Historical commissions: successes and failures

by Daniel Mahla

Prof. Q. Edward Wang of Rowan University discussed historical tensions between Japan and China. / Photo by Tim Shenk

The view that scholarship can and in fact should be separated from politics is a fairly common notion. This idea, however, is severely flawed. Historians and other scholars cannot and must not ignore the political dimension of their work. This, at least, was the central message that Elazar Barkan, co-director of the Institute for the Study of Human Rights, delivered in his opening remarks to the March 12-13 conference on historical commissions in comparative perspective.

The conference, hosted by the University Seminar on History, Redress and Reconciliation, the Institute for the Study of Human Rights, and the East Central European Center at Columbia University, explored the successes and failures of various historical commissions in East and Central Europe as well as in Northeast Asia. Taking his own message seriously, however, Barkan did not intend the conference to be a mere exercise in scholarly analysis, but invited the scholars to discuss their conclusions and recommendations for future historical commissions — in particular regarding a joint Turkish-Armenian commission that would bring together the two sides in order to discuss the events surrounding the Armenian genocide during the First World War.

Over the course of the next one and a half days, experts from a great variety of fields and universities discussed these issues fiercely. The conference was kicked off by a panel discussion about the tensions between Poles and Ukrainians regarding their common history, as well as the reconciliation process between the two nations since the 1990s. Only the break-up of the Soviet Union, it seems, made such processes possible. The Soviet past was also an important issue of the next session, which focused on the Baltic States and Romania. All of these countries had to come to terms not only with one, but with two different occupation regimes — the Soviets and the Nazis.

It was in this context that Constantin Goschler (Ruhr University Bochum) spoke about “historic road nations.” Today, he commented, it seems less important which crimes a nation committed and more important how this nation handles its crimes. Hence, the nations that handle these issues best can become “historical road nations.” Consequently, the day’s last panel was dedicated to the nation that not only committed the most abominable atrocities of the twentieth century, but also made great efforts to come to terms with this history: Germany. Even the various efforts of this road nation par excellence, however, should be critically challenged, as became clear in three fascinating presentations on the relations of Germans to their past as well as to their Polish neighbors.

Departing from Europe, the next day started with a panel on various commissions in Northeast Asia. Experts discussed the multifaceted reconciliation processes in this area of the world. Their conclusions: Such processes take a long time and they cannot be forced. Rather, they require a “perfect storm” of circumstances, as Carol Gluck (Columbia University) argued. Such a “perfect storm” is still to be awaited for the case of Turkey and Armenia, as the final panel, dedicated to these issues, made perfectly clear. It can be hoped, however, that Turks and Armenians will eventually start an open dialogue about their common past. To be sure, both Taner Akcam (Clark University), and David L. Phillips (American University) stressed the manifold obstacles on the road to reconciliation. But both of them could find rays of hope in the attempts that have already been made to bring the two sides together.

Overall, the participants did not only debate fiercely the success of the different commissions, but the very question of how success can be defined. The conference itself, this is for sure, was highly successful in stirring lively and fruitful discussions and inspiring further research about historical commissions in historical perspective.

Published in RightsNews Volume 28, no. 2, April, 2010.
Download issue as PDF