Latvia’s image abroad may be shaped by the people of Latvia, but it is conveyed for the most part by non-Latvians.

Although no hard data are available, my guess is that 90 percent of the people in the world who know something about Latvia today learned about it from a non-Latvian. Apart from those who actually visit Latvia, most people in the world have heard, read or seen something about Latvia that was written, produced, edited, published or broadcast by the international media. Now that Latvia is joining the European Union and the NATO defense alliance, the amount of material produced by non-Latvians in the international press or on TV and radio is increasing by leaps and bounds.

That’s one of the reasons why during the first five years of its existence, the Latvian Institute (LI) has focused on developing relations with the foreign media as one of its strategic priorities. Limited funding is another. If you don’t have the money to make your own films, videos, news programs, commercials or magazines that will reach millions of viewers and readers, you have to work with those who do.

The institute was established by the Latvian government in 1998 to promote Latvia’s image abroad. But before you can “promote” an image, you have to establish an information base that people can access and understand. When Latvia restored its independence in 1991, there was very little information available about Latvia in English, or any other language, other than that which the Soviets had provided to encyclopaedias and the international news media for 50 years.

The first task of the LI was to begin building a new information base, in English, about all the various aspects of Latvian life that foreigners could be interested in. Although the ministries of Foreign Affairs and Economics had begun producing some materials for their specialized audiences, there was very little about Latvian culture, history, society or nature that was of interest to a broader public.

Over the last five years the LI has developed an Internet home page and a series of brochures, booklets and fact sheets to fill this gap. While these materials do reach some foreigners directly, they are just one part of a strategy designed to reach a much broader audience. The LI also assists Latvian ministries, government agencies and the private sector in the development and organization of conferences, seminars and other events targeted at international audiences.

The audiences at international events consist of specialists who, like journalists, take information they have received and pass it on. They write articles, reports and books that reach an even wider audience. They also make policy, convey opinions, initiate programs and develop projects that people in Latvia could never dream of undertaking.

We live in an information age, where those who have the resources, money, skills and talent to make information interesting and relevant can reach billions. Our goal at the LI is to inform the informers about Latvia. As we enter our sixth year of operation, the LI has established contacts with thousands of the “information elite”—journalists, editors, producers, publishers, researchers, academicians and promoters. Most have produced print and multi-media materials about Latvia based on our contacts with them. We arrange interviews and briefings, organize tours or simply answers questions. Many are return customers who come to rely on the LI for reliable and useful information about Latvia’s past, present and future.

The LI recently introduced a new law to the Latvian government that would expand the role and resources of the institute in coordinating the way government ministries and agencies provide information about Latvia. The initial goal is to review what is already being done, and do it better.

Until now, we have simply tried to fill the knowledge gap and provide useful information to those around the world who are interested in this country called Latvia. Informing about Latvia is one thing. Promoting it is something else altogether. Toward this end we have begun research on the prospect of “branding” Latvia, i.e. developing a targeted marketing concept, strategy and campaign to promote tourism, foreign investment and export sales. But that will take time, money and considerable coordination.

For now, the Latvian Institute remains Latvia’s only “one-stop shopping” source for any and all information about Latvia. We collect it, we convert it, we convey it and we share it. Finally, after a half century of silence, the word is getting out.

Just like everyone else, I’m worried about a war in Iraq. Wars anywhere always shake up the rest of world in some way, and I’m sure that a war in Iraq would have an effect on Latvia. So I’ve been following the news, reading the statements, listening to the opinions and trying to figure out who really knows what’s going on. And what should be done to fix it. Some kind of resolution is needed, because the global situation is tense and growing more dangerous.

Do I want to see a war in Iraq? Of course not. I’d prefer never to see another war ever again. Wars are lousy ways to resolve human differences.

But what if there is a war? What then? What should be my attitude be toward that war and the people waging it?

The government of the United States has concluded that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the world. He’s a bloody tyrant who controls monstrous chemical, biological and nuclear weapons of mass destruction. He’s already used some of them in a war against Iran and on Kurds in Iraq, so it’s no stretch to imagine he could use them again on someone else. Most of the world’s governments seem to agree that something needs to be done about it. Utilizing the broadest international authority they have—the United Nations—they have tried to compel Hussein to disarm for the last 12 years. He has refused.

The Americans say the situation is bad and getting worse. All international diplomatic, political and economic instruments have been used to bring Hussein around, but nothing has worked. So the United States has turned to the world, through the U.N., and asked for a resolution that would call for an allied military invasion of Iraq. There would be three goals: 1) remove Hussein as leader of Iraq, 2) seize and destroy all the weapons of mass destruction, and 3) cut off Hussein’s assistance to international terrorist networks.

It strikes me that all three goals are worthy. But how do we achieve them?

Obviously war means death. Soldiers die and civilians die. Given Hussein’s nightmarish arsenal of high tech death machines, the potential casualty count in a war where these are unleashed could be enormous. But even if there isn’t a war, the threat remains as long as the weapons remain. Washington believes that with good planning, high-tech weapons and coordinated international cooperation, a successful military action could be launched against Iraq. Proponents of an invasion believe the Hussein government could be toppled and the weapons seized with minimal allied and civilian casualties.

Not everyone agrees with the United States on this. Nevertheless, the United States has asked for U.N. support and international co-operation to form a coalition that would combine its military and political resources to bring an end to Hussein’s rule in Iraq. Unity is not only important militarily, it could even be more critical politically. As long as the world’s countries argue among themselves, Hussein can sit and wait till the cows come home. But if a majority of the world’s countries agreed that Hussein had to go and announced their readiness to invade tomorrow, Hussein might finally get the hint and leave the country tonight.

Some find this highly unlikely, but it’s not out of the question. And it is the one sure-fire way of preventing a war.

However, if Hussein follows Adolph Hitler’s lead into a bunker somewhere in the hills of Iraq, the invading forces would have to contend with the Iraqi army and people. How long would they resist, especially if they understood that 1) the world was united against them and 2) the only way they could stop the war and hope to resume normal political and economic ties with the rest of the world would be to abandon Saddam Hussein to the dust heap of history? Do they love their leader or simply fear him? And if it is fear, then the best way to battle it is to eliminate its source.

Once again, there no guarantees that this will happen, but it is a plausible possibility. I’d like to see the United Nations join forces and convince the Iraqis that this is the best way out. But what if it can’t and the United States decides it’s now or never?  How should I react to this war, and how would I want my country of Latvia to react? If the U.S.-led alliance attacks it won’t matter much whether the U.N. has sanctioned it or not. That can be debated by the political scientists and historians later. We will be faced with the fact that several hundred thousand American and allied forces will be putting their lives on the line. A war will be underway, lives will be in danger, and those who are fighting will look to those who support them for help to bring the conflict to a speedy resolution.

Latvia looks upon the United States as an ally. We have applied to join the NATO defense pact so that we could be allied with the United States and 18 other countries. By joining NATO we ask other nations to help us in times when our security is threatened, and thus we promise to help them when theirs is threatened as well. The United States has concluded that its security is threatened, and that world security is threatened. It has asked the world, allies or otherwise, to help it eliminate this threat.

The issue of whether a war is necessary becomes a moot point once it has started. Given Latvia’s foreign policy goals and desire to join NATO, it seems that we have a moral obligation to help our allies in times of war. Sooner or later Latvia’s parliament may have to vote on a request from the United States for military assistance in Iraq. Latvia’s parliamentarians should keep in mind that later this year American parliamentarians—the U.S. Senate—will vote on whether to let Latvia into the NATO alliance. We have asked for their help. We should be prepared when they ask for ours.

Latvia’s president, foreign minister and other officials have told the United States that we will help them in whatever way we can if a war breaks out. I doubt if the United States will ask for much because we don’t have much to give. But I’m glad that we announced our readiness to assist. That’s what good allies are supposed to do.

Nobody wants a war, but if a war breaks out and your friends are involved, it’s important to help them. It’s been said that in international relations there are no friends, but simply national interests. Well, I believe that for some democratic nations like the United States, having friends is part of their national interest.

Over the last 15 years, in restoring independence and securing it, Latvia has not had a more important friend than the United States. We are lucky to have many friends in the international community, but the United States is clearly the largest and most powerful. The United States supported our independence legally, politically and materially, and facilitated the removal of Russian troops from our territory once we achieved that independence. It continues to help us today. (The United States spearheaded support for our NATO candidacy.)

Now the United States has turned to us for help. It still has differences with other allies about the war, but if it does proceed, all indications are that it will lead a fairly broad coalition of democratic countries. The United States is investing the most in material and human resources and faces the greatest losses in a possible war. But it feels it is doing it for the greater good.

I don’t know how to achieve the greater good. I don’t like achieving it through war. But if there is a war, I hope it is short, effective and causes minimal casualties in achieving its goals. And if Latvia can help even a little in achieving these goals, I will feel proud of my country. As we enter our 12th year of restored independence, we will demonstrate that we not only accept help, but can also give it.

(Editor’s note: This essay originally appeared in Latvian and in a slightly different form in the Feb. 11, 2003, edition of the daily newspaper Diena.)

When I was a boy growing up on the west side of Chicago in the 1950s, Latvia was an enchanted and bewitched land, far, far away. It was enchanted in the memories of my refugee parents and bewitched by the spectre of communism that had descended over it. But most of all, it seemed far, far away. Travel was difficult, contacts were sparse and information was limited. The Latvians of the world were divided into two categories: us and them. Those over there and us over here.

It wasn’t the Iron Curtain alone that divided us. It was access to information. Latvians in the West had free access to information about the entire world, but knew very little about what was really happening in Latvia. Latvians in Latvia knew their country like the back of a shackled hand, but knew very little about what was happening elsewhere in the world. (Or in the apartment next door.)

It is now 2001, Latvia is free again and celebrates the 10th anniversary of its restored independence. But it isn’t independence alone that has changed Latvia and Latvians. Latvia’s legendary Foreign Minister Zigfrīds Meierovics moved mountains to get Latvia recognised internationally in the early 1920s, but what makes his achievement so remarkable today is that he did it without e-mail, the Web, CNN, PowerPoint and real-time electronic bank transfers.

Latvia today is part of a 24-hour, non-stop, information-encased globalised world where time and distance take on totally new meanings. When the Wall came down and the telecommunication satellites went up, the information divide between Latvians here and Latvians there was finally breached. Every Latvian, anywhere in the world, could visit Latvia any time he or she chose. And those who couldn’t get to it physically could access it in countless other ways.

Today Latvians anywhere can come and go, read what they want, listen to what they choose, and attend what they please. Many of those who were "here" are now over "there," and vice versa. The "us" and "them" of 10 years ago are now working side-by-side in Rīga, New York, Liepāja, Washington, Cēsis, Chicago, Rēzekne and Kalamazoo. (As well as Prague, Brussels, Lisbon and Ottawa.)

I know young Latvians born in Rīga and Jelgava who have degrees from Stanford, the University of Texas and St. Olaf College in Minnesota; today they work for the Foreign Ministry,  Latvian political parties and Rīga-based businesses. I know others born and raised in New York, Chicago and Silver Springs, Md., who run businesses, international organisations and state agencies in Rīga. Some from over "there" (in the diaspora) have spent more time over "here" (in Latvia), than those who were born here. Yet all are in some way involved with Latvia, doing Latvian things in a Latvian way. Increasingly, we seem to be becoming a real "we." Location no longer divides us; being Latvian simply unites us.

Thanks to Latvians Online this feeling of "we-ness" now has a fertile place to grow and develop in cyberspace as well. You have become a virtual town hall for a truly global Latvian community. Forgive my Chicago prejudice, but to me the emergence of Latvians Online in 2000 is comparable to the acquisition of Gaŗezers in the 1960s. It was a visionary decision that brought Latvians together, not only to play, but to exchange ideas, information and energy. For me, Latvians Online is the cyber-Gaŗezers of the 21st Century, minus the bonfires and the Boone’s Farm Apple Wine. (Thank goodness for the latter.)

By providing articles, commentaries, reviews, news and debates in English, Latvians Online not only draws a broader spectrum of Latvians from around the world (especially those who feel it, but can’t speak it), it also brings the non-Latvian (English-speaking) world into the global Latvian community.

Increasingly the people, government, organisations and businesses of Latvia are creating Web pages, communicating in English and making contact with the world. Institutions like the Latvian Institute were created to provide information about Latvia and help Latvians engage with the world. Regardless of which end of the political spectrum we find ourselves on, we all seem to agree that progress is possible and problems are solvable through dialogue and increased understanding. Understanding requires information and exchange. Latvians Online has made a major contribution to Latvia in both areas.

In speeches to foreign audiences I’ve often described Latvia as a piece of land on the shores of the Baltic Sea. But it’s also a state a mind that knows no geographic boundaries. When composer Lolita Ritmane wins an Emmy in Hollywood, the people of Latvia share in the pride. When violinist Baiba Skride wins first prize in Brussels, Latvians in Cleveland cheer.

At the end of the 19th Century, Latvians took their first step toward real statehood by creating the Latvian Society in Rīga. It was a place where Latvians could go to make friends, share art, music, theatre and literature, and discuss the issues of the day. That eventually led to the establishment of an independent Latvian state. Thanks to Latvians Online we now have a global "biedrības nams" that allows us to share our Latvian feelings and ideas from anywhere in the world. That should help ensure that Latvia—as a state, or simply as a state of mind—survives and thrives.

Congratulations on your one-year anniversary!