I know all of you are sick of reading about World War II memorials. It's sort of played out, but it seems like the Bronze Soldier disease has spread from Tallinn to Moscow, where officials and analysts are now weighing in on the issue like it would make a big difference in their life whether the Bronze Soldier was there or not.As Interfax reports today, Moscow Theological Academy professor and deacon Andrey Kurayev thinks the Estonian authorities should ‘go all the way and pull down not only monuments, but everything that the ‘occupant’ empires built in their country.’
He thinks they should start with the buildings of the Teutonic Order dominion time, proceed to the time of the Swedish rule, then to that of the Russian Empire, and finish with the Soviet period buildings.
‘As a result, Estonia will get rid of everything the foreign ‘occupant’ powers befouled its holy soil, thus setting up a unique European landscape reserve. The separate Estonian state would be able to develop its absolutely new life on this open field,’ Kurayev remarked.
Let's be clear here - Andrey Kurayev is a jerk. He's inferring that there is no organic Estonian civilization, which I think is a buried chauvanistic psychological complex of some in Russia today - that the "Baltics aren't real countries, anyway." Although Russian "culture" seems to be perpetually stuck in the 19th century - ballet, thousand-page novels, the Russian Orthodox church - there is still some belief that it is superior to the nordic pagan culture of the Estonians. They've got Swan Lake, and Estonia has Runo songs - that's the crux of this attitude.
But that aside, Kurayev has a point. The "occupation" argument holds no water in the debate over the monument. You might as well pull down the huge "Stalin house" across from Stockmann. That building scares the crap out of me - it looks like a fossilized dump from a Soviet dinosaur - but people preferred to tear down the older house across the street for the sake of traffic. They think, despite Stalin's indulgence in genocidal mania, that the house looks pretty cool and there's a nice furniture shop and casino in the first floor anyway.
One argument that does stand up is that there are soldiers buried at the site. While one could argue that that impedes any attempt for removal, it can be rationally argued the opposite way. That if "radical nationalists" like Jüri Liim and Tiit Madisson really do managed to tunnel under Tõnismägi through the basement of the national library and blow up the memorial, sending Red Army femurs and skulls blasting through the windows of the Kaarli Church, who will be to blame then? Will the same "glorifiers of fascism" then have "failed in their civic duty" to protect the graves of the dead?
See, that's why I like this topic so much. There is no right answer to any question. However, I do have some words of hope. I've been reading a pretty good book by Robert McNamara, the former secretary of defense under Kennedy and Johnson, and he notes that one of the key steps to ending interethnic conflict between warring peoples is common mourning for all dead - no matter what "side" they fought on. This is a shift in an outlook of revenge - ie. "your grandfather did this to my grandfather" - to one of common mourning for tragedy.
I think that if we apply this principle to the monument controversy, that the wisest course of action would be for both sides to jointly mourn the dead. What that means is that, if the statue is torn down, it is done so in a dignified manner with only the protection of the site in its interest. If it is left standing, then it should be used as a memorial to mourn the dead, instead of a victory celebration of one side over another side. The same should be applied to all war graves in Estonia, be they of German Nazis, Russian Soviets, or Estonian partisans. The term for this common honoring is "reconciliation" and it is a key step in securing a lasting piece between ethnicities.
But reconciliation doesn't just call on Estonians to mourn the Red Army dead - the brothers, fathers, uncles, and grandfathers of many Estonians. It also calls on newcomers to Estonia to mourn the Estonian dead, including its political leaders who were murdered by the Soviet state. Sadly, it usually resorts to name calling. People use the words fascist and communist as if they still had some meaning in an era where
Russia is as drunk on capitalism as Estonia is. Obviously, both sides have to make some concessions to reconcile their differences. But the supreme question is - "Are those concessions worth it?" I think they are.
7 kommentaari:
That was a pretty terrible thing for Andrey Kurayev to say - and it is a fallacy of false alternatives. One can distinguish previous occupations on several grounds, with the most obvious being that the Soviet occupation is 1) recent and 2) still a threat.
I don't see this as a moral issue - it is a political issue. Morally the statue represents oppression, and the Estonian people want it down. The problem however is political. The statue cannot be taken down because of international concerns.
What is the statue really? Russia's way of still exerting control of Estonia. What gets me about this is that the Russians pretend like they liberated Estonia out of the goodness of their hearts. One would have to be extremely naive to believe that the liberation of Estonia from Russia was anything more than incidental to their war against Germany (and their desire for empire and secured borders).
Ultimately the statue's existence is a message to Estonia - you may be in Nato and the EU, but we can still exert control over you.
Ultimately the statue's existence is a message to Estonia - you may be in Nato and the EU, but we can still exert control over you.
Your northern neighbors aren't even in NATO. But the Russians see them as a friendly neutral nation, and Estonia as some sort of psychological adversary. Why? Why should the Russian state duma take time out of its day to even bother thinking about Estonia. This monument controversy just gives them another 6 - 12 months to think about Estonia, when they SHOULD be thinking about Chechnya or Iran or some other place.
In the context of the future of the Estonian state, it makes sense to be realistic about the relationship with Russia. They have a lot of complexes about controlling people, and - with the absence of violence - they just can't push their neighbors around like the bad old days.
But those complexes aside, Estonia is not a vital interest for Russia.
Russian direct investments only make up around 6 percent of total investments in Estonia.
Russia has an ice-free Baltic haven - Kaliningrad. Russia is building a pipeline to supply Germany with gas. Russia faces no military threat from Germany. Provincial Estonia has no historical or cultural significance for them either. They can point to Ukraine and talk about slavic civilization. They can point to Georgia and talk about fabulous wines. And they can point to Latvia and remember when Riga was a jewel in its empire. But Estonia? It's a land of bogs and farms. It is as useless for them as Finland.
And, to put it simply, Swedish and Finnish interests in Estonia are far stronger than Russian interests. And I think that, deep down, Russia knows this, though it has residual imperialist tendencies.
If Estonians want to end Russian influence in Estonia they must do so by more than removing monuments. They have to make Estonian culture stronger and forward-looking. I think so far Estonia has succeeded in this aspect and will continue to succeed. For as grand as Soviet culture was, it is not self sustaining. It is a historical reference point. Some people still cling to it, but it is frozen in time.
Think about it. Some people still celebrate "Soviet Army Day" even though THERE IS NO SOVIET ARMY. It's a joke, and, when set beside another culture that is forward-thinking, it will eventually be seen as one.
So the best way to swallow it will be organically through time and cultural energy. Putting a monument in a cemetary might be symbolic, but it doesn't change the underlying dynamic.
Another important issue you neglect is the appropriateness of the site for a war grave, in a central city park frequented by drunks and hooligans. It that the way to honour and respect the dead? A cemetery is the right place for burying the war dead, and this memorial ought to be relocated to one.
Another important issue you neglect is the appropriateness of the site for a war grave, in a central city park frequented by drunks and hooligans. It that the way to honour and respect the dead? A cemetery is the right place for burying the war dead, and this memorial ought to be relocated to one.
I didn't neglect that issue. Here's what I wrote:
if "radical nationalists" like Jüri Liim and Tiit Madisson really do managed to tunnel under Tõnismägi through the basement of the national library and blow up the memorial, sending Red Army femurs and skulls blasting through the windows of the Kaarli Church, who will be to blame then? Will the same "glorifiers of fascism" then have "failed in their civic duty" to protect the graves of the dead?
What I am saying is that one strong argument is that it should be removed to a cemetary because it is in the middle of town. But Ansip isn't making this argument [which I think is stronger than the "occupiers" argument]. If he made that argument, perhaps it would be a less contentious issue.
Ansip is making the argument that is should be removed to a cemetery out of respect of the dead. Even the foreign press is reporting it, to quote from http://www.kommersant.com/p720424/r_527/Bronze_Soldier/:
"Ansip’s reason for dismantling the monument is ensuring respectful attitude to the soldiers’ graves, which Estonia undertook to do once it joined the Geneva Convention. The prime minister blamed dismantling Bronze Soldier on those, who drink vodka, scuffle and stage rallies near the monuments."
Ansip is making the argument that is should be removed to a cemetery out of respect of the dead. Even the foreign press is reporting it, to quote from http://www.kommersant.com/p720424/r_527/Bronze_Soldier/:
"Ansip’s reason for dismantling the monument is ensuring respectful attitude to the soldiers’ graves, which Estonia undertook to do once it joined the Geneva Convention. The prime minister blamed dismantling Bronze Soldier on those, who drink vodka, scuffle and stage rallies near the monuments."
I read that too. But it would have been smarter to start with that argument.
See, now the Kremlin is getting out its scary youth wing (Nashi) to protest at the Estonian embassy.
But the even stranger comments came from the "Constitutional Party of Estonia" which said:
"Attempts are being made even at the state level to dismantle a monument to Soviet soldiers who did not occupy any country. They chased the German occupation forces up to Berlin, fulfilling their military oath. It means they did just as U.S. soldiers did under Dwight Eisenhower's command," it says.
As I wrote, I don't think that its the monument that is the issue, so much as the sight of old people wearing Soviet uniforms mingling with young people holding red roses that is insulting to Estonians.
What happens next of course hinges upon the parliamentary elections. If Ansip gets reelected then that sucker is coming down. If not, then you'll have Toomas Hendrik Ilves and Edgar Savisaar agreeing on something for perhaps the first time ever.
If that were to occur, I think that all rallies should be prohibited from that site, as it is a gravesite. And it is actually a shameful place for a gravesite. I can't think of any gravesites for soldiers in the US that are in the middle of traffic intersections.
A cemetery would be more fitting, though now this has devolved into a historical argument, rather than what is most fitting for a group of random skeletons buried atop an Estonian hill.
Postita kommentaar