The accession of Cyprus to the European Union (EU) in May of 2004 constitutes the most positive strategic development in the history of the island state since its independence in 1960. In the last two years, the Cypriot people have experienced watershed events, filled with frustrations, challenges but also opportunities. Cyprus' EU membership has extended the borders of the EU to the strategic corner of the Eastern Mediterranean and has brought the Middle East ever closer to Europe. It is hoped that Cyprus' EU membership can contribute to the expansion of peace, stability, security and prosperity in the area. Cyprus is situated at the crossroads of three continents and civilizations, where global political and economic interests, as well as international security concerns, converge. Together with its American ally and with the help of its European partners Cyprus aspires to play a positive role, and to act as a bridge of mutual understanding and the promotion of sustained and result oriented dialogue between its Middle Eastern neighbors and Europe. At the same time, Cyprus strives to achieve a just, permanent, functional and mutually acceptable solution to the Cyprus problem, an end of the Turkish military occupation, reunification and prosperity for all Cypriots within their common European home.

His Excellency Euripides L. Evriviades presented his credentials as the Ambassador of the Republic of Cyprus to the United States to President George W. Bush on 4 December 2003. He is also accredited as High Commissioner to Canada. Ambassador Evriviades served as Ambassador of Cyprus to the Netherlands from August 2000 to October 2003. Prior to his posting in The Hague, he served as the Ambassador to Israel from November 1997 until July 2000. Earlier in his career, Mr. Evriviades held positions at Cypriot embassies in Tripoli, Libya; Moscow, USSR/Russia; and Bonn, Germany.

In the context of the Iraq Wars, references to totalitarianism multiplied across the political, cultural, and intellectual spectrum. For every equation of Saddam with Hitler, another followed projecting the Nazi past onto the American present. While the end of the most recent war has led to the macabre discovery of the Iraqi killing fields, some German intellectuals have drawn the conclusion that American moral authority has come to an end. Current politics aside, the first question we hope to raise involves the legitimacy of this proliferation of the term totalitarianism, either directly or through rhetorical invocations of features of Europe in the thirties and forties: appeasement politics, firebombing, attacks on civilians. A conservative usage of the term might restrict it to the regimes of Hitler and Stalin; alternatively, it could be utilized as an analytical tool for multiple political phenomena of the late twentieth century (and beyond). We want to explore the consequences of these different strategies through a reflection on the term itself and its appropriation in various venues.

While these questions can and should be pursued with regard to many national histories, the German experience with totalitarianism in the twentieth century is particularly intriguing. The Weimar Republic witnessed the rise of both Communist and National Socialist movements, with revolutionary aspirations, in the wake of which, ultimately, two dictatorial political systems followed. To be sure, the two cases are not symmetrical; the GDR was unthinkable without Russian occupation and the Cold War. Nonetheless, large segments of the German population lent their support to both regimes, at times with enthusiasm and at times under duress. While the collapse of the Nazi regime led eventually (if not quickly) to a critical discourse on the past, a parallel scrutiny of the Communist era has not yet developed to the same extent. In light of the renewed totalitarianism discourse, a review of this past seems more urgent than ever. We are interested in examining the Communist experience in relationship to National Socialism, with regard to both similarities and differences, and in terms of philosophical, historical, and literary/cultural frameworks.

June 4, Friday

9:00-9:30

Continental Breakfast

9:30-10:00

Opening remarks by Norman Naimark and Amir Eshel

10:00-12:30

Panel I: The Meaning of the Allied Occupation for Austrian History

Chair: Norman Naimark, Stanford University

Speaker: Michael Gehler, Innsbruck University, "Still 'Occupied' by Germany, 1945-1955"

Speaker: Oliver Rathkolb, Democracy Centre, Vienna, and the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for History and Society, "The 'Allied Occupation' and the Collective Memory of Austrians after 1945"

Speaker: Guenter Bischof, University of New Orleans, "The Meaning of the Allied Occupation for Austrian History"

12:30-2:00

Lunch

2:00-4:30

Panel II: Society and Culture in Four-Power Austria

Chair: Amir Eshel, Stanford University

Speaker: Wendelin Schmidt-Denger, University of Vienna, "Austria 1945-1948-1995: Literature"

Speaker: Kristin Rebien, Stanford University, "Beyond the Dream: Paul Celan on Postwar Austrian Surrealism"

Speaker: Matti Bunzl, University of Illinois, Urbana, "Thinking the Center through the Margins: Jews and Homosexuals in Post-World War II Austria"

June 5, Saturday

9:00-9:30

Continental Breakfast

9:30-12:00

Panel II: The Soviet Factor

Chair: David Holloway, Stanford University

Speaker: Vojtech Mastny, Wilson Center, Washington D.C., "The Soviet Factor in the Remaking of Austria after World War II"

Speaker: Wolfgang Mueller, University of Vienna, "Some Aspects of the Political Mission of the USSR in Austria, 1943-45"

Speaker: Gennady Bordiugov, AIRO-XX Publishers, Russia, "Germany and Austria: View from the USSR"

Speaker: Norman Naimark, Stanford University, "Stalin and the Austrian Question"

12:00-1:00

Lunch

1:00-3:20

Panel IV: Central European Perspectives

Chair: Ludger Kuenhardt, Bonn University

Speaker: Arnold Suppan, University of Vienna, "Austria and Its Neighbors in the East, 1945-1948"

Speaker: Dietrich Orlow, Boston University, "Austria and Germany after World War II: Similarities and Differences Protocol"

Speaker: Peter Kenez, University of California, Santa Cruz, "Hungary, 1945-1948"

3:40-4:00

General Discussions

A dozen years have passed since the end of the Cold War, but the legacy remains in both Western and Eastern Europe. This workshop aims to bring together scholars and experts from a variety of disciplines and backgrounds to discuss the ways in which the detrimental effects on social, political and economic structures of the legacy can be alleviated.

The workshop will develop two aspects of this issue: the external security structure represented by NATO and the emerging EU security policy; and the internal security structure including threats to civil society and problems of political and economic transition. Four papers would be delivered in each of two sessions. Participation would be balanced between US and European contributors.

Session One: The Legacy of the Cold War on Europe's External Security Structure

Paper 1:

NATO, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and Common Foreign- and Security Policy of the European Union: Cooperation or Competition?

Paper 2:

The Transatlantic Imbalance: Why does the US still carry the burden of Europe's defense?

Paper 3:

NATO Expansion and the Russian Reaction

Paper 4:

The EU's CFSP and the Role of the Rapid Reaction Force

Session Two: The Legacy of the Cold War on Europe's Internal Security and Stability

Paper 5:

Nuclear Safety and the Problem of Nuclear and Other Radioactive Material

Paper 6:

Immigration and Asylum Issues in the Light of EU Enlargement

Paper 7:

Economic Stability and the Incorporation of the Transition Economies

Paper 8:

The Political Legacy of the Cold War and the Development of Democratic Institutions in Central and Eastern Europe