RIGA — Latvian President Valdis Zatlers has said that it is time to stop using the word “occupier” in relation to the country’s minority Russian population and that the Baltic state didn’t need integration, but a sense of togetherness in order to fully develop.
Latvian President Valdis Zatlers (second from left) criticized calling Russian-ethnic minorities "occupiers." Photo used courtesy of NATO.
“I want to stress that the occupation of Latvia ended when the last Soviet soldier left. Therefore we need to agree that the word ‘occupier’ is no longer used in Latvia,” Zatlers said while answering questions from the readers of the Russian-language daily newspaper Telegraf.
“Occupier” is a favored epithet that Latvians hurl at the ethnic Russian minority. The latest instance occurred in September when Saeima member Juris Dobelis, a member of the nationalist For Fatherland and Freedom/LNNK union, lashed out at Harmony Center lawmaker Alexander Golubov.
However, Zatlers in the interview downplayed the idea that Latvia needs to integrate it ethnic minorities, which comprise about 40 percent of the population.
“The Latvian people doesn’t need integration, but togetherness, and recognition of the country, its symbols, laws and language guarantee freedom of individuality regardless of a person’s nationality,” the president said. “It is significant that representatives of minorities recognize themselves as, for example, Latvian-Russians, Latvian-Poles or Latvian-Ukrainians.”
Zalters’ words were immediately given prominent play by the Russian-language press in Latvia, where he is generally respected more than his predecessor, Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga, because not only does he know Russian but he uses it to communicate with ethnic Russian minorities.
In his reply to Telegraf, Zatlers reiterated that there can be no debate about the fact of the occupation, which was long ago proven, and suggested that anyone who harbored any doubts visit the Occupation Museum. Curiously, Riga Mayor Nil Ushakov, a Russian by nationality, recently visited the Occupation Museum, where he was quoted as saying that it wasn’t up to him, but to historians, to decide whether Latvia was occupied by the Soviet Union.
Ushakov, the first Russian mayor of the Latvian capital, acknowledged that Latvia was “undemocratically incorporated” by the Soviet Union in 1940. In October Zatlers told a gathering of historians that attempts to politicize history would also fail and that politicians, instead of arguing the past, should turn their attention toward the future.
I think mainly Presedent Zatlers is right. Also is good to think and remember.
Togetherness is needed as well as an integration, but “heart should beat for Latvia”. Maybe little strong to say like that but it will not be any kind of sensible togetherness if the empathy receiver is eastern neighbour instead of Latvia and there is no respect this country.
Nevertheless, extravagant patriotism isn´t good as well.
Mr. Zatlers has the best of intentions, but intentions were also what the road to hell are said to be paved with.
What if:
a) the Nazis had not lost World War II?
b) if the Nazis had stayed in Norway, Demark, France, Latvia etc. after WW II ?
c) what if Nazi soldiers were sent into retirement and the Abwehr (military intelligence) remained active through stay-behind agents in Norway, Demark, France, Latvia etc.?
d) what if Hitler or one of his followers had stayed in power in Germany and harbored resentment towards Norway, Demark, France, Latvia etc.? And denied occupation?
What if the year is not 2009 but – metaphorically speaking 1936 or 1938? Meaning: what if we are talking about the future, and not so much the past? If bad stuff were to revisit the Baltic States? Witness Chechnya. Witness Georgia. Witness the Baltic past, witness 1956 and 1968, etc.
Whether a person in Latvia or any of the other Baltic States at the moment remains an occupant in his or her heart and mind or is possibly a future occupant depends on one of two things.
If he or she is a native, then: was he or she a collaborationist during the occupation period, has he or she been brought up in a collaborationist mentality?
If he or she is a colonist who came from the East during the Soviet occupation period, or a descendant of people settled in Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania in contravention of local law and international law and the Law of Land Warfare during the Soviet Russian occupation period, how does he or she intend to behave, in the event a new armed conflict between revanchist Russia and the Baltic States might occur? Or a coups d’etat?
A person in Latvia who is not on the side of continued Latvian independence is an occupant in his or her heart. And if he or she is an occupant or collaborationist in his or her heart, he or she is a de facto occupant regardless of the best intentions of Mr. Zatlers.
He or she who intends to stick up for Latvia is a friend. The problem for a Latvian being – how do you discern the intentions of the persons Mr. Zatlers would like us to no longer use this phrase in reference to? For the sake of tact, then “former occupant” is semantically gentler and provides for benefit of the doubt. Does this mean that the phrase “occupation” is also better banned in reference to what went on in these parts after the 1940 period, as well as “past Soviet occupation”, “past German occupation”, etc. ?
A person loyal to Latvian freedom is no longer an occupant. A disloyal person has never stopped being one and may prove to be one again.
I have to say I dont agree with the use of the term ‘occupier’. Many of those considered occupiers had little or no control of their own fate during the periods they were introduced into the Baltics.