 Yes, so thank you, Oriol, thank you, Philippe, thank you Mario, and welcome to our speakers to the last panel of today, Markus and Markus Brutsch and Aurora Eilinkai. The last panel of today will be on the European Memory Initiative and developments in 2021. Just two words on our speakers. Markus Brutsch is a senior investigator and administrator at the European Parliament responsible for culture and education policies and associate professor of modern and contemporary history at Heidelberg University in Germany. He has a PhD from the European University Institute in Florence, and his main fields of interest are European political and constitutional history, political theory and philosophy comparative research on democracy and dictatorship memory and identity studies. So, his presentation will focus on the European Memory Initiative and developments in 2021, in particular legal initiatives, but also include some reflections on existing challenges for European memory and view of Black Lives Matter, for instance, and other internationalization tendencies in Eastern Europe and the legal persecution of memorial in Russia. So, as far as our second speaker is concerned, Aurora Eilinkai, she's the executive director of the Council of Europe observatory on history teaching Europe. She's currently in a educational sciences at the University of Strasbourg. She has a master's degree in political science and European studies at Sturgeon University in Paris. And her presentation will be focused on the raison d'être of the observatory on history teaching in Europe, and willing to the presentation of this new body of the Council of Europe. So, I'll add the floor to the first speaker, Markus, and then to Aurora. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Deborah, for your kind words of introduction and a big thank you to the organizers of today's conference for having me again. And I'm glad to talk about how I see recent developments of memory policies in Europe, but also beyond. Since after all, also Europe is not isolated from the rest of the world and there are clear interaction also in terms of memory policies at the global scale. If you allow, I will try to share my screen with you. So, let's see whether this works. I hope you can see my PowerPoint. Oh, super. So, what I had intended to do is to start with a few words of introduction reflection on recent developments, then really try to categorize perhaps those developments. So, what are what I consider key trends of memory politics and here I consciously use the term politics rather than policies in Europe, but also beyond. Before dealing briefly with the actions or rather reactions of the European Union and the European Parliament in particular, before finishing with a short outlook, a more personal one. So, let me start with what I called an introduction, and maybe with a question. Namely, do we see what might be called a repoliticization of history, and a return of what we might call politics of the past, meaning that the past that history and the memory thereof is consciously used for political purposes. I could argue that are certain developments that really well seem to corroborate this claim. If we are thinking about tendencies in Russia, for example, where I mean nostalgia about the Stalinist past has been ever present but we are more recently also the state societies are consciously trying to revise history, including by means of attacking a Memorial International, one of the best established organizations in the world dealing with totalitarian pasts, but not to forget the Black Lives Matter movement which has become a global movement to understand how intrinsic also structural and systemic racism is in western societies. But one could argue that even in countries like Germany, which for long has been considered as a prime example how people should deal with history in a critical manner. There are tendencies of revisionist nature, more recently, for example, the idea that the Federal Republic had never existed and that there is a direct link between the former German Empire, and which would have never ended so you see clearly that even in Germany there are tendencies that ask for a revision, at least of the way how history is dealt with. Do we really see such a return of politics of the past? Well, I would argue, maybe it's becoming more active, it's becoming more vocal, but it has always been there. It's nothing that has ever been away. And this is also simply true to the fact that historical memory is not the same as historical truth. That's something we should always keep in mind, so meaning it was always up for contestation. It's an issue of subjectivity and value judgments in the end. And history and memory thereof has always also a functional role, which means there is this ever present, like the openness to politicization of history. So politicians will always be tempted to somehow use, or even abuse, history for particular purposes, even if they might be of a very noble kind. Having said that, I just might want to repeat also for myself and for all of us also why history has become so ever present, especially at national level. Simply because historical memory is always intrinsically correlated also with nation and state building. And it is characterized also by very specific and sometimes selective references to the past, which makes for a broader public impact of such memory, which also helps to essentialize and simplify history in a way that you really manage to approach a broader audience than just trained historians. But automatically by doing that, there is this imminent tendency to always elevate national history, and sometimes also to create myths about it. So with that said, let me turn now what I consider recent developments in terms of memory policies in Europe, but also beyond as I said, and here I could identify a few trends, so to say. One of the things that I see in recent years, and in particular also 2021, that the issues of inequality and systemic racism have become problematized in the way, maybe more intensively than before. And here I can mention again what I already did before the Black Lives Matter movement. You see that those new dealing with inequality and racism has sometimes led to a very confrontational status of history. And I quote here the example of the United States, where you see that the 69 project I'm not sure how many of you are familiar with it with the New York Times project, trying to argue that actually the founding moment of the United States of America is not so much 1776 as we all assume, but rather 1619 the moment when the first slaves were brought to the North American continent. But this drive for a more critical dealing with racism in the United States was almost immediately countered during the Trump administration still by the so called 1776 Commission, a very official commission that the main task of which was actually to show that it's not true. The true founding moment is still 1776. And there is nothing like systemic racism in the United States. And you can see the political nature of this conflict by the fact that the 1776 Commission was abandoned on 20 January. And here the very moment that Joe Biden, the new president assumed office. So on the very first day in office he abandoned that commission we chose also the, well, genuinely political character also of dealings with history. The only trend that I can see is that colonial and post-colonial controversies are resurfacing. And here I'm just quoting one example, a recent one, France and the Algerian war. This was once by President Macron, for example, acknowledging also that the dealings with the hard keys, the supporters of the French government during that war, that more attention needs to be paid to them, but also sending a message to Algerian that the colonial past cannot be an excuse for political failings in the present of those states, which created, of course, an outcry on the Algerian side saying that France has not yet overcome its colonial past and so forth. So we see also here, maybe again, strong controversies around the issue of colonialism. A third trend I have witnessed recently is the attempt to reform history education and in particular history curricular in a neo-nationalistic way. Again, to try to interpret history in a very national and nationalistic manner and trying rather to forget about European or global dimensions. And here I'm quoting just the example of Poland, where the ambition is to rewrite the history curriculum to put a stronger focus on a more nation and religion centric history teaching again, then is currently the case. And secondly, what I see also and this is maybe the most troubling development is the conscious suppression also of critical dealings with troubled pasts and here Russia is certainly a key example with the harassment of Memorial International. So I think really to try to rewrite history by getting rid of organizations that are attempting to critically deal with those histories and especially totalitarian pasts. Of course, you could add maybe more developments. This is more like what I consider the main developments that I hope they provide you with an idea of where I see that currently most of the memory fights are currently ongoing. What are the actions or other reactions of the European Union to those developments? Well, in that sense, again, it's maybe good to recapitulate what are the imperatives so to say of European memory policies. I think we are all not so naive to believe that of course memory policies are just done for the sake of trying to get a better understanding of the past. But it's also about generating political legitimacy for the European Union and the European project and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, but I think it's worthwhile also just to keep that in mind. It's about fostering something like European identity. In these context and as you are also aware, there are traditional reference points in that context European cultural heritage, the Second World War and European integration process, as such as we just heard celebrating also like crucial documents in that European integration process. Then we have the more specific reference point since the 1990s, which still play a predominant role, also in the new program, as we heard this morning, namely the Holocaust and more generally 20th century totalitarianisms in the plural. The activities of the EU and the European Parliament in particular have traditionally been focused on the one hand on awareness raising political activities and initiatives. So supporting the Holocaust Remembrance Day becoming established throughout Europe, establishing the European Day of Remembrance for victims of Stalinism and Nazism the 23rd of August, but also different resolutions the latest big one being in 2019 at the occasion of the 28th anniversary of the beginning of the Second World War, the IP resolution on the importance of European remembrance for the future of Europe. So here also clearly linking that dealing with the past is crucial not just for the present but also for the future of our continent and the European Union in particular. A very important role plays the previous Europe for Citizens program that is now luckily continued in form of the CERF program, but you can also see the advocacy of the European Parliament and the European institutions in general for the European Year of Cultural Heritage as a sign how important history and the memory thereof is at European level and of course I should mention the establishment and the further development of the House of European History, including the Jean Monnet House, which is kindly hosting also today's event. Having said that, it's important to keep in mind that maybe what appears as a more or less coherent memory policy and strategy of the European Union and the European Parliament is not always like that and that there are also failed initiatives in the past and I mentioned one time that in 2013 there was the attempt to go for a parliament resolution on historical memory and culture and education in the European Union, so to say to agree on how we should deal with history in the fields of culture and education. And this initiative already failed at committee stage simply due to the lack of any cross-party agreement and missing maturities for any possible solution, so it shows that still history continues to be a very contested thing even at the level of the European Union. What are now current EP initiatives and actions to give you an idea what is really currently ongoing? Research has been commissioned on European memory and adequate ways of dealing with troubled past at supranational level by the European Parliament, why to prepare a planned 2022 own initiative report on European historical consciousness. So the attempt and could argue to try again almost 10 years after that failed initiative, which I mentioned, whether something like a European policy statement on historical consciousness can be established at the EP level. At the same time there is a clear public reputation of misrepresentations of European and national histories and the defense of independent historical research and the critical collective memory. I mentioned two examples here, there was a letter exchange between the chair of the cult committee in this case and the Polish Minister of Education on the plant a curricular reform in Poland, in which also the European Parliament asked for clarification what does it mean, like going back to a more nationalistic history, does it mean what role does Europe still play and and very recently the public reputation in an open letter to the Russian authorities criticizing the legal prosecution of Memorial International which is currently undergoing and published soon. So these are like some of the actions and initiatives that are currently ongoing at that level. That brings me to to my last slide to an outlook. How do I see a European memory politics and especially policies developing in the future. Well, there will be this ever present gulf between history on the one hand and politics on the other which is almost hard to breach in the sense of that while history is in the end about trying to find evidence. Politics is in the end also about power and there will always be this contestation also at European level. What I still see is a bit of a discrepancy between aspiration and reality in the sense of like what what policy documents but also the programs that are in place are actually asking and the reality we are facing every day in Europe, where we see that history is very actively used and abused for very concrete political purposes, especially by some member states. That we are still facing the fact that we, there is not one single memory frame in Europe, but rather they are different competing memory frames, where different elements play a different role for different nations in Europe. Of course, our remembrance is still characterized also by teleology. Usually the idea that we are aiming for something better than the past was. And also to a degree of reductionism in the sense of we try to to reduce our historical memory to very specific moments very specific interpretations and elements. There is the ever present discrepancy between the European and the national level which is still a bit unresolved and which is also corroborated by misreadings of what European historical memory should be, which some still seem to see oh it's like one memory everyone should be aware why it's really more about trying to to deal with the past in a common way, but also a misreading of European citizenship which is not about creating citizens that think that in a very similar or even the same way, but rather creating critical Europeans. Which is why and this is my set that on Zensio for which I have argued for many years, I still see the need to move from a remembrance culture that is focused on what to remember and how to remember, rather as a first step to a culture of remembering to develop tools and that we can exchange critically about the past and that our own ideas get confronted with those of others. And I would say that today's meeting is a very good example for doing exactly that that we meet that we share experiences, share views, and those shared views this multi to use Constanze's term from the beginning allows us also to see things through a European plans. I think I will stop here I thank you for your attention and I'm glad to take any questions you may have. Thank you very much. Okay, thank you. Many thanks to Marcus Brut for his presentation. I think we can go on with our second speaker's presentation and at the end of the panel to take questions to both of them. So Aurora, please. Yes. Yes. So, good day everybody, and I apologize in advance for the quality of the sound I might cut the camera because it cuts already. I cut already two times, since I managed to connect so I have some technical issues. And I'm on my mobile phones and we don't have a wifi in the office in the Council of Europe. So I let a bit the camera so we see me now but I will cut it so it's much easier for me to count on the good connection. If you don't mind so Okay, now. Thank you so much to Marty for this invitation. I am the executive director of the newly established observatory on history teaching in Europe in the Council of Europe and I'm very happy to be with you today knowing that of course as far as I could follow in the discussion. There is a focus very much on the content on the work that is being done and being here for the first time and being invited to introduce to you the observatory on history teaching in Europe. I will have a short presentation that will not bring you so much information on the content of the work of the observatory. And this is for the simple reason that we started to work on the activities on the on the program of the observatory to months ago more or less because we spend the month since the observatory was established on building the structure of the observatory. The observatory on history teaching in Europe is a newly established as I said by the in the Council of Europe fully part of the Council of Europe, but established as an partial agreement. It is a large partial agreement of the Council of Europe and this is for those that don't know this it's a form of cooperation that allows Member States of the Council of Europe to be part of such a cooperation initiatives or not. And being in large partial agreement, it's open to any other country in the world. It could be a European country or from another continent, but that's for the prospect that we have for the observatory something that hopefully will be very interesting to look at in the future. We focus now on the Member States of the Observatory and we have 17 of the Council of Europe Member States already part of the observatory. This initiative was launched during the French presidency of the Committee of Minister in the Council of Europe, and it was adopted during the French presidency and established in November 2020. So I was appointed myself in April this year and we started to function with the governing board, the Scientific Advisory Council, the selection of experts. So the group of experts working also on the activities of the observatory very recently as I said. Deborah, you mentioned a raison d'etre of the observatory at the beginning when we introduced the topic and I'm really sorry I don't have a PowerPoint presentation, but this is again the connection issues. And this makes me just go back to the previous presentation because listening to the previous speaker. I think that many things were mentioned in his presentation and not only the politician will always use and abuse history, but I will go into the main, let's say, reason why we established this observatory and it's really looking at the present time of history, these times of increased challenge, challenges to democracy, and the fact that these challenges are very often connected to the manipulation of history or the distortion of history. And we considered in the Council of Europe or human rights organization that such an observatory is vital in this in these times. The main activity of the observatory will be to have to make a picture of the situation of teaching history of the state of teaching history in the member states. And this is as the president of the board is always underlying a very modest objective. And we start with a very modest objective really to show through concrete data, what's the state of art when it comes to history teaching, because many reports show that there is a direct link between teaching history and the way history is taught and the state of democracy. And basically, it's mainly linked to how the new generation, how the people, the students in school are prepared to be citizens in societies and how they are prepared to preserve and to promote democracy. History education having a very important role in this. And we notice that apart the actors and stakeholders that are very much, I mean that are working in the field and are very familiar with the I mean, it's basically the specialized public, you know, scholars inside that of networks like, you know, some of them that you may know like your or or other of this type. So the state of play it's poorly known by the majority of the European society. And for this reason, the observatory has been mandated to collect all relevant information on the whole chain of teaching from the education establishment and the content of the curricula, the deductive, the status of textbooks and of the schools themselves, the teaching and recruitment of teachers. So the whole education system and down to the margin of maneuver left to the teachers on the pedagogy and teaching material that they use and methods. And to this, of course, also the non formal education. So we will have what we call the regular reports and the first one is planned to be ready by the end of 2023. And, and this reports will be used. The results of this reports will be a very good source of information that will be used by the networks of institution organization, the specialized public, the experts and professionals in the field of history education for further action. In addition to the regular reports that is the main is the main activity of the observatory. We also produce what we call thematic reports and the thematic reports are produced on specific topics that are proposed by the scientific advisory council and approved by the governing board. And the first thematic report will be on pandemics and natural disasters reflected as reflected in history teaching. So that would be a first report due to be published by the end of 2022 next year. And for the thematic reports, we will also, in a way, test the methodology that it's used for the for gathering the data and analyzing the data for the regular reports. So the, the work of the observatory is basically there to support what the Council of Europe does in the intergovernmental project on history education. And this is the project that exists in the Council of Europe for a long while. We started to work in the Council of Europe on this topic in first with basically the adoption of the cultural convention in 1954, but there were a set of projects and programs in the Council of Europe that focused on history education. And the latest project that is now implemented by the Education Department in the Council of Europe is very much, of course, corresponding also to the objectives that we have with the observatory on history teaching. Our first public event took place last week. It was a promotional exercise, first of all, so we planned to speak about the about the observatory to the public to make it known to bring around the table possible partners. I see that my camera is moving, but okay, now it's working. So possible partners and here is where we met with the Jamone House and we launched formally what we call a cooperation platform or a cooperation hub. So the idea is that at least once per year that we organize a big forum in which all the institutions, organizations, intergovernmental and non-governmental institution will have a forum of discussion in which the state of history teaching will be discussed but also the most burning topics that are related to it and the impact history education can have, of course, in our societies. I will stop here and if you have any questions I will be happy to answer and I promise that in the next meeting there will be much more to say about the observatory because I wanted to be brief and just introduce you to the observatory. But next year we will have more to say in terms of content of the work, the results of the work of the observatory and especially also the content of these reports that we just launched some weeks ago. Thank you very much. And thank you again, Marty, for the invitation and sorry for the connection problems. You're welcome. Many thanks for these very interesting presentations. So I open the floor if someone of the attendees have a question for one or both the speakers. You can simply speak or rise in the chat. Maybe I'll jump in first like last time just because then I think last time it had a good effect that then there were more questions after. Well, thank you very much to both Marcus and Aurora. It was just great as we expected. We're not of course mistaken in asking you both to present extremely interesting topics. You gave like a really, really broad overview and that's just what we needed this kind of like also refreshing perspective. As I said at the beginning after the dryness maybe but also important of course of the facts and figures and specs that we saw more clearly in the first session. That is precisely the goal of this meeting to reunite both dimensions in one single event. I have one specific concern in general, not just today but it's about the geographical scope of our actions in general. So there was a question about that earlier on I think it was with regards I think we all asked about the scope of the program, the surf program of the commission asking if non EU member states were eligible. Well, it goes in that direction I question. I think unfortunately that that the geographical scope of the different initiatives is still very uneven. And of course because of the institutional membership and I could not be otherwise. But at the same time, we are in need of doing of sending a message that is valid for all the continent, you know, regardless of membership of institutional arrangements etc. Maybe, I mean it can be also a question to Marcus but more specifically in more practical terms also to Aurora. I would like to know how she sees that the precisely the potential for complementarities in this respect between the Council of Europe and the EU institutions. I'm just going to just bring in like an element that we haven't discussed until now, maybe I was sitting in for the conclusions without saying now is that I think we have one piece of good news is that in the last European Parliament Bureau approved a new distinction for European democracy sites and luckily in the direction it is not just for EU member states, but also for states that belong to to the neighborhood policy the EU neighborhood policy. I think it's it's it's one step in that direction, maybe not enough, maybe we need much more, but I would like to know what you, how you see this this question both in, let's say conceptual and practical terms. Thank you. I can just mention something briefly, again with apologies because I didn't follow the whole discussion but, but we did look into different initiatives before even we had our annual conference last week. And, and especially with the EU when it comes to the European Parliament or with the European Commission, of course we consider European Union as a very important partner. And that's also illustrated in in our status of the observatory where the EU and UNESCO are mentioned specifically but other international organizations as well in the governmental organization that can either cooperate directly with the observatory requesting observer status or to be member or through concrete cooperation in the activities that are developed by the observatory. Now, definitely the interest of the observatory in history teaching is to have as many partners as possible. It comes to the dissemination of the results of the reports but also on the follow up actions when the reports will be ready. So if for the reports we have quite specific methodology with different layers that will ensure objectivity to gather the data and analyze the data from the member states transparency, of course, but, but with the scientific advisory council which is an independent body overseeing the work of the observatory also to have the academic rigor academic support and methodological, of course, quality of the works. So at this level, I think that there is still place for cooperation because in the methodology when data for the reports are gathered by the different experts, there might be different approaches proposed by external partners or simply we may need to have a partnership with structures that are directly working with the student associate association or parents association because different approaches and point of view should be also be reflected in this, in these reports. This is a more specific type of cooperation that I wouldn't go into discussing now because it demands a separate discussion with the with our scientific advisory council, the experts, etc. But for the cooperation that is needed on the results of the reports and the follow up to these results it's a nation of the reports and any action that should be taken afterwards. As I mentioned before we launched this informer platform for cooperation that we want to develop more next year, and vice president skinners of the commission was present in our annual conference last week, and he kindly announced political support from the European commission for the works of the observatory, including a financial support that is foreseen already in the Erasmus plus project. So we now explore this how this can be done in such a way that all the existing existing initiatives because there are so many are so supported by the commission and being already either under development or proposed for financing next year or in the next year. So we want to first of all avoid any overlap with what exists already, but build freely on the actions that are complemented with the observatories work and can combine this intergovernmental approach that we have in the Council of Europe with the observatory and intergovernmental also actions that we can see in different projects or different partnerships between academia between museums between any non governmental organization that work that works on on history education. So, just to summarize Marty for the for the question I think that there are many perspective for cooperation. We hope that with the launching of a joint project between the observatory on the European Commission, many of them will be let's say scanned at least so we know what exists and where we can cooperate. But you are very present in the in this hub for cooperation I think we bring a lot because you could also propose or tell us, as you did last week in the meeting of course, how we can move on together on this. What is that important is to know that we are very open for this and definitely consider cooperation with the other organization, very important. Deborah may I just come in also briefly because I think Marty raised a really important conceptually she just wanted to follow up on what Aurora was referring to that I think a better or a wider geographical scope of European historical memory initiatives I think is absolutely important. I mean, especially since what does this geographical imbalance tell us and the imbalance exists already within the European Union that it might reflect also fundamentally different understandings of history and memory and I think the Brexit was a very good example for that and one of the reasons why I think you know the Brexit happened was also fundamentally different interpretation of the role of what Europe is what European integration project is about. So I think it's important also in a very selfish interest of the Union to widen the scope and I think the Council of Europe is an obvious target in that sense that at least you go to those countries that are not yet or no longer both members of the European Union to be included but while doing that we should also not forget that replacing nationalism by Eurocentrism alone is also not the solution in other words, we should also always keep also the global context in mind. I don't really see a risk for that but obviously, you know, we also have to keep in mind Europe is also only part of the world an important one, especially historically, but also simply one part of many, many others. Many thanks. Anybody else from the from the attendees from the participants. Any question for our last panel, or in general, also, or the other. Maybe just I have a proposal maybe just to break the ice a little bit. We have like basically 15 minutes that that should be for conclusions but I think it might be more just to devote these 15 minutes to have like a conversation and just to also invite everybody and all the other just to also to jump in and to react to what has been said to do just a more lively because I think maybe, of course, this is extremely interesting and I'm, I wrote down things for my conclusions that actually more than conclusions are like just invitations to further discussion so then I don't think it's fair that I say those things, you know, and then, then it's the end of the conference and they cannot, they cannot be a reaction. So, maybe I'm just going to, to say what I wanted to say both as as conclusions as and maybe response to, to, to, to Marcus and Aurora for for their extremely interesting answer now. And then I would like to maybe to invite the persons I mentioned but also all the other participants to have more like more like maybe spontaneous interventions or like maybe short statements and again invitations to continue that in other, in other settings.