From: thietaniemi@cc.helsinki.fi
Subject: Re: Answers and questions about ESTONIA ( wARussian Speakers in Estonia
Organization: University of Helsinki
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 13:06:07 GMT

In article <Sorokin.37.725931368@ps1.iaee.tuwien.ac.at>, Sorokin@ps1.iaee.
tuwien.ac.at (Sorokin Zhenya) writes:
> In article <1992Dec30.125715.1@cc.helsinki.fi> thietaniemi@cc.helsinki.fi 
writes:
>>In article <sorokin.32@ps1.iaee.tuwien.ac.at>, sorokin@ps1.iaee.tuwien.ac.at 
>>(Zhenja) writes:
>>> In article <1992Dec24.122312.1@cc.helsinki.fi> thietaniemi@cc.helsinki.fi 
>>writes:
> [...]
>>> 
>>>>Exactly. One should support only states recognized by The United Nations
>>>>and it's predecessor, the League of Nations.
> 
> I still reject the word "only". To my personal opinion, after the breakdown 
> of empires as a result of WW I, many european big and small nations had 
> the possibility of gaining independance. Due to some purely coincidental 
> factors some of them got it, some not. So, the rights for independence of,
> say, Armenia, Croatia, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Latvia... (alphabetical 
> order) are to my mind equal. Situation for balts is simply easier because 
> of previous recognition.


Here we might agree - if you make up your mind whether the rights of the Baltic
states for their independence are "equal" to other nations or do they represent
"a simpler case". The Baltic states should be a CLEAR case. They were the
only states being occupied (and the remnants of the troops are still there,
which one should not forget) even after the WW II was "over". 

That's why they are the states that should be re-established. And they have
been re-established.

There are other nations, the independence of which should be supported
(like, perhaps, Scotland). But - because of OTHER REASONS.


>>> In the special case of League of Nations and UN, I wouldn't consider them as 
>>> authoritative international legislators, especially League of Nations. 
>>
>>
>>You give no reasons for your opinion. Might it be that the Soviet Union was
>>expelled from the League of Nations when it attacked Finland in 1939?
> 
> No it might not. Activity of the League of Nations was much wider than SU 
> aggression vs. Finland. 


Indeed it was. Sorry, I couldn't help mentioning the reason why "the Russian
speakers" were expelled from the League of Nations.


> It swallowed, for example, remilitarization of 
> Germany, Muenchen, etc. It supported Serbia over Croatia all along.  


This is discussion about what would have been prudent policies from
a secure distance. I will not take part.

The only essential point: during this century the mankind has established
organisations promoting world peace and co-operation. They should be
supported whole-heartedly. The states recognized by the international
community (League of nations and United nations) should not be let to
hands of foreign conquerors. In this meaning the mandate given by
United Nations for the re-establisment of Kuwait was right indeed
(but the forms of counter-attack could still be discussed and disputed).

When Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were accepted to be members of
the United Nations in 1991, their sovereignity should be supported,
and if needed, re-established again. For the time being, the previous
injustices are rectified.



>>> Such 
>>> organizations are very often subject to political games of great players.
>>
>>
>>Of course. Still they are the best we have. Do you have any better suggestions
>>for promoting the world peace than organizations like UN and CSCE?
>>
> 
> No I don't. But the absence of better dosn't mean that these are ideal, 
> especially on their long historical way.


They are not ideal. They are simply the best we possess. We must make use of 
them. 



> 5,6: Israel and Palestina, Iraq and Kuwait: both were accepted. Whom shall 
> UN support?



Of course, according to UN resolutions, there should be BOTH the Israeli AND
the Palestinian state. Even here, we should support whole-heartedly the
UN resolutions.

No one is denying the recognition of Iraq. Both countries - Iraq and Kuwait -
are recognized members of international community and their independece should
be supported (of course, there are problems, like the Kurdish case). Neither
of them is a really "democratic" state (because of different reasons). Still, 
we should agree supporting their sovereignity when it would be endagered.

The questions about inner democracy should be solved by using different
kind of means.

 
>>> The restauration of independence and troops withdrawal from Baltics are not 
>>> under the question, but not only because these states were "recognized...". 
>>
>>
>>I fail to understand this statement. I (and Baltic peoples) are concerned
>>about restitution of Baltic states. If that's the will of the citizens'
>>of the occupied republics, we should appreciate it. We should appreciate
>>their will even more whole-heartedly, because they were states once
>>recognized by the international community.
>> 
> 
> You wrote absolutely different statement (see above and note the word "
> only"). As to me, I support independence of all ex-USSR and ex-Yugo 
> countries whole-heartedly from the very beginning. It simply can't be 
> "even more".
 
I have not changed my mind. But, perhaps, I have not expressed my opinions
clearly enough. Once again:

 (1) ONLY the states recognized by International Community should be
     "re-established". This is a judicial and moral claim. We should
     support their restitution.

 (2) There are other reasons to support the strive for independence of
     other nations. As a common rule, the will of the population should
     be respected. But I am afraid that we can not establish any other 
     universal rules for these cases. Rules like "every nation has a right to 
     establish a state" can not be universally accepted. The universal right 
     to self-determination could be universally eccepted, instead.


Let's take the case of Scotland. Scotland might be considered to be an
occupied country by some people. Still, the annexation took place in 18th
century. During this century, Scotland was not a recognized member of
the international community. Therefore, it can not be "re-established".
But, IF the majority of Scots decided to have an independed Scotland
(or autonomy of some sort), there are moral grounds to support them.


>>>>If the occupation of the Baltic states ends, we could conclude that
>>>>the WW II would be definitely over.
>>> 
>>> For Balts, maybe. 
>>
>>
>>Definitely. Here we seem to agree.
>>
>>
>>> For the Europe, no, unfortunately. 
>>
>>
>>Hmm?
>>
>>
>>> You see, today's war in 
>>> Balkans has its roots in WW I and League of Nation's policy in the time 
>>> between wars. 
>>
>>
>>The roots of the conflict go even deeper in history (Turkish empire and
>>things like that). Still, there are no occupation forces in Yugoslavia
>>as a remnant of the WW II, as there still are in Baltics.
>>
> 
> Serbian forces in Croatia are occupants from before the WW II, 
> reproduced after the WW II with a short interval of Croatian Ustasha State. 
> Soviet forces in Baltic are occupants from before the WW II, reproduced 
> after the the WW II with a short interval of German occupation.
> OK now?


Anything but OK. "Soviet forces in Baltic are occupants from before the WW II"?
I - and the Encyclopedia Britannica - are inclined to think that the Soviet
Union occupied Estonia in June 1940. 

I think you are now about to make a statement you find hard to justify.
But I let it to you to elaborate it.


>>> But still, the main topic was not independence of baltic states, but 
>>> rather 
>>> 1. Will the end of totalitarian occupation of baltic states 
>>> automatically bring them peace, democracy, human rights, etc.?
>>
>>
>>No. Democracy and human rights have been guaranteed in Baltic states
>>(especially in Estonia) even BEFORE the end of occupation.
>>
> 
> It seemed to me, too. But my current opinion is, that stupid policy of 
> nationalistic leaders _under certain historic circumstances_ can change a 
> lot. 


This is, unfortunately, a very typical "argument" in this newsgroup.
One should at least specify:


     (1) Which politician ("leader") one is referring to;
     (2) Which acts of him/her one considers inappropriate;
     (3) And on what grounds?

Usually, these conditions are not met. The obvious reason to it it that
people are ignorant of events, nations and states they are discussing
about.

Which makes this discussion sometimes utterly boring.
 


>>> 2. Does previous occupation give a (moral) right to discriminate the 
>>> descendants of the occupants and the newcomers?
>>
>>
>>I suppose you mean the non-citizens when you refer to occupants.
>>Of course, not. That's why there is no discrimination. There is no revenge 
>>(I think we have discussed this issue some times). 
> 
> 
>>The non-citizens in Estonia 
>>have all the rights of citizens except the right to vote in Riigikogu 
>>elections 
> 
> They have no right to be sure about their future. 


This is no right at all. It is not given by the Finnish state: I am not
sure about my future, unfortunately :-(   Perhaps you are.


> No guarantee is given that 
> whenever political feelings of citizens (or simply power balance in 
> Riigikogu {is it Parliament in english? 


It's a parliament, but the old world denotes a "state assembly" or something
like that: it's the Estonian citizens taht have been "gathered together".


> My estonian is very poor} ) change, 
> then they'd be subject to much stronger discrimination (which would be also 
> legal, since they are not citizens). 


Well, there's the constitution. Still, even the American constitution does
not give any guarantees to any ethnic groups if the majority of Americans
elected, say, a Ku-Klux-Clan government. The supreme court could hinder the
legislation for some years, but there are no eternal guarantees. 

The discrimination of minorities would not be legal according to current
Estonian constitution, which is planned to secure the non-citizens as many 
rights as possible (and therefore, I have repeatedly called it ultra-democratic:
the Finnish constitution (from 1919) does not even name the non-citizens).



> Being in Austria I know it very good. 
> 
>>(they have, for instance the rigt to take part in privatisation). 
> 
> As well as americans.



I do not understand this at all? The Americans can buy Estonian enterprises,
but they do not get any vouchers. If the workers of the enterprise will
receive a compensation in Estonia, it applies both the citizens and non-
citizens.


 
>>Moreover, the non-citizens are the population most apt to naturalization.
>>
>>BTW, do you think that the Estonian republic has done something illegal or
>>something that would be against international coventions (if so, according
>>your opinion, name these international conventions)?
>>
> 
> No! Everything is legal, and it doesn't make any sense to discuss it here. 
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I think this is a good point of emergency for mutual understanding. If Estonia
- as a sovereign state - has acted legally, then be have no judicial
grounds for blaming it.

After that, we could discuss POLITICS. We could pose questions like the
following one: What kind of citizenship policy would be most prudent politics
in current conditions?

As I have been doing.


> What makes sense, is to discuss whether it is moral and human. There is no 
> general definition and therefore the positions could be different, which 
> makes it interesting to discuss. 


The moral point of view to the Estonian citizenship policy:

(1) EVERY RESIDENT OF THE ESTONIAN REPUBLIC SHOULD GET A CITIZENSHIP
OF THE STATES INVOLVED, IN ACCORDANCE TO HIS/HER VOLUNTARY DECISION.

(2) THE SOVEREIGN STATES INVOLVED SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO INTRODUCE
THEIR CONDITIONS FOR NATURALIZATION. 

(3) STILL, THE NATURALIZATION SHOULD BE MADE AS SMOOTH AS POSSIBLE.

Do we agree on that?


 
>>I think that the Estonian citizens have behaved both legally and morally
>>correct. Still, I would like to support the more prudent politics
>>of the Estonian centrist opposition.
>>
> 
> 
> 
>>> 
>>> 3. What solutions to the current situation are possible, given current 
>>> mentality and inter-community relations.
>>
>>
>>I have repeatedly discussed some solutions. But you should be more precise:
>>which problems do you refer to? Besides, I am not inclined to think that
>>there were "mentalities" that were "given". I you think so, name some
>>of "given mentalities". I would like to know what they are.
>>
> 
> OK, if you wish. From my *personal* experience, based upon contacts with 
> people (I trust it more than statistics). 


I do not trust YOUR personal experience, unless you can back it with
documents, arguments and statistics. Otherwise, it's just your
opinions and prejudices. You might be convinced with that but it could
be difficult to convince others.

Especially arguments like "I met one Armenian and I know personally
what Armenians are like" are infantile.

 
> About mentality:
> Mentality of the balts, especially estonians, is german-like with strong 
> respect to law, etc. (I like it!). 


Well, I would not call it "mentality". There exits a TRADITION to respect
law, "constitutionalism" (as in Finland). The "German" features refer
to a developed civil society - which can't flourish without the rule
of law and constitutional restraints against power elites.


> Mentality of rusians, urkranians, etc. 
> are much more asiatic in almost all respects (unfortunately). 


I do not accept the distinction Asiatic/European.


If it should make sense, one could refer to Eurasian despotism
(Turkish empire, Persia, China, Mughul dynasty, Muscovite czaristic Russia,
fascist Germany).

The "European" features refer to self-government, and liberty (libertas):
the self-governing city-states in Europe that gave rise to the rule of law
and civil society.

Even Russia had it's city republic - the republic of Novgorod.
Yeltsin was the first Russian that succeeded bringing the "veche"
back again!



> The only 
> solution is assimilation. Fortunately, russians normally easily 
> assimilate, which can be proved by the history of russian diaspora before
> and after the revolution.  


The Russians do not assimilate as fast as Nordic peoples and Germans
(which tend to do that during the FIRST generation in exile).

But, according to the Estonian government, the non-citizens should not
be assimilated but INTEGRATED to the Estonian democracy. They should not
throw away their national features but they should adapt the democratic
procedures. The non-citizens in Estonia are not the avant-garde that
guarded the Belyi Dom during the attempted coup d'etat. They are
(mostly) ignorant and perplexed blue-collar workes from all corners
of the Imperium and have not much democratic organizations of their own.
That's why it was rather easy to get them to support the Interdvizhenye -
"the director gave as a day off if we attend to patriotic demonstration".
 

> About relations:
> *All* balts whom I knew (mostly before the independence, of course) were 
> common in 
> 1. When _these_ get away, we'll start a new life (cultural, economic, etc.).
> 2. We will inevitably retreive _them_.
> Concrete definition of _them_ depended upon cultural level, from "all of 
> you" to very polite "lumpen elements from industrial townships".


Don't you think that they are right in some respect? "They" did destroy
the Estonian democracy and self-government. Of course, the definition
of "them" is crucial. It's not the blue-collar workers that did the 
dirty political work. Discuss with educated and/or wise people, ignore
the idiots.



> 3. All russians tend to communism and dictatorship, it is genetic (remember 
> the discussion about "russian guilt" on this forum?).



The discussion about "Russian guilt" was started by Russians. Perhaps
they did feel guilty in a way or another. The guilt feelings should
be elaborated and not directed against others.

 
> From russian-speakers I know only one couple from Riga here. Their feeling 
> is deep insultion and fear of worse still to come. They know language very 
> good and are ready to pass exam, but the citizenship legislation is not 
> adopted in Latvia yet, and it seems that they do not really want to adopt it 
> before privatization is mostly completed, and troops withdrawn. However, non-
> citizens are discriminated *now*.


Now you are speaking about Latvia. I am not aware of the details of
the current Latvian law on privatisation. Therefore, I do not know
whether somebody is discriminated by these laws or not. BTW, do you
know the current Latvian laws on privatisation, update me, if you
can. Your OPINIONS are not enough.
 

> 
> About revenge:
> In *all* discussions, a certain argument inevitably arrives: "And what did  
> soviets (russians) do with us in 1940!?!" 


Yes. And what did the Soviet Union do in Estonia in 1940? Even mentioning
it was illegal until the late eighties.



(look old Tanel's postings here,
> for example). Using this argument today to back somethimg exactly means the 
> revenge. 

Of course not. The previous injusticies should be rectified, don't you
think so?

If the Estonians were for REVENGE, God forbid...!


> This idea sits very deep in common sense and should be taken into 
> account.
> 
> There are different levels of policy:
> 1. The arguments said by politicians.
> 2. Their real intentions.
> 3. Understanding by common sense.
> 4. The results.


Exactly. But one should even know the politicians by the name before
evaluating their arguments, intentions and the results.

 
> I do not need to comment 1. after Tanel's postings.


Dropping arguments is not very convincing to me, at least!


> It seems that 2. had changed in Estonia recently to more positive towards 
> russian-speakers, maybe first results helped.


Who has changed his/her "real intentions"? I can't follow you!


> This produced some difference between 2. and common sense which definitely 
> considers all measures through the prism of retrieval of _those_ (do not try 
> to convince me of opposite, 


I don't even undestand what you are arguing here. But you claim that you
can't be convinced of opposite (despite of any arguments given). Then
you do not obviously need my arguments. Which is a pity.


> I've spoken to enough balts in Latvia, Estonia 
> and Moscow).


I have not even met enough Balts or Russians. Seems that you have.


> Results are (as often in case of unexperienced politicians) different from 
> all 1., 2. and 3. and this was my fourth question.
> 
>> 
>>> 4. What could be the results of the today's policy of all the participants?
>> 
>>Elaborate the question. In this form it sounds like: what will happen in
>>Estonia in next years?
>>
>>The shortest answer: if let alone, without chauvinist Russian intrusion,
>>Estonia will resemble of Finland after one generation. Russia would
>>have another Finland as it's neighbour. Nothing more and nothing less.
>>
> 
> Agree and hope, but don't you think that estonian policy can influence the 
> process in both positive and negative way? 
 


This is exactly why I am discussing the Estonian POLITICS. Still, I am just

an observer:
Tapani Hietaniemi, Universitas Helsingiensis
                   urbs fennorum