From: thietaniemi@cc.helsinki.fi
Subject: Re: Happy end for the ESTONIAN question (Was: Estonia 14)
Organization: University of Helsinki
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 09:49:56 GMT

In article <12049@kesson.ed.ac.uk>, alexei@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Alexei Moiseyev) 
writes:

> As I understand the game there are two well defined camps here.  One
> is democratic and the other nationalist.


I can't see this kind of demarcation line. But: de gustibus non
disputandum: if you want to call me anti-democratic nationalist, you are
free to do so. But do not be surprised when somebody finds it's 
difficult to understand your opinions.


>>Here, we agree!
> 
>>(1) Down with nazis!
> 
>>(2) Down with stalinists!  
> ....................................
> 
>>(3) Down with the Molotov - Ribbentrop pact between Stalinists and
>>Nazis!
>>Do we still agree?
> 
> We certainly do!  DOWN WITH THE STALINISTS! DOWN WITH MOLOTOV-RIBBENTROP!


Fine! This might be a good point of departure for mutual understanding:
The pact affected a deep injustices - the attack against Finland (that's
no problem any more - we have a peace treaty with CCCP and it's follower,
Russia) and the occupation of the Baltic states. Their restitution was
the first step towards rectifying this deep injustice.



>  Only democratic countries where gov-ts have been
> elected may truly be asserted to deserve their leaders.  But what
> about countries where leaders have come to power due to some exogenous
> force? 


Exactly. That was my concealed point. Estonia, for example, did not
have Estonian democratic leadership after the establishment of the
puppet government by Zhdanov in 1940. Only after 1992 elections,
when the citizens of re-established Estonian republic could vote
a new Riigikogu, Estonia has as good government as it deserves.
It seems that Estonia deserves a right wing (+social democrats)
government, which is not my favourite government. But, that't
up to Estonians to make their own mistakes :-)


(I delete the part about Russian atrocities etc.. I only remark
that if I do not mention something, like the Tien An Men massacre
in Beijing 1989, it does not imply that I refuse to accept it as a fact
or would like to cover it. I still won't mention this atrocity
in my future postings.)


A repeat my opinion on Estonia:

(1) The restitution of the republic of Estonia was legally correct.
    (I think that both the Russian government and you accept this?)
    I even think that this was a morally correct act: the previous
    injustices should be rectified.

(2) Now, the democratic republic has been restituted. But it is not
    enough. It needs reforms in order to adapt itself to the
    new surroundings (like amendments in citizenship law,
    perhaps new language legislation, but this is a complicated 
    matter). There is no legal necessity to do so, but

    (a) It would be prudent politics
    (b) and I think that it were even morally correct to pursue the politics
        of reconciliation and help the non-citizens to integrate
        to the post-soviet conditions. The Russian speakers should
        become citizens of Estonia and take part to Estonian
        culture, politics and economy (and sport, I almost 
        forgot).
    

I have no reason to change my views, but perhaps I should reformulate
them for the sake of better mutual understanding:

(3) Because of the (legally and morally) correct restitution of
    the Estonian republic there exists A DEMOCRACY DEFICIT during
    this period of transformation we are facing. This does not imply
    that Estonia would be an undemocratic country (do not take it
    from me, consult the CSCE, UN and Council of Europe instead).

(4) This democracy deficit (that some people can't vote in parliamentary
    elections, before they choose which is their country) creates suffering
    and, is therefore a negative phenomenon which we should get rid of.
    The best platform for finding ways to a compromise and to a smooth
    solution is The Council of Europe, which seems to forge a 
    compromise solution right now - at least, I hope so.

(5) The goal of democratic politics in Estonia should be the following:
    (a) Every individual should receive
        a citizenship of the state that he/she wishes.
    (b) This procedure should be made as smooth as possible.
   
(6) Still, it is up to Estonians to decide, which condititions
    they set for those that want to be naturalized (This is accepted
    by the Russian government). The Estonians seem to want to protect
    the culture of their own - and therefore they have legally set
    up the language requirement.

(7) There are different political views about Estonian naturalization
    conditions and bilingualism, but they are political issues
    which are discussed and bargained in Estonian Riigikogu.
    The right wing, centrist and leftist Estonian views
    differ much from each other in this respect.


If Estonia is left alone (read: The Chauvinist Russia - which is still
in opposition - does not intrude the Estonian politics) and
the civil war is not imported in Estonia, the Estonian question will
be solved in two-three years and Estonia would have, say, a population,
where 60 % are Estonian speaking Estonian citizens, 20% are Russian
speaking Estonian citizens and 20% citizens of Russia and other CIS
states (of free decision). Every one could vote in the democratic
parliamentary elections of their countries and every one could
vote in Estonian local elections.

This would be (only one possible) happy end of the Estonian question.
After that, the world would gladly forget the tiny Estonia
and the only news from Southern side of the Gulf of Finland
would be the plane crashes and earthquakes (once in a millennium :-)

As long as Yeltsin and democrats stay in power in Russia,
this vision will be promoted. This is the main demarcation line.

thinks
the observer
Tapani Hietaniemi, Universitas Helsingiensis
                   urbs fennorum


Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet