Doctor at center of political scandal faces repercussions in Minnesota

A Latvian-American physician’s comments about ethnic Russians in his homeland have apparently resulted in professional repercussions, but no details are available.

Dr. Aivars Slucis, a radiologist with the Albert Lea Medical Center in southern Minnesota, has become the focus of debate in Latvia, Russia and the United States following publication on the investigative journalism website pietiek.com of an e-mail exchange between him and Ģirts Valdis Kristovskis, who became Latvia’s new foreign minister on Nov. 3.

A spokesperson for the clinic, which is part of Minnesota-based Mayo Health System, said in a statement that the clinic has “taken appropriate actions” in the case.

“We have completed our internal review of the situation involving Dr. Slucis, which included an analysis of the e-mail communication, a meeting with Dr. Slucis and a review of comments and data posted within this discussion,” the statement reads. “We have taken appropriate actions based on this review. Out of respect for Dr. Slucis and in accordance with our procedures, we will not share the results of this review or the actions taken.”

Patricia Hareid, director of community relations for the clinic, confirmed for Latvians Online on Nov. 10 that Slucis remains employed by the healthcare facility.

Slucis has not responded to requests for comment.

The e-mail exchange took place in October 2009. In an e-mail sent to members of the Pilsoniskā savienība (Civic Union, or PS) party in Latvia, Slucis questioned the party’s commitment to defending the interests of ethnic Latvians. Slucis, who was born in Latvia and escaped to the west with his parents during World War II, has been a vocal critic of Russian influence in his homeland.

In the e-mail, Slucis wrote that as a doctor he would find it difficult to treat Russians equally to Latvians.

Kristovskis, head of the PS party, replied to Slucis and other PS members. While agreeing with the doctor’s sentiments, he warned against hysterical responses and cautioned party members to avoid discussions that would be counterproductive to the party’s political goals.

Kristovskis won a Nov. 9 vote of no confidence in the Saeima that had been called for by representatives from the center-left and pro-Russian Saskaņas Centrs (Harmony Centre) and the conservative Par labu Latviju! (For a Good Latvia!).

While Kristovskis may have escaped the scandal, the debate about Slucis and his comments continues.

The day before the Saeima vote, leaders of Pilsoniskā savienība ousted Slucis from their party and decided to return LVL 11,665 in contributions from the doctor.

In a scathing commentary posted on Russia’s pravda.ru website, Vadim Trukhachev criticized Kristovskis but aimed his final words at Slucis.

“As for Dr. Slucis, his attitude to Russian patients are very similar to [the] worst forms of Nazi punitive medicine, and we say ‘worst’ because even Nazis provided medical assistance to concentration camp prisoners,” Trukhachev wrote. “Slucis should have worked in Salaspils concentration camp on the outskirts of Rīga, where Nazis conducted medical experiments on Russian, Belarusian and Jewish children.”

Meanwhile, the Mayo Clinic’s Facebook page in the past week has received hundreds of comments about Slucis. While many are negative, including messages describing the doctor as racist and calling for Mayo to fire him, some offer their support for Slucis.

“Does this mean that people with Russian surnames should avoid Mayo Clinic at all costs?,” one visitor to the page asked.

Defending the doctor, another visitor wrote: “Aivars Slucis has obviously appeared in the middle of Latvian political fights. Russian opposition party wants to get into government for any price, even if they have to make up a stupid story like this.”

In Latvia, an official of the Vītols Fund—an organization that provides scholarships to students in Latvia—voiced her personal support for Slucis, according to local media reports. The doctor has funded a scholarship in his name that this year supported 20 students.

Vita Diķe, chairwoman of the fund’s board of directors, called the decision by Pilsoniskā savienība to drop Slucis “treason against a person who has done no harm to Latvia.”

The Albert Lea Medical Center’s statement in the case also closed with supportive words.

“Dr. Slucis has provided care in Albert Lea for the past three years,” according to the statement. “During that time, he has treated every patient with respect and has been professional in his interactions with all patients.”

Andris Straumanis is a special correspondent for and a co-founder of Latvians Online. From 2000–2012 he was editor of the website.

Kristovskis survives no-confidence vote; party ousts Latvian-American

Latvia’s newly installed foreign minister has escaped losing his job after the Saeima defeated a Nov. 9 no-confidence vote.

Opposition politicians wanted Ģirts Valdis Kristovskis removed as foreign minister because of an e-mail exchange he had with Aivars Slucis, a nationalist Latvian-American critic of the ethnic Russian presence in Latvia.

The motion to oust Kristovskis failed on a 51-36 vote, with 12 members of parliament abstaining.

Kristovskis became the country’s foreign minister Nov. 3 when the parliament confirmed the new government led by Prime Minister Valdis Dombrovskis. Kristovskis is head of Pilsoniskā savienība (Civic Union, or PS), which is one of the political parties that make up the centrist Vienotība (Unity) bloc.

Members of the center-left and pro-Russian Saskaņas Centrs (Harmony Centre), as well as of the conservative Par labu Latviju! (For a Good Latvia!), pushed for the no-confidence vote after the independent journalistic website Pietiek published fragments of an e-mail exchange between Kristovskis and Slucis. The website is led by the controversial investigative journalist Lato Lapsa.

Slucis, a doctor in Minnesota, in October 2009 addressed an e-mail to PS members in which he expressed his opinion about ethnic Russians and their influence in his homeland. The e-mail’s subject line read “Vai latvieši padodas?” (Are Latvians surrendering?).

“I travel to Latvia only routinely because, as a doctor, I could not treat Russians the same as Latvians in Latvia and that is not allowed and that is why I am waiting,” Slucis wrote in Latvian, according to a print-out of the exchange published by Pietiek.

Kristovsksis replied to Slucis and other PS members, noting that he agrees with Slucis’ observations. However, he also wrote that hysteria does not help and that PS politicians are defending ethnic Latvian interests. The response was copied to other PS members.

Defending his position, Kristovskis in a Nov. 5 announcement published on his party’s website said that he has never judged people based on their nationality and that he respects and tolerates people of all ethnicities. Kristovskis also noted that his e-mail response was not meant as an expression of support for Slucis, but a plea for PS members to end a discussion that was not in agreement with party goals.

Meanwhile, according to Latvian media reports, the board of directors of Pilsoniskā savienība on Nov. 8 voted to oust Slucis from the party and to return LVL 11,665 in donations the doctor made in 2009 and 2010. Slucis could not be reached for comment.

Andris Straumanis is a special correspondent for and a co-founder of Latvians Online. From 2000–2012 he was editor of the website.

New coalition is considerable achievement

Despite predictions of a possible victory in the Latvian parliamentary elections by the Russian-leaning Harmony Centre (Saskaņas Centrs), the Oct. 2 election was won by the centre-right Unity (Vienotība), the party of Prime Minister Valdis Dombrovskis.

The pre-election period had witnessed a rather pessimistic and even alarmed atmosphere around Unity, which had trailed in the polls for most of the year. There was concern that particularly among Latvian voters a sense of alienation from the political process could mean that too few would even cast ballots, leaving the gate open for Harmony Centre to be the largest party. In the end, Latvians did turn up to vote.

Another concern had been the very strong publicity campaign run by the “new” party For a Good Latvia! (Par labu Latviju!, or PLL). PLL is in fact the remnant of the two previous dominant parties in the Saeima—the People’s Party (Tautas partija ) and the First Party of Latvia (Latvijas Pirmā  partija)—which constituted the core of the previous disgraced government that had presided over Latvia’s economic disaster in 2008 as well as numerous other policy blunders.

PLL ran its campaign highlighting the strong economic growth during the earlier years of its government (don’t mention the crisis!), and berating the Dombrovskis-led government for its harsh economic measures. Its two leaders, Rīga Vice Mayor Ainars Šlesers and former Prime Minister Andris Šķēle, had their portraits plastered everywhere and had considerable resources to try to persuade the public to vote for them again.

In the elections, however, the PLL was only able to win eight seats, and did no better than the nationalist bloc (Visu Latvijai! – Tēvzemei un Brīvībai/LNNK) that ran its campaign on a shoestring. Another casualty of the elections was the former Soviet imperialist party For Human Rights in a United Latvia (Par cilvēku tiesībām vienotā Latvijā), whose opposition to Latvia’s independence and pro-European orientation has now run its course. PCTVL received only 1.9 percent of the vote (parties must gain 5 percent to get any Saeima seats).

Getting and not getting a coalition

As with all previous Latvian elections, no party gained a clear majority in its own right, so the process of forming a coalition began immediately. PLL had declared it would be in opposition, but all other parties declared themselves ready to be in a coalition government. Yet the coalition process was complicated in that each of the blocs elected to the Saeima is in fact itself a coalition of different parties or groupings. For example, Unity consists of the older New Era (Jaunais laiks), the breakaway Civic Union (Pilsoniskā savienība) with a very Latvian national-oriented focus, and the Society for a Different Politics (Sabiedrība citai politikai), a professional politician party largely of renegades from the failed People’s Party. And it was these internal divisions that partly determined the coalition outcome.

First, Dombrovskis, who was widely seen to return as prime minister, went for a “grand coalition,” inviting the Union of Greens and Farmers (Zaļo un Zemnieku savienība), the nationalist bloc and Harmony Centre to join in government, which would be backed by 92 deputies in the Saeima.

This was a startling move. The nationalist bloc and Harmony Centre are sworn enemies and it would seem to be fantasy for them to sit side by side in a government. Yet Dombrovksis’ move had a logic and he made certain demands that the parties would have to meet. He desired to see if Harmony Centre, with its strong voter base, was willing to join in a coalition, thus not denying a significant part of the electorate a chance to be represented in a government, rather than being asssigned to a perpetual opposition, always seen in ethnic conflict terms. It would also hopefully lessen the continual pressure that comes from Russia to recognise the Russian-speaking minority in Latvia as a legitimate political force.

But Dombrovskis laid down conditions: Harmony Centre had to accept certain positions, including recogniton of the fact of Latvia’s occupation by the Soviet Union in the 1940s. Harmony Cente was insulted by such a demand (its leaders have always fudged the issues of history and often continued the myth of Latvia’s voluntarily joining the Soviet Union), and demanded that talk about coalition proceed without preconditions, which Dombrovskis did not accept. Meanwhile, the Civic Union faction in Unity was offended by the offer to have the Harmony Centre join a coalition, and threatened to leave Unity if this occurred.

In the end, Harmony Centre decided it could not accept Dombrovskis’ position and declined to join the coalition under the stipulated terms.

The nationalist bloc also was willing to join the coalition (it was indeed in the government coalition leading up to the elections), yet it is a party mired in some controversy. The most active part of the bloc is the relatively newly formed All for Latvia! (Visu Latvijai!), a strident nationalist faction that used the Internet and modern media to get its message across. The All for Latvia! faction has been criticised in the West as well as in Russia for its nationalist tendencies and somewhat obscure alleged links to Nazi collaborators. Dombrovskis demanded that it give up its most radical demands (for example, having all secondary schools teach in Latvian only, as opposed to the present situation where up to 40 percent could be taught in the students’ mother tongue). The nationalist bloc agreed that this and other more radical policies would only be pursued if there was agreement in the coalition to do so. But this was not good enough for the small Society for a Different Politics, which dramatically used its veto power to prevent the nationalists from being accepted into the coalition. (An earlier agreement among the three factions of Unity was that any faction would have veto rights over selection of coalition partners.) Yet this act also pointed to potential instability within the ruling party.

These wrangles over the coalition have been variously interpreted. For some, the very move of inviting Harmony Centre to join the coalition was seen as a betrayal of Unity ideals. Others saw it as the best way of handling Latvia’s large minority. And the banning of the nationalist bloc showed even more clearly the tension within Unity. On the other hand, Dombrovksis’ move to invite these two may have in a way cleared the decks, with Harmony Centre in particular being forced to show its true colours when asked crucial questions of its historical undertanding.

In the end, Unity joined with the Union of Greens and Farmers—another party that gained much in the election, and a key party in any coalition arrangements—to form a government, which was ratified by the Saeima on Nov. 3. The soft-spoken but clearly politically astute Dombrovskis was reappointed as prime minister. Having Latvians vote for him, knowing that economic austerity would continue, and sidelining the failed old guard, was a considerable achievement.