The harmonization of the Western and Eastern European collective memory by the European Union

The European Union (EU) has built its normative concepts upon the post World War II consensus in Europe. In particular, the EU has been pursuing its policies of political and cultural integration in the Eastern European states. Hence, this op-Ed provides for an historical assessment of the European actions and describes common EU memory policy especially after the “big bang” enlargement and in light of future Eastern further enlargements.

The harmonization of the Western and Eastern European collective memory by the European Union

The post-war European memory

The Maastricht Treaty adopted in 1992 already placed the basis for an enhanced discourse on a foundational myth for promoting common values and memory in the European legal order. Common memory of EU citizens is a new specific element of pan-European identity, whose symbolic core is founded on the ethical lessons of World War II. In fostering Europeanness, the EU institutions have been capitalizing on moral commitment to the past as a promise of a better future.

Solana-Pattern Joint Letter as the incorporation of the Eastern Europe to the collective European memory

The first document that might show an important step in the aspiration of the EU to promote its vision to the Eastern European was the Solana-Pattern Joint Letter that sketched important key issues that the Union would have to consider in cooperating with Eastern European countries.

The joint letter clearly stated that the EU sought to create a close cooperation with its neighbours on the basis of what the Union defines “shared values”, notably democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law, as set out within the EU treaties and in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, where its preamble expressly includes “the peoples of Europe” while referring to the European continent. A clear vision that those values enshrined by the Charter are not limited only to the then-EU citizens.

Moreover, the document underlined again how neighbouring countries are the EU’s essential partners, and the aim of this partnership is not only limited to economic and political goals, but it embodies the fostering of the mutual exchange of human capital, ideas, knowledge and culture.

Ukraine in the Solana-Pattern Joint Letter

Interestingly, Ukraine was already acknowledged in this policy document as a complex issue. Specifically, on the one hand, Ukraine was perceived as the most immediate challenge for the EU neighbourhood policy, on the other hand, Ukraine’s European aspirations have been high.  For this scope, Solana-Pattern considered that the EU-Ukraine partnership would require the delineation of an ambitious but workable policy framework for the next ten years or so, without closing any options for the more distant future. The Joint Letter has been the basis for the future shape of the ENP in terms of key choices that have been made, in particular, with regard to the geographical scope, the objectives and the methodologies implied.

Holocaust in the European memory

Together with this background, another parallel process started in the early 1990s in the EU with regards to memory policy, where the very first ideas of European memory are found in the commemoration of the Holocaust, which gradually became more and more transnational. On this topic, the European Parliament passed two resolutions in 1993 and in 1995, which indicate the increasing attention paid to the matter. In the late 1990s, national days of the commemoration of the Holocaust became more and more common in Europe. However, all these considerations started to transform when on 1 May 2004, the EU flags were raised in Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia.

The problématique of communist past in the Eastern Europe

If, in the mid-2000s, on the one hand, the majority of the Western European countries believed that the Holocaust could become a common memory for the EU, on the other hand, this view was opposed by the majority of East European countries on the grounds that an exclusive emphasis on the Holocaust would not do justice to the victims of other totalitarian regimes. It is argued that while very few of them questioned the uniqueness of the Holocaust openly by declaring Nazism and communism “equally criminal”, they were afraid that paying too much attention to the victims of the Holocaust came at the expense of the victims of other totalitarian regimes, so the latter are effectively treated as second-class victims.

This first contrast on memory policy was influenced by the anti-communist agenda of the East European ruling parties and its proponents believe that it illegitimately relativizes the Holocaust and falsified history by equating communist regimes with Nazism. The latest have been building their main narratives on the fight against Nazism and the image of the Soviet Union as one of the ally member states against the Nazi-Fascist Axis.

The EU overcoming of the East-West divide

A recent empirical study shows that in the 1990s the majority of conservative politicians in post socialist countries in Eastern Europe have built their political profile on an uncompromising anti-communist stance and on the objective of raising awareness about the crimes of communist regimes and their victims.

This contrast between the part of the Western and Eastern society and politicians lead to the need for the EU to develop a united memory and historical truth considered as an essential element in the project of Europe’s unification, and part of the new European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) in the beginning of the 2000s.

Consequently, the EU institutions have started to adopt a series of soft law acts, namely non-binding rules that nevertheless have an influence and an impact on EU institutional and national policies. These legal tools played a central role in influencing post-soviet countries. In this way, the European Union's role over the decades was to assist and complement the actions of Member States in preserving and promoting Europe's cultural heritage by employing soft law tools.

Towards the EU’s collective memory?

In 2007, EU common values through a common united cultural initiative received a major boost through a European Commission Communication, endorsed by the Council, on a "European Agenda for Culture in a Globalised World". The European Parliament has also supported that Agenda through political resolutions and pilot projects. An impressive number of actions have been undertaken by Member States since then, inspired by EU policy collaboration through successive Council Work Plans for Culture, through projects funded by EU programmes, and through macro-regional strategies.

Finally, in 2005, the European Parliament made its first attempt to create a common EU memory by adopting an act that proposes to ban both the Nazi and communist symbols. However, the institution’s proposal was rejected, and it was argued that the matter should be left to member states. Despite the failure, that debate in the European Parliament marked a milestone in EU memory politics. In fact, it was the first time that the hegemony and the uniqueness of the Holocaust was questioned on the European level as a direct consequence of the 2004 Eastern enlargement.

The short historical assessment of the trajectory of an unified EU memory sheds some light on the role that the European Parliament has played on this field. Interestingly, the latter was and still remains a competence mostly regulated by the single EU member states. However, the European Parliament, as a sole EU institution whose members are directly elected by EU citizens, demonstrated that memory policies are particularly relevant for the sensitivity of EU citizens. For this reason, it is suggested that any future proposal that involves shaping the EU’s collective memory also for its potential future member states, such as Ukraine, should require proper democracy mechanisms, transparency and open debate.