Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-15T06:54:25.924Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The unfinished business of perestroika: Latvia's memory politics and its quest for acknowledgment of victimhood in Europe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2018

Katja Wezel
Katja Wezel*
Affiliation:
Department of History, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
*
∗Email: wezel@pitt.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the 25 years since the re-establishment of Baltic independence from the Soviet Union, there has been no conclusive public conversation, or “coming to terms with the past” with respect to crimes against Latvian and other persecuted groups under Communism. This paper examines how national politicians, members of the European Parliament in Brussels, representatives of Latvia's Russian-speaking minority, and the Russian government have engaged in a difficult, long-overdue conversation. Conflicting historical narratives about victimhood are at the heart of these disagreements. Special emphasis is given to Latvia's historical narrative, its development over the past 25 years, and the way it challenges Russia's interpretation of history. I argue that Latvian memory politics at the European level are a continuation of Latvia's quest for acknowledgment of its victimhood, thereby trying to finish the process started in the late 1980s when Balts first demanded acknowledgment of human rights violations they had suffered under the Soviet regime. Latvia's methods of transitional justice are examined, arguing that its memory politics at the European level are an extension of steps taken at the national level to come to terms with the past and to increase its negotiating power against Russia's neo-Soviet historical narrative.

Keywords

memory politicsEuropean parliamentBaltic statestransitional justicepost-CommunismMolotov-Ribbentrop Pact
Type
Articles
Information
Nationalities Papers , Volume 44 , Issue 4 , July 2016 , pp. 560 - 577
Copyright
Copyright © 2016 Association for the Study of Nationalities 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Assmann, Aleida. 2016. Shadows of Trauma. Memory and the Politics of Postwar Identity. New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
Assmann, Jan. 2011. Cultural Memory and Early Civilization. Writing Remembrance and Political Imagination. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Barth, Boris. 2006. Genozid. Völkermord im 20. Jahrhundert [Genocide in the 20th Century]. Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
Bell, Christine. 2009. “Transitional Justice, Interdisciplinarity and the State of the ‘Field’ or ‘Non-Field'.” The International Journal of Transitional Justice 3: 5–27.Google Scholar
Bleiere, Daina, Butulis, Ilgvars, Feldmanis, Inesis, Stranga, Aivars, and Zunda, Antonijs. 2006. History of Latvia. The 20th Century. Riga: Jumava.Google Scholar
Briiggemann, Karsten. 2011. “Estland und das Ende der Sowjetunion: Der Hitler-Stalin-Pakt als bal-tischer Erinnerungsort fur die ‘Singende Revolution'?” [Estonia and the End of the Soviet Union. The Hitler-Stalin Pact as a Site of Memory for the ‘Singing Revolution'?]. In Hitler Stalin Pakt 1939 in den Erinnerungskulturen der Europäer [The Hitler Stalin Pact in the European Commemoration Cultures], edited by Anna Kaminsky, Dietmar Müller, and Stefan Troebst, 155–173. Göttingen: Wallstein.Google Scholar
Cianetti, Licia. 2014. “Granting Local Voting Rights to Non-Citizens in Estonia and Latvia: The Conundrum of Minority Representation in Two Divided Democracies.” Journal on Ethnopolitics and Minority Issues in Europe 13 (1): 86–112. http://www.ecmi.de/fileadmin/downloads/publications/JEMIE/2014/Cianetti.pdf.Google Scholar
Denis, Solvita. 2008. “The Story with History.” In Manufacturing Enemy Images? Russian Media Portrayal of Latvia, edited by Muižnieks, Nils, 79–107. Riga: Academic Press of the University of Latvia.Google Scholar
Dorodnova, Jekatarina. 2003. “Challenging Ethnic Democracy. Implementation of the Recommendations of the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities to Latvia 1993–2001.” Centre for OSCE Research Working Paper 10. http://ifsh.de/file-CORE/documents/CORE_Working_Paper_10.pdf.Google Scholar
ECtHR (European Court of Human Rights). 2004. Case of Farbtuhs v. Latvia. Application no. 4672/02.Google Scholar
ECtHR (European Court of Human Rights). 2010. Case of Kononov v. Latvia. Application no. 36376/04.Google Scholar
European Parliament. 2008. “Declaration of the European Parliament on the Proclamation of 23 August as European Day of Remembrance for Victims of Stalinism and Nazism.” P6_TA (2008)0439. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?reference=P6_TA(2008)0439&language=EN.Google Scholar
European Parliament. 2009. “European Conscience and Totalitarianism.” http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT + CRE + 20090325 + ITEM-010 + DOC + XML + V0//EN&language = EN.Google Scholar
Gardner Feldman, Lily. 2012. Germany's Foreign Policy of Reconciliation. From Enmity to Amity. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Garton Ash, Timothy. 2004. “Trials, Purges and History Lessons: Treating a Difficult Past in Post-Communist Europe.” In Memory and Politics in Post-War Europe, edited by Müller, Jan-Werner, 265–282. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grigas, Agnia. 2013. The Politics of Energy and Memory Between the Baltic States and Russia. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Grover, Sonja C. 2010. The European Court of Human Rights as a Pathway to Impunity for International Crimes. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Gruzina, Ieva. 2011. “Relationship Between History and a Sense of Belonging. Russian Speaking Minority Integration in Latvia.” CEU Political Science Journal 6 (3): 397–432.Google Scholar
Hobsbawm, Eric. 1983. “Introduction: Inventing Traditions.” In The Invention of Tradition, edited by Hobsbawm, Eric and Ranger, Terence, 1–14. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huyssen, Andreas. 2003. Present Pasts. Urban Palimpsests and the Politics of Memory. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Judgement. 1996. “Judgement of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia Concerning Genocide.” In Baltic Yearbook of International Law I (2001), edited by Ziemele, Ineta, 261–299. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
Judt, Tony. 2004. “The Past is Another Country: Myth and Memory in Post-War Europe.” In Memory and Power in Post-War Europe, edited by Müller, Jan-Werner, 157–183. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kalniete, Sandra. 2004. “Altes Europa, Neues Europa” [Old Europe, New Europe]. Speech at the Leipzig Book Fair. http://jungefreiheit.de/service/archiv/?www.jf-archiv.de/archiv04/154yy21.htm.Google Scholar
Kaprāns, Mārtinš, and Zelče, Vita. 2011. “Identiāte, sociālā atmina un kultūras trauma” [Identity, social memory and cultural trauma]. In Pēdējais karš. Atmina un traumas komunikācija [The Last War. The Communication of Memory and Trauma], edited by Mārtinš Kaprāns and Vita Zelče, 12–27. Riga: Mansards.Google Scholar
Kelertas, Violeta. Ed. 2006. Baltic Postcolonialism. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Laizāne, Mara, Putnina, Aivita, and Mileiko, Ilze. 2015. Mazākumtautību skolu skolēnu identitāte un piederība Latvijai. [The Identity of Students at Minority Schools and their Belonging to Latvia. A Research Report]. Riga: Pētījuma zinojums.Google Scholar
Lasas, Ainius. 2007. “Bloody Sunday. What Did Gorbachev Know about the January 1991 Events in Vilnius and Riga?” Journal of Baltic Studies 38 (2): 179–194.Google Scholar
Lieven, Anatol. 1993. The Baltic Revolution: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and the Path to Independence. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Ločmele, Klinta, Procevska, Olga, and Zelče, Vita. 2011. “8./9. Maijs Latvijā” [May 8 and 9 in Latvia]. In Karojoša Piemina. 16. Marts un 9. Maijs [Conflicting Commemoration. March 16 and May 9], edited by Nils Muižnieks and Vita Zelče, 238–274. Riga: Zinātne.Google Scholar
Mälksoo, Lauri. 2001. “Soviet Genocide? Communist Mass Deportations in the Baltic States and International Law.” Leiden Journal of International Law 14 (4): 757–787.Google Scholar
Mälksoo, Lauri. 2011. “Kononov v. Latvia.” The American Journal of International Law 105 (1): 101–108.Google Scholar
Mednis, Imants. 2007. Partiju Laiki Latvijā (1988–2002) [The Era of Parties in Latvia (1988–2002)]. Riga: Drukākava.Google Scholar
Mikko, Marianne, Beazley, Christopher, Vaidere, Inese, Gurmai, Zita, and Alvaro, Alexander. 2008. “Written Declaration On the Proclamation of 23 August as European Day of Remembrance for the Victims of Stalinism and Nazism.” http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+WDECL+P6-DCL-2008–0044+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN.Google Scholar
Muižnieks, Nils. Ed. 2008. Manufacturing Enemy Images? Russian Media Portrayal of Latvia. Riga: Academic Press of the University of Latvia.Google Scholar
Müller, Jan-Werner. 2004. “Introduction: The Power of Memory, The Memory of Power and the Power Over Memory.” In Memory and Power in Post-War Europe, edited by Müller, Jan-Werner, 1–35. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Oberländer, Erwin. 2011. “Soviet Genocide in Latvia? Conflicting Cultures of Remembrance of Stalin's Policy, 1940–1953.” In Forgotten Pages in Baltic History: Diversity and Inclusion, edited by Housden, Martyn and Smith, David J., 239–261. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Onken, Eva Clarita. 2007. “The Baltic States and Moscow's 9 May Commemoration: Analysing Memory Politics in Europe.” Europe Asia Studies 59 (1): 23–46.Google Scholar
Pettai, Eva-Clarita, and Pettai, Vello. 2015. Transitional and Retrospective Justice in the Baltic States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Prague Declaration. 2008. http://www.praguedeclaration.eu.Google Scholar
Putin Meeting with Young Academics and History Teachers. 2014. http://eng.kremlin.ru/news/23185.Google Scholar
Riekstinš, Jānis. 2007a. “1941. gada 14. jūnija deportācija Latvijā” [The Deportations of June 14, 1941 in Latvia]. In 1941. gada 14. jūnija deportācija — noziegums pret cilvēci/ Deportation of 14 June 1941 – Crime Against Humanity (Symposium of the Commission of the Historians of Latvia Vol. 6), edited by Brence, Mara and Ērglis, Dzintars, 21–34. Riga: Latvijas Vēstures Institūta apgāds.Google Scholar
Riekstinš, Jānis. 2007b. “The Deportation of March 25, 1949 in Latvia.” In Aizvestie. 1949. gada 25 marts [Displaced. March 25, 1949], Vol. 1, edited by Guna Pence, 33–57. Riga: Latvijas Valsts Archīvs.Google Scholar
Saeima of the Republic of Latvia. 1996. “Declaration on the Occupation of Latvia.” In Policy of Occupation Powers in Latvia 1939–1941. A collection of documents, edited by Pelkaus, Elmārs, 563–564. Riga: Nordik.Google Scholar
Saeima of the Republic of Latvia. 2005. “Declaration on the Condemnation of the Totalitarian Communist Occupation Regime.” http://www.saeima.lv/Lapas/Deklaracija_an.htm.Google Scholar
Scherrer, Jutta. 2011. “Der Molotow-Ribbentrop-Pakt — (k)ein Thema der russischen Öffentlichkeit und Schule?” [The Molotov-Ribbentrop-Pact — no topic in Russian public and schools?]. In Hitler Stalin Pakt 1939 in den Erinnerungskulturen der Europäer [The Hitler Stalin Pact in the European Commemoration Cultures], edited by Anna Kaminsky, Dietmar Müller, and Stefan Troebst, 155–173. Göttingen: Wallstein.Google Scholar
Strods, Heinrihs. 2000. “Brūnais genocīds un sarkanais genocīds Baltijā 1940–1990. Kopīgais un atškerīMgais” [Brown genocide and red genocide in the Baltics 1940–1990. Similarities and Differences]. Latvijas Vēsture 19 (4): 37–41.Google Scholar
Teitel, Ruti. 2000. Transitional Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
The Seventy Years Declaration. 2012. http://www.seventyyearsdeclaration.org/the-declaration/.Google Scholar
Troebst, Stefan. 2005. “Jalta versus Stalingrad, GULag versus Holocaust. Konfligierende Erinnerungskulturen im östlichen Europa” [Yalta v. Stalingrad, GULag v. Holocaust. Diverging Cultures of Memory in Eastern Europe]. Berliner Journal fur Soziologie 15 (3): 381–400.Google Scholar
Urdze, Andrejs. 1997. Die Aufarbeitung der kommunistischen Vergangenheit in Lettland [Coming to Terms with the Communist Past in Latvia]. Cologne: Berichte des BIOst.Google Scholar
Vīke-Freiberga, Vaira. 2005. “Declaration Regarding May 9, 2005.” In Latvia and the End of the Second World War in Europe. Commemorating the 60th Anniversary of the Nazi Capitulation, edited by Andris Caune, Antonijs Zunda, and Pildegoviçs, Andrejs, 20–23. Riga: Latvijas Vēstures Institūta Apgāds.Google Scholar
Wertsch, James V. 2008. “Collective Memory and Narrative Templates.” Social Research: An International Quarterly 75 (1): 133–156.Google Scholar
Wezel, Katja. 2011. “Lettland und der 23. August 1939. Vom, weißen Reck” der sowjetischen Geschichtsschreibung zum transnationalen Gedenktag?” [Latvia and August 23, 1939. From a White Spot of Soviet history to a Transnational Day of Commemoration?]. In Hitler Stalin Pakt 1939 in den Erinnerungskulturen der Europäer [The Hitler Stalin Pact in the European Commemoration Cultures], edited by Anna Kaminsky, Dietmar Müller and Stefan Troebst, 309–325. Göttingen: Wallstein.Google Scholar
Wolfrum, Edgar. 1999. Geschichtspolitik in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Der Weg zur bundesrepublikanischen Erinnerung 1948–1990 [History Politics in the Federal Republic of Germany. The Path to the Federal Republican Memory 1948–1990]. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Zalite, Indulis, and Dimante, Sindija. 1998. “Četredesmito gadu deportācijas. Struktūranalīze” [A Structural Analysis of the Deportations in the 1940s]. Latvijas Vēsture 30 (2): 73–82.Google Scholar