From: thietaniemi@cc.helsinki.fi
Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet,talk.politics.soviet
Subject: Re: ESTONIA and human rights (Was: "demo
Date: 14 Sep 92 13:33:50 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <190a1jINNs2f@agate.berkeley.edu>, muh@physics.Berkeley.EDU 
(Yury M. Mukharsky) writes:
> In article <1992Sep13.135241.1@cc.helsinki.fi> thietaniemi@cc.helsinki.fi 
writes:
>>There are, at least, three possible alternatives:
>>
>>(1) The point of view shared by many of Russian-speakers:
>>    The Estonian Socialist Soviet Republic (1944-1991) 
>>    has become independent, and it's residents should 
>>    all have the citizenship.
>>
>>(2) The Estonian Republic (1918-1940) was unjustly occupied
>>    by Stalin, and consequently, it should be re-established.
>>    This is the view shared by the vast majority of Estonians,
>>    and backed by most of European nations that recognized
>>    Estonian republic as "an existing state" like all Nordic 
>>
>>(3) One could also try to form the "third Estonian republic"
>>    with new political bodies. In this pure form, this view
>>    is supported by no one, as far as I am aware.
>>
>  (4) The point of view shared by some Russians (excluding myself):
> reastoration of Russian Empire, illegaly dissolved in 1917.

Well, you can count me out, too (And I think at least 99% of Finns).
The restoration of the EMPIRE is not just a Russian internal affair,
it concerns, among others, us too: Finland is, after all, the one and only 
part of the previous empire that was not after 1917 under bolshevik rule 
(if we forget Alaska).
Alternative number 4 is no realistic solution.

> As for recognition of international community, did it not recognize 
> Soviet Union with Estonia as a part of it, before 1989 or so? 

Indeed. The previous unjustice made by Stalin was almost forgotten by
the majority of nations.
This was the dark side of the Helsinki agreement 1975.

The decisive moment was when the Estonians (not only emigrants, but
Estonians living permanently inside the borders of USSR) showed
collectively that they are determined to be independent
(a process which started in "the singing revolution" of 1988).

Of course, if the Soviet Union had not collapsed, the chances for 
Estonian indipendence might have perished for ever. As the Finnish
president Koivisto said in the beginning of 1991: "The keys for 
the Baltic independence are in Moscow".

In the contemporary historical situation, the most nations of the world 
have realized the previous injustice of the occupation, and are ready 
to accept the Baltic nations to the international community. 
It was - and is - a question of political struggle. The outcome was
not written in the stars. The Baltic countries might have perished
from the map.
 
> BTW, point number 1 reflects most recent fact. Nobody would argue that
> ESSR existed and was internationally accepted. OK my point is that on
> every single legal argument one can find contrargument with a net result
> of increasing level of life of lawers. 

I would not be such a sceptic. We have good reasons to support the United
Nations and it's precedessor, the League of Nations. The states accepted
by them should have special protection. These organizations (and the
CSCE) are not perfect, but that's all we have: in contemporary 
condititions, I can't imagine any better forms of creating consensus among 
the nations than these organizations.

>So, I would base my desision on
> what is best for the people, and what would grant peace in Baltic
> state. 

So would I.

> What Estonia (and other Baltic states) will loose if it will
> accept all Russian as citizens? Some pressure from Russian culture?
> Healthy culture will only benefit from such pressure. Possible political
> pressure from Russia, to protect ethnic Russians? 

Accepting EVERY ONE automatically would equal accepting the stalinistic 
national policy (as has been stated previously). Accepting the MAJORITY
of Russian-speakers would according to my mind be healthy development.
People employed in military industry and connected to the Soviet army
can't cope any more with the new surroundings. They must move or
change their trade or occupation. Since there will be visa requirements
between Estonia and CIS, some people prefer a citizenship inside CIS.

> The better those
> Russians are accepted, the less are grounds for this pressure. Wise policy
> will make Russian Estonian citizen reject any "protection" themselfs.

I agree totally. But you need two in tango: the future development
depends on

(1) The next Estonian government: will it be suggesting a compromise
    in this situation? At least the centrists have promised it.
(2) The Russian-speakers themselves (especially in Nort-East Estonia):
    will they be applying for Russian or Estonian citizenship?
    Will they organize violent demonstrations before the elections
    and thus give support more restrictive nationalist Estonian 
    politicians?

It's exciting to see what the outcome will be.

> So current national policy reminds me saying "Etim ludjam ne nuzhen hleb
> bezx scandala, im nuzhen scandal bez hleba." 
> Yury

I suppose I would not describe the existing policy with similar words, but
takie ludi tozhe mne ne nravyatsya!

privet

Tapani Hietaniemi, Universitet Helsinki
Obshtshaja tsel' - mir i demokratiya v Pribaltike!