A/HRC/25/49 C. Political agendas in the battlefield of memory 18. The commemoration of tragic events, during or following conflict, including long afterwards, involving public art and the mobilization of collective memory, can convey messages of peace, recognition, reconciliation and community solidarity, but also in too many cases self-victimization, thirst for revenge and martyrdom. The political, educational and even aesthetics challenges are significant. 19. Memorials address issues that can be very divisive. States and other stakeholders must decide which particular narrative to promote (specific/exclusive or inclusive of plural narratives); at which point in time (immediately following events or after several generations) and for how long; where exactly (an authentic site, a public place visible to all on a daily basis or in a less central area requiring a proactive decision to pay a visit); and for which purpose and following which process (who should be consulted and on what exactly, who funds the project, how much autonomy should designers enjoy). Such issues may be particularly controversial in societies which have seen international or internal conflicts; post-colonial societies, including those which have experienced slavery; societies challenged by divisions based on ethnic, national or linguistic backgrounds, religion or political ideology; and societies in which indigenous peoples, minorities or other groups have been excluded from the memorialization processes. 20. These matters can only be decided on a case-by-case basis. From a human rights perspective, what counts is creating conditions that allow a “broadly located, mobile, multilayered and interactive dialogical truth”11 to emerge, meaning a debate on past events and actions that enables society to overcome “completely separate and unrecognized accounts of what happened”12 so as to move forward and develop more peaceful relationships. Narratives, whether historical or memorial, are always a viewpoint and communities are never monolithic blocs. The central issue is how to ensure that people hear the story of others and learn to recognize their common humanity. 21. In memorialization processes, some actors may use the battlefield of memory to further their own agendas, imposing definitions of perpetrators and heroes and establishing categories of victims. This often leaves some victims in the shadow; it can create victim hierarchies, carries the risk of generating a competition in victimhood and may also provide some contemporary groups with “an endless line of credit”.13 22. Memorials may be deployed to mobilize against the enemies of today and of the future, for example nationalist propaganda that manipulates symbols and revitalizes emotions from the past in which “memories of humiliation inspire the desire for revenge and are used to justify further aggression based on any historical or ancestral right.”14 Examples of such political manipulation around memorialization abound. In many regions, memory has become an intense battlefield, with opposing sides investing heavily in memorialization to justify their moral, legal and ideological superiority. 23. Memorials may also serve as places of pride and celebration of past crimes for radical groups. This can be the case, for example, of burial sites of war criminals, in particular when no reference, explanation or historical perspective is provided in relation to the crimes committed, through a plaque or nearby museum. Such cemeteries become further politicized by visits of high-ranking governmental officials. 11 12 13 14 6 Albie Sachs, The Soft Vengeance of a Freedom Fighter, (Berkeley, California, University of California Press, 2000). Ibid. Tzvetan Todorov, Les abus de la mémoire, (Paris, Arléa, 2004) pp. 56 and 57. Emmanuel Kattan, Penser le devoir de mémoire, (Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, 2002).