人权理事会就历史教学和纪念过程问题举行小组讨论（部分翻译）

人权理事会
上午

2014年9月9日

人权理事会今天上午就历史教学和纪念过程问题举行小组讨论，旨在为分享该领域的良好做法做出贡献。

人权理事会主席波德莱尔•恩东•艾拉（Baudelaire Ndong Ella）表示，小组讨论旨在辨明理解和纪念过去并汲取经验教训的最佳途径。

人权事务副高级专员弗拉维亚•潘谢里（Flavia Pansieri）为讨论开幕。她表示共同历史是各社区珍贵且重要的一部分。与此同时，对过去的解读也可能被歪曲并被用作宣传工具，为冲突复发奠定基础，而非帮助实现相互理解。假如能以尊重和包容不同社区身份与经历的方式为他们从自己的视角再现历史提供空间，那么在人与人、社区与社区之间培养理解并发展一种激励所有人的共同人性就有可能实现。

在介绍讨论专家前，文化权利领域特别报告员兼讨论主持人法丽达•沙希德（Farida Shaheed）女士表示，作为文化遗产，历史和回忆叙述对身份塑造来说极为关键，且过去永远会受到解读、讨论和再次解读的影响。确保对过去叙述的多元性对冲突后社会来说尤为关键，它会帮助我们看到共同的人类身份认同和受害者。此外，这对可持续的和解进程来说也十分关键。

塞尔维亚贝尔格莱德大学哲学院历史系教授杜布拉夫卡•斯托亚诺维奇（Dubravka Stojanovic）表示，多观点性是历史教学显而易见的做法，全然遵从单一叙述是不可能的。这意味着让每个人发出声音，集合不同版本的叙述以及对历史事件的解读，从而在课堂中展开讨论，继而改变历史教学的方法——即从记忆一个历史事件到理解他人对该事件的评论和想法。

巴勒斯坦国希伯伦大学教育与教师培训教授萨米•爱德万（Sami Adwan）表示，如1993年的《奥斯陆协定》所载，各方必须修改其教科书，介绍双方的说法，并给予其同等空间和长度。而这一点尚未实现。历史和历史教学不应仅被限制于教室中，还应包括实地访问和采访。培训教师并确保他们能在教学时自如地进行多观点叙述极为重要。

加拿大真相与和解委员会专员玛丽•威尔逊（Marie Wilson）就影响数代加拿大土著儿童的住宿学校体系的历史课本进行了发言。她表示，新的叙述会成为所有加拿大儿童将学到的更为诚实和全面的加拿大历史真相之一部分。政治意愿是这方面的关键。为土著和非土著人民创造共同协作的机会则带来了巨大希望。

寻求真相、司法、赔偿和保证不再发生问题特别报告员巴勃罗•德格列夫（Pablo De Greiff）表示文化干预的有效性取决于它们是否能让人们看到受害者。此外，人们必须更好地了解导致侵害人权现象的原因，并帮助铭记对受害者的亏欠。各国应在财政上支持民间社会发挥作用，为其运作创造条件，确保尊重学术和艺术自由，并进一步努力落实和解委员会的建议。

在讨论中，发言者表示纪念过程和历史教学应激励和解，积极发挥促进和保护人权的补充作用，且不应被用做宣传工具。历史教学应与人权教育紧密结合；它必须被视为实现正义的方式，结合不同行动方的不同经验，承认受害者，并成为过去犯罪永不复发的保障。部分发言者提及了国家在历史教学和纪念过程中的作用，并表示根据人权观点对过去事件展开全面调查是国家义不容辞的责任。各国应通过设立公共空间、允许不同行动方参与和讨论他们对历史事实、历史教学及对历史事件或人物纪念方式的看法。

一部记录戏剧艺术家在和平建设中作用的名为《在世界舞台上共同行动》的纪录短片进行了公映。

下列代表团在对话中进行了发言：代表非洲集团发言的埃塞俄比亚、欧盟、爱尔兰、奥地利、摩洛哥、阿尔及利亚、爱沙尼亚、中国、哥伦比亚、乌拉圭、立陶宛、塞拉利昂、古巴、亚美尼亚、法国、意大利、南非、塞尔维亚、俄罗斯、土耳其、美国、巴西、阿根廷、印度尼西亚、罗马尼亚、以色列、巴基斯坦、越南和卢旺达。

下列非政府组织也进行了发言：巴哈教国际联盟（Baha’i International Community）、南风发展政策协会（Verein Sudwind Entwicklungspolitik）、国际青年和学生拥护联合国运动（International Youth and Student Movement for the United Nations）、现在就要人权组织（Human Rights Now）、大赦国际和希望国际（Hope International）。

理事会今日举行全天会议。中午，理事会将恢复其与老年人享有所有人权问题独立专家罗萨•科恩菲尔德•马特（Rosa Kornfeld-Matte）以及当代形式奴隶制问题特别报告员乌尔米拉•博呼拉（Urmila Bhoola）的集体互动对话。

Opening Statements

BAUDELAIRE NDONG ELLA, President of the Human Rights Council, said that a panel discussion on history teaching and memorialization processes would be held this morning, in order to contribute to the implementation of good practice in that domain. Later today, a declaration would be made by Ms. Aichetou Mint M’Haiham, Commissioner for Human Rights and Humanitarian Action of Mauritania. The aim of this morning’s panel was to identify the best way of understanding and commemorating the past, and to learn from the mistakes.

FLAVIA PANSIERI, Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that a sense of shared history was a precious, vital part of belonging to a community. Narratives of the past, however, could also be distorted and employed as propaganda, and create the illusion that conflict was the natural state between specific groups, laying the ground for repeated conflict instead of allowing for mutual understanding. Societies could reach a shared memory of a troubled past if they worked at it, but how to do that? The importance of historical narratives was evident in the events that led to the war one hundred years ago, World War I. The past guided our understanding of the present and impacted on our future. It may lead to the ability to handle disagreements with harmony and respect or, if mismanaged, to long, bitter, and bloody conflict. If space was provided for different communities to represent perspectives on history with a respectful and inclusive approach to identity and experience, it would be possible to foster understanding between people and communities, and develop a sense of common humanity, which should inspire all.

Most, perhaps all societies faced challenges regarding the way in which they discussed, taught and managed their histories, particularly in countries that had suffered conflict or wars. It was strongly believed that the churning cycle of massive human rights violations, impunity and conflict could be stopped when efforts were made to achieve justice and remedy, by the achievement of truth and respect of human rights for all. Sincere and heartfelt official apologies that acknowledged responsibility for human rights violations could play a vital role in acknowledging victims as right-holders, granting them recognition within the community. It was not always simple to achieve a multi- perspective approach to the past, but even when it was too soon or too painful to reach a shared narrative of what had happened, there could at least be an aim at understanding that there were different views as to how and why certain events had occurred. History constantly informed the present and it was hoped that this morning’s discussion could assist in identifying concrete practices that questioned stereotype practices encoded in existing historical narratives.

FARIDA SHAHEED, Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights and Panel Moderator, said that last year she had released two reports, one focused on history teaching and books and another on museums in which she had tried to identify the manner in which historical narratives by States could be problematic from a human rights perspective. There were battles that were raged in the area of culture and education which prepared the ground for future violence and even revenge. As cultural heritage, historical and memorial narratives were crucial for shaping identities and people constantly strived to validate and make known their own history. At the same time, there were always attempts to challenge predominant narratives of the past. Historical and memorial narratives should foster critical thinking, analytical approach and debate, and in this history teaching and artistic expression were crucial. The past was always subject to interpretation, discussion and re-interpretation. Enabling plurality of the narratives of the past was particularly crucial in post-conflict society as it gave a glimpse to common human identity and made victims visible; it was crucial for sustainable reconciliation processes.

Turning to the panellists, Ms. Shaheed introduced Ms. Stojanovic, professor of history at the University of Belgrade, who, following the 1990s wars in the Balkans, had devoted her energies to determine how best to teach history in particular in the post-conflict societies and stressed that often there was often no common narrative of the past.

Statements by the Panellists

DUBRAVKA STOJANOVIC, Professor, History Department, Faculty of Philosophy, Belgrade University, Serbia, said that the beginning of the World War I had been commemorated in June 2014 and that had been an opportunity to revisit this historical event. Every war was understood as a war of liberation, from one side, and an unjust war of occupation from another side. After wars, dictatorships, decolonisation, in each divided society, there were parallel interpretations which created parallel memories and histories. A Franco-German history book which had been published last year was an example of a common narrative between two States which had been at war; but it was important to say that this book had been published under the political umbrella of the European Union. Following the 1990s wars in the Balkans, coming to a single narrative was not possible and it became clear that multi-perspectivity was an obvious approach to history teaching. This meant giving a voice to everybody and putting together different narratives and interpretations of historical events, with the purpose of opening the discussion in the classroom and so changing the way in which history was taught, from memorising a historical event to understanding what others said and thought about that event.

FARIDA SHAHEED, Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights and Panel Moderator, introducing Mr. Adwan said that he was one of the architects of a bi-national textbook entitled ‘Side by Side,’ written by Israeli and Palestinian teachers. Could he explain a little about the reasons for the book and the approach taken?

SAMI ADWAN, Professor of Education and Teacher Training, Hebron University, State of Palestine, said that as everybody knew, the Oslo Agreements were signed in 1993, and one item said that the sides had to work on their textbooks and modify them in the spirit of the Oslo Agreements. This had not taken place at all. After field research, it was seen that there was complete negligence of the other side, in both narratives. There had been a move to try to introduce both narratives side by side, to give them equal space and length. This was part of democracy and part of realizing how the conflict was influenced.

FARIDA SHAHEED, Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights and Panel Moderator, said the group of teachers involved had worked together for seven years and that they themselves had gone through a painful process, as learning to respect the narrative of the other could be very difficult. Could Mr. Adwan briefly speak about that?

SAMI ADWAN, Professor of Education and Teacher Training, Hebron University, State of Palestine, said that it could have been a post-conflict project but had become an in-conflict programme. It had been very tense and painful for teachers to meet with each other. Each side tried to entrench themselves with their narrative and that was why it had been so hard to move from stage to stage and there had been argument over every word. The most important thing was how to engage teachers within the process. It had been preferred to engage with teachers as part of re-educating and re-qualifying them in order to be able to teach these narratives, rather than in a mono-perspective approach. While the outside world was completely asymmetric, they had tried to create a safety zone for the teachers to feel they were symmetric. All teachers from all sides took freedom, ability and time to write their narratives, with no interference or censorship. It had really been a learning experience, learning lessons that every nation engaging in conflict should learn from. Each narrative had to be allowed to present itself without domination. History and history teaching should not be limited only to classrooms, but include field visits and interviews. A very important thing was training teachers. They should be comfortable in being able to deal with a multi-perspective narrative in the classroom.

FARIDA SHAHEED, Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights, panel moderator, introduced Ms. Wilson as Commissioner of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, which had published, as mandated, a history book on the residential school system which affected many generations of indigenous children of Canada. Could Ms. Wilson explain how this all started? It was not a history of the indigenous people of Canada, but very much a history of Canada.

MARIE WILSON, Commissioner, Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada on residential schools for aboriginal peoples, said that this history in Canada began with a single word: courage. There was this book because there was a Commission, and in turn, there was this Commission because former students of residential schools had determined that what had happened to them was not right. They had gone to the Canadian courts, and a truth and reconciliation Commission had been created. One of its tasks had been to write this history book. It had been targeted to try to capture a part of Canadian history largely unknown by Canadians, largely denied by those who knew of it and by those that had lived it.

FARIDA SHAHEED, Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights and Panel Moderator, said that this was not quite as far back in the past as they would like to imagine. What were the expectations now? Had the silence, the gap of that troubled past actually been brought to light? How could this book help in the reconciliation process?

MARIE WILSON, Commissioner, Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada on residential schools for aboriginal peoples, said that part of the challenge of education was both formal and informal. As people came to know about it, there was a growing sense that something had gone wrong. It had left a great deal of traumatic consequences in individuals and communities and created a distorted relationship, or no relationship at all, between the indigenous and non-indigenous peoples of Canada. It was hoped that as people came to know more, attitudes would shift. It was the beginning of a new narrative and what would make a difference was that it would not just be something that would be taught to indigenous peoples about themselves, but become part of a more honest and wholesome truth about the history of Canada that all Canadian children would learn. The key was political will. There had been progress where there had been leadership at the level of ministers and premiers. The great hope was in creating opportunities for indigenous and non-indigenous persons to work together, using music and song and other forms of expression, so that there was a way in for everyone.

FARIDA SHAHEED, Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights and Panel Moderator, introduced Mr. Pablo de Greiff as the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence.

PABLO DE GREIFF, Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence, described contributions that cultural interventions could make to the cause of transitional justice. He welcomed that a number of courts and truth reconciliation commissions had included cultural aspects, for example by sponsoring forms of memorials, museums or artistic events. He said that the effectiveness of cultural interventions relied on whether they made victims visible. Cultural interventions had to give a better understanding on causes of human rights violations, and help remember debts to victims. States’ intervention was about the place given to the past. With regards to the role of States in this regard, the Special Rapporteur said that States had to support the role of civil society organizations, financially but also by enabling conditions for them to operate and ensuring respect for academic and artistic freedoms. States should support memorialization, making sure that the independence of those organizing exhibitions was guaranteed. States should also take much more seriously the reports of reconciliation commissions and put more efforts into implementing their recommendations.

Discussion

Ethiopia, speaking on behalf of the African Group, said that memorial processes and history teaching should stimulate reconciliation and positively complement the promotion and protection of human rights. European Union said that history teaching should not be used as an instrument of propaganda, and that cultural diversity could not be used to deny the universality of human rights. European Union asked how to make sure that gender equality was more incorporated in reconciliation processes. Ireland said that it had provided support to community groups to challenge the concept of separate history. History teaching should be integrated closely with human rights education. Austria underlined the significance of developing common narrative on a country’s or region’s history as well as the importance of integrating civil society organizations.

Morocco said that no one had the monopoly on writing history and stressed the importance of transitional justice to break from the past and take the path of democracy and the rule of law. There was no durable peace without justice, and no justice without memory. Teaching history was crucial to honour victims and recognize violations; they must be conceived as a path to justice and be a guarantee of non-recurrence of the crimes of the past, said Algeria. Estonia said that sadly, too often historical arguments were used as reasoning for human rights violations and this must stop. China said that next year would mark the 70th anniversary of World War II and said that the international community should condemn the fact that Japan continued to attempt to cover up its historic crimes. Historical memories prevented repeating mistakes of the past, said Colombia and underlined that they must bring in different experiences from different actors and above all recognize victims. Uruguay said that there was no true reconciliation in a society if past events were not known; complete investigation into past events was incumbent on States which must apply human rights perspectives.

Lithuania believed that States could contribute by the creation of open spaces and enabling different actors to participate and discuss their various views on history facts, history teaching and the means for memorialization of historical events or personalities. Sierra Leone said that in the country, there existed a societal culture of silence about the civil war, but the Government was committed to promoting measures which ensured a full and lasting peace in the country.

Baha’i International Community appreciated the importance of focusing on good practices in order to encourage Governments to reflect on their past and to learn from experience. However, it was equally important to highlight issues that were obliterated. A representative of Verein Suwind Entwicklungspolitik from Iran said that 27 years ago, at least 5,000 prisoners were massacred by hanging behind closed doors, without due process, without families knowing about their fate. The prisoners and the families resisted the erasure of their death and suffering from historical memory. International Youth and Student Movement for the United Nations said that there was an annual Day of Remembrance of Slavery and the Trans-Atlantic trade and it was hoped that there would be good participation of all countries at this year’s event.

FARIDA SHAHEED, Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights and Panel Moderator, asked the panellists to address the comments made during the interactive dialogue, including with regards to how the diversity of narratives should not be used as an excuse for human rights violations and about gender considerations in memorial processes.

SAMI ADWAN, Professor of Education and Teacher Training, Hebron University, State of Palestine, said that it was very important to look at the issue of family history. The issue of gender was of much value, and it was fundamental taking gender aspects into consideration when focusing on women and children victims. It was also important to consider the plurality of narratives as an asset rather than as a threat. There should be several history books and other materials made available to teachers, including from civil society, rather than one official history teaching source. With regards to the Israeli and Palestinian conflict, he said that there were gaps on how each side taught the history and past traumas of the other. It was a big challenge to explain historical events when these had been experienced differently by different cultures, and history should be researched continuously in order to avoid imposing views on what was right and what was wrong.

MARIE WILSON, Commissioner, Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada on residential schools for aboriginal peoples, said that it was important to create space, including spiritual and cultural ceremonies and health supports, to make people and victims feel safe to share their past experiences. Encouraging ongoing memorialisation and dialogue was also important beside cultural memorials and exhibitions. History was not a religion, it was a discussion, and its elaboration should include the people who had witnessed this history.

DUBRAVKA STOJANOVIC, Professor, History Department, Faculty of Philosophy, Belgrade University, Serbia, said the best way to teach history was to teach social history, including women and gender history, in order to include all diverse views and truths.

PABLO DE GREIFF, Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence, regretted that there was a gap between theory and practice. Indeed, the denial of violations in several States, obstacles to the work of historians and artists, including lack of access to archives, restrictions on freedom of expression, limitations on the work of civil society organizations, and control of the media: all were much more common than the expression of support to memorialisation. He encouraged all Member States and civil society organizations to overcome these challenges. The first fundamental point was the recognition that certain facts did occur, he said.

Cuba highlighted the need to raise the visibility of history teaching and memorialisation, particularly in the context of the resurgence of neo-fascism and extremism in some parts of the world. Armenia said that in all countries, history teaching was adjusted to politics to a certain extent, but in totalitarian regimes where freedom of expression was stifled, it was impossible to see objective and realistic history books. Armenia asked how international institutions could contribute to the recognition of atrocities as a crucial part of the process of memorialisation. France said that each society needed to have its roots in a recognized memory and history and that commemorating meant making the past a lesson for the future. Proper history teaching devoid of any aspect of ideological propaganda was crucial for the development of free and democratic societies, and studying and understanding the vents of the past, in particular tragic and divisive ones, was an invaluable means to build a better future, said Italy. South Africa said that to heal, a boil must be lanced and attention must be focused on the plight of victims, while memorialisation should be a mean of combating injustice and telling the truth about the past. Serbia said that painful events from the recent and more distant past were a powerful drive for critical questioning and the search for the right approaches for history teaching and memorialisation processes to be used in transitional justice and lay the long-lasting foundation for the future. Russia said that the objective approach to history was important in the light of the upcoming 70th anniversary of World War II and called on the Human Rights Council not to pass over the attempts to re-write the history of this world event.

United States was concerned about historical labels from the past being applied in the present by government officials to totally unrelated persons or groups, such as the flagrant and unwarranted use of the term ‘Nazi’ in an attempt to disparage a person or group. Turkey said the rights to freedom of opinion and expression were sine qua non of democracy and participation in intercultural dialogue. People should be free to express their own perspective of past events and narratives of history. Argentina shared the principle of the Special Rapporteur that the preservation of memory had to be understood; a process had to be provided to those affected with space to articulate narratives. Cultural rights had a key role to play in transitional justice.

Brazil asked for the views of the Special Rapporteur on the right to truth, justice, reparation and non-recurrence on how his mandate could reinforce initiatives of bilateral and regional cooperation in that particular field. Indonesia noted that the memorialization process was complex. It strongly believed that history teaching, through formal education, should be conducted based on a factual and objective manner.

Human Rights Now agreed that a multi-perspective approach should be applied in memorialization of the past and history teaching, by taking views of differing parties into consideration. Only in doing so would relationships between countries and people be promoted. Hope International said that in history books, some populations were simply forgotten for the purpose of over-simplification. They simply did not exist in the minds of pupils or were defined by negations or contraries. Amnesty International urged the Government of Japan to accept full responsibility and apologize unreservedly to survivors of Japan’s sexual slavery system in a way that was acceptable to the majority of the women and which publicly acknowledged the harm that these women had suffered and restored the dignity of the survivors.

Romania said that the process of restoring memory should not lead to human rights violations. Romania was itself in the process of re-evaluating its own history, and monuments to victims of the authoritarian regime had been erected. Israel said that the promotion of anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial should not benefit from claims for absolute protection of freedom of speech and information. Pakistan underlined the importance of truth and reconciliation processes in preventing recurrence of human rights violations, and emphasized the importance of accuracy and objectivity in history teaching. Viet Nam shared the view that children had the right to benefit from history teaching from a diverse approach. Viet Nam fully realised that the exercise of human rights was linked to cultural and historical background. History should not be only written by victors. Rwanda said that it attached great importance to preserving the memory of the genocide. New history text books were based on scientific research and were now free of past politically motivated distortions. Learning from the past was a way to ensure that genocide would never happen again.

PABLO DE GREIFF, Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence, said in closing remarks that truth commissions had to insist on the role of women. The Special Rapporteur had included sections on history education and human rights education in all reports he made after country visits.

DUBRAVKA STOJANOVIC, Professor, History Department, Faculty of Philosophy, Belgrade University, Serbia, said in concluding comments that it was never too early to start introducing history and multi-perspective approaches in education. They had to change the way history was taught at school in order to integrate the diversity of points of views.

MARIE WILSON, Commissioner, Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada on residential schools for aboriginal peoples, said in her closing remarks that those questions should be considered as urgent because the impact of injustice got carried forward in the treatment of the children. It was not just an effort to have reconciliation and non-recurrence, but an effort to stop continuation, in whatever form or structure.

SAMI ADWAN, Professor of Education and Teacher Training, Hebron University, State of Palestine, in his closing remarks said that the engagement of the international community was very much needed to ensure that diversity was addressed and that there was freedom of education, and in particular in the area of textbooks. Local initiatives must be supported and publicized and used in teacher training as well. The big challenge in training teachers from both sides was how to know what was going in the classroom and that children were free from ideologies. Addressing the voices of victims was another area where the engagement of the international community was crucial. Narratives could coexist, and that also meant that people could coexist too. The aim of teaching history was to build together and avoid recurrence and any kind of victimization.

FARIDA SHAHEED, Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights and Panel Moderator, in her closing remarks thanked the delegations for supporting her recommendations for a multi-perspective approach in history books, teaching and memorialisation processes. This approach should promote critical thinking and the critical view on what the history might have been, and this was a measure of avoiding the cultural relativism. One concern was that there was a need to narrow the gaps that still remained between the rhetoric and reality. States should really open up the space to multi-perspective teaching of history and the space for artistic expression; those were prerequisites of a democratic society. The crucial question was which history to teach and how; the teaching must be opened up to different approaches, such as for example from gender perspectives. History teaching must be from a human rights perspective and include the participation of the different voices that were there.

_________

For use of the information media; not an official record