From: thietaniemi@cc.helsinki.fi (Tapani Hietaniemi)
Subject: The RUSSO-ESTONIAN border dispute (Was: The Grand Duchy...)
Organization: University of Helsinki
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 10:49:15 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.014908.14110@dxcern.cern.ch>, gen@vsnhd7.cern.ch 
(Eugene Chudakov) writes:

>     That reminds me a recent case with Estonia, since Mr.Hietaniemi 
> represents Estonian interests in this newsgroup. 


A misunderstanding. I do not represent anybody, not to speak anything 
about "Estonian interests". As a Finn living in Helsinki, I am observing
what happens before my front door (Estonia is just 50 km away from
my computer). I am delighted of the Estonian development towards
Nordic standards that has been taking place gradually. And astonished
of the low level of Chauvinist Russian war propaganda one often
confronts in this newsgroup. 

I represent the interests of my own, which are:
- supporting the Estonian development towards freedom, prosperity
  and multiculturality. Helsinki and Tallinn should grow together
  in the very near future. 
- fighting verbally against disinformation and Chauvinist war propaganda.


>    Few monthes ago Estonia made a territorial claim to Russia 
> for historically Estonian lands that included a place called 
> Pechory. 


Not few months ago and it's no "territorial claim". It's an old issue. 
According to 1920 Tartu/Dorpaty peace treaty Petserimaa/Petshora and 
Jaanilinn/Ivangorod are parts of the Estonian republic. This is the only 
existing peace treaty between the Estonian republic and the (Soviet) Russia 
and it was recognized even by Stalin, when he introduced the puppet 
government in Estonia in 1940.


> I heard about this Pechory recently by chance.


It was only you that paid attention to the issue few months ago.


> I could hardly consider this place to be historically Estonian,
> even if I knew what it means. 


I agree that you do not know what it means. Petseri/Petshora has partly
an Estonian population, if not majority (I must check this). On the contrary, 
Jaanilinn/Ivangorod is almost totally Russian.


> The land around was always an arena 
> of clashes of different powers like Poland, Prussia, Russia... 
> and was nearly all the time under some domination. 


This has been THE TRADITION in European history. During this centrury,
we have started to establish European and global international
organizations that monitor the existing treaties and human rights
and the minority issues. Even the majority of Russians should grasp
this gradually.


> Being not able 
> to distingwish, sorry, between historically Estonian and, say, Lithuanian 
> I can judge on the predominant religion of this place, that it was 
> historically Russian, as far as there is an old Orthodox monastery 
> which at certain periods was also used as a stronghold against Polish
> troops (XVI-XVIIc.).


There are even two Orthodox churches in the Tallinn old town.
The biggest orthodox church outside "the Eastern Europe" can be found
in Helsinki (the Uspenskij Cathedral). Orthodoxism is the other state
religion in Finland. So what?

The problem is not HISTORICAL, as you wish. It concerns the existing
peace TREATIES that should be the point of departure in Russo-
Estonian negotiations (I have been posting information on them,
read the ESTONIAN news).


>    Perhaps the inhabitants of this place are eager to join Estonia?


You bet. The Estonian citizens in this area have expressed their will
to do that (there have been polls and during the Riigikogu elections
one could also cast one's ballot in Petserimaa/Petshora). There are even 
Russians from Petserimaa/Petshora that would like to apply for the Estonian 
citizenship (mostly, because of better economic conditions of Estonia) but 
they do have the right to that (because of the residency requirement). The 
Estonian republic does not want to receive masses of new immigrants in this 
difficult era.


>    One my friend who had visited Pechory few weeks ago wrote me in 
> an e-mail that the local people got upset about Estonian claims and
> have no will to go into Estonia. 


I am convinced that many Russian inhabitants in the region oppose 
the idea. And that the overwhelming majority of Estonians in the
regions supports it.

 
>    The claim was done, however, on a legitimate ground since this place
> was given by the soviet government to Estonia in 1920, perhaps in a trade
> for some political favours (there were still some white troops hanging
> around in Estonia). 


It was a peace treaty. Finland and Russia signed also a mutual peace
treaty in Tartu/Dorpat in 1920. This treaty was replaced by the 1947
Paris peace treaty.



> Sometimes after 1940 the internal border was changed
> again. 


One of Stalin's genial moves, I think (correct the exact date, if this
is not a fact).


> As far as Estonia wanted to restore the pre-1940
> status, they claimed this land back. Seems logical.


Here I agree. But the majority of the current Russian parliament decided
to declare UNILATERALLY the existing borders (which are called administrative
borders in Estonia) to be the only legal ones. Such declarations can
not be made unilaterally. But this is an issue that is being discussed
in Russo-Estonian negotiations.

According to my humble opinion, the Estonian government should do
the following in the border issue:

- The Russian negotiatiors should take the existing peace treaties
  as the point of departure for the Russo-Estonian negotiations
  and abandon all "unilateral declarations". In this respect
  the Estonian government has a strong case when insisting on
  the existing peace treaties.

- But claiming the areas back would be futile in contemporary
  conditions (And I think this is realized in the Estonian 
  government, at least I hope so). The borders of Russia JUST
  CAN'T BE CHANGED in the contemporary conditions - that would
  open the Pandora's box for ever. Therefore, the Estonian
  government should negotiate a new peace treaty with the Yeltsin
  (Tsernomyrdin) government which could leave Jaanilinn/Ivangorod
  to Russia. But Russia should recognize that Narva would be
  an irreversible part of Estonia (The Narva river is a kind of
  "natural" frontier between Russia and Estonia). And the Petseri/Petshora
  should have some kind of special status INSIDE Russia. The main
  roads from the area go to the direction of Estonia. But the
  borders should not be changed.

But these are only my modest views, which represent MY INTRESTS:
the conflict around the Gulf of Finland should be avoided.



I deleted the issues concerning Bessarabia and Transdniestria. I touched
the Transdniestrian issue only because in had a connection to the Grand Duchy
of Finland and I do not want to get involved in the complex issues
of that region. I have changed the subject, accordingly.


>>Bozhe tsarya hrani!
> 
> God save the Queen!


Elagu vaba Eesti - slava Yeltsinu!

With best regards 
Tapani Hietaniemi, Universitas Helsingiensis
                   urbs fennorum

Xref: sparky talk.politics.soviet:10654 soc.culture.soviet:12308