From: thietaniemi@cc.helsinki.fi
Newsgroups: talk.politics.soviet
Subject: Re: Avoiding the WAR in ESTONIA (Was: Fur
Date: 15 Oct 92 10:53:59 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <1bgqmrINN9s0@uniwa.uwa.edu.au>, wojdylo@maths.uwa.oz.au 
(INFIDEL) writes:

I do not enjoy this discussion, but here I find some points of possible
agreement.
 
> The enactment of the flawed citizenship law was a mistake and it should
> be repealed or ammended.
 
I disagree and agree:

1. Disagree: The citizenship law was an integral part of the restitution of 
the Estonian republic (1918-1940; 1992-?), which was a member of the 
League of Nations. Therefore, it was necessary to enact the citizenship law.

2. Agree: Now, when the Estonian republic has a legitimate government, 
the citizenship law should be amended. I have discussed this in my previous 
postings.

 
> Perhaps the most telling data so far are the figures reported by BNS and
> ITAR-TASS (October 9,10) on Russian emigration from the baltics in 1992.
> According to data of the Russian Migration Service, the rate of emigration of
> Russians from Latvia and Estonia is increasing, but decreasing from
> Lithuania  as follows:
> 
> 		RUSSIAN EMIGRATION 1991/1992
> 
>   from		1991        	Jan-Jun 1992
> 
> Estonia		8200			17000
> Lithuania	        10000			6000
> Latvia		13000			8500
> 
> Recall that Estonia's total population is a fraction of Lithuania's, yet the
> emigration figure is 3 times higher --- as well as increasing at an
> alarming rate.

I think that the last Estonian figure might be little too high (17 000)
but it does not matter here. It is at least 10 000 and in any case higher 
than in Lithuania (which has the population of 3,723,000, Estonia 1,565,662).

The difference that makes the difference is that 

1) Lithuania has less Russians than Estonia (344,500) and

2) Lithuania has not got North-East Estonian problem: the Russians
are a majority in Narva, Kohtla-Ja"rve and Sillama"e. Many Russian
speakers living there did never consider themselves "Estonians". They
have always looked more closely to Leningrad/Skt. Petersburg
direction. That's why I have emphasized Narva as a special problem.

Anyhow, we seem to agree about the facts, grosso modo. Contrary to you, 
I do not find these figures alarming. They will even increase in the very 
near future, as I suppose:

- According sociological investigations (made in the beginning of summer)
about 20% of the Russian speaking population (more than half a million) 
in Estonia wanted to leave Estonia (this was before the enactment of the 
citizenship law). This might equal about one hundred thousand emigrants.
This movement is voluntary and should not be hindered. Especially those
involved with the military industry find employment in Russia more easily.

- The centrist presidential candidate professor Taagepera once estimated 
that about every third Russian speaker will move from Estonia. But the 
two thirds will remain. They should gradually receive the citizenship. 
Even this should happen in a voluntary way, according to him.

- The conservative president Meri is claiming that about 50% of Russian 
speakers that would like voluntarily leave Estonia. That might be an 
exaggeration. I am not convinced that negotiating with such figures with 
Russians is prudent politics.

> As a case to point, Radio Free Europe (Oct 13) reports that the Russian
> Vice President Alexander Rutskoi reiterated Russia's threat to impose
> economic sanctions on Estonia unless it altered its citizenship laws.
> According to Reuter, citing BBC on 12 October, Rutskoi's major objection
> was the language requirement.

Neither this is prudent politics. Of course this embargo could hurt Estonia
more than it hurts Russia, but it will hurt Russia anyway, and might
perhaps cause famine in Skt. Petersburg, which is partly dependent on
Estonian food production. This should be avoided.

I am afraid that the North-East Estonian Russian population would suffer
the most, because it needs the economic contacts to Russia desperately. 
That's why Russian speakers in North-East Estonia might not be very happy 
with Rutskoi's threats, as I suppose.

I fail to see in which way the embargo could contribute to the compromise
in the citizenship issue. It would only strengthen the legality claims
of the Estonian right wing government and create social and national 
tensions inside Estonia - and there might be even temptation to use 
the post-soviet military muscle in Estonia. The danger of civil war would 
lurk in the horizon.

> Rutskoi is acting on behalf of the Russian minority within Estonia; he
> is obliged to do this by international conventions which were drawn up
> to guarantee the rights of ethnic minorities in foreign countries. 

I fail to see any "international conventions" that would "oblige"
Rutskoi to continue his dangerous politics which might import the civil 
war to Estonia and cause the continued occupation of Estonia - which is 
definitely against international conventions.

The Estonian issue should be settled in European council and CSCE.
The conservative governments in Europe have the ball now.

There is of course the other alternative, to which you refer to:

> thus, Yugoslavia is repeated in the Baltics.

This is exactly the thing that should be avoided! 
The war in Europe should never reach the Gulf of Finland!

Repeating histories about Stalinistic or fascistic atrocities does not
contribute to the solution, but is exactly the essence of the Yugoslavian
problem.                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^ 

I would rather like to be a part of a solution. For the start it should 
be obvious to us all that neither Russians are stalinistic-chauvinistic 
imperialists nor Estonians are incurable nationalist-fascists.

I should know - as a Finn I have made acquaintance with both nations.

sincerely
Tapani Hietaniemi, Universitas Helsingiensis
                   urbs fennorum