From: tammet@cs.chalmers.se (Tanel Tammet)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet,soc.culture.europe,talk.politics.soviet
Subject: Re: Estonia, Russia and Finland (Was: Bilingualism & Imperium)
Date: 10 Jan 93 20:46:24 GMT
Organization: Dept. of CS, Chalmers, Sweden

In article <1993Jan9.163912.1@cc.helsinki.fi> thietaniemi@cc.helsinki.fi writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.165027.15310@cs.chalmers.se>, tammet@cs.chalmers.se (Tanel Tammet) writes:
>> In article <1993Jan7.162623.1@cc.helsinki.fi> thietaniemi@cc.helsinki.fi writes:
... Stuff deleted ...
>> But I am not at all convinced that his
>> politics (Paasikivi line) was a single useful choice, and other
>> choices of line in foreign policy would have been worse.
>
>
>You can't get me convinced without argumentation (which might
>be following...)
>
>
>> Why I am writing this? To say that I fail to see the usefulness
>> of working out an analogy for Paasikivi line in Estonian
>> foreign politics.
>
>
>To quote the old president Kekkonen in the end of seventies:
>"Today the people of Finland can freely without outer intrusion develop
>the social and economic system it has chosen. We are the smiths of
>our own fortune." (= in German: Schmiede unseres Glueckes).
>
>I think we share this ultimate goal of foreign policy. It worked
>in Finland.

The single message in the quote seems to be the claim that
after WWII there was a real danger of USSR intervention into
Finland and due to the Paasikivi-Kekkonen line of friendliness
to USSR and avoidance of any political blocks and military cooperation
with other countries, this danger never materialized.

To me the main question here is whether this danger actually existed,
and whether staying non-neutral or even not very USSR-friendly would
have meant a USSR intervention? I doubt that. Unless there is some
proof of real danger in the time, one could minimize and
suppose that there was no such danger?

>> Just a few first thoughts on the theme: Estonia became independent
>> at the same time and due to the same processes that ended the
>> usefulness of Paasikivi-Kekkonen line in Finland. 
>
>
>I agree that the collapse of the Soviet Union as a consequence of an
>attempted coup made the Estonian independence possible. The other
>alternative would have been the proposed "independence inside the
>Soviet Union" as Gorbachev put it, whatever it meant (we will never
>know).
>
>I do not agree that the collapse of Soviet Union has made the main
>outlines of Finnish foreign policy obsolete. Some rearrangements have
>been done, however:
>
>(1) There is no treaty of Friendship, mutual trust and co-operation
>with the USSR any more. It is not needed.
>(2) Finland has applied for EC membership which could not have been
>possible during the Soviet era.

How can we know that (2) would not have been possible? Why? Because
in Finland The President has supreme power over foreign politics?
Why so? In other spheres the President does not have supreme power.

Those are main grounds for my speculative doubts.
 
>>>> In my opinion one of the primary tasks of Estonia is to minimize
>>>> the economic, cultural and political ties to Russian speaking
>>>> Imperium. Of course, this may lead to some immediate economic
>>>> losses (or maybe not?), but I consider the harm coming from
>>>> strong connections to Russia greater than the good. 
>>>
>>>
>>>Here, I fail to understand you totally.
>> 
>> Now, I am not madly advocating losing all contacts with Russia.
>> I am advocating restoring balance - see above. The 
>> network of connections with Russia is currently too strong
>> when compared to connections with other countries.
>
>
>"Balanced", yes... But I suspect that you are underestimating the
>dependence of Estonian economy and politics of Russia.

One of the main goals is to diminish this dependence.

>> For example, considering just CIS countries,
>> I'd be all for closer ties and better connections
>> with Ukraine.
>
>
>Right! Ukraine is unfortunately not a leading force in CIS reform
>politics.

It seems to be the strongest anti-Russian-domination force inside
CIS. 

>But Estonia needs to construct it's connections to Belarus
>and Ukraine, that should not be underestimated. Are you going to
>use your Russian or English abilities when constructing the new
>ties?

I expect that the linguistic abilities are not the main motivation
or obstacle to better ties.

>This is the case. Estonia can get nowadays the oil it needs
>from Finnish harbours. Porvoo/Borgaa has the capabilities for it.
>
>> On the other hand, Russian market (unfortunately!) has not very
>> much buying power (how come the Finnish-USSR trade has fallen :-)
>
>Indeed. But Russia (and Ukraine, Belarus and Kazahstan) will not be
>kneeling for ever. Unfortunately, the recovery might take a long time,
>perhaps a generation. This is a pessimistic view...
>
>> and is covered with various obstacles. Eg, Russia has frozen
>> bank accounts owned by Estonian banks, to the sum of about
>> 80 million USD (lots of money for Estonia), so it is hardly
>> guaranteed that a seller gets his money. 
>
>Right! The Russians would deserve a new banking system!
>
>> Etc. It is a VERY risky
>> (though profitable when succesful) business.
>
>Risky business, sometimes. But the CIS markets are stabile customers
>of Estonian textiles and food processing industies and agriculture.

Not now, unfortunately.

>Even Leningrad oblast' will need Estonian oil shale, I suppose?
>The peoples in CIS will eat and dress even in the future. So will
>the peoples in EC, but the market is harder to conquer!
> 
>> It is also politically dangerous. Since government in Russia
>> is in position to control foreign trade, they have (as they
>> have also proved several times) to apply pressure by
>> frightening to stop trade. 
>
>The economic reform in Russia is lowering exactly these obstacles.

There are also dangerous trends.

>> EG, now it seems that Lithuania
>> is going to orient to Russian market and supplies - due
>> to the newly elected former-communist rule. 
>
>
>Brazauskas is a patriotic social democrat. The orientation you
>describe above is a healthy one. Unfortunately the Lithuanians
>lack some preconditions that the Estonians have: The crown and
>predictable legal surroundings created by the constitution
>and privatization legislation (correct my details, I might
>be overexaggerating the difference).

Well, recently I read a part of the speech given by the chief aid of  
Brazauskas just before elections. He said openly that Lithuania
should orient to the market and supplies of CIS, that orientation
to "the west" has failed and so have the economical reforms towards
market economy.

Even under Sajudis rule Lithuania was the last of the Baltic countries
to faithfully continue using the Russian rouble, and the current
talonas seems to be much more tied to Russian rouble than the Latvian
rouble is tied to Russian rouble.

If you cross the Lithuanian-Polish border, this is HORRIBLE, and the
border looks even more "on the lock" than the USSR-Poland border used
to be. Now, I crossed the Byelorussian-Lithuanian border in train
this autumn, and no customs or immigration officials or anybody at all
showed up. Fine, but why is the situation on the border with Poland
the exact opposite?

No more complaints.

>> I am very pessimistic
>> about the effects of this policy to Lithuania.

See above.

> 
>>>But what will the Estonian textile and foossing industries do?
>>>Their markets and partly the raw material sources (for textiles) are situated 
>>>inside CIS.
>> 
>> Why? Not so any more for textile, less and less for food
>> processing industries. 
>
>
>I have been taught that your textile industries are very dependent on
>raw materials they receive from Central Asia.

Not any more.

>Where will the Estonian food processing industries sell their production
>in the near future?

I do not know. There is some export to EC and to CIS, but these are 
hard times, sure.

>> My point is that so far the ideas of doing
>> profitable trade with Russia have largely been wishful thinking,
>> and the successful cases (reexport of metal) are fairly
>> crime-ridden. 
>
>You have not yet convinced me that the other alternatives were more
>than wishful thinking!

Any market gives more hope than the one which cannot buy as it does
not have money.

>And, according to my humble opinion, solving the economic crises
>would be the most important thing in Estonia right now!
>
>So - I ask you as an Estonian patriot: what are the other plausible
>markets for Estonian manufacturers when not the CIS states?

See above.

The few contacts I have had with people doing business with Russia
seem to indicate that it is relatively east and useful to buy
things and services from CIS (you take a suitcase with dollars, go there
and ask for the thing), but it is practically impossible to sell
something. The same people manage to sell to Finland, for
example. 
  
>>>The new phenomenon that Finland has become the greatest trading partner
>>>of Estonia is partly even unhealthy development. Finland should be
>>>the second biggest - after CIS. Or are you trying to sell your food
>>>to European Community markets? Good luck - but it won't get you
>>>far :-(
>> 
>> This is what I'd call a competitive attitude :-)
>> Of course, there is no bright future for food export to
>> EC. What follows? Unfortunately, CIS is unable to buy food
>> at prices making it profitable for Estonian farmers.
>> Africa is also a great market - look how many people 
>> are starving there! :-(  
>
>
>Right! But what are the "alternative markets?" Many people inside
>CIS are starving, unfortunately. They must converse their oversized
>military production and bureacracy and create purchasing power
>of some sort. It is an existential necessity. And they do not
>live on African continent, but next door!

Physical closeness to Russia does not help so much. Until money
appears, there is no market.

>> Now I am looking forward to the situation where those keys would
>> NOT be any more in Moscow!
>
>
>Imitate Finland. Our keys are not any more in Moscow. We brought them
>back with patience. :-)

Are you certain the keys were not off-Moscow in 1946? In 1956?

>>>The Finns would like to, as an example, provide the St. Petersburg
>>>with milk. But I suppose that the Estonians could produce cheaper
>>>milk?
>> 
>> Probably yes. But again, I am afraid that  Russians can produce
>> even cheaper milk :-( 
>
>
>We have not seen that yet!
>
>
>> and it will not be easy to sell
>> even Estonian milk to St. Petersburg at prices profitable to Estonian
>> farmers.
>
>
>The Estonian agriculture needs a total not perestroika but a revolution. 

It is happening, with pains.

>And it should be not made more difficult by Finns that subside their 
>unprofitable agricultural production and dump Finnish butter and margarine into
>Estonian markets. It's a shame, according to my opinion!

Not completely. It is a first taste of real competition to the shameless
monopoly of big agricultural processing industries :-)

Coping helps to develop export. 
 
Regards,
	Tanel Tammet