Mayki Gorosito is the Executive Director of the ESMA Museum and Site of Memory, a museum and memorial located within the former Navy Mechanics School of the Argentine Republic. During the civic-military dictatorship (1976–1983), it was the main Clandestine Centre for Detention, Torture, and Extermination, where approximately 5,000 people were abducted, tortured, and disappeared. As a result of a gradual process involving public administrations and a large group of human rights organisations, the former ESMA is now the principal space of memory of the dictatorship and an international reference for the preservation of the heritage of repression and incarceration. In September 2023, the ESMA Museum and Site of Memory was added to the list of properties recognised as UNESCO World Heritage.
In this interview, we explore the various memorial processes associated with the former ESMA: its transformation from a military facility where political dissidents were tortured and murdered into a site of memory; its role as a key heritage landmark for human rights in Argentina; the political disputes surrounding the site; the challenges of its inclusion in the UNESCO World Heritage List; and the potential threats posed by Argentina’s current political situation.
How has the process of converting the former military site into a site of memory unfolded? What stages can be identified throughout this process?
The Site-Museum is located in what was the Officers’ Casino of the Naval Mechanics School, which until 1976 operated as a prestigious educational centre in Buenos Aires, dedicated to the training of non-commissioned officers. The Officers’ Casino was the core of the repressive activity within the 17-hectare site, although the rest of the buildings, including educational institutions, also supported the illegal operations. The entire structure served as both a school and a Clandestine Centre. With the return of democracy in 1983, the ESMA became a symbol of the crimes committed by the civic-military dictatorship. Human rights organisations aimed to reclaim and redefine the space, initiating an extensive process to meet this initial challenge. In this context, the ESMA was not only deactivated as a site of repression, but the school itself also began a rapid decline in reputation and institutional standing. In those early years, which included the creation of the National Commission on the Disappearance of Persons (CONADEP) and its subsequent inspection of the ESMA, and following the new political and judicial cycle in relation to Argentina’s recent past in the 2000s, the military institutions were gradually removed from the site. However, this phase was not without controversy and setbacks. For example, the site narrowly avoided an attempt at demolition in 1998. Following the inauguration of President Néstor Kirchner, on 24 March 2004, an agreement was signed between the National Executive Power and the Government of the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires to create the Space for Memory and for the Promotion and Defence of Human Rights. This was formalised in November 2007 with the creation of a Public Body as an inter-jurisdictional public law entity. The Commission established to discuss different proposals for the Space for Memory, with the participation of human rights organisations and survivors, unanimously decided that the Officers’ Casino building should be preserved as the historic site. Beyond this, the entire site was designated as a Space for Memory. As such, the ESMA Museum and Site of Memory was inaugurated a few years later, on 19 May 2015, by President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. The content and the museographic project, along with the work carried out, were authorised by the judicial bodies responsible for the site and agreed upon by the various interested parties, including survivors, human rights organisations, cultural heritage specialists, and site of memory experts, among others.
Few places like the former ESMA exemplify the plurality of actors (public administrations, memory and human rights associations, etc.) involved in the memorialisation process of a site. Has this diversity been a challenge or an advantage? Have the interests of all parties been easy to balance?
It has been an advantage in the sense that we have a well-established and powerful participation framework. The Site-Museum’s team works daily with the Advisory Council of Human Rights Organisations and creates spaces and initiatives for the informed and active participation of the survivors. This ensures multiple perspectives are considered, and the consensus that formed the foundation of its institutionalisation continues to be respected. Regarding coexistence, the Site-Museum is located within the boundaries of the buffer zone, made up of the Space for Memory and for the Promotion and Defence of Human Rights which houses public institutions and civil society associations at both national and regional levels. It is administered by an Executive Body made up of representatives from the national government, the government of the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires, and the Human Rights Organisations Directorate. The Site-Museum maintains dialogue and coordinates its agenda with all these actors, sharing the common goal of working towardss Nunca Más (Never Again’ ) and the preservation of memory.
At any point, did military units pending relocation coexist with human rights organisations and/or the Site of Memory itself? If so, how did this coexistence unfold?
The process of coexistence began in October 2004 when the decision was made to vacate several buildings, including the Officers’ Casino, and grant the Bicameral Commission – comprising representatives from the National Secretariat for Human Rights and the City’s Subsecretariat for Human Rights – provisional tenure of these buildings for free use as part of the Space for Memory. In 2005, the first guided tours of the former Officers’ Casino took place, following an agreement with the Navy that allowed a subdivision of the site, fencing off certain areas to enable the coexistence of military and civilian sectors and the exclusive use of the assigned buildings. That year also marked the beginning of regular meetings of the Bicameral Commission, involving representatives from various human rights organisations, survivors, and staff from the Space for Memory, to agree on issues related to the complete recovery of the site and the construction of the new institutional framework. By 2006, the authorities of the Navy vacated and handed over another five hectares with their respective buildings. Meanwhile, within the human rights organisations, there were discussions and attempts to reach consensus. Some survivors argued for leaving the place untouched, while others proposed transforming the buildings into the new institutions that exist today. Finally, at the end of 2007, the final eviction of the remaining Navy-occupied buildings was achieved. On 20 November of that year, a new agreement was signed by President Néstor Kirchner and then-Mayor of the City, Jorge Telerman, continuing the accords from 2004, and establishing the creation of the Public Entity for the Space for Memory and for the Promotion and Defence of Human Rights.
The former ESMA is the most notable Clandestine Detention Centre of the civic-military dictatorship (1976–1983), not only due to its historical significance but also because of the national and international projection of the current site of memory. How does this influence its relationship with other spaces of memory from the dictatorship? Does it assume any leadership or co-management with any of them? At what level?
Although the ESMA Museum and Site of Memory has a different institutional dependency than other spaces of memory in Argentina – since it is under the Human Rights Secretariat, whereas some other sites depend on the National Directorate of Sites, provinces, or municipalities – the connection and dialogue are fluid. There is no co-management model, but rather a close relationship with joint participation in some actions and initiatives. Specifically, regarding the Museum and Site of Memory’s nomination to the UNESCO World Heritage List, we received unanimous support from the Memory Spaces in our country. In this context, we organised working meetings with all of them and are currently seeking avenues for mutual cooperation and collaboration.
The former ESMA is part of a network of spaces of memory whose very existence serves as evidence in transitional justice processes. How is such a responsibility managed? How is this idea reflected in the museographic and/or educational approach?
Since its inauguration, the Site-Museum has ensured that the building retains its unaltered condition, to preserve its status as judicial evidence and allow access to new discoveries, relying on the reversibility of the museographic display. Construction marks, inscriptions, and objects found in the building have been recorded, identified, and classified according to the conservation protocol of the National Directorate of Sites of Memory and validated by testimonies and documents admitted as judicial evidence. In addition, at the museographic level, the protocols used during the monitoring and supervision of the Site-Museum’s works were endorsed by conservation experts, the Human Rights Organisations Advisory Council, and National Criminal Court No. 12, which remains responsible for safeguarding and preserving the judicial evidence at the ESMA. Therefore, maintaining a fluid and ongoing dialogue with this court is essential. At an educational level, the status of judicial evidence and the actions of preservation are conveyed to visitors within the framework of memory pedagogy that we develop through guided, self-guided, or audio-guided tours. Indeed, safeguarding a site that could serve as evidence for the conviction of perpetrators and genociders is an enormous, unique, and unparalleled responsibility.
In reference to this, spaces of memory that address recent historical events must confront the potential relationship with both the collective of perpetrators and that of bystanders. How is this issue dealt with at the former ESMA?
In the Golden Hall (in the tour, it corresponds to the room where the visit concludes), the faces of the perpetrators are displayed in an audiovisual device that details the accusations and convictions. The content presented at the Site-Museum has the weight of being based on the testimonies of survivors provided to the judiciary, which form the foundation of the information displayed in the various rooms. The purpose of the Site-Museum, since its creation decree, is to convey what happened at the Clandestine Centre, its causes, and its consequences.
In 2023, the ESMA Museum and Site of Memory was included as a heritage asset on UNESCO’s World Heritage List. What was the process of inclusion? What are the characteristics that make the ESMA Museum and Site of Memory considered as World Heritage?
The implementation of the work plan for the candidacy of the Site-Museum to UNESCO’s World Heritage List was extensive, rigorous, and complex. At the same time, it opened multiple connections and possibilities to develop institutional potential. On the one hand, it involved preparing a nomination dossier with an interdisciplinary team made up of professionals from various fields of knowledge, such as journalists, historians, communicators, specialists in heritage, human rights, and international cooperation. Then, informing all the actors involved in the governance of the Site-Museum and the Public Entity for the Space for Memory and for the Promotion and Defence of Human Rights, and demonstrating the integrity and authenticity of the site. In addition to proposing, as exceptional universal values, that the Site-Museum is a testimony and symbol of State terrorism based on forced disappearance, and of the value of social consensus as a means to achieve justice. Beyond proposing an Exceptional Universal Value, we also had to demonstrate the integrity and authenticity of the site. We also organised regular meetings to inform Memory Spaces across the country and defined a strategy to gather support. We created a map of institutions and key figures from academia, sub-regional integration bodies, parliaments, organisations and social movements, cultural sectors, the sports sector, UNESCO chairs, trade unions, and feminist and LGBTIQ+ organisations. Through meetings, we informed them of the candidacy and what the Site-Museum symbolises and bears witness to, not only for Argentina but also for the world. From them, we received hundreds of endorsements, which were fundamental in broadening consensus. At the national level, I highlight the unanimous support from the Chambers of Deputies and Senators of the Nation, the Legislature of the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires, the Federal Council for Human Rights, and the Council of the Judiciary. Regarding the international sphere, we also worked to generate support, establish synergies with diplomatic representations, international organisations and networks, and maintain contact with sites in other countries already included on the World Heritage List and with the ICOMOS organisation. In that regard, we prepared for two years to receive the inspection from that organisation. The inspector held meetings with authorities from the national government, the government of the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires, the Public Entity for Memory and for the Promotion and Defence of Human Rights, various Memory Spaces and Sites across the country, the Ministry of Justice and the Secretariat for Human Rights, the National Commission of Monuments, the Argentine National Commission for Cooperation with UNESCO, Federal Criminal Court No. 12, civil society, the MERCOSUR Institute of Public Policies on Human Rights, the International Coalition of Sites of Conscience, and the Latin American and Caribbean Network of Sites of Memory, as well as with various staff members and authorities from the Site-Museum. Additionally, during the years of work on the candidacy, we set up visibility spaces in Argentinian embassies and consulates in 23 countries around the world. Along with other communication tools, this aimed to strengthen awareness among different communities and governments about what the Site-Museum symbolises and bears witness to. In the same field of internationalisation and global visibility, we produced and exhibited the temporary exhibition “Argentinian Memory for the World: Heritage of the ‘Never Again’” at the Argentinian Consulate in New York, the United Nations headquarters, and the Los Pinos Cultural Complex in Mexico City. Furthermore, from the Site-Museum, we actively participated in the Open Working Group meetings convened by the World Heritage Committee to present Argentina’s position regarding the nominations of Sites of Memory associated with recent conflicts, which had been suspended until the States Parties reached an agreement on how to address them and lifted the moratorium. After this entire process, in September 2023, through decision 45 COM.8B.53, the World Heritage Committee finally recognised the Site-Museum for being “highly representative and closely and tangibly associated with the illegal repression of armed and unarmed opponents and dissidents, executed and coordinated by the dictatorships of Latin America in the 1970s and 1980s, and based on the forced disappearance of persons, in a climate of global geopolitical tensions between opposing visions of the world’s socio-political order”. At this stage, we are working to meet UNESCO’s recommendations and continue strengthening the institution in all its dimensions.
The process of restoring value to the Ex ESMA as a space of memory cannot be understood without the support and promotion efforts carried out by Kirchnerism. Given the current political climate, where Argentina is experiencing a noticeable political regression, what threats are looming over the site’s management?
Naturally, the importance different governments place on the Memory, Truth, and Justice agenda varies. I believe it is crucial to emphasise that at the ESMA Museum and Site of Memory, we work to ensure that this agenda, as well as the institution, are regarded as state policy. The Site-Museum was inaugurated in 2015 and has operated under three administrations. Throughout these periods, with different presidents (Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, Mauricio Macri, and Alberto Fernández), and various ministers of justice and secretaries of human rights, we continued to function and were able to develop the Work Plan for the UNESCO World Heritage List candidacy. Of course, the progress, setbacks, and complexities were varied, depending on how those administrations viewed this agenda. In this new, complex, and uncertain political scenario, we believe it is essential to keep building, expanding, and deepening consensus. When facing new dilemmas, we must recall the processes through which consensus was achieved and work towards building new ones. Additionally, we must continue professionalising the institution, expanding audiences, strengthening regional and international connections, and carrying out actions to protect and preserve the heritage with a management approach that is gender-sensitive, sustainable, and accessible. Of course there are always threats, which can translate into closures, lack of funding, attempts to interfere in content and disregard for international and regional commitments, among other issues. However, I believe that the Site-Museum must not only maintain high-level management in these areas but also strengthen and deepen its ties with human rights organisations, survivors, judges, students, teachers, researchers, trade unionists, artists, athletes, and the general public, as well as with the hundreds of national, regional, and international actors who legitimise and defend it.
More broadly, how is the position of the new Argentine government affecting, or going to affect, memory policies and the promotion of human rights?
In the case of the Site-Museum, we have managed to maintain the continuity of staff, prevent the alteration of content, and continue implementing the strategic management plan submitted to UNESCO, as well as the scheduled activities, with the ongoing support of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee. This is not the situation for other Memory Spaces in the country. In this context, we continue working to sustain a public policy that has regional (MERCOSUR), global (UNESCO), judicial, and heritage endorsements.
Finally, based on your experience as a manager in the field of memory, how do you perceive the promotion of European memory policies? What differences or similarities do you find in comparison to Latin America?
The countries of Latin America were victims of brutal dictatorships, with specific political, historical, social, and economic differences, but with similarities and points of convergence in the characteristics of those processes. A fundamental aspect of memory policies in Latin America is that they are linked, to a greater or lesser extent, to the participation and demands of survivors, the families of victims, and human rights organisations. In Argentina, for example, other key aspects relate to the role of the judiciary and the consensus reached around the principle of ‘Never Again’. In Europe, I understand that the progress and setbacks vary between countries depending on their political processes and the level of social participation. What I consider fundamental and necessary is the cooperation and political and inter-institutional dialogue between actors committed to the deepening, construction, and defence of memory, truth, and justice policies and initiatives on both continents.