The Geopolitics of History in Latvian-Russian Relations Editor Nils Muižnieks Academic Press of the University of Latvia 2011 UDK 327(474.3+70)(091) Ge 563 Reviewed by: Prof. Andrejs Plakans, Ph. D., USA Prof. Juris Rozenvalds, Ph. D., Latvia The preparation and publication of this book was generously supported by the University of Latvia and the Baltisch-Deutsches Hochschulkontor with the support of funding from the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD). Layout: Ilze Reņģe Cover design: Agris Dzilna The photographs on the cover are by Klinta Ločmele, Olga Procevska and Vita Zelče. © University of Latvia, 2011 © Agris Dzilna, cover design, 2011 ISBN 978-9984-45-323-1 Contents Nils Muižnieks. History, Memory and Latvian Foreign Policy ........... 7 Part I: Latvia in Russia’s Historical Narrative Kristīne Doroņenkova. Official Russian Perspectives on the Historical Legacy: A Brief Introduction .................... 21 Vita Zelče. Latvia and the Baltic in Russian Historiography . 31 Solvita Denisa-Liepniece. From Imperial Backwater to Showcase of Socialism: Latvia in Russia’s School Textbooks . 59 Dmitrijs Petrenko. The Interpretation of Latvian History in Russian Documentary Films: The Struggle for Historical Justice ............ 87 Part II: Russian-Latvian Comparisons and “Dialogues” Klinta Ločmele, Olga Procevska, Vita Zelče. Celebrations, Commemorative Dates and Related Rituals: Soviet Experience, its Transformation and Contemporary Victory Day Celebrations in Russia and Latvia ............................... 1 0 9 Ojārs Skudra. Historical Themes and Concepts in the Newspapers Diena and Vesti Segodnya in 2009 ..................... 139 Ivars Ijabs. The Issue of Compensations in Latvian–Russian Relations . 175 Toms Rostoks. Debating 20th Century History in Europe: The European Parliament and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Compared ............................. 191 Nils Muižnieks. Latvian-Russian Memory Battles at the European Court of Human Rights ......................... 219 About the contributors . 2 3 9 History is the most dangerous product evolved from the chemistry of the intellect. Its properties are well known. It causes dreams, it intoxicates whole peoples, gives them false memories, quickens their reflexes, keeps their old wounds open, torments them in their repose, leads them into delusions either of grandeur or persecution, and makes nations bitter, arrogant, insufferable and vain. Paul Valery History, Memory and Latvian Foreign Policy Nils Muižnieks Introduction Issues of history and memory loom large on the agenda of Latvian- Russian interstate relations. Latvian officials have often accused Russia of trying to “whitewash” the past, particularly Stalinist repressions and the forcible annexation of Latvia. For their part, in both bilateral relations and multilateral fora, Russian officials have regularly accused their Latvian counterparts of “revising” history, even “glorifying” or “rehabilitating” Nazism. Why do these issues continue to complicate relations? What lies behind the constant invocation of the past? Is reference to long-ago events merely an ideological ploy, a mask for the pursuit of other political or economic interests? Is there a possibility of a truce in these “memory wars”? In order to answer these questions, it is necessary to clarify some of the conceptual issues at stake and to explore the links between history, memory and foreign policy. Here, the focus will be on the role of the past in Latvian foreign policy with particular reference to Latvia’s relations with Russia. Other authors have examined how the “geopolitics of history” have played out in Russia’s relations with countries such as Finland,1 Poland2 and Georgia.3 In Baltic-Russian relations, the symbolic role of May 9 and its link to identity politics has been examined in some detail.4 Moreover, the “Bronze Soldier crisis” in Estonia prompted a flurry of studies examining the issue of history in relations between Russians and Estonians within 1 See Vihavainen, T. (2006), “Does History Play a Role in Finnish-Russian Relations?,” in Hanna Smith, ed., The Two-Level Game: Russia’s Relations with Great Britain, Finland and the European Union. Helsinki: Aleksanteri Paper 2: 2006, pp. 27-48. 2 See Sanford, G. (2005), Katyn and the Soviet Massacre of 1940: Truth, Justice and Memory. London: Routledge, esp. pp. 226-232. 3 See Wertsch, J.V. and Kuramidze, Z. (2009), “Spinning the Past: Russian and Georgian Accounts of the War of August 2008,” Memory Studies Vol. 2(3), pp. 377-391. 4 See Onken, E.-C. (2007), “The Baltic States and Moscow’s 9 May Commemoration: Analysing Memory Politics in Europe,” Europe-Asia Studies Vol. 59, No. 1, January, pp. 23-46. 8 The Geopolitics of History in Latvian-Russian Relations Estonia and in Estonia’s relations with Russia.5 However, surprisingly few scholars have analyzed the Latvian-Russian case in any detail. Studying the Politics of History and Memory The first conceptual task involves clarifying whether the issue at hand is one of history, memory or both. Kansteiner has provided a useful outline of the main differences between the two. History is ostensibly the search for an “objective” rendering of the past in which the author maintains emotional distance from the subject matter, demonstrating an ability to examine events from various perspectives and an awareness and acceptance of complexity and indeterminacy. Memory, on the other hand, is a narrative with a systematic link to current cultural discourse. Memory maintains a group’s identity, it simplifies past events, presenting them from one perspective. As opposed to history, memory has an aversion to indeterminacy and shades of gray. 6 Seen in this light, the invocation of the past in relations between states is more often memory politics than history politics, though the two often overlap. Memory politics is intimately linked with identity politics, and collective memory and identity are “mutually constitutive.”7 An important methodological issue in analyzing the politics of the past is that of individualism versus collectivism.8 An individualistic approach would focus on individual memories, which can be “collected” for analysis through methods such as sociological surveys. Individuals often jointly carry out public remembrance rituals to draw attention to their personal ordeals, to commemorate victims or to celebrate past victories or mourn past tragedies. The various “calendar demonstrations” during the Baltic 5 For an analysis pre-dating the Bronze Soldier Crisis, see Bruggemann, K. (2007), “Estonia and Its Escape from the East: The Relevance of the Past in Estonian-Russian Relations,” in Tsypylma Darieva and Wolfgang Kaschuba, eds., Representations on the Margins of Europe: Politics and Identities in the Baltic and South Caucasian States. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag, pp. 139-165. On the Bronze Soldier Crisis, see Bruggeman, K. and Kasekamp, A. (2009), “Identity Politics and Contested Histories in Divided Societies: the Case of the Estonian War Monuments,” in Eiki Berg and Piret Ehin, eds., Identity and Foreign Policy: Baltic- Russian Relations and European Integration. Surrey: Ashgate, pp. 51-64; Bruggeman, K. and Kasekamp, A., “The Politics of History and the ‘War of Monuments’ in Estonia,” Nationalities Papers, Vol. 36, No. 3, July 2008, pp. 425-448; Kadri Liik, “The “Bronze Year” of Estonia- Russia Relations,” Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Yearbook 2007, Tallinn: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Estonia, pp. 71-6, available at http://web-static.vm.ee/ static/failid/053/Kadri_Liik.pdf, and Poleschuk, V. (2009) The War of Monuments in Estonia: the Challenges of History and the Minority Population, Report from the Aland Islands Peace Institute, No. 1; and Wertsch, J.V. (2008), “Collective Memory and Narrative Templates,” Social Research, Spring, Vol. 75, Issue 1, pp. 133-158. 6 Kansteiner, W. (2002), “Finding Meaning in Memory: A Methodological Critique of Collective Memory Studies,” History and Theory 41 (May 2002), pp. 179-197. 7 Muller, J.-W. (2002), “Introduction: The Power of Memory, the Memory of Power and the Power Over Memory,” in Muller, J. W., ed., Memory & Power in Post-War Europe: Studies in the Presence of the Past. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 21. 8 The discussion here relies on the useful work of Olick, J.K. (1999), “Collective Memory: The Two Cultures,” Sociological Theory Vol. 17, No. 3 (November 1999), pp. 333-348. N. Muižnieks. History, Memory and Latvian Foreign Policy 9 independence struggles in the late 1980s marking key dates in Baltic history (e.g., the first declarations of independence, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, Stalinist deportations, etc.) are prime examples of such rituals, many of which continue to be commemorated today.9 Those preferring collectivist approaches, in turn, argue that individuals have memories of events they have not personally experienced and that group behaviour differs from individual behaviour. Moreover, as many researchers have demonstrated, museums, archives, and historiography all function as institutions for memory collectivization. This is not to suggest that social or collective memories are divorced from individual memories. Indeed, though analytically distinct, individual and collective or “social” memory are often closely related. This leads to the question of whether nations or other collectivities have memories in the same way individuals do. Here, assumptions of homogeneity within larger groups are regularly undermined by the