Should they or shouldn't they? The presidents of the Baltic Republics have been invited to Moscow for May 9th, to take part in events marking the 60th anniversary of the fall of the Third Reich. Victory Day was always a good reason for Soviets to bring out evidence of their military might - though memories of doddering old leaders on the reviewing dais seem more vivid than kilometers long parades of forced conscripts, addled veterans and unreliable military machinery snaking through Red Square.
Such parades are anachronisms in the West, for all the right reasons. Russia still tries to remind the world selectively of its past. The Kremlin takes every advantage given; thus the emphasis on "Victory Day", the vanquishing of evil, the role of Russians in defeating a totalitarian regime whose crimes have not been forgotten. However, in so doing, Moscow is attempting to deflect attention from the fact that with Victory Day oppression, murder and carnage did not end in Europe - it just took another name and that was to be found in the brutal imposition of communism on those countries that after May 9, 1945 found themselves behind the Iron Curtain.
Vladimir Putin has invited heads of states from all over the world to attend events focussing on the Soviet Union's contribution to the Allied military effort. The absence of a Baltic president - or three - will not halt these Potemkin ceremonies. Putin, however, is dangling a carrot in front of our heads of state, suggesting that over 13 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union Russia might just be ready to sign way overdue border treaties with Estonia and Latvia. The Lithuanians already have such a treaty. Historical treaties often carry little weight in a changed world, and borders, like locks never keep the undesirables out. Who is to say that after 13 years a treaty would change relations overnight?
Estonians are divided on the issue. The majority seems to feel that Arnold Rüütel's acceptance of the Kremlin's invite would be a tacit acceptance not only of the Kremlin's continuing power, but an error of continuing appeasement. By turning down the invite, Rüütel would send a clear message to Putin. One that demands that today's Russia own up to its historical crimes; compensate for losses as the democratic Germans who inherited the Nazi past have done.
Rüütel, alas, is not known for being a decisive, forthright individual, unafraid to take a stand no matter the controversy. He also must contend with his own heavy historical baggage. It matters little whether he had the interests of his countrymen always foremost; the facts do not deceive. As life-long party functionary, and Estonia's last Soviet President, Rüütel almost by nature equivocates and shilly-shallies when he should not. His instincts may have been right - we do not have a mirror into his soul. But the Soviet legacy of command performance, saying one thing when in reality you dare not say the truth seems always to be hovering nearby.
The Baltic Times took a strong and commendable stance on the issue last week. Their editorial of January 6th, "The choice is clear enough" emphasized that Baltic presidents accepting their invites to Moscow in May, in hopes of getting border issues resolved, would be doing so for the single worst reason. The Times points out that the war did not end in 1945: "it continued in the forests - and on the cattle cars to Siberia- for many years." But the Kremlin is not interested in that truth - their Victory Day is to suggest that human loss in Europe only lasted for the six years of WW II.
The Times rightly argues that by attending commemorative events in the Red Square the Baltic presidents would essentially acknowledge Russia's occupation and illegal annexation of their countries. "No spin control, be it from the Kremlin [or Baltic presidential palaces] can refute this."
It would serve to legitimize the Soviet occupation of the Baltics. To sign a border agreement during such commemorations will do no honor to the hundreds of thousands of Balts who suffered under that occupation. The Times concluded that the Baltics have every right to demand that Russia recognize the occupation, or “at the very least the extreme victimization of the Baltic peoples" before giving any official recognition to Victory Day. The choice facing our presidents is "unenviable, but it is also quite clear."
This week, however, Latvian president Vaire Vika-Freiberga stole the thunder with what seems to be an individual decision to attend in May. Of the three Baltic presidents Vike-Freiberga is the most accomplished Western politician, courageous in her own right, tirelessly using her ceremonial post to campaign for just causes such as an end to sexual and child slavery, (trafficking in people is a historic Russian practice), women's rights and environmental causes. She is not afraid to speak her mind.
Vike-Freiberga bluntly stated that this is not Hobson's choice. By stating the historical truth - that Stalin was equally responsible with Hitler for the outbreak of WW II, she is forcing the world to look into the mirror of truth.
"Postimees" recognizes the intellectual validity of this stance. Their editorial this Thursday emphasized that the Baltic leaders have the opportunity to state that they belong in the West, where historical crimes are not to be brushed under a carpet. European and Western leaders must be made to see what historian Niall Ferguson outlined in the Daily Telegraph on January 1st - that Putin's Russia greatly resembles Weimar Germany that led to Hitler's excesses, and that recent events in Russia indicate an "authoritarian warm-up act" possibly creating a “fully fledged Russian führer.”
Vike-Freiberga's bold grasp of the opportunity has not been welcomed by all. Many see this as forcing the hand, showing disunity in the Baltic diplomatic policy ranks. However, what’s done is done. It means that Rüütel - and Lithuania's president Valdas Adamkus - are faced with an historical choice. Would a boycott be noticed in the West? Or, following Vike-Freiberga’s lead, to use the events to publicize Soviet lies, demand accountability? Such opportunities to turn Russian propaganda head-on-heels do not come up often. The Baltic presidents have a few months to work together on a diplomatic strategy that would expose Russia's celebrations for the sham that they indeed are.
Leader: Opportunities and challenges (1)
Archived Articles | 14 Jan 2005 | EWR
Viimased kommentaarid
Kommentaarid on kirjutatud EWR lugejate poolt. Nende sisu ei pruugi ühtida EWR toimetuse seisukohtadega.
The wording of a border treaty is a source of anxiety.
To "save face", preclude any demand for reparations, and promote Russian civil rights in Estonia, the devious Putin would probably like to base a treaty on the Soviet version of Estonia's incorporation into the Soviet Union; and, by accepting the present administrative border, Estonia may be conceding as much. A return to the traditional border, however, means more Russians in a country that may become overwhealmed by them as it is.
The leadership in Estonia needs the wisdom of Solomon, at this hour, (and I certainly can't see it in Rüütel.) I wonder if the best option isn't to ask for a treaty which includes no compromises. If this is unacceptable to Putin we'll continue as we have. What, after all, will a formal treaty substantially change?
To "save face", preclude any demand for reparations, and promote Russian civil rights in Estonia, the devious Putin would probably like to base a treaty on the Soviet version of Estonia's incorporation into the Soviet Union; and, by accepting the present administrative border, Estonia may be conceding as much. A return to the traditional border, however, means more Russians in a country that may become overwhealmed by them as it is.
The leadership in Estonia needs the wisdom of Solomon, at this hour, (and I certainly can't see it in Rüütel.) I wonder if the best option isn't to ask for a treaty which includes no compromises. If this is unacceptable to Putin we'll continue as we have. What, after all, will a formal treaty substantially change?
Archived Articles
TRENDING
