From The International Herald Tribune (posted for educational purposes only):

Latvian ministers vote to pull controversial declaration from border deal with Russia

The Associated Press
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
RIGA, Latvia

Latvia’s government on Tuesday voted to withdraw a controversial declaration from a border agreement with Russia, paving the way for a deal to be signed later this year.

Prime Minister Aigars Kalvitis told journalists that Russia had already recognized Latvia’s independence and that the draft border treaty could refer to Latvia’s Constitutional Law of 1991 as the basis for independence.

Previously, Latvia had wanted to refer to the 1920 Latvian-Russian peace treaty in the border treaty, which angered Moscow since in accordance to that treaty the Pytalovo district now in Russia was Latvian land.

This led Russian President Vladimir Putin to quip at the time that Latvia was more likely to get “a dead donkey’s ears” than any land from Russia.

The Soviet Union took over the territory, which the Latvians refer to as Abrene, after the end of World War II. Many Latvian nationalists believe it should be returned.

Russia and Latvia had been prepared to sign a border agreement in May 2005, but at the last moment Latvia’s government decided to include the reference to the 1920 treaty.

Kalvitis said that Latvia was prepared to use a 1997 document as the basis for a new border agreement. He said Parliament would have to approve any border deal.

Many right-wing politicians are unlikely to support removing the reference to the 1920 treaty, but opposition MPs, many of whom are ethnic Russians, are likely to welcome the change to finally seal a border agreement with Russia.

Latvia and Estonia, which joined the EU in 2004, still do not have formal border agreements with Russia.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/01/16/europe/EU-GEN-Latvia-Russia-Border-Deal.php

The distorted RIA-Novosti version—

http://en.rian.ru/world/20070116/59187308.html

From Apollo, in Latvian—

http://www.apollo.lv/portal/news/72/articles/91077

Commentary by Aivars Ozoliņš, Diena—

http://vdiena.lv/lat/politics/printed/aivars_ozolinjsh_reaalaa_robezha

/P

All About Latvia has reposted a résumé of the constitutional issue in English—

http://www.allaboutlatvia.com/article/193/looming-constitutional-crisis

/P

In the civilized world, if someone wants a piece of land belonging to a neighbor, a price will be offered for a clear title to that parcel of land.  Anything else is a robbery.

Kalvitis’ proposed Border Agreement 1) preserves the legal continuity of the 1918 Republic of Latvia, 2) changes nothing about Abrene’s legal status, 3) gives NATO and the EU the border they have been waiting for and 4) is something Russia could possibly sign. Four good reasons for resolving this issue and moving on. Legalists and nationalists can give this issue all kinds of spins if they find it professionally challenging and politically expedient, but the bottom line is, that getting our de facto border resolved will benefit Latvia. Will signing this agreement have longterm ramifications? Of course. Everything we do has longterm ramifications. We deal with them. At this point in time, given the international situation and Latvia’s economic, political and social interests, signing this border agreement in this way appears to be good for everyone. It’s the best solution yet for a difficult problem. It would be nice if now and then Latvia’s patriots could put their differences aside and agree on something for the good of the country.

So yes, I think this is the best border deal we can get. We should do it and move on.

Ojār,

I don’t disagree, but…

I’m not sure if I’m a legalist or a nationalist, but I’d still like to know how so many people (e.g., Kalvītis) could change their tune so very dramatically in such a short space of time. Until a few months ago, we were all singing songs about the necessity of the declaration, no? I’m afraid I suspect that something stinks when legality is so trivial, and it stinks even more when one asks the tauta to perform such acrobatics at the behest of people who obviously don’t give a flying f about legality or the nation. That is my personal opinion.

As to the deal, here are my comments in another forum (s.c.b.)—

Latvia doesn’t need, and most Latvians don’t want, Pietālava back.
That was never the central issue, though—the central issue is that
of legal continuity. What Latvia would like, or would have liked, is
for Russia to recognize the 1920 Treaty for a few seconds so that we
could properly sign away Abrene/Jaunlatgale/Pytalovo, or, to be
precise, the six civil parishes that were illegally annexed by Russia,
raising the great granyonyi stakan of brotherhood between peoples and
peaceful co-existence for evermore whilst dancing a happy hoppy dance.

Put simply, it’s a question of whether we are the restored Republic of
Latvia that was proclaimed in 1918 and occupied by the USSR in 1940, or
whether we are the former Latvian SSR, magically appearing on maps in
1991 along with a newfangled Belarus.

This government has suddenly decided that the border treaty has no
bearing on our legal continuity. Premier Kalvītis squirms a bit
despite his bulk, trying to explain on TV why he said the exact
opposite only a year ago.

Personally, I agree with Aivars Ozoliņš—let’s get it over with and
sign the damn thing. Now’s the time, as he says—Russia will shortly
be headed into one of its thrilling election campaigns, demonizing
Balts even more than usual and making many a noise about its brutally
oppressed compatriots. Latvia will be seething with Huish politicians
brandishing butter knives in defense of lost territory, to get out the
senile and adolescent thug vote in the municipal elections. It’s now,
or not until things quiet down.

The condition Ozoliņš underlines is what’s important—this should
in no way affect the principle of legal continuity. It must be a treaty
about the border and nothing else. Russia will doubtless try to make it
more than that.

The fact is that Abrene was stolen by a country that vehemently denies
historical fact and couches it in distortions. It is a real place, and
Latvia (not Russia) pays compensation to those who owned land there—
most of its residents were ethnic Russians, by the way. Some of those
people have trouble visiting family graves, so they don’t even get the
satisfaction of appropriate memorials. In fact, what memorials there
were get vandalized by morning—the crucifix erected at Masļenki
(where the border guards were murdered when the Soviets invaded) was
chopped down and set on fire, for example.

The Latvian Association of Employers has urged the parliament not to be
Huish (Hui, of course, isn’t looking for work in Latgola) and get this
over with. Whether that will happen—dunno. Issues like this are
manna for rabid nationalists and perfect for posturing—Jaunais Laiks
is pretty determined to call a referendum, and referenda in Latvia are
pretty impossible to win. We can probably look forward to hoppy dances
of St. Vitus’ variety. 

Vysu lobu,
/P  

Is this really the best deal we can get, OJ?
The sprats are flowing east by the carload,
what’s the rush now.
The only good deal with ruskis
is no deal…........

pete

I think the issue of the legal continuity of the Republic of Latvia was settled back in 1991. It was declared by us, recognized by the international community and is only questioned in Russia. In 1991 I worked at the Legation of Latvia in Washington, which was recognized by the US as a representative of the 1918 LR, and was there when the US restored dip relations with Latvian government that resumed this legal continuity. (We were upgraded to an Embassy.) Whats more, the US released the Latvian gold to the 1992 government because it was recognized as the successor of the 1918-1940 state.

Last year, in the build up to the May 9 events in Moscow, every European leader and his uncle sent cards, letters,e-mails and blessings to Riga, reiterating their affirmation that we were occupied. (Some Russian politicians may think otherwise, but we know how seriously their opinions are treated in other world capitals.) Oddly enough, our own people are rattling the pillar of legal continuity by constantly saying that it is threatened. Well meaning patriotic Latvians are acting as if our legal status is something fragile, questionable, debatable and vulnerable. It isn’t. It’s rock solid. Anyone who counts keeps telling us that. Why do we keep questioning it?

It’s like the little boy who keeps asking, do you love me? After he is told a hundred times, he keeps asking, ‘but do you really love me? I mean really really?‘Sooner or later people get fed up constantly reassuring him.

Latvia’s legal status is set. The world recognizes it. We are who we think we are, everyone agrees. Now lets start acting like we are who we say we are. The time for Hamletian soliloquies is over.

The experts I respect and trust say this is the best agreement we can get, and this is the best time to get it. That’s good enough for me.

The experts I respect and trust say this is the best agreement we can get, and this is the best time to get it. That’s good enough for me.

//////////////////////////////////////////////

Since when Cuukmen is an expert…......
Maybe on food quantity.
Some of those experts are GeeBoobya
patsies and that’s not good for us.
What is the rush? Let them sweat…..

Looks like Lemberg’s pocket party is
not cool on the deal.

pete

Okay then, Ojār—then maybe you can answer my question? Why was the declaration appended? What has changed?

Vysu lobu,
/P

>
>Okay then, Ojār—then maybe you can
>answer my question? Why was the
>declaration appended? What has changed?
>
>Vysu lobu,
>/P

Good question PC. Maybe OJ Collins
could give us the text of the
new declaration, or is it top secret?

pete

I am no expert and really, really pressed for time, but I have to ask. Ojar everything you outlined is correct and I agree with. The problem is that this is a treaty with Russia and Russia as you admit still doesn’t recognize the occupation. To me that’s the crux of it. Its nice that the World recognizes us. Its nice that we have a nice (okay, P., semi-nice) country and can do almost as we please. But as always, Latvia’s politicians look for the short term expedient solution. I’ll sign the deal because frankly we don’t have that many options, but the prospect does scary me more than a little bit. Oh, yeah, I had a question.
What happens at some future date if we try to bring Russia to court for the occupation, or worst case scenario, Russia invades. On the global stage all of those nations who recognize our existence will not lift a finger. And legally, if we don’t force the issue of our existence prior to the incorporation into the SU, I fear that the world will easily be swayed by the argument that Russia, the titular inheritor of the SU, is simply reclaiming some lost land.
I’d love to hear some expert expounding on the above scenario. And yes I realize that in most cases we are damned if we do and damned if we don’t.

Andrejs, Chicken Little

Aigars Kalvītis, quoted in The Baltic Times, 4 January 2006:

“As long as Russia does not change its political position, no progress toward signing the border treaty is possible,” he said. It was up to the Russians, he added, “whether they recognize history and admit the fact of occupation.

“As long as Russia does not change its position, the issue will remain unsolved both with Estonia and Latvia. Because we have defined our positions clearly – Latvia has done it by adopting a unilateral declaration to the treaty, and Estonia by passing a ratification law underscoring the continuity of the statehood from the time of the first republic… This does not allow Russia to sidestep the fact of occupation.”

Russia has definitely not changed its position or admitted to the occupation—if anything, it has taken to denying the occupation even more frequently than before.

Note that Estonia announced last week that it will not withdraw the preamble that caused Russia to withdraw its signature.

/P

Quoth Peteris Cedrins:
>
>Russia has definitely not changed
>its position or admitted to the
>occupation—if anything, it has taken
>to denying the occupation even more
>frequently than before.
>
>Note that Estonia announced last week
>that it will not withdraw the
>preamble that caused Russia to withdraw
>its signature.
>
>/P

Gotta love the fact that the Eestis are on the same page as us Latvians.  Sadly, that’s as far as “Baltic Unity” will go these days.  Too bad the Lithuanians aren’t as principled as to stand up and also demand that their borders be redrawn to those that existed before the Soviet occupation.

/Edigu

Geez, Robert… er… Edigu, is your obsession with Vidas really that big that you ignore everything that was said in this thread?

Latvia GAVE UP Abrene.  Damn the between war borders - here, take it, it’s yours.  I think Ojars and Peteris make good arguments why, just as I think Andrejs makes some valid points why not.  But to pretend Latvia is making some sort of principled stance… er, no.

Go find another story about skinny Lithuanians to try and bug him; this isn’t the thread you want to pick.

Anita

To Peteris C:

Even if they won’t admit it, politicians have a right to change their minds. We can point to earlier mistakes, but we shouldn’t dwell on them, especially if new proposals offer new solutions which learn from the mistakes and have a serious chance of solving the problem.

To Andrejs:

I understand your fear and trepidation. The world would be an even more dangerous place if we didn’t go into each new decision with some prudent fear and trepidation. Every decision carries risks, but if we put off decision-making because of the existence of risks, we will never decide anything. So you weigh the risks. Those you mention are theoretically possible, but seem highly unlikely.

It is not just ‘nice’ that the world recognizes us, it is essential if we want to be a sovereign state. We are one of over 200 countries on this globe, and house about 2.3 million of the planet’s 6 billion plus population. Our economic prosperity and security depends on good relations with as many of those countries as possible. As far as I can tell, only 1 or 2 of those 200 countries have official policies that differ from ours on the issues of The Occupation, Recognition and Legal Continuity. All the rest are with us, one way or another on these issues. The vast majority could actually care less. They have problems of their own and don’t think much about it at all. We are not the center of their universe.

Two years ago we joined an organization of 26 states, whose reason-for-being is a promise from each that they will indeed lift a finger or two if one of the 26 is threatened. Can we be certain that the NATO member countries will help in a time of threat? We can be certain about nothing. But we can take out insurance policies to increase our odds. When you take out personal or property insurance there is always the risk that your insurer balks or you fall through some loophole. You pay your money, take your chances and hope for the best. I’d say our capital with NATO right now is very high, and is paying interest.

Our other big ally on the global stage is the EU, which for all its shortcomings, is still able to throw its weight around. If NATO and the EU can do half of what they set out to do, Latvia need not worry about threats to its sovereignty.

Countries like Russia too must compete in the global marketplace, and the countries of NATO and the EU will always be a major factor in Russia’s economic and political life. Russia too must weigh the risks of its actions. Russia has very big issues to tackle and much bigger fish to fry, and has no practical reason to destabilize its relations with the world by doing a power grab on Latvia. We are just not worth it. Despite what many may think in Riga, we are not the center of their universe either.

In any case, signing the border agreement as it stands today, would have no impact whatsoever on a hypothetical future Russian decision to ‘invade’ or seize Latvia. In a case like that, any pretence will do. (“Documents? We don’t need no stinking documents!” -Treasure of Sierra Madre)

I think we’re pretty safe at the moment. Look at it this way. If global warming continues, Latvia will be occupied by the Baltic Sea long before Russia could even consider the move. Abrene will be a beach resort.

>Latvia GAVE UP Abrene.  Damn the between
>war borders - here, take it, it’s yours.
>
>Anita

To Anita:

Latvia never gave up Abrene. Abrene was taken from Latvia during the Soviet occupation. When Latvia restored its independence in 1991, we no longer had Abrene. Yes, we had a legal right to it, but we no longer had the territory. We can keep the legal right to it forever, but getting it back physically is another matter altogether. Since 1991, no Latvian government has tried to physically take it back. There are many reasons, but I can give two: Russia won’t give it to us and no one else in the world would support us if we tried.  And I don’t foresee any government in my lifetime doing anything different. Abrene is no longer ours to give to anyone. It’s gone.

Signing a border agreement will not change Abrene’s legal or physical status. The border agreement simply recognizes the situation on the ground. As for the situation in the halls and heads of international legal experts, that will continue to swirl about for decades to come.