President’s diplomatic offensive is high stakes

Uldis Ozoliņš | 

Latvian President Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga is playing for high stakes. She took everyone by surprise in January when she announced her decision to attend the May 9 celebration in Moscow marking the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II—and specifically the Soviet role in Adolf Hitler’s downfall.

In the face of long-standing concerns about Baltic unity, she seemingly had not consulted either of the other two Baltic countries in this decision. Subsequently, both Estonia’s and Lithuania’s presidents have decided they will not attend. Domestically, her decision also aroused controversy. Five ears ago, all three Baltic presidents did not attend the 55th anniversary celebrations in Moscow, and public opinion in all three countries has always been strongly against participation.

But more than this, she also used the occasion of her acceptance to launch what must be seen as Latvia’s most pointed and, we may cautiously surmise, best received diplomatic initiative in its nearly 15 years of regained independence. Along with accepting the invitation to participate in Moscow, she issued strong statements detailing Latvia’s stance to this celebration—that the end of the Nazi regime in 1945 brought in turn the beginning of a brutal occupation by the Soviet Union that was to last 50 years. Vīķe-Freiberga urged those attending the celebration to recognise this fact and view the celebrations accordingly.

The smiles on Russian faces for her “wise” decision (as the Kremlin put it) to attend on May 9 froze when the full text of her message sank in, and since then she has pointedly repeated her remarks as she continues a strong campaign to make sure her participation in Moscow cannot be interpreted as acquiescence in the glorification of Soviet victory.

The risks of this strategy were clear. Going against Baltic unity was the first criticism. Her decision rankled both Estonia and Lithuania, which appeared to be caught totally off guard. Secondly, there was no guarantee that her comments on the celebrations would be even heard, much less heeded, by the heads of all other European countries attending on May 9. Latvia’s voice, for all its new status in the European Union and the NATO defense alliance, remains marginal. Thirdly, there was no guarantee that her stance would have any effect upon Moscow at all. And finally, she was clearly setting what she saw as Latvia’s best interests against a strong view in the public that the Moscow celebration should be boycotted.

However—significantly—Moscow was affected and the subsequent brouhaha has seen increasing support for Latvia’s position. Russia’s President Vladimir Putin immediately went on the counterattack, marked most clearly at the 60th celebrations of the liberation of Auschwitz, where he railed against any attempt to draw parallels between Nazi and Soviet behaviour by those who would “rewrite history.” An equally strong denunciation came when at a subsequent meeting Vīķe-Freiberga presented him with a book on Latvian history. The Kremlin used this again to attack Latvia’s attempted reinterpretation of history.

Latvia’s offensive clearly had got under Russian’s skin. And there were encouraging statements of support from several other European countries, including Poland, Ireland and even France, a country not always keen to criticise its former ally, Russia. While Germany, as ever, remains unmoved, the support for Latvia’s stance marks a decided shift in European attitudes, helped in great measure by the increasing signs of Russian authoritarianism both internally and externally over the past year, fears for democracy in that country, and a string of democratising revolutions—in Georgia, in Ukraine and now almost unbelievably in Kirghizstan—that have exposed Russia’s constant meddling in its “near abroad.” In politics, as in comedy, timing is everything, and Latvia’s stance on the May 9 celebrations has come in a receptive environment.

The recent announcement that U.S. President George W. Bush will visit Latvia on May 6-7 has been seen by Latvian commentators as ultimate vindication of Vīķe-Freiberga’s strategy. Bush’s visit will come just two days before the May 9 celebrations in Moscow (which Bush will also attend) and this is seen as sending a strong message to Russia that the United States understands and supports Latvia’s position.

Bush’s interest in appearing in Latvia immediately before the Moscow celebrations also is seen as direct reward for the Latvian government’s unstinting support for Bush on several issues, including the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq and issues of terror, despite local public opinion being less in favour of such initiatives.

However, other factors are also at play. Bush has been keen to exploit the support of Eastern European countries, what U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called “New Europe,” against the perceived anti-Americanism of several Western European countries, or “Old Europe.” Bush is still broadly reviled in Western Europe, and ambivalently viewed even in parts of Eastern Europe, so Latvia’s closeness to him may well not be favourably viewed by others in Europe.

Moreover, President Arnold Rüütel of Estonia had also invited Bush. Estonia is the only one of the three Baltic countries that has not had a U.S. presidential visit. Bush’s pointed preference for Latvia may be reward for its participating in Moscow on May 9, and dislike of Estonia’s boycotting. For the United States, relations with Russia are far more important than with the Baltic states, whatever temporary use can be made of Baltic issues to gain leverage.

And while Bush’s visit will give some focus to Baltic concerns, the controversies surrounding Bush will ensure a host of other issue from wars to trade to the environment will dog the visit. Indeed, for the press outside Europe the issue of Bush’s visit to Latvia will be far more about how many protests this attracts (against the Iraq war and much else) rather than about Baltic issues.

Finally, the curious way in which Vīķe-Freiberga acted alone and left her Baltic companions in the lurch has raised longer-term issues of the seeming impossibility of achieving Baltic unity on significant issues. We will see if Vīķe-Freiberga’s determined support for the United States puts her out on a limb with her own public, or if the Bush visit will be a political coup for her.

Naumova doesn’t take risks on gentle album

Andris Straumanis | 

Nesauciet sev līdzi

Marija Naumova’s latest compact disc, Nesauciet sev līdzi, is a collection of 10 songs that somehow doesn’t measure up to her earlier recordings. Individually, the songs are gentle on the ear, but the album seems to lack the direction I’ve come to expect from a performer known for her transformations.

On the CD cover, we see that Naumova’s physical appearance has changed once more. Perhaps this is what led me to expect a musical transformation as well. Gone is the shoulder-length hair, now cropped closer than ever before. But inside, Naumova hasn’t taken the same kind of risks.

A press release described the album as a “peaceful, acoustic, chill-out” effort. At times, it is just that, but songs such as “Dūmains vakars”—presented from the vantage point of someone who seems at the crossroads of a relationship—may leave the careful listener more agitated than relaxed.

Naumova, already a rising stage and recording star as the new millenium began, got a big boost in 2002 when her Latin-inspired “I Wanna” won the Eurovision Song Contest. She has recorded several albums in different languages, but her best, in my opinion, remains her 2001 French collection, Ma voix, ma voie. Lately, Naumova has been busy with stage performances and concerts, which may explain why her newest recording appears two years after her last album.

Fans who admire Naumova’s linguistic range won’t be disappointed by Nesauciet sev līdzi. (Naumova, an ethnic Russian, speaks five languages.) The 10 songs include five in Latvian, three in French and one each in English and in Portuguese. Lyrics for seven new songs were written by Jean-Michel Galopin, Astra Skrābane,  the U.S.-born James Werts of Estonia and the Latvian writer Māra Zālīte. Music for the new material was composed by Andrejs Jevsjukovs, Sergejs Manukjans and Ivars Musts—as well as by Naumova herself.

The album begins with “Pilsētas skice,” a study of a moment’s daydream. The song, with lyrics by Skrābane and music by Naumova, attempts to set the tone for the rest of the album: light jazz transporting a story of happenstance.

On the second track, “Des pas,” Galopin took Latvian composer Aleksandrs Kublinskis’ classic “Noktirne” and put French text to it, replacing lyrics originally written by A. Brežģis. (A number of Latvian artists have recorded the Latvian version, for example, Nicol on her 2003 release Melns un balts.)

“Tikai,” a love song with lyrics by Zālīte, is a musically upbeat track that sounds out of place on this album and may remind some listeners of material from Naumova’s 2002 release, Noslēpumi.

On the seventh track, Naumova does right by Jacques Revaux and Claude François, who in 1967 wrote “Comme d’habitude,” better known in the English-speaking world as Frank Sinatra’s “My Way.” Her rendition is nice, but it lacks the power and conviction of Sinatra’s anthem.

The track I’ve listened to most is “Saldējums.” It’s a tune about a broken heart: “Saldējums manā glāzē, balts kā ķiršu krūms. Raugos es kā lēni izkūst, glāzē saldējums” (Ice cream in my glass, white like a cherry bush. I watch how slowly melts, the ice cream in the glass). A line from the song also gives the album its name.

On the last track, “Ó Gente de Minha Terra,” Naumova expands her linguistic offerings by singing in the fado style of Portugal. The song, penned by Amália Rodrigues and Tiago Machado, probably is little known in North America, but has had success in Europe for the young Portuguese fado singer Mariza.

Perhaps it is the diversity of languages, as well as some of the lyrics and musical shifts, that leaves me with the sense that Nesauciet sev līdzi doesn’t hold together as well as Naumova’s earlier albums. But she’s a professional. I trust that her next effort will be more cohesive and that we won’t have to wait another two years for it.

Details

Nesauciet sev līdzi

Marija Naumova

Baltic Records Group,  2004

BRG CD 203

On the Web

Marie N

The official Web site for Marija Naumova, or Marie N as she is known in some markets. EN LV RU

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

Cerēt, ka pagātnes šausmas nekad neatkārtosies

Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga | 

Mums šodien ir oficiāla sēru diena, kad noliecam galvas savas tautas upuru priekšā. Tā iekrīt Lielajā piektdienā, kad kristīgā pasaule atceras Kristus ciešanas un piemin viņa upuri cilvēces labā. Mūsu tautas upuri bija necilvēcīga režīma izraudzīti, bez vainas, bez apsūdzības, bez tiesas sprieduma, un gandrīz vai sakritības kārtībā atlasīti it kā turīgākie no latviešu zemniekiem, bet ne jau sistemātiski. Tur tika iekļauti pat vairāki komjaunieši un sarkanās varas atbalstītāji. Tas pamatā bija genocīds pret Latvijas tautu, un katrā ziņā tas bija milzīgs noziegums pret cilvēci.

Ir daudz strīdu par to, cik plašām ir jābūt iznīcināšanas akcijām, pirms tās var nosaukt par genocīdu. Ir pilnīgi skaidrs, – ja Hitlera režīms paziņoja, ka visi ebreji kopš dzimšanas tikai tādēļ, ka viņi pieder pie ebreju tautai, ir iznīcināmi, tad tur nav šaubu, ka tas ir genocīds. Bet 1948.gadā ANO pieņemtā deklarācija arī skaidri izskaidro, ka pie genocīda pieder jebkura pret veselu grupu vērsta akcija, kas noved cilvēkus tādos apstākļos, ka viņiem ir maz izredzes izdzīvot un ka viņu dzīvība ir briesmās. Tas precīzi atbilst tiem ap 44 tūkstošiem Latvijas iedzīvotāju, kas 25.marta rītā 1949.gadā tika čekistu saņemti ciet, vairums savās lauku mājās, un aizdzīti uz neskaitāmiem ešeloniem, kas viņus aizveda uz Sibīriju.

Man ir nācies dzirdēt pat starp ļoti gudriem un izglītotiem ļaudīm rietumos, ka, lūk, ir arī kaut kādas nianses starp staļiniskiem un hitleriskiem noziegumiem tādā izpratnē, ka staļiniskās akcijas Latvijā, piemēram, bija ar it kā ekonomisku pamatojumu. Kā jau teicu, – ja zemniekam bija 2 govis drīzāk nekā viena, tad varbūtība, ka viņu izsūtīs, bija lielāka. Bet te jau nevar runāt par politisku jeb ekonomiski regulētu procesu, bet gan vienkārši par vēršanos pret Latvijas tautu ar pilnīgi klaju nolūku viņus aizdzīt prom no Latvijas zemes un atbrīvot šo zemi iebraucējiem, lai tā iznīcinātu Latvijas kā valsts patstāvību, pilnīgi skaidri un nepārprotami ar šādu nolūku.

Mums šie notikumi ir jāatceras, mums tie ir jādokumentē ne tikai ar aizvesto vārdiem un sarakstiem, bet arī ar dzīvu palikušo atmiņām, ar visiem citiem dokumentiem, kas ir pieejami par to laiku. Mums ir nepieciešama arī plaša dokumentācija par tām represijām, kas notika starp lieliem deportācijas viļņiem. Mums vēl daudz ir darāms, lai precīzi dokumentētu un pasaulei pierādītu, cik lieli noziegumi pret cilvēci ir pastrādāti uz Latvijas zemes.

Šodien, Lielajā piektdienā, atceroties šos notikumus, atcerēsimies arī, ka šajā noziegumā savu roku pielika mūsu tautas kolaboranti. Tie, kas ies baznīcā, varētu viņus arī atcerēties un lūgt Dievu par mūsu tautu, lai tas nesoda par to grēkiem, kas piedalījās šajā noziegumā.

Mums šī ir skumja diena, bet tā ir reizē arī atcere tam, ka tagad dzīvojam citā pasaulē un citā Eiropā, un mūsu pienākums ir gādāt, lai mūsu vēsture kļūtu par visas Eiropas vēsturi, lai mūsu tautas sāpes un ciešanas saprastu citur, tāpat kā mēs esam gatavi un mums ir jābūt gataviem saprast citu tautu ciešanas, sāpes un zaudējumus. Tikai uz kopējas izpratnes par to, kas ir cilvēciskās vērtības, par to, kas ir patiess humānisms, mēs varam cerēt, ka pagātnes šausmas nekad neatkārtosies, un ka tā Eiropa, kurā mums un mūsu pēcnācējiem būs lemts dzīvot, kardināli atšķirsies no tās, ko mēs piedzīvojām pagājušā gadu simtenī. Mums ir jācīnās par to, lai atzītu, ka katra cilvēka dzīvība ir vienādi vērta un ka jebkurš noziegums pret cilvēku, vienalga kur un kā vārdā darīts, ir noziegums, kuru nedrīkstam pieļaut.

Es aicinu visus šodien atcerēties gan savus tuviniekus, gan savus tautiešus, un aicinu arī katram savā sirdī meklēt to piedošanu, kas jums atļautu raudzīties nākotnē ar spēju tikt pāri savām sāpēm un ciešanām, lai gādātu par to, ka nākotnē savus bērnus varam audzināt par tiešām civilizētas Eiropas pilsoņiem.