From: thietaniemi@cc.helsinki.fi
Subject: Re: Russian Speakers in Estonia
Organization: University of Helsinki
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 10:57:15 GMT

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:
> 
>>In article <sorokin.28@ps1.iaee.tuwien.ac.at>, sorokin@ps1.iaee.tuwien.ac.at 
(Zhenja) writes:
> 
>>> You know, Volkswanderung (I definitely do not know english 
>>> equivalent, sorry) 
> 
>>It's Voelkerwanderung in German. The epoch of great migrations in English.
> 
>>> hadn't finished ten ages ago. It is still on the way... 
>>> My idea is, that there have to be a reasonable time, when you should stop 
>>> going back to history, because it'll bring you NOTHING, but conflict.
> 
>>Exactly. One should support only states recognized by The United Nations
>>and it's predecessor, the League of Nations.
> 
> You again try to consider the world and its history using mathematical 
> logic. 


I fail to see what "mathematical logic" has to do with this question.


> This will never go. First, even in mathematics it is proven that no 
> axiom system is full (Goedel's theorem). Second, real world consists of 
> people, not math objects. 


Therefore, I do not see an atom of meaning in the sentences above.


> People tend to act unreasonable (from one's point 
> of view) and illegal. 


I think totally the opposite way. People try to act in rational manner:
to take to consideration their own needs (or their interpretations of their
needs) and the possibilities given by the current situation. If we remember
this, very much of the social action becomes comprehensible. Of course,
it should go without saying that people tend to act in INCONSISTENT
manner, do not draw all conclusions of their premises and have some
invalid beliefs. 

Most of human action in modern societies is legal action.
In premodern societies there were only little legislation, therefore
most of action was irrelevant to law.


> Normally, only communists and fascits try to 
> think the opposite. 


You seem here to claim that all (people calling themselves ot being
called) communists and fascists think that people tend to act unreasonable
and in legal manner. This is not very plausible.


> Third, it is well understood in law systems and exactly 
> this is a reason for the existence of judges and courts. 
> 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?


> 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?


> Your statement is more or less OK with the situation in Baltics, but 
> can you apply it to, say
> 1. Croatia, Slovenia.
> 2. Slovakia.
> 3. Moldavia.
> 4. Other X-USSR states.
> 5. Middle East.
> 6. Iraq.


Well, I try to delimit my arguments for Estonia. Still, I am surprised
that you accept my argumentation about the restitution of the Baltic states,
as you have clearly written above.

Anyhow, you must still argue, in which respect my point of view would
not be valid or effective in the cases you have mentioned. Elaborate
your view, then I could see whether I agree with you or not. 


> 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.
 

>>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.



> The conflict about Moldavia is still to come, given the 
> rumanian "Romania Mara" mentality and traditions. 


Might be, but because of various reasons. Explaining history with
"mentality" is very poor analysis, according to my humble understanding.

 
> 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.

The occupation would end the occupation and in this very trivial sense
violence and injustice would be diminished in the Baltic states, which
would bring more peace to the region.


> 
> 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, for instance the rigt to take part in privatisation). 
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)?

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.

 
> 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.

sincerely,
Tapani Hietaniemi, Universitas Helsingiensis
                   urbs fennorum