Why denazification is not a concept for the future of the international community

With the disruptive developments in Ukraine and the Gaza Strip, the issue of denazification has returned to the international political stage. The topic lends itself perfectly to ideological punching and an emotional exchange of blows - even in the United Nations. However, the conservative, historicising view of violations of international law and human rights obscures the fact that numerous real political events have opened up completely new chapters of collective and individual human rights violations. A continued debate on denazification always focuses on the past, blunts the mind and makes people unaware of the new, imminent dangers.

"Combating the glorification of Nazism..." - under this title, Russia submitted a draft resolution to the Third Committee of the 78th session of the United Nations General Assembly on November 3rd, 2023.[1] This was by no means the first time: the General Assembly has adopted this resolution every year since 2005. However, while only two countries voted against it last year, the United States and Ukraine, this year there were 52 countries - including Germany, Austria and Italy.

This news provoked some very emotional reactions on various digital channels. Among other things, it was stated that Germany, Austria and Italy had always assured that they would never be able to vote against such a resolution for fundamental reasons. But now - as G.E. Lukjanzew, a representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry, was quoted as saying - political considerations had obviously gained the upper hand. One could draw the conclusion that Germany and Austria are falling into old patterns just to avoid having to vote together with Russia. Admittedly, this is paradoxical.

The UN General Assembly assigns agenda items to the Third Committee that relate to social, humanitarian and human rights issues.[2] The meeting in question was chaired by Austrian UN Ambassador Alexander Marschik, who should only be mentioned in passing. It should also only be mentioned in passing that Austria, as well as Germany, justified their negative vote by claiming that Russia was trying to justify its military operation in Ukraine with this resolution.

Let's take a moment to lift our gaze from the lowlands of political wrangling and the highly abbreviated portrayals of this issue in the digital media. Let's focus our attention on the fact that political messages are not just about content. Political messages are used as a strategy, usually to advance certain interests.

The aforementioned G.E. Lukjanzew said in his statement on the occasion of the vote on November 3rd:

"Thanks to the historic victory of the United Nations over National Socialism - as the member states of the anti-Hitler coalition called themselves - the UN was founded in 1945. It was a victory over the ideology of racial superiority and misanthropy that underpinned National Socialism. The modern system for the promotion and protection of human rights was the response of states to Nazi genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. (...) The co-sponsors (of this resolution, note) categorically disagree with our opponents' attempt to qualify these actions (of (neo)Nazism, note) as an exercise of the right to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression. They are blatant attempts to falsify the outcome of the Second World War, cynicism and blasphemy towards those who liberated the world from the horrors of National Socialism." [3]

The passages quoted here alone make it clear that the content of the resolution refers to certain undesirable developments in the past in terms of human rights and international law. The political strategy that Russia is trying to pursue within the framework of and with the help of the United Nations also becomes very clear. However, the conservative, historicising view of violations of international law and human rights obscures the fact that numerous real political events have opened up completely new chapters of collective and individual human rights violations.

With regard to the content of the resolution, which is representative of a series of political initiatives on the subject of denazification, it is also worth taking a look at the past rather than the future. To do this, we can turn to Sergei Prokofiev's internationally renowned musical fairy tale for children "Peter and the Wolf" (op. 67) from 1936. The story of "Peter and the Wolf" has become a common cultural heritage for many people, not least because of its symphonic setting.

For our purposes, let us equate Peter with the weak, those in need of protection, minorities, small peoples or potential victims. The wolf, alone or in a pack, stands for potential threat, great danger or the hunt for weaker, inferior victims.

The danger of the wolf can be countered by vigilance, protective measures and the coordinated co-operation of many smaller or weaker individuals. The danger posed by the wolf can be averted; once it has been averted, the danger is averted for the time being.

The story of "Peter and the Wolf" teaches us above all that the repeated invocation of the danger of the wolf, without any equivalent in reality, makes us careless in the event that the danger of an attack materialises again. What is the equivalent of the debate on denazification?

If we equate the National Socialists, fascists and totalitarian systems with their atrocities in the 20th century, then history shows that these wolves were successfully fought and - metaphorically speaking - killed. What danger is now being conjured up by the denazification debate that has been going on ever since?

Leaving aside the idea of the denazification of the Germans and Austrians - which has probably finally been achieved after more than 70 years - the denazification debate concerns new wolves or wolf packs. It is therefore not about wolves that have already been killed, but about specific risks and dangers posed by comparable predators. They may use similar methods and means.

The story of "Peter and the wolf" should have given us all food for thought long ago that we should not be discussing past wolves that have already been killed, but new comparable dangers (predators) that use similar means and methods against their new potential victims. A continued denazification debate, on the other hand, dulls our senses and makes us unaware of the new, imminent dangers.

This analysis was first published in: Le Courrier des Stratèges on November 8th, 2023

---