From: thietaniemi@cc.helsinki.fi
Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet,talk.politics.soviet
Subject: Re: ESTONIA and human rights (Was: "demo
Date: 13 Sep 92 11:52:41 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

-------------------------------------------------------------------
ESTONIA: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <18tifqINNit1@agate.berkeley.edu>, muh@physics1 
(Yury M. Mukharsky)
writes:
> The I would like to make some points, though. Or questions.
> 
> 1. You said that Supreme Soviet ceased to exist. How today's parlamaint 
> was formed?

The contemporary Estonian parliament IS called the supreme Soviet.
It made the decicision to suspend it's activities in July 1992
(because of the new constitution adopted).
However, I just called Tallin to check this fact: It turned out that
the supreme soviet just had it's last session (exceptionally) 
in the beginning of September - because there was some budget 
legislation to do.... (I don't know details about the technical side
of this decisision, but there shouldn't be anything mystic in it).

After 20-09, there will definitely be no Supreme Soviet any more.
Just the parlament (Riigikogu) chosen by the citizens of the 
Republic of Estonia.

> How came russian delegates of SS do not participate?
 
They did; during the summer and, as I suppose, even in September. 
There are (about) 100 delegates in the Supreme Soviet, about 20 of them 
"Russian" (The quotation marks, because the definition causes some 
complexities). For more details, see my answer to Viznjuk.

> 2. I think that idea of revival of Estonia republic, and attributing the
> citizenship of modern Estonia to this republic decendents is not very good.
> First, if I am right, formation of that republic is no better from legal
> point of view than annexation. Am I wrong that independance was recognised
> by illegal communist goverment, which moreover was under pressure of German
> troops? 

There are, at least, three possible alternatives:

(1) The point of view shared by many of Russian-speakers:
    The Estonian Socialist Soviet Republic (1944-1991) 
    has become independent, and it's residents should 
    all have the citizenship.

(2) The Estonian Republic (1918-1940) was unjustly occupied
    by Stalin, and consequently, it should be re-established.
    This is the view shared by the vast majority of Estonians,
    and backed by most of European nations that recognized
    Estonian republic as "an existing state" like all Nordic 
    countries did, even the "finlandized" Finland (that even
    claimed that it had never accepted the occupation of
    Estonia, which is, unfortunately, a lie).

    Somebody might be intrerested that this is the point of
    view accepted by the EC and NATO. It is not just an
    Estonian idiosyncracy.

(3) One could also try to form the "third Estonian republic"
    with new political bodies. In this pure form, this view
    is supported by no one, as far as I am aware.

Since (2) is the legal point of emergence and the factual course
taken by the Estonians, the most happy outcome
of Estonian dilemma could only be a combination of (2) and (3).
Even the West will use pressure to achieve some kind of compromise.
Some totally new legislation and political bodies must be created.
Estonia is in a right way, when it adapted the NEW constitution
this summer and DID NOT revive any old constitution from
the thirties. But SOME KIND OF COMPROMISE is needed with the 
Russian-speaking population. There is no legal necessity to do it, 
but it would be politically disasterous avoid doing it.

The new constitution is deliberately planned to secure the rights
of non-citizens and even individuals without citizenship. The new
era needs new kind of legislation.

                          *****

The Soviet Russia (not yet the Soviet Union) did NOT recognize 1918
the Estonian Republic, but the Estonian (red) Commune instead, a
curious political body (without any constitution) that was set up
in Narva. The Soviet Russia recognized the Estonian Republic first
in the Tartu peace treaty in 1920, which paved way to the acceptance 
of the Estonian Republic into the League of Nations (1921). Since
the Estonian republic has been a political body accepted by the
international community.


> Second if somebody will next month or in 30 years
> claim that he restores the illegally
> (without approval of free elected Supreme Soviet) dissolved USSR and he will
> claim all territories back, will it be legal? Do not flame yet, I'm speaking
> from legal point of view (in my unprofessional understanding).
> 
> From prectical point of view, my opinion is that granting Estonian citizenship
> to all permanent residents of ESSR (see "propiska" for definition of 
perm.res.)
> save maybe military (who do not have propiska, as far as I know, anyway) would
> do much more good to national relations, and thus to development 
(or redevelopment)> of Estonia nation, too. Again in mine unprofessional 
understanding.
> 

Since the international community (UN, CSCE) do not accept the Soviet Union
as it's member but the CIS (with Russia, the successor of USSR in
most legal affairs), the restoration of the USSR (Oh, God!) could not
be accepted legal by the international community.

But, frankly, I admit that the formation of CIS was problematic
from the legalistic point of view. But this important question
does not concern my problems here: Estonia never became a part
of CIS.

For the remainder of Your question, I hope I sketched the main outlines above.
For more details, see my answer to Viznjuk!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
with the best regards

Tapani Hietaniemi, University of Helsinki

Our common aim: Peace, multiculturality, democracy and prosperity
around the Gulf of Finland!
Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet