From: thietani@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tapani Hietaniemi)
Subject: Re: CSCE minority commissioner on LATVIA
Organization: University of Helsinki
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 07:58:58 GMT

Boris A. Veytsman (BAV2@psuvm.psu.edu) wrote:
> In article <1993Jan27.113017.1@cc.helsinki.fi>, thietaniemi@cc.helsinki.fi
> (Tapani Hietaniemi) says (quotation are from my article):
> >
> >
> B> Maybe it's my error. But what I'm convinced in is that Latvian,
> B> Estonian, Ukrainian Govts cannot be Govts of Latvians, Estonians,
> B> Ukrainians as ethnic groups but must represent interests of the
> B> whole population.
> >
> >
> >Not the whole POPULATION. The governments of REPUBLICS should represent
> >the will of their CITIZENS.
> >
> 
> This is the root of our arguments. You deny the right  of
> Russian-speaking population ('Migrants') to citizenship and
> fair representation  & protection, I recognize it.


This is surely the root of my argument. Soviet Russia destroyed
the freedom and sovereignity of a republic. The republic had
to be re-established to rectify the previous injustice.

But I am not denying anything, I am observing the situation in Estonia.

And they HAVE NOT DENIED THE RUSSIAN-SPEAKING POPULATION ANY
CITIZENSHIP.

That should be crystal clear, it's boring to repeat the same arguments
over and over again. The Council of Europe has already accepted the
view of the Estonian republic. 

Some Russian speakers are citizens (minority) and some are not
considered to be citizens (majority). The majority CAN apply
for citizenship if it wishes. Still, I am convinced that a great part of
the majority will apply for Russian citizenship. But they must decide first.
That the majority of Russian speakers has not the Russian citizenship
at this very moment does not imply either that they would 
have been "denied the Russian citizenship".


If this fundamental fact is not kept in mind, the discussion
is irrational. 

The Estonian constitution protects effectively the fundamental
rights of non-citizens. It has been fabricated especially to
exceptional situation Estonia is facing.

 
> May I say that your argument is    very dangerous. 


You may say that, but first you should understand my arguments.
<therefore, questions based on misunderstandings deleted>


> And last point. Dear Tapani, can you explain me, why 7% Swedes
> in Finland have right to have their language accepted as the
> state one, and much greater percentage of Russians in Baltic
> (you can tell exact figures) have not such right?


That's up to Baltic citizens to decide. If you have followed this
newsgroup, you might have noticed that I am advocating the
bilingualism both in Finland and Estonia.


The Swedish part of Finland developed mostly in natural, evolutionary
manner. Swedish was the leading cultural language even during
the 19th century in Finland. German language had a similar position
in Estonia. The policy that lead to Russification of Estonia
was a deliberately Stalinist-Brezhnevist policy and did not
take place with the consent of Estonian citizens. And, occypying
a country is not the very best means to win appreciation.

But even the existing Estonian language legislation is a progressive
one. It allows the usage of Russian as an official language
(not a state language) in regions where Russian is the language
of majority etc. I could re-post an overview on existing Estonian
language legislation, if necessary.

And it should be kept in mind, that it's the Estonians that
have received the right to be served in their language in
railway stations, when visiting doctor or the police station
during the last years. Before 1989, one was forced to use almost
exclusively Russian in these everyday situations.

with best regards
Tapani Hietaniemi, Universitas Helsingiensis
                   urbs fennorum

Xref: sparky talk.politics.soviet:10634 soc.culture.soviet:12284