From: thietaniemi@cc.helsinki.fi
Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet,soc.culture.europe,talk.politics.soviet
Subject: Re: Bilingualism - a good cause!
Date: 2 Jan 93 11:06:25 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <1992Dec31.161143.11815@cs.chalmers.se>, tammet@cs.chalmers.se 
(Tanel Tammet) writes:

<much has been deleted>


> The other problem you have to consider is that it is necessary to
> gradually integrate the Russian-speaking population in
> Estonian state and politics without creating political time
> bombs. Now I claim that total bilingualism (official) would
> mean that Russian-speaking population will NEVER learn
> Estonian and will stick together as one Russian block. 
> The existing separation of Estonian and Russian communities
> and politics will gain momentum, in contrast to our
> will to integrate these communities.


This is something I do not totally understand. A bilingualism in Helsinki
means that you teach yourself hundreds of Swedish/Finnish words when
you are just strolling through the town. Every child in Helsinki that
can read does know that Helsinki has two names: Helsinki/Helsingfors.
Filling forms that are printed in two languages in educating. Ask
any resident of any bilingual country.


  
> Now, not speaking about INNER politics, accepting Russian as an
> official language in Estonia together with Estonian will
> most probably have the following consequences:
> 
> 1) Politicians (and ordinary folks) in Russia will get a new,
> very strong reason to consider Estonia as a country where
> Russian dominance would be a natural thing to reintroduce - they
> even have Russian as one of the official languages, don't they?
> Both in a short and long run this will be very dangerous to Estonia.



I am inclined to think that IF the Estonian government is not
concerned about the lingustic needs of Russian speakers, the Russian 
parliament and government would find it very natural to intervene in some form.
I think (1) is a poor excuse - it's the other way around!

 
> 2) The same goes for the other countries, unfortunately,
> who will find it only too easy to associate Estonia with the Russian
> empire again - well, they speak Russian and some small local language.


Which countries? USA? Germany? Finland? I do not buy your argument.
It is just not plausible.

Do you really think that introducing bilingualism in Estonia would reduce
the German support to the Estonian republic? According to my experience
(I studied in Germany) it would be the other way around!


> IF you make Russian as a second official language, 


Russia can be used as an official language in local level in Estonia,
according to the existing language legislation (from 1989):

Article 1:
"In its treatment of the Russian language, the present law proceeds
from the needs of all-Union communication, as well as from the fact
that after Estonian it is the second largest native language spoken in
the Estonian SSR."

Article 15:
"The firms, institutions and organizations using Russian in their internal
communication may communicate in Russian with one another as well as with the
bodies of State authority and government of the Estonian SSR."

Are you AGAINST the existing legislation? Should the sound language
law be CHANGED?


> you will
> not get a happy coexistence, but a dominance of Russian with
> increasing attacks of Estonians against this dominance, with
> counterattacks, etc. 


You must substantiate this claim with something, otherwise it is hard
to swallow: with monolingualism, there will be no attacks and counter-
attacks and anyone would be satisfied?


> Considering foreign politics, this will
> seriously simplify reconquering Estonia by Russia. 


Bilingualism in Finland has not simplified reconquering Finland
by Sweden.


> In its
> conquests Russia normally acts pragmatically, preferring easy
> conquests to hard ones. Considering the good scenario where
> Russia does not turn back to its old imperialist manners,
> having Russian as one of the official languages in Estonia
> might still IMHO hinder reintegration of Estonia to Europe in
> the long run (as I am not extremely optimistic about integrating
> Russia to Europe), despite few immediate positive effects in
> foreign policy. 


IF the Russian speaking population will be unsatisfied, it will hinder
the integration of Estonia to the European institutions, like the
Council of Europe.

But - do you really think that a monolingual Estonia would be a "harder 
conquest" to Russia than a bilingual Estonia? I can see only one difference:
The tank drivers would have more difficulties when reading the road
signs :-)


> There might be immediate bad effects on economy
> also  - for example, if Estonian banknotes were to carry
> a few Cyrillic letters, the public perception of Estonian currency
> would gain sceptical attitudes, funny as it may seem. 


You are right indeed, it sounds funny! Since very few people have even seen
the Estonian bank notes, they do not affect much to the impression on
Estonia. When we speak about economy and willingness to invest in Estonia,
I am inclined to think that inner instability of Estonia is the main hinder 
for foreign investments, not the possible cyrillic letters on your bank notes.

thinks
the observer
Tapani Hietaniemi, Universitas Helsingiensis
                   urbs fennorum