adam b. ellick
How Shared are "Shared Values?"
Published: July 12, 2004 Printer-Friendly Format
The Jerusalem Report
By Adam B.Ellick
Admission to NATO and the European Union topped the agenda for the sleepy Baltic States of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia from after the curtain came down on communism in 1991 until this spring, when they were officially received into both alliances.
In addition to its military requirements, NATO insists candidate countries demonstrate a high standard of treatment of national ethnic and religious minorities, which, in the Baltics means mainly Russians and Jews. Holocaust confrontation was one of the top five bilateral issues for the United States, which sets the tone in NATO.
"Shared values," a NATO buzz-phrase, required these infant democracies to redress their shameful Holocaust history in the form of property restitution, vigilance against anti-Semitism, education, commemoration, and the prosecution of Nazi war criminals. These are especially heated topics, considering that the extent of local collaboration with the Nazis was higher in the Baltics than anywhere else, and the fact that 94 percent of Baltic Jews perished, the highest number anywhere.
The Baltic States have blatantly refused to face their past forthrightly. Most Balts are ignorant of their nations' major roles in the tragedy. Nevertheless, a limited degree of "shared values" evolved, thanks to subtle NATO pressure. The following tentative steps were taken, but they hardly inspire long-term confidence:
In January 2002, Lithuania ended a six-year dispute by handing more than 300 Torah scrolls salvaged from pre-Holocaust synagogues to representatives of world Jewry. The gift, valued at $ 4 million, was a far cry from 1996, when the National Library in Vilnius had refused to hand over the scrolls, falsely claiming that Lithuanian Jews had a tradition of donating them to the state. The gift was mentioned in virtually every negotiation with NATO, and it certainly strengthened Lithuania's case. Lithuania also launched a seemingly credible Holocaust education program, deemed "ambitious" by the then-U.S. ambassador. A deeper investigation, however, revealed nothing more than a few lectures for military personnel, and a total of nine classroom hours for seventh-12th graders. Hardly impressive, considering that Vilnius was more than 50 percent Jewish in 1939.
Also in 2002, the municipality of the Latvian capital, Riga, retracted its refusal to mention local collaborators in the inscription on a monument memorializing 27,000 Jews killed by the notoriously vicious Latvian Nazi Police murder squad. When international pressure mounted, the Monument Council held an emergency meeting and opted for the truth. The U.S. ambassador commented: "How sad that anyone in today's free and democratic Latvia would excuse this kind of crime by saying 'it was a complicated time' or the executioners 'were not volunteers.'" What's more, a soldiers' association that had marched in Riga annually since 1988 to commemorate Latvians who fought alongside the Nazis, decided against a procession in 2002. It openly admitted that this was because the anticipated commotion could damage Latvia's NATO bid. Although some youth organizations marched in 2003, there was no official procession - again due to NATO fears. But this year, the association was back marching as usual. And the same group has also recently created a Latvian SS Veterans Cemetery, honoring those killed while fighting alongside the Nazis.
In Estonia, just three months before the NATO vote and after two years of stalling, the cabinet in August 2002 created a Holocaust Day commemorating the Holocaust and other genocides, as well as the mass deportations of Estonians by Soviets to Siberia (though the latter was by no means a genocide). An editorial in an Estonian paper said: "The Estonian government has changed its stance overnight, as a previous minister of education stated 'the Holocaust topic has been adequately covered in school textbooks.'" However, an Internet poll conducted by the nation's most prestigious newspaper revealed 93 percent opposed the commemoration. Six months earlier, the U.S. Ambassador angered the public by publishing an op-ed piece reproaching Estonians for keeping silent about war crimes, and for passiveness in investigating local collaboration.
With NATO and EU leverage now weakened, it remains to be seen if the changes resulting from the pressure will prove enduring. Western diplomats say that the baby-steps, however reluctantly taken, may have a gradual trickle-down effect on the masses. Baltic leaders insist the moves are sincere and deny they were motivated by a desire to appease the West. But it's impossible to ignore the previous reluctance, and the hasty turnabout and the extreme discontent it has incited amongst the citizenry. It's permissible for a society to oppose property restitution - a financial issue, with quantitative limits. But when a public opposes a Holocaust commemoration, or when officials refuse to inscribe the truth on a monument, it makes one wonder about the values of the West's newest allies.
If only some of the funds and energies poured into Holocaust education in America were invested in the lands where the Holocaust occurred. To hope the Balts will carry their own weight would be foolish, considering they've rarely demonstrated motivation without self-interest, and most remain shockingly and willingly ignorant of their own Holocaust history.