Institutionalisation of post-unification reconciliation in Germany

Institutionalisation of post-unification reconciliation in a united Germany - An interview with Dr. Kaminsky

 

Sven Horak, November 1st, 2009

Institute of East Asian Studies, IN-EAST (www.in-east.de)

 

Dr. Kaminsky is Managing Director of the Federal Foundation for the Reconciliation of the SED Dictatorship (German: Bundesstiftung zur Aufarbeitung der SED-Diktatur), agovernment-funded organisation which was established by the German parliament in 1998. The Foundation has 30 employees (consolidated) who are engaged in domestic and international projects. Its purpose is to assess the history of the socialist regime of the German Democratic Republic (GDR) and the rule of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany (German: Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands – SED), as well as its impact on the now reunified Germany.

 

 

What are the major tasks of the Federal Foundation for the Reconciliation of the SED Dictatorship?

 

Our mission is quite comprehensive. Broadly speaking our contribution is done by research on history, cause and effect of the dictatorship in the soviet occupied zone, and the German Democratic Republic. We support to overcome the division and to strengthen the anti-totalitarian consensus within society as well as the democratic consciousness. In addition to that, we support and actively participate in the reconciliation of dictatorships on an international level. We are also asked to support academic research and the victims of the dictatorship.

 

When and on which initiative was the Federal Foundation founded?

 

It was founded in 1998 as a successor organisation of the two Enquête-Commissions of the Parliament of Germany, seeking the reconciliation of history and the consequences of the SED Dictatorship, which were being active between 1992 and 1998. They made an appraisal of what was known about the GDR, what was known about the dictatorship, and what consequences should follow. Besides others, one result was a recommendation by the Enquête-Commission to establish a foundation that actively supports the dialogue within society. We organise own projects and we work with several other organisations together in order to support for instance exhibitions, events, conferences or publications to name just a few fields of our work. But we understand our role in the first place as a kind of service and information provider. One example is a project we call ‘Memorial places of communist dictatorship’. This is a database currently filled with 6000 places all over the world, such as memorial places and museums that remember dictatorship and victims.

 

Do you also consult or support other countries in the area of reconciliation?

 

Well, we try to propagate the model we represent as a foundation. For example, especially in countries of the former Soviet bloc in Eastern Europe we experienced that the ones who strive to throw light on the past face difficulties in acquiring financial resources for their projects. The reason is that on the one hand structures still tend to be predominantly post-communist. On the other hand civil thinking and structures simply do not really exist. Some countries are depended on funds from the US which in turn let them appear suspect to the general society. An institution like ours, which was founded to act politically independent without any political control, is, according to our opinion, a very promising model.

 

Does the foundation also take care about personal tragedies or crimes that happened under the SED rule in the GDR?

 

Only to a lesser extend. We are no criminal investigation agency. The legal prosecution in Germany has been officially completed since 2001/2, whether successful or not can be discussed, though. In the case that in the frame of our projects we would face issues that are relevant in so far as they were penal we would certainly include the persecutors office as long as the case had not become time-barred. But we as foundation are neither a criminal investigation nor a persecution office. Other countries take different approaches. For example the Polish Institute of National Remembrance (Polish: Instytut Pamięci Narodowej – IPN) which is headquartered in Warsaw. In the first place this institution files and administrates documents on crimes which have been committed to the Polish society during World War II, and under the Soviet rule. Besides reconciliation, crimes are actively prosecuted, too. This model consolidates all these aspects, but this is not the approach we take.

 

Since the fall of the Berlin wall 20 years have passed. Hasn’t the interest on what happened during the SED dictatorship in the GDR disappeared meanwhile?

 

According to our experience the opposite development actually is taking place. We have observed an increasing demand for inner-German historical information for approximately ten years. In the past, people used to argue that this subject would not appeal anymore. Media rejected broadcasting documentaries on the past in general. It was in 1999 when the public recognition changed. Our first documentary was about a military jail in the GDR. That was just unimaginable that beside the regular justice system a military justice system existed in parallel, which was able to act independently to existing regulations. The reporting on that case was the first documentary we made and which was offered to the broadcasters who all rejected to broadcast it; except of one TV station, that showed it quite late and far away from the prime time. However, to all of our surprise, the film became the most watched historical documentary in the transmission area at that time. It had more than one million viewers and a viewing rate of 20%. Since that contribution broadcasters have changed their minds. We seldom had difficulties to accommodate our reports on TV. Even broadcasters started contacting us asking if there was new material available to show. In addition to this, the broadcasting time changed. The films were shown closer to the prime time. Moreover, the demand for other sources of information, such as events and publications, is constantly rising. Generally speaking we see rather an increase in information demands on inner-German historical topics than a decline.

 

With which topics and regions is the Federal Foundation mostly confronted in its international work?

 

That’s quite diverse. The German history of division does not play a big role in our international work since most features are basically well-known to foreign interest groups. If it comes to an information exchange then only on subjects that are known to a lesser extend, for example, on how the secret services have worked together; or how GDR refugees were treated. The Bulgarian border, for instance, was an easier-to-overcome border. It was generally known that if one makes it to Bulgaria it was easy to escape to the West. However, latest research found out that the Bulgarian border in reality was the most intensively guarded one. By the same token, most people who tried to flee were arrested at that border. One reason was that the locals were financially rewarded for turning a GDR refugee to the authorities. These are subjects that are lesser known and about which information exchange is taking place. Furthermore, the topic of how to cope with this history is frequently discussed. Which models exist? Why do some countries talk about it, why others do not? Another characteristic that can be found in other post-communist countries is that the former political parties turned from communists to democrats or socialists but at the same time are just continuing their relationships with the same persons. Albania is a special example. The former communist party was separated into two wings, a conservative and social-democratic wing. Actors were not exchanged and oppositional forces face relatively big difficulties to raise their voices. Interestingly, a state role model for Albania was rather China under Mao, which gained increased popularity after the country initially followed the Soviet Union, for a shorter period of time.

 

Is the situation in Korea of special interest for the Federal Foundation?

 

Yes, it is. For us it is very interesting to observe how a divided nation prepares for a possible unification based on an unpredictable future. We experienced in Germany in 1989 ourselves that future projects were extremely unclear. Even in the morning of November 9^th no one could imagine that in the evening of the same day the wall would fall and the boarders were opened.

When talking to the Korean colleagues I have the impression that in some aspects the situation is identical: Neither a change of the actual conditions nor a regime change itself is imaginable in the North. No more than a smooth process of unification is conceivable. Moreover,  fears for the future rise in the case of a possible unification. This is of special interest for us as well as the fact that a state which is comparable to Germany is actively spending efforts on these challenges that might come up in the future.

       

Dr. Kaminsky, thank you for this interview.