Memory as a Security Policy

The intersectionality of nationalism, memory, and securitized identity narrative rendered the politics of memory and the history politics with particular importance. The following chapter tackles the issue of memory and history politics through the lenses of the ontological security theory used as a framework for understanding state policies in the sphere of security perception and behaviors. For the purposes of this chapter, the history politics is understood as a construction of a binding historical memory by organizing history in a particular narrative constructs that help to develop and/or maintain a salient group self-identity. After having delineated the theoretical foundation, the interaction between security and managed historical memory is in its political, institutional, and discursive aspect will be explored. The three interrelated factors important in ontological security behavior—1) discourse frames, 2) institutional arrangement, and 3) policies—will be analyzed in the Polish context.

Restoring the Memory

This chapter explores the key features of the concept of postnationalism, its modes, and theoretical implications regarding the European Union. The main research intention is to explore the EU as a model and an agent for reconciliation of the Balkan region. For that purpose, the main operative elements of both the South East European Cooperation Process and “Yugosphere” are examined. At the end, it is concluded that the emulation of EU postnational model by the Balkan countries enables the process of reconciliation. Hence, the Balkan states seems to be “forced” to cooperate with each other, in order to achieve their common objective – their full integration into the EU, which strongly confirms the role of the EU as an agent for reconciliation of the Balkans.

Collective Memory After Violent Conflict

This chapter develops a framework for the analysis of collective memory in post-conflict settings. It is argued that so far collective memory is not sufficiently theorized within peace and conflict studies, even though in the aftermath of violent conflicts competing memories easily become subject to salient struggles that may even result in yet another outburst of violence. It is these competing representations of the past that researchers should more thoroughly concern themselves with and that they lack an appropriate heuristic device for. Focusing on processual and multidimensional concepts from the fashionable field of memory studies, the author proposes a new framework for analysis that offers categories and ideal-types for practice-oriented research. Based on poststructuralist discourse analysis, the framework allows to link discursive structures and patterns of identity, on the one hand, to actual agency on the other hand, thus facilitating effective interventions.

Border Commemoration in Contemporary Armenia

By the end of 20th century, history manipulation had become the main tool for mobilizing masses. To create a societal identity, a nation-state uses collective memory and creates an idea of the past as the purpose of self-existence. In addition to the chronological pattern, collective memory describes the geographical framework of society by creating them. The chapter analyzes the practice of determining geographical boundaries of Armenia in the collective memory of Armenians. Using the concept of “places of memory” coined by P. Nora, this chapter determines markers and geographical points as defined in the collective memory of Armenia residents as their own. The chapter presents the results of observations carried out by the author during the research made in 2014, as well as discursive analysis of memorial places from Armenian travel site as data that represent collective memory to the outsiders as informational messages. In conclusion, the author raises the question of the effective model of collective memory adopted in the name of societal development.

Where Does Europe End?

Modernization that resulted in contemporary European society has been an attractive goal for Russian officials who proclaimed European values as an important part of Russian identity. But the North Caucasus, which is a specific part of Russia, does not correspond these “European standards.” The patron-client system of governance for the North Caucasus, and the disconnection that it creates between the people who live in the region and Moscow, represents the wider attitude of Russian elites, cultural commentators, and policymakers toward the region. “The Caucasian archaism” has been common discourse for characteristic of the North Caucasus among central and regional elites. This “applied archaic” and military rhetoric has to explain political particularism and ineffectiveness of reforms in the North Caucasus. In fact, dealing with Moscow, post-modern Europe deals with Russian modern society which consists of pre-modern subjects and mechanisms of political communication that complicates both international communication and effective collaboration.

Monuments to Heroes or Construction of Memory About the April Uprising of 2010 in the Kyrgyz Republic (Kyrgyzstan)

This chapter deals with the events of April 7th, 2010 in Kyrgyzstan, which are officially referred to as the second revolution against authoritarianism, when 86 demonstrators were shot in front of the governmental house (White House) in Bishkek. The official position is depicted regarding April 7th and the monuments to the fallen demonstrators on the basis of the Presidential speeches and opinions of academics and students as well as the materials from internet forums as a mirror of public perception.

The Polish Problem in the Soviet-American Relations (1944-1945)

The chapter is an attempt to analyze the Polish problem and its influence on the development of Soviet-American and Russian-Ukrainian relations. The Polish problem consists of two parts: firstly, the question of territorial claims of the Soviet power concerning Western Ukraine and Western Belarus (the territory of Poland till 1939); secondly, the return of the Polish government-in-exile to Warsaw and its recognition as the only legitimate government. The chapter examines the evolution of the US position, which was caused by the logic of development, and not by the change of the state leader, as it is commonly believed. The presence of the Soviet army on the territory of Poland has created objective difficulties in the return of the Polish territories and the comeback of the Polish government from emigration. Despite pressure from the multi-million Polish diaspora, American presidents could not resist the will of the Soviet Union and were forced to abandon further disputes. The history that became a reality in 2014 in Ukraine led to an unprecedented war of memories.

Development of Slovak Public Diplomacy in the Post-Independence Period

The chapter is devoted to the history of public diplomacy development in Slovakia after independence. The process is seen non-linear and can be divided into two stages. The first stage covers a period since joining Slovakia the EU, and public diplomacy is characterized by using traditional methods of cultural diplomacy, advocacy, international broadcasting. At this stage, public diplomacy practices were a reflection of national debates over the European identity. The second stage lasts from 2001 to the present day and focuses on new approaches to the country promotion (e.g., nation branding). Public diplomacy activities were influenced mainly by efforts of the Slovak government to reinvent the national identity during this period. As it is discussed, Slovakia should invest more in cultural and digital diplomacy nowadays, so it could help the Slovaks not only improve relations with neighbors, but also contribute to the development of their national identity.