Incomprehension about the reasons for this decision, exasperation about the form chosen to make it public. Arthur Dénouveaux, Bataclan survivor and president of Life For Paris, remains stunned by the announcement, on December 10, of the government’s abandonment of the terrorism memorial museum project in its initial form. Member of the Orientation Observatory as part of his association bringing together victims and families of victims of the attacks of November 13, 2015, he asks for explanations from Emmanuel Macron, at the origin of this museum project which was to open in 2027 in Suresnes, in Hauts-de-Seine.
L’Express: What does the abandonment of the terrorism memorial museum project with which your association and you were associated mean to you?
Arthur Dénouveaux: I differentiate abandonment itself from the way in which the project is abandoned. Let’s start with abandonment which, for me, is relatively incomprehensible. It’s a project that has been under discussion and worked on for years, which has involved a lot of people, researchers, people at state level but also civil society, through victims’ associations, philosophers, thinkers. And everyone agreed that it had meaning, that there was a place for the creation of a museum like this. There was an ambition, certainly enormous, but one which could join what was being done elsewhere in the world, at the September 11 memorial, in Utoya in Norway.
From an intellectual point of view, this project seemed like a necessity. It seemed to be able to irrigate French thinking on terrorism, on the way in which a society reacts to terrorism. There is no new element that would contradict this vision. The first reaction is amazement: why are we stopping something that everyone agrees is useful? To this question is added the method. Under a budgetary pretext which, honestly, seems to be very fallacious, no one comes to explain to us why the project has lost its meaning or to tell us that we are going to do something different. It is, I think, one of the rare, if not the only, presidential project abandoned in the open countryside without an explanation.
Is this particularly insensitive towards the victims?
We, at Life for Paris, our interest in the project was not focused on the memorial part. We are an association of victims of November 13 and we will already have a memorial garden designed with the Paris town hall. On the other hand, the aspect of understanding the terrorist phenomenon – what terrorism does to our societies, to our law, etc. – interested us a lot. We are partners in research programs and we saw the museum as an extension of this activity. We were also, as victims, keen that the memory be carried by lasting institutions with links to National Education. And as our association plans to dissolve and stop having such a strong public voice, we were also happy that a public institution could serve as a voice for November 13 over the long term. The disappointment is as high as that. It is also practical: the association or a certain number of its members had already made donations to the museum for its permanent collections. It was a concrete project that we were touching on, we have deposit certificates at home and there, we have the impression that the rug has been pulled out from under our feet.
Do you feel like there is contempt for you?
We have so little information on the underlying reasons for this decision that to speak of contempt would be tantamount to speculating and I do not want that. But there is really a disregard for form. This museum was obviously a project carried out by a salaried team, but many actors from civil society were involved in it, notably associations, and it would have been appropriate for us, too, to have been informed of this decision. Let the representatives of the associations not learn about it unofficially or in the press. We really feel that when it comes to looking for validation, looking for the strength of emotion, politicians are very happy to find the associations. But when it comes to talking about and announcing difficult decisions, there, in fact, no one has the courage to come and see us.
What do you think of the possible fallback options, such as the use of the memory garden in Paris for the memorial part?
This solution is unacceptable. With another association, called 13Onze15 Fraternity and Truth, we have been working for years to create this garden with the Paris town hall. We managed to come up with a magnificent project which was the fruit of work and a not at all obvious consensus between all the typologies of victims, between all the places… In the garden, there are the names of all the victims of November 13. There are lights that take over the celestial vault on the evening of November 13. We made it a meaningful project to celebrate the memory of November 13. Nothing else. It would make no sense to distort it by adding something to it. And it would be insulting to the victims of all the other attacks, to whom we would ultimately say, line up behind the banner of a place that was designed specifically for November 13. And as we understand that it is rather the Ministry of Culture which proposed this solution, we cannot help but think that, perhaps, there is a Parisian-Parisian agenda behind it on the part of the minister resigned. This solution should be ruled out and we will categorically refuse it.
For the museum, we talk about temporary exhibitions…
There, we are told that the State would continue to finance a sort of permanent prefiguration mission, without a fixed location, as if there were a collection of the memory of terrorism that could be used or exhibited from time to time. It does not meet the objectives that were initially set, there is a need for a location. The real question is: is there another body that could offer something? Are there any local authorities that could offer a place capable of hosting the site? Unfortunately, in the recent history of terrorism, there are several large French cities which were hit very hard and which had, at one time, expressed an interest in hosting this museum. And all the victims’ associations will tell you: the best partners we have are the towns and local institutions. Much more than the State, which has often had difficulty keeping its promises. So, we will see if there is a municipality that tries to take up the torch. I’m thinking of Paris, Nice or Strasbourg, but it could be Carcassonne or Trèbes. Everything is open. It has to make sense: the idea is to have a museum which can be visited by the greatest number of people and therefore which is in a very accessible location.
The abandonment was announced by Matignon. Are you hoping for a sign from the Elysée?
It is a project carried out, endorsed and recalled by Emmanuel Macron constantly over the last five years. It is not possible for a presidential project of this scale and with this media impact to be crossed out with the stroke of a pen behind a budgetary constraint from a resigning government. Especially since it is in complete shock with current events. You have the Paty trial which is underway. You have the Strasbourg commemorations arriving this week. You have the start of the commemorations of the ten years of the wave of attacks of 2015 and 2016. You have questions around the jihadists who are taking control in Syria. Terrorism is at the heart of the news. Whether under the prism of education, under the prism of geopolitics, under the prism of memory. And would we abandon the flagship project of Emmanuel Macron’s two mandates on the subject? This cannot be done without an explanation session, without the president himself answering the questions that this abandonment raises. The Elysée cannot take refuge in silence.
.