As delivered by Bjørn Berge, Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe

Chair of Human Genetics at the University of Strasbourg Institute for Advanced Study, Professor Mandel,

Distinguished Professor of the Practice in the School of History and Sociology and the School of Literature, Media, and Communication at Georgia Tech, Professor Koposov,

Distinguished professors,

Distinguished guests,

Ladies and gentlemen,

It is a pleasure to speak today at this important event.

I am sure that we all look forward to hearing shortly from Professor Nikolay Koposov – so I will not take too long.

Certainly, the utility of legislation of memory is incredibly important in the current context of Europe and the wider world.

The key issues around memory laws, memory wars are explored thoroughly in your book, Professor Koposov.

Your innovative approach shows the progression from memory laws that were rooted in remembrance of the Holocaust –

And a determination often by West European governments to ensure that these facts were acknowledged –

Not twisted and denied –

Through to the spread of this legislative practice to Eastern Europe –

Where memory laws have not only been applied to Holocaust denial, but often to the denial of crimes committed by Communist regimes –

And, more alarmingly, sometimes used to whitewash aspects of the past and to mobilize ideology.

Underpinning this is a cultural war over memory –

The narrative that governments and others choose to shape for political purposes and to justify their actions.

In the few short years since you wrote that book, Professor Koposov, the issues you covered have,
I believe, taken on even greater urgency –

With more memory laws coinciding with political polarisation and a more belligerent brand of politics.

One of the most extreme examples is of course the Russian Federation.

You wrote six years ago about Russia’s 2014 memory law aiming to “promote the cult of the Russian state”.

Since then, we have witnessed the horror of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine –

And its appalling war of aggression –

Of a kind that many Europeans had thought was firmly consigned to our continent’s past.

So, it will be interesting to hear your perspective on the relationship between that aggression –

Russia’s 2014 law –

And the broader narrative of Russian history that has featured in Vladimir Putin’s outrageous attempts – in several of his speeches –to justify his actions.

Stepping back, we see that in very recent years, collective memory is shaping a range of fast-evolving attitudes in Europe towards the history of Europe.

These include the continued rise of extreme populist and nationalist narratives that proclaim the virtue of a nations’ history –

And a strong post-imperial, anti-colonialist movement that rejects what has been done in the past and that is ready to destroy art, symbols and statues to make its point in the present.

These and other perspectives often draw from geography and nationality –

Ethnicity and gender –

Religion and social status.

And they certainly invoke a range of emotions from pride and confidence –

To shame, anger and grief –

With political forces able to harness these narratives and emotional responses to shape and justify policies, frameworks and institutions.

On these developments, Professor Koposov, your perspective would also be interesting.

In the Council of Europe, we have always encouraged our member states to ensure that history is viewed through a democratic prism –

What I think you describe as a “democratic culture of memory”.

In this respect, we too are crystal clear on the importance of recognising the reality of the Holocaust.

This, after all, is central to the post-war promise of “never again” that underpins the mandate of the Council of Europe.

But our perspective is not political alone, but rather it is a commitment to openness, reconciliation and peace, rooted in the law.

By following this path, the collective management of sometimes painful memory does not lead to conflict, but rather seeks common understanding, greater respect and the ability to live together in peace.

It is also that the European Court of Human Rights has had to weigh the balance between the right to freedom of expression and drawing a legal line on the denial of genocide.

It has, for example, issued judgments on issues including the banning of symbols that clearly represent totalitarian regimes.

More broadly, our co-operation programmes also foster transparent and open debate about our past –

The discussion and sharing of memory.

You can find this approach for example in our European Cultural Routes Programme –

Which encourages citizens to explore a theme of European history through its sites in several countries.

The Iron Curtain Trail is one example –

The Architecture of Totalitarian Regimes of the 20th Century in Europe's Urban Memory is another.

Both deal with difficult chapters in history, marked by human suffering.

But both explore the various layers, factors and multiple perspectives that shaped those times and events –

And how they have come to be remembered.

Another example is our History Education intergovernmental programme, which seeks to enhance the quality of debate –

Strengthen resilience against manipulative narratives –

And promote respect for human rights and democracy.

It does this concretely through issuing recommendations on history teaching, which aim to foster critical thinking, the inclusion of diverse perspectives, and education on the Holocaust and crimes against humanity.

Similarly, we have established an Observatory on History Teaching in Europe, that helps us get a better picture of the state of history teaching in our member states, based on reliable data and facts –

And our HISTOLAB project looks at the potential for innovation and technology to avoid memory wars and contributing to quality education and respectful dialogue about the past.

Dear friends,

Disarming memory wars can only be done, I believe, in an open environment where the protagonists believe that it is in their common interests.

In Europe today, the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights, and our co-operation activities all seek to play a role in achieving this.

But the times are clearly very challenging.

To understand what more all of us can do, we need sharp minds, strong analysis and clear-sighted view of what the future could be.

For that, we are grateful to have people like you, Professor Koposov –

Whose words today will no doubt challenge all of us to reflect more deeply still.

Thank you for your attention.