From: Sorokin@ps1.iaee.tuwien.ac.at (Sorokin Zhenya)
Subject: Re: Russian Speakers in Estonia
Organization: Technical University of Vienna
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 23:36:08 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.125715.1@cc.helsinki.fi> thietaniemi@cc.helsinki.fi writes:
>In article <sorokin.32@ps1.iaee.tuwien.ac.at>, sorokin@ps1.iaee.tuwien.ac.at 
>(Zhenja) writes:
>> In article <1992Dec24.122312.1@cc.helsinki.fi> thietaniemi@cc.helsinki.fi 
>writes:
[...]
>> 
>>>Exactly. One should support only states recognized by The United Nations
>>>and it's predecessor, the League of Nations.

I still reject the word "only". To my personal opinion, after the breakdown 
of empires as a result of WW I, many european big and small nations had 
the possibility of gaining independance. Due to some purely coincidental 
factors some of them got it, some not. So, the rights for independence of,
say, Armenia, Croatia, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Latvia... (alphabetical 
order) are to my mind equal. Situation for balts is simply easier because 
of previous recognition.

[Stuff deleted. Comments on math. logic referred to other subject and 
author.I apologize for mixing the topics and authors.]  

>> In the special case of League of Nations and UN, I wouldn't consider them as 
>> authoritative international legislators, especially League of Nations. 
>
>
>You give no reasons for your opinion. Might it be that the Soviet Union was
>expelled from the League of Nations when it attacked Finland in 1939?

No it might not. Activity of the League of Nations was much wider than SU 
aggression vs. Finland. It swallowed, for example, remilitarization of 
Germany, Muenchen, etc. It supported Serbia over Croatia all along.  

>> Such 
>> organizations are very often subject to political games of great players.
>
>
>Of course. Still they are the best we have. Do you have any better suggestions
>for promoting the world peace than organizations like UN and CSCE?
>

No I don't. But the absence of better dosn't mean that these are ideal, 
especially on their long historical way.

>> Your statement is more or less OK with the situation in Baltics, but 
>> can you apply it to, say
>> 1. Croatia, Slovenia.
>> 2. Slovakia.
>> 3. Moldavia.
>> 4. Other X-USSR states.
>> 5. Middle East.
>> 6. Iraq.
>
>
>Well, I try to delimit my arguments for Estonia. Still, I am surprised
>that you accept my argumentation about the restitution of the Baltic states,
>as you have clearly written above.
>
>Anyhow, you must still argue, in which respect my point of view would
>not be valid or effective in the cases you have mentioned. Elaborate
>your view, then I could see whether I agree with you or not. 

1,2,3,4: See above. 
5,6: Israel and Palestina, Iraq and Kuwait: both were accepted. Whom shall 
UN support?

>> The restauration of independence and troops withdrawal from Baltics are not 
>> under the question, but not only because these states were "recognized...". 
>
>
>I fail to understand this statement. I (and Baltic peoples) are concerned
>about restitution of Baltic states. If that's the will of the citizens'
>of the occupied republics, we should appreciate it. We should appreciate
>their will even more whole-heartedly, because they were states once
>recognized by the international community.
> 

You wrote absolutely different statement (see above and note the word "
only"). As to me, I support independence of all ex-USSR and ex-Yugo 
countries whole-heartedly from the very beginning. It simply can't be 
"even more".

>
>>>If the occupation of the Baltic states ends, we could conclude that
>>>the WW II would be definitely over.
>> 
>> For Balts, maybe. 
>
>
>Definitely. Here we seem to agree.
>
>
>> For the Europe, no, unfortunately. 
>
>
>Hmm?
>
>
>> You see, today's war in 
>> Balkans has its roots in WW I and League of Nation's policy in the time 
>> between wars. 
>
>
>The roots of the conflict go even deeper in history (Turkish empire and
>things like that). Still, there are no occupation forces in Yugoslavia
>as a remnant of the WW II, as there still are in Baltics.
>

Serbian forces in Croatia are occupants from before the WW II, 
reproduced after the WW II with a short interval of Croatian Ustasha State. 
Soviet forces in Baltic are occupants from before the WW II, reproduced 
after the the WW II with a short interval of German occupation.
OK now?

>
>> The conflict about Moldavia is still to come, given the 
>> rumanian "Romania Mara" mentality and traditions. 
>
>
>Might be, but because of various reasons. Explaining history with
>"mentality" is very poor analysis, according to my humble understanding.
>
> 
>> But still, the main topic was not independence of baltic states, but 
>> rather 
>> 1. Will the end of totalitarian occupation of baltic states 
>> automatically bring them peace, democracy, human rights, etc.?
>
>
>No. Democracy and human rights have been guaranteed in Baltic states
>(especially in Estonia) even BEFORE the end of occupation.
>

It seemed to me, too. But my current opinion is, that stupid policy of 
nationalistic leaders _under certain historic circumstances_ can change a 
lot. 

>
>The occupation would end the occupation and in this very trivial sense
>violence and injustice would be diminished in the Baltic states, which
>would bring more peace to the region.
>

I didn't understood about "violence". What did you mean? Did current 
citizens experience very much violence from SA in the recent decade?

>
>> 
>> 2. Does previous occupation give a (moral) right to discriminate the 
>> descendants of the occupants and the newcomers?
>
>
>I suppose you mean the non-citizens when you refer to occupants.
>Of course, not. That's why there is no discrimination. There is no revenge 
>(I think we have discussed this issue some times). 


>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. No guarantee is given that 
whenever political feelings of citizens (or simply power balance in 
Riigikogu {is it Parliament in english? 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). Being in Austria I know it very good. 

>(they have, for instance the rigt to take part in privatisation). 

As well as americans.

>Moreover, the non-citizens are the population most apt to naturalization.
>
>BTW, do you think that the Estonian republic has done something illegal or
>something that would be against international coventions (if so, according
>your opinion, name these international conventions)?
>

No! Everything is legal, and it doesn't make any sense to discuss it here. 
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. 

>I think that the Estonian citizens have behaved both legally and morally
>correct. Still, I would like to support the more prudent politics
>of the Estonian centrist opposition.
>



>> 
>> 3. What solutions to the current situation are possible, given current 
>> mentality and inter-community relations.
>
>
>I have repeatedly discussed some solutions. But you should be more precise:
>which problems do you refer to? Besides, I am not inclined to think that
>there were "mentalities" that were "given". I you think so, name some
>of "given mentalities". I would like to know what they are.
>

OK, if you wish. From my *personal* experience, based upon contacts with 
people (I trust it more than statistics). 

About mentality:
Mentality of the balts, especially estonians, is german-like with strong 
respect to law, etc. (I like it!). Mentality of rusians, urkranians, etc. 
are much more asiatic in almost all respects (unfortunately). 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.  

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".
3. All russians tend to communism and dictatorship, it is genetic (remember 
the discussion about "russian guilt" on this forum?).

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*. 

About revenge:
In *all* discussions, a certain argument inevitably arrives: "And what did  
soviets (russians) do with us in 1940!?!" (look old Tanel's postings here,
for example). Using this argument today to back somethimg exactly means the 
revenge. 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.

I do not need to comment 1. after Tanel's postings.
It seems that 2. had changed in Estonia recently to more positive towards 
russian-speakers, maybe first results helped.
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've spoken to enough balts in Latvia, Estonia 
and Moscow).
Results are (as often in case of unexperienced politicians) different from 
all 1., 2. and 3. and this was my fourth question.

> 
>> 4. What could be the results of the today's policy of all the participants?
> 
>Elaborate the question. In this form it sounds like: what will happen in
>Estonia in next years?
>
>The shortest answer: if let alone, without chauvinist Russian intrusion,
>Estonia will resemble of Finland after one generation. Russia would
>have another Finland as it's neighbour. Nothing more and nothing less.
>

Agree and hope, but don't you think that estonian policy can influence the 
process in both positive and negative way? 

>
>sincerely,
>Tapani Hietaniemi, Universitas Helsingiensis
>                   urbs fennorum
>
 
Yours,
Sorokin Zhenya
Vienna, Austria.


Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet