Caucasus asylum seekers returning to Poland

RFE/RL reports that most of the 200 asylum seekers from Chechnya, Georgia and Ingushetia who attempted to travel to Strasbourg by train but were detained at the Polish-German border yesterday are now returning to Poland, where they are being temporarily held at a refugee centre in Warsaw:

The protesters -- who boarded the train without tickets -- told RFE/RL they wanted to go to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg to highlight their poor living conditions in Polish refugee centers and police abuse they said they have experienced.

The refugees have reportedly been refused political asylum in Poland.

Meanwhile, the pro-Moscow Chechen President Ramazan Kadyrov told journalists in Grozny today that the refugee protest in Poland is an "act of desperation."

He said, "If these people return home, their rights will be protected better."

Polish journalist Krystyna Kurczab-Redlich, who writes about human rights in Chechnya, told RFE/RL that it is hard to obtain political asylum in Poland in general but the European Union law known as the Dublin Regulation does not allow refugees to leave Poland for another EU country if an asylum request is refused in Poland.
She said that creates difficulties for Polish officials, who do not know what to do with the refugees, and leaves the asylum-seekers with few options.

Mistral: a cold French wind blows east

Originally published in Estonian as Mistral: külm Prantsuse tuul puhub itta

http://www.epl.ee/artikkel/483208

David J. Smith*

The French Navy amphibious assault ship Mistral—named for a cold French wind—visits Saint Petersburg today. This is not just a port call; it is a sales call—with ominous geopolitical implications.

"We plan to buy one Mistral class ship in France and with technical support from the French to build four helicopter carriers of this class under license," said Vice Admiral Oleg Burtsev, First Deputy Chief of the Russian Navy Staff. It would be the biggest ever NATO country military supply to Russia.

The Mistral class of ships is designed to attack the shore from the sea, an ideal weapon for Russia to intimidate its neighbors. Mistrals can carry 16 heavy or 35 light helicopters, 4 landing craft, 900 soldiers and up to 70 military vehicles, including up to 40 tanks.

At about $800 million apiece, France’s motivation to sell Mistrals is understandable. Besides, sale proponents argue, a few modern ships to Russia’s barnacle-ridden navy will hardly threaten American dominance at sea.

However, is Paris prepared to reward Russian aggression against Georgia, ignore shredding of the ceasefire agreement negotiated and signed by President Nicolas Sarkozy, accept the help of Georgian soldiers in Afghanistan but enforce an unacknowledged arms embargo on Georgia, and meanwhile sell advanced arms to Russia? Does France really want Russia to have this littoral combat capability?

Ignoring these questions may evoke pleasant noises in Moscow for a time, but Russia will not reciprocate in any concrete way. Indeed, it will demand ever more to be appeased. And eventually Russia will employ the Mistrals in another act of aggression, thereby making France complicit.

Regrettably, the potential sale of Mistral class ships to Russia appears to spring from worse than unprincipled economics. France’s partnership with Russia, Prime Minister Francois Fillon recently said, “can take several forms in the defense sphere, from military cooperation to close industrial partnership.” Recall that Fillon a day before the April 2008 NATO Bucharest Summit, told France-Inter radio, "We are opposed to the entry of Georgia and Ukraine because we think it is not the right response to the balance of power in Europe and between Europe and Russia.”

It is difficult to imagine what power Fillon imagines France will balance with the sale of Mistrals to Russia. However, one can readily discern Russia’s motivation for the purchase.
Moscow will not soon challenge US Navy dominance of the oceans. The Russian Navy for the foreseeable future will be a green water navy, operating close to home, largely as a complement to Russian land forces. And those forces undergird Russia’s intent to halt NATO’s eastward enlargement, particularly to Georgia and Ukraine; to retain its Black Sea Fleet headquarters in the Ukrainian port of Sevastopol beyond the 2017 expiration of its leasehold; to discourage NATO from planning and exercising the defense of the post Cold War NATO allies; to challenge American cooperation with those allies; and eventually to roll back what it characterizes as encroachment from the west.

“All that we consider ours will remain ours,” said Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, toasting the 80th birthday of well known Soviet and Russian foreign policy specialist Yevgeny Primakov. The Baltic Sea, once a Soviet lake, is no doubt one of the places that Putin had in mind. When the Mistral navigated Skagerrak and Kattegat, the straits that lead from the Atlantic Ocean and the North Sea into the Baltic Sea, it steamed by the shores of united Germany; by Gdansk, catalyst to the upheavals that toppled the communist world that Putin so reveres; by Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, now NATO members, once occupied but never cowed by the Soviet Union.

On Baltic shores, apart from Saint Petersburg, only Kaliningrad—headquarters of the Baltic Fleet founded by Peter the Great—remains of the world for which Putin yearns. And it was no coincidence, therefore, that in Kaliningrad on September 28, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev told Russian troops who had participated in the exercise Zapad 2009, “I am convinced that we will be able to reestablish our navy in the next decade…We need a strong navy.”

And the Mistrals are part of the plan. On inland seas such as the Baltic or the Black Sea, Mistral class ships would make a big difference—and the Russians know it. Referring to Russia’s August 2008 invasion of Georgia, Russian Navy Commander Admiral Vladimir Vysotskiy recently remarked, “A ship like that would have allowed the Black Sea Fleet to accomplish its mission in 40 minutes, not 26 hours, which is how long it took us.”

Consequently, the Mistral’s call in Saint Petersburg must capture the attention of every NATO ally. The French sale of Mistral class ships to Russia would be a major adverse geopolitical development and a potential alliance buster—it must be stopped.

*David J. Smith is Director, Georgian Security Analysis Center, Tbilisi, and Senior Fellow, Potomac Institute for Policy Studies, Washington.

Vanhanen: Finland needs "deeper ties" with Russia

Via Bloomberg (October 9):

The conclusion in Finland was that we have to deepen our relations to Russia and that we have to try in all ways to bind Russia better and better to Europe,” [Finland's Prime Minister] Vanhanen said today in an interview at his office in Helsinki. “So, more cooperation with Russia; that was the conclusion we made after the Georgia war.”

Hat tip: Mari-Ann Kelam

Bildt on Goldstone

In a statement containing remarks that are bound to be interpreted as overtly hostile to Israel, Sweden's foreign minister Carl Bildt has expressed his support for the Goldstone Commission's report into Operation Cast Lead, the Jerusalem Post says. 

IIFFMCG report published

The report by the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia (IIFFMCG) has been published.

Centre-right dominates in European elections

According to Deutsche Welle, the EPP (European People's Party) secured 267 seats in the 736-member European Parliament, while the Socialists secured 159 seats with 81 seats for the Liberal Democrats, who came third, followed by the Greens with 51 seats. 

Centre-right parties made large gains in Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, France, Hungary Italy, Poland. Slovenia and Spain and Poland.

Estonian results:  Centre Party 2, Reform 1, IRL 1, Social Democrats 1, Indrek Tarand 1.  Centre Party will probably challenge or contest or demand a recount in an effort to get 3 seats.    This means that Tunne Kelam was re-elected and in another development, Mari-Ann Kelam will be in the Riigikogu (Estonian Parliament) again, replacing Marko Pomerants who has become a minister in the government.

EU: S.Ossetia Polls ‘Illegitimate’ [civil.ge]

EU: S.Ossetia Polls ‘Illegitimate’

Civil Georgia, Tbilisi / 1 Jun.'09 / 13:52
http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=21028

European Union said it “does not accept the legality of the ‘elections’,” held in breakaway South Ossetia on Sunday, and “nor its results.”

“The holding of such elections is illegitimate and represents a setback in the search for a peaceful and lasting settlement of the situation in Georgia. The EU reiterates its firm support for sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia within its internationally recognized borders,” the EU Czech Presidency said in a statement on June 1.

The breakaway region’s central election commission said that three parties – one officially backing the South Ossetian leader, Eduard Kokoity, and two others uncritical to him – cleared the 7% electoral threshold and secured seats in the 34-member parliament.

Party of Unity, according to the local election commission, received with over 46.3% and secured 17 seats; People’s Party – up to 22.6%, amounting to 9 seats and the Communist Party - 22.2% with 8 seats.

“Fidibasta” – Fatherland Party, which described itself as “a constructive, not radical opposition,” received 6,37%, failing to secure seats in the breakaway region’s parliament. The party has claimed widespread violations and intimidation of voters. The party has also questioned official voter turnout of over 80%.

The History of Isolation

To coincide with the Victory Day celebrations in Moscow on May 9, Sergei Shoigu, Russia's Minister of Emergency Situations and co-head of the supreme council of Putin's United Russia party, gave a speech to military veterans in Volgograd (formerly Stalingrad) in which he called for a new law "to criminalize the denial of the Soviet victory in World War II". The law would affect not only Russian citizens, but also anyone in the world who makes such a denial. It appears that under such legislation, if their leaders and/or citizens contest the rightness of Stalin's victory, countries like Poland, the Czech Republic and the Baltic republics of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, which suffered Soviet occupation either during or after World War II will be considered rogue states, and diplomatic and economic relations with them will be severed.

According to a survey by the VTsIOM polling agency, 60 percent of Russians support such a law, and a recent Levada Centre poll revealed that 63 percent believe that the Soviet Union could have won the war alone, without the help of Britain and the United States.

At Grani.ru, Valeria Novodvorskaya has made clear her view of the matter [my tr.]:

Hitler's Germany, beyond any doubt, had to be smashed. For the sake of humanity, for the Germans' sake. The Hitlers of this world must not win. But the USSR should have lost, for the Stalins of this world, too, should not be handed victories. The Allies should have won the war: Britain and the United States. And they would have done so. No one would have left Hitler in power and at liberty, no one would have forgiven the Holocaust. Only - it should have been done wthout us. The Americans and British should have brought us liberation.

Soviet power would have fallen, and the country's agony from 1948 until 1953 would have been avoided. And there would have been no Khrushchev or Brezhnev or Afghanistan or Andropov, no Putin and no KGB. And we would not have appeared to the world like slaves. The USSR should have lost the war. The United States already had the atomic bomb, they would have finished Hitler, even if he had conquered the USSR all the way to the Urals. Leningrad should have been surrendered. Of course, it would not have been pleasant to live under the Hitlerites, but millions of Leningraders would not have died from hunger, just as the Parisians did not die, or the citizens of Lyons.

Georgia: EU condemns opposition attacks on journalists and calls for talks [civil.ge]

EU Calls for Talks to Overcome ‘Deadlock’

Civil Georgia, Tbilisi / 7 May.'09 / 11:29

http://civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=20868

Tbilisi-based diplomatic missions of EU member states, European Commission Delegation and EU’s Special Representative for South Caucasus, Peter Semneby, called on the authorities and the opposition to engage “into serious and constructive talks in order to overcome the current deadlock and undertake the political reforms necessary to consolidate the Georgian democracy.”

The joint statement was released before the police and protesters clashed late on May 6.

“Freedom of media issues could be a part of these talks. We confirm our readiness to support positive steps taken in order to strengthen democracy and the rule of law in the country,” the statement reads.

It says that EU continues to closely follow the ongoing developments in Georgia.

“We strongly condemn all acts of humiliation, intimidation and violence. For example, scenes outside the Public Broadcaster where journalists were verbally and physically assaulted prompted our concern and are simply unacceptable,” the statement reads. 

“We recognise that the freedom of media in Georgia needs to be strengthened, that the editorial independence and journalistic freedom need to be protected. We are supporting all efforts in this regard, but we are also supporting the journalist's right to be met with respect and to carry out their work in dignity.” 

“We encourage the authorities to, in full transparency, continue the investigations into all alleged violent acts and assaults, this leading to swift conclusions, bringing the cases to be tried before the courts. We also urge all sides to show restraint and refrain from violent and inflammatory language and behavior.”

“We reaffirm that freedom of peaceful assembly is one of the key rights of the citizen in all democratic countries. With that right also follows obligations to ensure order and that manifestations are conducted causing minimal inconvenience for the normal functioning of institutions and daily life of all citizens. We once again call on all parties to strictly abide by the laws of the country and standards of peaceful public gathering,” the statement reads.

NATO expels Russian diplomats

Here and here.

No Eastern Partner

The European Union is currently launching something called an "Eastern Partnership", which is designed to cement links with six neighbours: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, and Belarus. Quite why Belarus has been included in the "reach-out" plan is something of a mystery. If Belarus accepts the invitation to attend the Eastern Partnership summit in Prague on May 7, this will grant the republic a legitimacy it clearly does not deserve, in view of the widespread repression that is still taking place within it. Now Maidan writes that one of the leaders of the Belarus opposition who is also Co-ordinator of Charter 97

has rejected an invitation to attend events connected with the EU Summit in Prague. He believes the invitation issued to Lukashenko to be a grave mistake. He names just three political prisoners - Mikalai Autukhovich, Yury Lyavonau, Uladzimir Asipenka and says that the first has been on hunger strike for more than a week demanding an open trial.

“Political repressions go on in our country, many Belarusians have had to emigrate due to political persecution, the authorities refuse to register political parties and NGOs, peaceful demonstrations are brutally dispersed and banned, we do not enjoy even minimum freedom of speech, youth activists are unlawfully drafted for military service. The authorities don’t investigate the cases of kidnapped opposition leaders and a journalist although the international community suspects them of involvement to these crimes. I think inviting Dictator Lukashenko to Prague when demands to release political prisoners and stop political repressions have not been met was a great mistake.
That’s why I have taken the decision not to go to Prague.”

Halonen against apology to Estonia

Postimees reported on March 26 that Finland's President Tarja Halonen has said she is opposed to the issuing of a public apology for the negative attitude taken by the Finnish government to Estonia's bid for independence in 1991. Jutta Zilliacus, a former Swedish People's party MP, had been quoted as telling the regional daily Aamulehti that Mauno Koivisto, who was Finland's president in 1982-94, should apologize for his behaviour and statements on the issue at the time. Koivisto, a Social Democrat, has refused to do so. There is more from Newsroom Finland here.

See also in this blog: Neighbourhood Watch

Neighbourhood Watch - 2

Putin-Jugend in Helsinki

Russia's goal in the gas dispute

If there were any lingering doubts about the real nature of the gas "dispute" between Russia and Ukraine, they will now have been dispelled by President Medvedev's latest statement on the matter. "Our goal is to show who is to blame for stealing gas," the Russian President is reported to have said. Thus, by repeatedly making this false accusation, the Russian government intends to publicly humiliate Ukraine, and to force the countries of the European Union to acquiesce in the humiliation. As observers have pointed out, the whole episode can serve as a warning to Europe that it needs urgently to formulate a united energy policy, to develop and cultivate alternative energy sources in order to reduce its dependency on Russia, which has now proved itself to be an unreliable supplier, and to reject illusory solutions like the Nord Stream gas project.

Payback

Estonian MEP and head of Estonia's parliamentary European Affairs Committee Marko Mihkelson writes in his blog that the real cause of the gas war between Russia and Ukraine is not merely economic:

This is not about Gazprom or Ukraine's debts, it is about the Russian government's desire to put pressure on the the Ukrainian government and, in the true sense of the word, pay Kiev back for supporting Tbilisi.

Moscow has repeatedly accused Ukraine of providing military support to Georgia during the August war - accusations denied by Kiev - and in his New Year's address on December 31, President Medvedev said that Russia "would never forget" this.

Mihkelson also says that Ukraine's present and ongoing internal power struggle between President Yushchenko and prime minister Tymoshenko is "water to the mill" for Russia's foreign policy ambitions.

Mihkelson believes that Russia's real aim is to thwart Ukraine's efforts to join NATO. He says that the European Union needs to define its interests in relation to Ukraine and Russia, and also overcome its fear that "tougher statements or actions may have a negative influence on the ultimate goal".

Basic question

MEP Tunne Kelam, on the dangers of doing "business as usual" with Russia:

There remains a basic question to be answered: What is the reason to assume that both strategic partners are sharing the same goals, not to speak of the same values?

In his memoirs, former external relations commissioner Chris Patten speaks of a fundamental difference – while Europe wants stable, well-off neighbours, Russia does not.

Mr Patten writes: "Russia wants weak neighbours and a sphere of influence inhabited by dependent supplicants". Since August 2008, the latter approach is being demonstrated not just by declarations and diplomacy but by military actions.

The effect of the EU's feebleness in handling Russia is as bad for Russia as it is for us.

Time to Extend a Hand to Ukraine

Writing in the New Atlanticist policy and analysis blog, Alexander Motyl argues that it's in Europe's interests for Ukraine to join the European Union "both if and when it meets all the membership criteria". Excerpt:

If Brussels really believed in European values, soft power, and the like, it should be able to state, unflinchingly and immediately, that “Ukraine is European and, once rich and fully democratic, deserves to be within the EU.”

Of course, if Brussels—or, more specifically, such states as Italy, Germany, and France—don’t really believe in democracy, then indifference to Ukraine’s European aspirations makes more sense. But just a tad. After all, if old Europe’s ruling elites are primarily interested in hard power and geopolitics, then they should be even more interested in getting Ukraine on their side. As Zbigniew Brzezinski has often pointed out, an independent Ukraine is the best guarantee of Russia’s non-emergence as an
empire and, I might add, of the Cold War’s non-revival. That admonition may have seemed like a bit of hypothetical reasoning in the past, but the Russo-Georgian War of 2008 has surely demonstrated that Putin’s Russia is ready to reassert itself in the former Soviet imperial space and, thus, to threaten Europe’s geopolitical interests.

The good news is that the global economic crisis and the fall-out from the Georgian invasion have refocused Moscow’s attention on Russia’s domestic problems. That gives Ukraine time to get its house in order and accelerate its efforts to join Euroatlantic structures. That also gives Europe time to come to its senses and extend a hand to Ukraine. The bad news is that Ukraine’s squabbling political elites—and Yushchenko, alas, belongs to them—seem ill-equipped to do anything but squabble. And old Europe seems ill-prepared to do anything but kowtow to an authoritarian Russia. Not coincidentally, perhaps, the Munich Agreement that made appeasement so
notorious a concept took place exactly 70 years ago, in September 1938.

Separate tables

The French government appears to be trying to negotiate a private bilateral foreign policy deal of its own with Russia. A report from Sochi, where the French prime minister Francois Fillon has had talks with Putin, points out that

Fillon flew to Sochi at a time when the European Union is reviewing ties with Russia. The EU condemned Moscow's intervention in Georgia, launched last month to crush Tbilisi's attempt to retake two pro-Moscow regions.

The new French line seems to be that if the provisions of the Medvedev-Sarkozy deal - which has already been condemned by the U.S., amoong others - are carried out, then there is nothing to prevent France from pursuing trade and energy deals which were held up because of the Georgia crisis. However, statements by Fillon suggest that France's efforts to resume "business as usual" with Moscow - a goal earnestly desired by Putin and the Russian leadership - go further than a deal between the two countries:

We wanted this meeting to take place at the original time because it's very important to strengthen the partnership between the European Union and Russia, and France and Russia," Fillon told Putin at their first meeting late on Friday.

It looks as though more dissension within the ranks of the European Union may now arise because of this, as several nations, including Britain, Poland, the Czech Republic and the Baltic States have stated their opposition to such "partnership-strengthening" until Russian forces have withdrawn to the positions of before August 7, and the issue of EU and OSCE monitors' access to Abkhazia and South Ossetia - which are being illegally annexed by Russia - has been settled. Neither of these conditions looks likely to be fulfilled in the near future.

U.S. Congress: Russia should acknowledge illegality of Soviet occupation of Baltic States

Via Postimees:

At a meeting on Tuesday evening, the United States Senate unanimously approved a resolution which stated that Russia should acknowledge the illegality of Soviet occupation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, RIA Novosti's correspondent reports.

"The Congress asks the U.S. president and Secretary of State to call upon the Government of the Russian Federation to recognize that the Soviet occupation of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania under the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact pact for the succeeding years was illegal",  it says in the text of document.

- - - - -

Via email:

Text of the resolution:

110th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. CON. RES. 87

Congratulating the Republic of Latvia on the 90th anniversary of its declaration of independence.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

June 9, 2008

Mr. SMITH (for himself and Mr. DURBIN) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Congratulating the Republic of Latvia on the 90th anniversary of its declaration of independence.

Whereas, on November 18, 1918, in the City of Riga, the members of the People’s Council proclaimed Latvia a free, democratic, and sovereign nation;

Whereas, on July 24, 1922, the United States formally recognized Latvia as an independent and sovereign nation;

Whereas Latvia existed for 21 years as an independent and sovereign nation and a fully recognized member of the League of Nations;

Whereas Latvia maintained friendly and stable relations with its neighbors, including the Soviet Union, during its independence, without any border disputes;

Whereas Latvia concluded several peace treaties and protocols with the Soviet Union, including a peace treaty signed on August 11, 1920, under which the Soviet Union ‘unreservedly recognize[d] the independence and sovereignty of the Latvian State and forever renounce[d] all sovereign rights . . . over the Latvian people and territory’;

Whereas, despite friendly and mutually productive relations between Latvia and the Soviet Union, on August 23, 1939, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which contained a secret protocol assigning Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania to the Soviet sphere of influence;

Whereas, under the cover of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, on June 17, 1940, Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania were forcibly incorporated into the Soviet Union in violation of pre-existing peace treaties;

Whereas the Soviet Union imposed upon the people of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania a communist political system that stifled civil dissent, free political expression, and basic human rights;

Whereas the United States never recognized this illegal and forcible occupation, and successive United States presidents maintained continuous diplomatic relations with these countries throughout the Soviet occupation, never accepting them to be ‘Soviet Republics’;

Whereas, during the 50 years of Soviet occupation of the Baltic states, Congress strongly, consistently, and on a bipartisan basis supported a United States policy of legal non-recognition;

Whereas, in 1953, the congressionally-established Kersten Commission investigated the incorporation of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania into the Soviet Union and determined that the Soviet Union had illegally and forcibly occupied and annexed the Baltic countries;

Whereas, in 1982, and for the next nine years until the Baltic countries regained their independence, Congress annually adopted a Baltic Freedom Day resolution denouncing the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and appealing for the freedom of the Baltic countries;

Whereas, in 1991, Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania regained their de facto independence and were quickly recognized by the United States and by almost every other country in the world, including the Soviet Union;

Whereas, in 1998, the United States and the three Baltic nations signed the U.S.-Baltic Charter of Partnership, an expression of the importance of the Baltic Sea region to United States interests;

Whereas the 109th Congress resolved (S. Con. Res. 35 and H. Res. 28) that ‘it is the sense of Congress that the Government of the Russian Federation should issue a clear and unambiguous statement of admission and condemnation of the illegal occupation and annexation by the Soviet Union from 1940 to 1991 of the Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, the consequences of which will be a significant increase in good will among the affected people’;

Whereas Latvia has successfully developed as a free and democratic country, ensured the rule of law, and developed a free market economy;

Whereas the Government of Latvia has constantly pursued a course of integration of that country into the community of free and democratic nations, becoming a full and responsible member of the United Nations, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the European Union, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization;

Whereas the people of Latvia cherish the principles of political freedom, human rights, and independence; and

Whereas Latvia is a strong and loyal ally of the United States, and the people of Latvia share common values with the people of the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That Congress--

(1) congratulates the people of Latvia on the occasion of the 90th anniversary of that country’s November 18, 1918, declaration of independence;

(2) commends the Government of Latvia for its success in implementing political and economic reforms, for establishing political, religious and economic freedom, and for its strong commitment to human and civil rights;

(3) recognizes the common goals and shared values of the people of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, the close and friendly relations and ties of the three Baltic countries with one other, and their tragic history in the last century under the Nazi and Soviet occupations;

(4) calls on the President to issue a proclamation congratulating the people of Latvia on the 90th anniversary of the declaration of Latvia’s independence on November 18, 1918;

(5) respectfully requests the President to congratulate the Government of Latvia for its commitment to democracy, a free market economy, human rights, the rule of law, participation in a wide range of international structures, and security cooperation with the United States Government; and

(6) calls on the President and Secretary of State to urge the Government of the Russian Federation to acknowledge that the Soviet occupation of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania under the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and for the succeeding 51 years was illegal.

Neighbourhood watch

By taking a swipe at Estonia on Finnish television on September 4 in the context of Europe's reaction to the Georgia conflict, Finland's president Tarja Halonen may have sparked the beginnings of what could become a long-awaited public debate in Finland about her country's role in the Cold War, and its relations with its next-door neighbours. In her YLE "A-Studio" television interview President Halonen said that Estonians were suffering from "post-Soviet stress", and gave an overview of current Finnish foreign policy, expressing relief that "there are countries in the EU that are not in a post-traumatic situation." That prompted a puzzled reaction from Estonia's President Toomas Hendrik Ilves, who remarked that “Estonia has never criticised, and will not criticise the foreign policy decisions of another EU country. It will also not evaluate the psychological state of mind of other EU countries.”

On Saturday, Finland's main daily newspaper Helsingin Sanomat published a leading article headed "The long shadow of hypersensitivity in relations between neighbours", which discussed the very different ways in which Finland and Estonia relate to Russia, but argued that there was no sense in either state criticizing the other's approach - each had a right to its own way of dealing with the large and often threatening eastern neighbour. The article began with a reference to Finland's ex-president Mauno Koivisto, who during the early 1980s tried to introduce a new policy for dealing with the Soviet Union, one that would replace and build on the policy of the Kekkonen era. Unfortunately, the policy was so compliant with the wishes of the Kremlin that, as a commenter on the HS site has pointed out, had Koivisto's line been followed by the rest of Europe, Estonia and the other Baltic states would now be part of Russia.  

I began to visit Finland - exclusively on business connected with literary translation - during the early part of Koivisto's presidency, and I can still remember the atmosphere that prevailed in the country at the time. While a relative freedom in social, economic and cultural life was noticeable everywhere, so that if one wanted to, one could imagine oneself to be much further West in Europe, in matters that had anything to do with the Soviet Union, a grim, sarcastic silence and unwillingness to discuss Soviet-related issues were the order of the day. While there was certainly more freedom than there was across the water, in Soviet-occupied Estonia, it was impossible to ignore the constraints that existed in Finnish society where Moscow was concerned. Perhaps because most of my activity in Finland was related to literature and translation, I avoided some of the more intense disagreements that could have arisen between my points of view and those of my hosts. My background in Russian studies, and the time I'd spent in Moscow as a post-graduate research student, tended to interfere now and then, however. I can still remember one or two incidents. For example,at that time, Koivisto's Soviet Union policy included the long-established practice of returning Soviet defectors to the USSR. On a day when an anti-US and anti-Israel demonstration was being held in Helsinki, I happened to have conversation with a Finland-Swedish poet who much later on became a minister in the government of Paavo Lipponen. Incautiously, I mentioned the subject of Jewish refuseniks in the Soviet Union, and asked if Finland would also return them to Russia if they appeared in Finland. This provoked an outburst of violent anger from my interlocutor, and I decided not to raise any more such questions with him or with anyone else I met, as I was in Finland on an official invitation.

Many years later, I read about some of what had really transpired among Finland's media and opinion-forming circles during the 1960s, 70s and early 80s in Esko Salminen's Vaikeneva valtiomahti (The Silent  Estate?)  and felt that most of my suspicions were confirmed. Finlandization and "self-censorship" really were a important part of Finland's cultural and political identity in those decades after the Second World War. Now the Finnish politician Erkki Aho has reviewed a recent book by the historian and political analyst Juha Seppinen, entitled Neuvostotiedostelu Suomessa 1917-1991 (Soviet Intelligence in Finland 1917-1991) which deals with the subject of Finland's relations with Russia and the Soviet Union throughout most of the 20th century (I reached the link through Marko Mihkelson's blog).  The book also lists details of the meetings and contacts many Finnish politicians and public figures had with members of the Soviet security and intelligence services. 

Perhaps at least part of the root of the problem in Finland can be traced back to the Finnish Civil War of 1918, when the forces of the Social Democrats (referred to as the "Reds"), who were supported by the Bolsheviks in Russia, fought with the troops of the Conservatives (known as the "Whites"), supported by Imperial Germany. The degree to which this conflict permeated virtually all areas of Finnish life cannot be exaggerated. It even affected the most recondite literary circles: the Dadaist poet Gunnar Björling became involved on the White side, and hid a White telegraphist in his basement room in Red-occupied Helsinki throughout the entire four months of the war.

At all events, it seems ill-befitting for a Finnish president to criticize neighbouring Estonia in the terms that were used by Tarja Halonen. After all, Estonia was occupied because of its outspoken resistance to Soviet power, while Finland managed to escape such a fate (though it had around a tenth of its territory annexed) only by sacrificing moral and intellectual integrity.Perhaps the wisest course for politicians in both Finland and Estonia is to recognize that the present situation in both countries is in many respects the result of the past - a past which though it can't be undone, can none the less be recognized and discussed between them. And for the discussion to proceed calmly and productively the slinging of abuse, however "psychological" and mediated, won't contribute to the process. There also needs to be a wider recognition in the rest of Europe that the problems of the Baltic States and of north-eastern Europe as a whole are not local, regional matters, but rather the consequence of the deep and tragic divisions which shook the whole continent of Europe during the twentieth century, and for which Europe as a whole bears a degree of responsibility. Here, in the ongoing crisis caused by Russia's recent violation of the territorial borders of a sovereign state, NATO and the European Union have a major role to play in making such a debate possible. And perhaps by joining NATO and assuming the rights and duties that go with that, Finland can demonstrate conclusively, once and for all, that it really is a part of the alliance of Western nations.

Lax: Finlandization returning to Finland

Finnish MEP Henrik Lax has strongly condemned Finnish government and presidential inaction on the Georgia crisis, and has warned that the country is underestimating the level of threat that now exists in north-eastern Europe. Via Helsingin Sanomat (my tr.):

The Georgia crisis shows how easily a small country can become the victim of pressure if it is militarily weak, Lax said.

He demanded that the government should answer the question of what the mantra of independent and credible defence means in a situation where military technology is developing at a hectic rate and costs are rising.

"This is a fundamental question which has not been answered yet," Lax said.

Without mentioning names, Lax also said that the government and president were underestimating the situation. The Georgia crisis is a serious one, but it took three weeks before a meeting of UTVA (Cabinet Committee on Foreign and Security Policy) was called.

"It was more important to be in Beijing. That says something about our political climate," Lax said.

He also had harsh words for the "psychologizing" of the rather stern conclusions drawn by Estonians on the Georgian situation. r example, President Tarja Halonen said last week on YLE's A-Studio TV that Estonians were suffering from post-Soviet stress.

If we go on like this, we should not wonder that voices in Brussels have started to talk once again about Finlandization, Lax said. He personally considered that Estonians have a more realistic idea of the Russian government than do the Finns.