From: thietaniemi@cc.helsinki.fi
Subject: Re: Answers and questions about ESTONIA ( wARussian Speakers in Estonia
Organization: University of Helsinki
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 10:16:18 GMT

In article <Sorokin.43.726080290@ps1.iaee.tuwien.ac.at>, Sorokin@ps1.iaee.
tuwien.ac.at (Sorokin Zhenya) writes:
> In article <1993Jan2.150607.1@cc.helsinki.fi> thietaniemi@cc.helsinki.fi 
writes:
>>In article <Sorokin.37.725931368@ps1.iaee.tuwien.ac.at>, Sorokin@ps1.iaee.
>>tuwien.ac.at (Sorokin Zhenya) writes:
> 
>>> 
>>> It seemed to me, too. But my current opinion is, that stupid policy of 
>>> nationalistic leaders _under certain historic circumstances_ can change a 
>>> lot. 
>>
>>
>>This is, unfortunately, a very typical "argument" in this newsgroup.
>>One should at least specify:
>>
>>
>>     (1) Which politician ("leader") one is referring to;
>>     (2) Which acts of him/her one considers inappropriate;
>>     (3) And on what grounds?
>>
>>Usually, these conditions are not met. The obvious reason to it it that
>>people are ignorant of events, nations and states they are discussing
>>about.
>>
> 
> (1) I am referring to the whole Riigikogu (maybe, I'll learn Estonian this 
> way? Will be glad to.).


Sorry, but exactly this shows your ignorance of Estonian POLITICS:
the citizenship issues and language requirements were and are a disputed
issue in Estonian Supreme Soviet and Riigikogu.

Many people in this newsgroup - usually with slavonic names - are inclined
to think that Estonians are some kind of a tribe that shares the same
opinions and political ideas - you are doing the same when referring to 
"the whole Riigikogu".


 
> (2) I consider inappropriate the *tactics* of introducing of citizenship's 
> legislation. 


Only the tactics? Here I think I agree.


> (3) 
> 1. Not every day the country gets an opportunity to become independent 
> and without civil war. 


Right indeed! And "the keys for Baltic independence were in Moscow" as
the Finnish state president Koivisto once wisely remarked.


> It is obvious, that in such cases special legislation 
> must be elaborated, instead of universal one, which is equally applicable 
> to a russian-spaking person born in Estonia, say, 28 years ago and to a 
> Nigerian, applying for citizenship in 2012.


Here I can't follow your train of thought. Who has elaborated "a universal
legislation"?


>  If you want tensions, adopt 
> universal legislation. 


Do you think that UN human rights declaration is apt to create tensions?
Probably, but positive ones...

 
> 2. I also consider as stupid tactics of introducing first too offending 
> legislation with a lot of obvious easy targets for antipropaganda and then 
> stepping back a little. 


The Estonians think that only Riigikogu has the power to make amendments
to the citizenship legislation. This is why I'm speaking about Riigikogu,
not "parliament". The Supreme Soviet was also a parliament, but an illegal
one. Therefore, it's resolutions are not valid in the eyes of the majority
of Estonians. That is why they made the decision to re-establish their
political bodies. Still, they did not accept the old constitution from
the thirties, but replaced it with a more modern one in referendum of
the citizens.

I think we should respect the decision of Estonians to re-establish
their democracy that was destroyed by Stalin and Zhdanov.

Still, I do not think that this necessary condition would be a sufficient one.
As I have repeatedly said, after the restitution the new republic
needs reforms to adapt itself to the new surroundings (the first
adaptation was the introduction of the constitution).

To the Estonians, this was never a question of tactics, but of principle
(and I must admit that having principles does sometimes harm your
tactics).


> With the same output result, such tactics produced 
> much stronger influence of NASHI's in the russian-speaking population, 
> feeling of possibility of pressing more changes and so on. The same occurred 
> in Moldavia in exaggerated way. Now the leaders of Dniestr republic refuse 
> even those solutions, for which they started to fight! 

> Current boycott of naturalization campaign (I remember the figure 5% applied 
> only, is it correct?) means that r.-speakers think, that they will gain 
> more by waiting. 


This is disinformation: there is no boycott: every one can voluntarily
apply for Estonian citizenship. Still, I think that the majority of
non-citizens will be waiting until February to see whether the tables
will be turned...


> All this produce tensions and misunderstandings. 


Misunderstandings, right! The tensions were there.


> I guess 
> that inter-communal situation today is worse than, say, 2 years ago, 
> although not tragic. 


The situation was worst before the attempted coup, when many Russian-
speaking non-citizens still supported the Interdvizheniye. Now the bulk
of non-citizens are perplexed. No sign of tragedy - no record of
ethnic violence as a mass phenomenon. Nothing to report.


> Naturally, NASHI's are to blame at first, but not only!
> (NASHI is a term for all pro-soviet forces in Baltics).



I would like to call them Nevzorovka. They have used violence in
the Baltic states and supported atrocities. Only NASHI.

 
> I could suggest one solution to break this boycott: Appoint a NEW elections 
> to Riigikogu (and President, maybe). 


In 1996, your wish will be fulfilled. There is no boycott to break: the
non-citizens that will apply for citizenship, will vote in the next
Riigikogu elections. The others will vote in other elections - Russia
should have a new congress of people's deputies!


> It must be guaranteed, that for all 
> persons applied for citizenship the procedure will be ended to the time of 
> elections. 


No extra guarantee is needed. But the persons applying for Estonian citizenship
in 1995 can not be sure that they are able to vote in next elections.


> This will also split the russian-speaking community, which now 
> tends to unite under NASHIs' slogans. 


I fail to see this kind of tendency in Estonia. The reactionaries do not
have a very good reputation. Do you really think they would have a mass
support nowadays ANYWHERE in imperium? Rutskoi, perhaps, but I suppose
we could count him out from NASHI.


> Unfortunately, there are no representatives of russian-speaking community on 
> this group, and we do not know the other point of view. Only official 
> figures and information are available.


Here I agree: it would be interesting and edifying to have at least one
non-citizen from Estonia here in the net. People tend to speak FOR them.
As I do as well, unfortunately!


>>> No guarantee is given that 
>>> whenever political feelings of citizens (or simply power balance in 
>>> Riigikogu {is it Parliament in english? 
>>
>>
>>It's a parliament, but the old world denotes a "state assembly" or something
>>like that: it's the Estonian citizens taht have been "gathered together".
>>
>>
>>> My estonian is very poor} ) change, 
>>> then they'd be subject to much stronger discrimination (which would be also 
>>> legal, since they are not citizens). 
>>
>>
>>Well, there's the constitution. Still, even the American constitution does
>>not give any guarantees to any ethnic groups if the majority of Americans
>>elected, say, a Ku-Klux-Clan government. The supreme court could hinder the
>>legislation for some years, but there are no eternal guarantees. 
>>
> 
> Demagogic answer, not your style. I used to respect your answers...


Thank you that you have respected at least some of my answers! But the
answer above was no demagoguery: I just wanted to emphasize that eternal
guarantees do not exist. The minorities in Estonia are protected by:

(1) The modern constitution that guarantees the rights of non-citizens
    which reflects the determined will of Estonian citizens

(2) The minority legislation and laws on cultural autonomy which are
    partly introduced and will be introduced in Estonia.

(3) The integration of Estonia to Helsinki process (which has taken place,
    Estonia is a member of CSCE). In previous summer the Helsinki summit 
    accepted the minority rights regulation.

(4) The integration of Estonia to the Council of Europe - which is
    the main institution that monitors the democracy in Europe.
    This will happen in spring 1993, at least I hope so.

What more guarantees do you need? You won't be getting any more...



>>The moral point of view to the Estonian citizenship policy:
>>
>>(1) EVERY RESIDENT OF THE ESTONIAN REPUBLIC SHOULD GET A CITIZENSHIP
>>OF THE STATES INVOLVED, IN ACCORDANCE TO HIS/HER VOLUNTARY DECISION.
>>
>>(2) THE SOVEREIGN STATES INVOLVED SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO INTRODUCE
>>THEIR CONDITIONS FOR NATURALIZATION. 
>>
>>(3) STILL, THE NATURALIZATION SHOULD BE MADE AS SMOOTH AS POSSIBLE.
>>
>>Do we agree on that?
>>
> 
> Yes, but what are the "states involved" for a 28-years-old wo(man) (
> russian, jewish, ukrainian, etc.) born in Estonia (Latvia), having her(his) 
> home there, etc., etc. no matter what language (s)he masters? I see only 
> one!


The states involved are:
- Russia (until March just a formality)
- perhaps Ukraina (I do not know details)
- Israel (ditto)
- Latvia (if the residency requirement is met, or, Estonia).


This is complicated. Now, when the "prison of nations" is broken down,
a new deal is needed. And some patience. And perhaps a manual of
citizenship and privatisation legislations.



> Just two things I know from my friends. It would be interesting to have 
> somebody from Latvia (both sides) in this group. 
> 1. Non-citizens have to pay for higher education, citizens do not (taxes are 
> equal, naturally).


If your account is correct, this is unfair, according to my opinion. The 
Estonian right-wing government has been very outspoken that this kind
of injustice will not be tolerated in Estonia. But I would not like
to speak about Latvia, which I do not know much about.


> 2. For privatization, a non-inflating unit of "1 square meter of housing" 
> is taken (Riga was famous throughout the SU for its worst situation with 
> flats). For 1 year of living in Latvia, you get 4 meters free. 
> By definition, citizens get 20 meters plus, and non-citizens 20 meters minus,
> irrespective of their future citizenship (when the law is adopted). Now 
> imagine 2 young families living door-to-door in Riga and born there, which 
> used to be friends...


Ditto.



>>The previous injusticies should be rectified, don't you
>>think so?
>>
> 
> Yes, but the people who did them are mostly dead. Is it moral to make 
> granddaughter responsible for what her grandfather did? 



Of course not. This is the very reason of not having a revenge.
Here the overwhelming majority of Estonians, you and I agree.

<much deleted...>


>>Who has changed his/her "real intentions"? I can't follow you!
>>
> 
> Maybe I am biased, but it looked like first decisions of Riigikogu 
> were more retrieval-aimed.  


Which decisions? In October 1992 or when?


> New government is ready to admit special status of Narva, introduce some 
> changes in the law (old, handicapped). 


I am not sure whether it's ready to that - and what the special status
might denote: the idea discussing the special status of Narva was
introduced by the centrist prime minister Savisaar and the representant
of the enterpreneurs' party, Tiit Made. According to my knowlegde, the
right wing parties in Estonia have not been very interested in this
discussion. At least, not yet.
 
The amendments to the citizenship law are still a desiderata.

<deleted>

> I am fighting to fronts. You know, my wife (russian 
> with 1/4 armenian, brought up as russian) is even more pro-baltic  and anti-
> russian as you and Tanel together. I'd like to hear your opinion.


I am not pro-Baltic. I have some years supported, mostly verbally,
the People's front of Estonia. I have very seldom understood the politics
of Vytautas Landsbergis. Still, I must admire his totally unrealistic
politics that succeeded! Life is full with surprises...

I am neither anti-Russian. As I have sometimes remarked, I have some
Russian blood in my veins, because my grand-gradfather married in St.
Petersburg. Tanel is not anti-Russian either, but he called himself
Russophobic. I am only Russoanarchophobic and for bilingualism in
Estonia (and in Finland). Only these things set us apart in this
respect.
 
The Russian heritage is an integral part of the history of Finland.
And we are actually not just observers in the great Russian political
drama of today. We are involved in it. Flourishing St. Petersburg could be a
goal that would be important to both of us. And mirnoye sosushtshestvovaniye
between Russia and Estonia. The Finnish - Russian relations pose no
severe problems to us.

We Finns tend to support our own favourites in this political struggle. 
At least, verbally.

to democratic Russia with love
Tapani Hietaniemi, Universitas Helsingiensis
                   urbs fennorum

Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet,soc.culture.europe,talk.politics.soviet