conference was organized at the European Parliament during which a mission statement of these five MEPS was presented along with a resolution on formation of a Working Group "United Europe United History". The resolution has so far been initially signed by 47 MEPs which allows tabling it as an EP draft resolution.

x X x

United Europe – United History

A Mission to Consolidate a Common Memory

Wojciech Roszkowski,  Gyoergy Schoepflin,

Tunne-Valdo Kelam, Girts Valdis Kristovskis, Vytautas Landsbergis

            The 2004 enlargement of the European Union has thrown up a new problem: what is the full history of Europe? What is to be included in this history, especially when it comes to the most recent period, since 1945? And how is Europe to deal with its different histories? If those many historical experiences are not brought into a single, sufficiently broad European history, the European present will be more difficult to understand as Europeans will remain partial strangers to one another, making communication and cooperation significantly harder.

            It is sometimes believed that good international or intercommunity relations require a certain deal of forgetting about history. We do not share this opinion. Conflicts may result from opposite interests or from contradictory interpretations of the past. But if interpretations are neglected and the past is pressed into a jar of forgetting, misinterpretations may, sooner or later, cause explosions anyway. Before 2004 nations of the European Union, that have gone through many twists and turns of their historical relations, have generally managed to minimize the historical fallout among themselves. This was not because they have forgotten their past but because they have reassessed it and have found more common values to share. But new member states that joined after 2004 have brought new historical experience, new grievances and complaints, so far ignored in the West. Equally, they have not shared in the process of "constructing Europe", hence their experience of the shared values of Europe is bound to be thinner and so is their understanding of the informal rules and meanings. West Europeans seldom recognize this disadvantage and make few allowances for it.

            Although there may be a certain variety of legitimate opinions, whatever is common in Europe is based on a common understanding of truth and what are the legitimate ways of reaching this truth – debate, discussion, the collision of ideas. The wider the scope of a common understanding of our difficult past is, the stronger the European identity will be. France and Germany were the first to start reconciliation, not only on the grounds of common economic interest but also on the grounds of common understanding of the fact that bad history can only be overcome through its sincere reconsideration. This process required a conscious effort of will, a determination that as Europeans, they could construct a shared future through a better understanding of their shared past. It is time now to follow this path, to return to this conscious effort of will and to try to incorporate the historical memory of the twenty seven member states into a broader, as common as possible, vision of the past. At the same time, there must be recognition that there will always be considerable variation in the national narratives of the European past.

            So why is history important today? Simply because the way history is being presented tells a lot about credibility of those who present it. Major distortions of history and denials of past wrongdoings always come as a warning sign for other partners. The most cogent and thoroughgoing way to achieve this is to reappraise the history of Europe from the perspective of human rights. The concept of human rights derives quintessentially from the European experience, it has taken a long struggle to establish it and violations of human rights have taken place in every part of Europe.

            The mission of the European Parliament informal working group on truth, justice and reconciliation should be:

1.      to establish principles for the evaluation of historical developments;

2.      to define the time and space framework of its considerations;

3.      to plan its proceedings;

4.      to specify the possible effects of its proceedings.

As to point one, we suggest the following principles: 1 - there must be a thorough and sincere recognition of facts; 2 - there must be a respect for a minimum common ground of principles, such as the respect for human rights and international obligations; 3 - there should not be a collective responsibility; 4 - there must be a respect for proportions. One should not too easily compare events and developments of different nature and scale. But also one must bear in mind that even one individual innocent victim is a victim; 5 - in court procedures one must apply the principle lex retro non agit. But the international community has now developed concepts, such as human rights, aggression, war crimes or genocide without a prescription, which are useful for evaluation of the past. Legal consequences can only result from action that was legally defined at that time, if only the "law" and subsequent law enforcement was not dealt by an unlawful, criminal regime; so, the said concepts are necessary points of reference for contemporary moral assessments.

As to point two, we suggest that the 20^th century should be the time frame and geographical Europe, including, for historical reasons, the USSR-Russia and Turkey, should be the space frame.

As to point three, we suggest the group should initiate a statement of case studies to be examined (open for future extension) and it should launch professional studies on these cases aimed at reaching formal conclusions. We consider them as not exclusively wrongdoing and crimes, but also or even at first – the cases of cooperation among nations and solidarity for a better future.

As to point four, we suggest, firstly, the group should select cases that should be either 1 - sent to the International Court of Justice, or should be 2- examined by a special Tribunal, or should be 3 – publicized in the media and promoted as necessary in the European Union schools.

Secondly, the group should promote the discussion for establishment of general and legal principles how a democratic state should deal with the legacy of undemocratic or totalitarian past.

Thirdly, the group should initiate the establishment of an European institute which should promote the awareness of the common European History which also includes the experience of new member state and which should investigate past wrongdoings in order to strengthen the European identity and the consciousness of democracy and human rights.

The formation of our group would go in line with the Council declaration of 19 April 2007 dealing with crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, as well as with activities aimed at condoning, distorting or trivializing these crimes.

x X x

Draft Resolution on Formation of a Working Group

"United Europe - United History"

by Wojciech Roszkowski,  Gyoergy Schoepflin,

Tunne-Valdo Kelam, Girts Valdis Kristovskis, Vytautas Landsbergis

A. Considering that the European Union is based on certain common values;

            B. Considering that justice belongs to these fundamental values and that a sound historical knowledge is necessary to the exercise and promotion of justice;

            C. Considering that a broad common historical memory would be a strong unifying factor and that the lack thereof is an obstacle in the construction of a stronger and more compact Union;

            D. Considering that ignorance and false cliches in the historical memory of Europeans may create room for nationalistic or other abuses of historical remembrance;

E. Considering the fact that present perceptions of past abuses and atrocities are an important part of contemporary debates on democracy;

            F. Considering that without due reflection and re-examination of historical experience past abuse may have an important impact on present international relations;

            G. Considering that the overcoming of bad historical legacies is possible, as the case of France and Germany after 1945 clearly shows;

            H. Considering that the recent extension of the European Union has added a new dimension to the European historical heritage;

            I. Considering that it is possible to work out common principles to assess historical developments, such principles formulated in the Briand-Kellogg Pact of 1927, the UN Declaration of 1948, the European Convention of Human Rights of 1950, the Helsinki Final Accord of 1975, as well reference to other international obligations;

            J. Considering that the denial of debate on past atrocities and abuses increase the risk of their repetition;

We, the undersigned:

1. believe that a comprehensive reassessment of European history will strengthen the European integration since a better future may only be built by means of a better understanding of the shared past;

2. share the view that there is one historical truth but that there exist various opinions about this truth. A sincere exchange of these opinions in the spirit of mutual understanding and quest for reconciliation should lead to the elaboration of a wider and more common historical memory among Europeans;

3. are of the opinion that although parliaments cannot change history, they should draw attention to the consequences of historical presentations and teaching;

4. wish to establish a working group "United Europe United History" to deal with the most important developments of the European 20th century history, including unrecognized or forgotten crimes or other abuses of human rights and other international obligations, with the purpose of:

a. specifying these developments with regard to their significance,

b. careful fact finding,

c. assessment of the responsibility,

d. undertaking, where necessary, legal steps,

e. promotion of results in the media and in schools

f. establishment of an European research institution to continue and expand these activities

x X x

Excerpts from the "United Europe - United History" Conference

held at the European Parliament on 22 Juanry 2008

            "People who share a past are better capable of acting together in the present. This proposition obviously applies to Europe. Integrating Europe self-evidently means political action in the present, with aspirations in the future. Logically European integration, therefore, should be firmly anchored in a particular European idea of the past.

            Some of this does exist, especially when it comes to European institutions but very little of this resonates with the wider public, for whom Europe is either a desirable or an undesirable abstraction. What is needed therefore is a way of structuring Europe's past to give recognisability as European by the great majority, as something that affects the great majority. However, another issue is raised by this idea. Any European history of Europe worthy of the name must bridge the deep gulfs - reflecting real experience - that different parts of Europe regard as key aspects of their European pasts". Gyoergy Schoepflin

            "Let's remember that after the removal of the dictatorial regimes in South Africa, Chile and even in Germany, truth, justice and reconciliation commissions were established. In this way, those who had suffered received at least moral recompense (...) The past of undemocratic European states can also be evaluated by legal means, e.g. by using the established legal principles and precedents of international and national courts (...)

            The Danish historian, professor Bent Jensen, in his book about the Gulag, speaking about the "loss of memory" in the West in the 20th century, says: "Although the Western world knew about these crimes at the time when they were committed, their reaction was negligible. In fact - many helped to conceal these facts. Even today the genocide committed by the communists has remained in the shadow of the Nazi genocide, notwithstanding the scary and shocking similarities of both regimes". Ģirts Valdis Kristovskis

            "The current community of 27 EU member states – a community which is already looking forward to the membership of half a dozen more post-communist countries from Southern Europe – is committed to take a common responsibility to address the heritage of Communist totalitarian regimes. This is not merely a question of nostalgia.  In the 20th century, it took two totalitarian powers to plunge Europe into a devastating war. These two dictatorships committed massive crimes against humanity, carried out genocide, brutally suppressed European values and cultural traditions.  In order to be sure that such ideologies never again ascend to power in Europe, it is imperative for the EU as a whole to analyze and draw conclusions from both totalitarian systems as well as from the experiences of tens of millions of Europeans from all walks of life who had their lives and futures crushed by these inhuman regimes."  Tunne Kelam

"As Karl Popper said, a true presentation of history would be possible only if we were able to reconstruct the whole of it. We are in fact doomed to (...) make choices as to what was important and what was not and what the meaning of historical events was. Scholars have at their disposal certain rules and methods of avoiding historical distortions. Let me mention but a few of them. First, their ambition should be to precisely specify the issue. Second, they should explore a representative body of evidence. Third, they should carefully measure and compare the importance of historical phenomena. Fourth, they should not draw conclusion of the pars pro toto nature. Fifth, they should specify criteria of assessment of historical evidence. Sixth, they should take into account various dimensions of historical reality and various points of view and carefully judge which are relevant and which are not. Seventh, they should apply logical reasoning. The only problem is whether politicians are willing to use these methods". Wojciech Roszkowski

            "We have a multitude of national histories in Europe rather than a sum of them. Too often, if not always, national histories were denouncing each other or, at least, competing between themselves in disputable arguments outside of proper, if any, self-criticism. To put such a variety into a comprehensive basket seemed impossible and able to bring nothing but a multinational mess. If we prefer message to mess, new approaches are to be called to emerge.

            The call is now coming from the new understanding of the European entity as Union. Positively softened retroactivity of views may emerge here. Most of previous internationally treated conflict-building cases, especially those based on territorial and ethno-territorial grounds, have already lost their burning radioactivity and, therefore, the splitting force". Vytautas Landsbergis

Conference Programme

Moderator: Christopher Beazley MEP

15.00 Welcome and opening remarks by the moderator Christopher Beazley, MEP

15.05 Opening keynote speech by Professor György Schöpflin, MEP

          Europe: shared past, shared future.

15.25 Second keynote speech by Professor Wojciech Roszkowski, MEP

          Can European history unite Europe?

15.45 Speech by Professor Vytautas Landsbergis, MEP

          History: multinational, international, or European one?

15.55 Speech by Tunne-Valdo Kelam, MEP

          Applying equality and common values to the perception of European history.

16.05 Speech by Girts Valdis Kristovskis, MEP

         A level playing field: a few legal aspects.

16.15 Questions followed by a discussion. Consideration of a draft text and resolution

        Closing remarks by the moderator, Christopher Beazley, MEP

Refreshments will be available at the end of the Conference