From: thietaniemi@cc.helsinki.fi
Subject: Re: Once again on restitution of states (Was: discrimination
Organization: University of Helsinki
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 08:35:12 GMT

In article <1ingl4$m48@agate.berkeley.edu>, muh@physics1 (Yury M. Mukharsky) writes:
> In article <1993Jan9.185720.23761@enea.se> sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) writes:
>>
>>The underlying key-point in Yury Muravsky's standpoint is that he don't
>>recognize post-1940 immigrants in Estonia as immigrants, because he
>>thinks the occupation was legal. 

<del.>

> I'm not saying that occupation was
> legal. I gave argument against statement "There is no discrimination in Estonia"
> If want my opinion on occupation (and I surprised you have not learn it yet)
> here it is: It was illegal, 


A good point of emergence for mutual understanding! This view is not
accepted by the majority of current Russian parliament. Kozyrev and the
foreign ministry seems to accept it, anyhow.


> but this has nothing to do with question at hand.


I should have guessed that: "We accept that the occupation was illegal,
but it implies nothing."


> As for legality. Suppose monarchy is restored in Russia tomorrow. Than, IMHO
> occupation (or better reaanexation) will be perfectly legal, it will just
> void treaties of illegal goverment. 


We have discussed this a couple of times before. Not every state should
be restituted, only the states recognized by the international community.
With international community I refer mainly to UN, but in the Baltic case
also to the League of Nations, because the Baltic states were the only
states that were the League of Nations recognized members but did not
become UN members. The World War II occupation continued and, therefore,
the world war was not over. And it is still not over, because these
countries are still occupied, against international conventions and
resolutions (CSCE and UN) and against the wills of the states involved.


> Who cares that iindependent Estonia was 
> recognized by world's community. 


Only Estonians, other Baltic States, and - the World community. And I.
It seems that you do not care.


> Tsarist Russia was recognized for a hell
> longer. 


Tsarist Russia was never a member of the League of Nations. Restoring
the pre-World War I conditions would be futile and senseless. I think
we could agree on that.


>(And ESSR was recognized, as a part of USSR, too). 


USA never did that. Sweden formally recognized the annexation. Finland
never did that (in theory, but accepted this annexation in practice).
The exile Estonian government started it's activities in Sweden.


> So what, will you
> support this legal re-annexation? What about Alaska? Term of lease is expired.


Alaska is a case between (Tsarist) Russia and United states. I would not
like to comment. I ask only, whether Russian republic (1991-) has declared
itself to be a successor state for Tsarist Russian Empire as well?
I suppose not. I have not heard Yeltsin "claiming Alaska back". 



> Fictious new Tzar may pay debts of old Tzar and through away all those 
American colonists from there? 


A fictious Tsar or a fictious Zhirinovsky might do anything we can't even
dream of. Who could have known what Stalin might start in the beginning
of twenties? Future is unpredictable.

thinks
the observer
Tapani Hietaniemi, Universitas Helsingiensis
                   urbs fennorum