From: Sorokin@ps1.iaee.tuwien.ac.at (Sorokin Zhenya)
Subject: Re: Answers and questions about ESTONIA ( wARussian Speakers in Estonia
Organization: Technical University of Vienna
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 16:58:10 GMT

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.).

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

(3) 
1. Not every day the country gets an opportunity to become independent 
and without civil war. 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. If you want tensions, adopt 
universal legislation. 

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. 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. All this produce tensions and misunderstandings. I guess 
that inter-communal situation today is worse than, say, 2 years ago, 
although not tragic. Naturally, NASHI's are to blame at first, but not only!
(NASHI is a term for all pro-soviet forces in Baltics).

I could suggest one solution to break this boycott: Appoint a NEW elections 
to Riigikogu (and President, maybe). It must be guaranteed, that for all 
persons applied for citizenship the procedure will be ended to the time of 
elections. This will also split the russian-speaking community, which now 
tends to unite under NASHIs' slogans. 
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.

>>>The non-citizens in Estonia 
>>>have all the rights of citizens except the right to vote in Riigikogu 
>>>elections 
>> 
>> They have no right to be sure about their future. 
>
>
>This is no right at all. It is not given by the Finnish state: I am not
>sure about my future, unfortunately :-(   Perhaps you are.
>
>
>> 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...
>>>(they have, for instance the rigt to take part in privatisation). 
>> 
>> As well as americans.
>
>I do not understand this at all? The Americans can buy Estonian enterprises,
>but they do not get any vouchers. If the workers of the enterprise will
>receive a compensation in Estonia, it applies both the citizens and non-
>citizens.
>

I referred to Latvia (see below). Glad to know it has been made wise in 
Estonia. 

>> What makes sense, is to discuss whether it is moral and human. There is 
no >> general definition and therefore the positions could be different, 
which >> makes it interesting to discuss. 
>
>
>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 idea that Russia is the second because 

>
>I do not trust YOUR personal experience, unless you can back it with
>documents, arguments and statistics. Otherwise, it's just your
>opinions and prejudices. You might be convinced with that but it could
>be difficult to convince others.
>

Then I will not comment following, although you seem to agree with some of 
my "prejudices".

>Especially arguments like "I met one Armenian and I know personally
>what Armenians are like" are infantile.
>
> 
>> About mentality:
>> Mentality of the balts, especially estonians, is german-like with strong 
>> respect to law, etc. (I like it!). 
>
>
>Well, I would not call it "mentality". There exits a TRADITION to respect
>law, "constitutionalism" (as in Finland). The "German" features refer
>to a developed civil society - which can't flourish without the rule
>of law and constitutional restraints against power elites.
>
>
>> Mentality of rusians, urkranians, etc. 
>> are much more asiatic in almost all respects (unfortunately). 
>
>
>I do not accept the distinction Asiatic/European.
>
>
>If it should make sense, one could refer to Eurasian despotism
>(Turkish empire, Persia, China, Mughul dynasty, Muscovite czaristic Russia,
>fascist Germany).
>
>The "European" features refer to self-government, and liberty (libertas):
>the self-governing city-states in Europe that gave rise to the rule of law
>and civil society.
>
>Even Russia had it's city republic - the republic of Novgorod.
>Yeltsin was the first Russian that succeeded bringing the "veche"
>back again!
>
>
>
>> The only 
>> solution is assimilation. Fortunately, russians normally easily 
>> assimilate, which can be proved by the history of russian diaspora before
>> and after the revolution.  
>
>
>The Russians do not assimilate as fast as Nordic peoples and Germans
>(which tend to do that during the FIRST generation in exile).
>
>But, according to the Estonian government, the non-citizens should not
>be assimilated but INTEGRATED to the Estonian democracy. They should not
>throw away their national features but they should adapt the democratic
>procedures. The non-citizens in Estonia are not the avant-garde that
>guarded the Belyi Dom during the attempted coup d'etat. They are
>(mostly) ignorant and perplexed blue-collar workes from all corners
>of the Imperium and have not much democratic organizations of their own.
>That's why it was rather easy to get them to support the Interdvizhenye -
>"the director gave as a day off if we attend to patriotic demonstration".
> 
>
>> About relations:
>> *All* balts whom I knew (mostly before the independence, of course) were 
>> common in 
>> 1. When _these_ get away, we'll start a new life (cultural, economic, etc.).
>> 2. We will inevitably retreive _them_.
>> Concrete definition of _them_ depended upon cultural level, from "all of 
>> you" to very polite "lumpen elements from industrial townships".
>
>
>Don't you think that they are right in some respect? "They" did destroy
>the Estonian democracy and self-government. Of course, the definition
>of "them" is crucial. It's not the blue-collar workers that did the 
>dirty political work. Discuss with educated and/or wise people, ignore
>the idiots.
>
>
>
>> 3. All russians tend to communism and dictatorship, it is genetic (remember 
>> the discussion about "russian guilt" on this forum?).
>
>
>
>The discussion about "Russian guilt" was started by Russians. Perhaps
>they did feel guilty in a way or another. The guilt feelings should
>be elaborated and not directed against others.
>
> 
>> From russian-speakers I know only one couple from Riga here. Their feeling 
>> is deep insultion and fear of worse still to come. They know language very 
>> good and are ready to pass exam, but the citizenship legislation is not 
>> adopted in Latvia yet, and it seems that they do not really want to adopt it 
>> before privatization is mostly completed, and troops withdrawn. However, non-
>> citizens are discriminated *now*.
>
>
>Now you are speaking about Latvia. I am not aware of the details of
>the current Latvian law on privatisation. Therefore, I do not know
>whether somebody is discriminated by these laws or not. BTW, do you
>know the current Latvian laws on privatisation, update me, if you
>can. Your OPINIONS are not enough.
>

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).
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...

>> 
>> About revenge:
>> In *all* discussions, a certain argument inevitably arrives: "And what did  
>> soviets (russians) do with us in 1940!?!" 
>
>
>Yes. And what did the Soviet Union do in Estonia in 1940? Even mentioning
>it was illegal until the late eighties.
>
>
>(look old Tanel's postings here,
>> for example). Using this argument today to back somethimg exactly means the 
>> revenge. 
>
>Of course not. 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? 

>
>If the Estonians were for REVENGE, God forbid...!
>
>
>> This idea sits very deep in common sense and should be taken into 
>> account.
>> 
>> There are different levels of policy:
>> 1. The arguments said by politicians.
>> 2. Their real intentions.
>> 3. Understanding by common sense.
>> 4. The results.
>
>
>Exactly. But one should even know the politicians by the name before
>evaluating their arguments, intentions and the results.
>
> 
>> I do not need to comment 1. after Tanel's postings.
>
>
>Dropping arguments is not very convincing to me, at least!
>

I am not dropping, just do not want to repeat his words. 

>
>> It seems that 2. had changed in Estonia recently to more positive towards 
>> russian-speakers, maybe first results helped.
>
>
>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.  
New government is ready to admit special status of Narva, introduce some 
changes in the law (old, handicapped). 

>
>> This produced some difference between 2. and common sense which 
definitely >> considers all measures through the prism of retrieval of 
_those_ (do not try >> to convince me of opposite, 

>
>I don't even undestand what you are arguing here. But you claim that you
>can't be convinced of opposite (despite of any arguments given). Then
>you do not obviously need my arguments. Which is a pity.
>

Sorry for this remark. 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.

>Tapani Hietaniemi, Universitas Helsingiensis
>                   urbs fennorum

Yours,
Sorokin Zhenya
Vienna, Austria.


Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet