A controversial law enacted by Poland’s ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party has attracted a tremendous amount of attention around the world for its criminalization of expressions including “Polish death camps.” However, the law is intended to be much more than a means to get people to mind their language.
The law states that one could face a fine or up to three years imprisonment for “publicly and contrary to the facts” ascribing to the Polish people or government “responsibility or coresponsibility for Nazi crimes” or “other offenses” that constitute crimes against peace, crimes against humanity or war crimes.
True, “Nazi crimes” were committed by the Nazis and Poles should not be blamed for them. Likewise, while Nazi extermination camps were located in Poland, they were by no means Polish. Yet, it is the mention of “other offenses” that should concern us.
The truth is that, in many places in Eastern Europe, the arrival of German troops during World War II prompted an immediate outbreak of homicidal anti-Semitism. Many Jews were murdered by their neighbors or the local police force, only sometimes pursuant to German orders.
While Nazism was the catalyst for such murders — which include pogroms all across German-controlled Europe, particularly in the east — should Nazis alone be blamed for them?
The Polish PiS government is far from the first to introduce “memory laws” aimed at reshaping historical narratives by criminalizing certain statements about the past. Such laws exist in about 30 European countries, as well as in Israel, Russia, Rwanda and Turkey.
Laws criminalizing the denial of the Holocaust or other crimes against humanity — the most common type of memory law — were first introduced in the 1980s and 1990s in western European democracies that had been implicated in those crimes, including Austria, France and Germany.
Whether or not it is advisable to use criminal law in such a way, there is no doubt about the intentions of the people behind such efforts: to protect the memory of the victims, while acknowledging shared responsibility and regret for the misdeeds of the past.
Some eastern European countries have likewise prohibited Holocaust denial. However, they have also introduced memory laws with essentially the opposite aim: to whitewash national narratives by shifting the responsibility for historical atrocities entirely onto others, whether Adolf Hitler’s Germany or Joseph Stalin’s Soviet Union. Poland introduced such a law in 1998. Similar norms exist in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia and Lithuania.
By obscuring the role that local populations played in both Nazi and communist crimes, such laws help to advance nationalist narratives, which can prove very handy for politicians looking to win popular support. The PiS, for one, has accrued substantial electoral support thanks in part to its exploitation of past tragedies for political ends.
There are more extreme cases than that of Poland. In Russia, a 2014 law prohibits any criticism of Stalin’s policy during WWII. In Turkey, a 2005 law forbids calling the extermination of Armenians under the Ottoman Empire genocide. These laws differ fundamentally from memory laws in western Europe, because they actively protect the memory of the perpetrators, rather than the victims, of state-sponsored crimes.
Of course, Turkey and especially Russia can hardly be called democracies and neither is a member of the EU, but Poland is — and its government, too, is now actively protecting the memory of the perpetrators of crimes against humanity, although they were individual citizens, not state officials acting in their government’s name.
This is not even the first time the PiS has attempted to introduce such a law. In 2008, it proposed a law that penalized “slander against the Polish nation,” including accusations concerning Poles’ involvement in Nazi and communist crimes. The Polish Constitutional Tribunal invalidated that law on procedural grounds.
Memory laws emerged in western Europe’s old democracies as a means of promoting truth, peace and reconciliation. However, in attempting to avoid future tragedies, these countries might have set a dangerous precedent.
Now, memory laws have become one of the preferred instruments of nationalist populists attempting to consolidate their own power — and to incite the very xenophobic nationalism that once provided fertile soil for the Holocaust.
Nikolay Koposov is a visiting professor of Russian and Eastern European Studies at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, and the author of Memory Laws, Memory Wars: The Politics of the Past in Europe and Russia.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing