Tepidity is not going to ease ethnic tensions in Latvia, Mr. President.

Guarded statements about the ethnic Russian minority population by Latvian President Valdis Zatlers suggest an improvement in the troubled relations that are a legacy of the Soviet Union, yet the message is a bit more mixed.

In speaking to a Russian-language newspaper this week, he denounced using the term “occupiers” to refer to the ethnic Russian minority population; however, he also rejected their integration into Latvian society, preferring instead to cultivate a sense of “togetherness” between the two ethnic groups.

At first glance, anyone might welcome the president’s move to come down on “occupiers” and play up “togetherness.” His comments are, actually, principled and fair. He is urging a softer tone to be used with the ethnic Russian minority and offering a plan for peaceful coexistence.

But that simple interpretation overshadows the fact that Latvia actually needs integration. While Zatlers was right to come down on the term “occupier,” he should also refrain from using “togetherness” because of what that term could mean for his country.

Without a doubt, the president needed to take a stance against the slur. Among all the insults hurled at the ethnic Russian minority, the term “occupier” in particular smacks of scapegoating and displacing anger. Latvians use the divisive word to wallow in their history and justify their actions (think citizenship and language legislation), while only angering and ostracizing the ethnic Russians. It also has a heavy military connotation, which suggests much of the true anger behind the insult should really be directed at the Russian military and state.

Latvians have cause to be angry with Russians, and vocalized anger is unavoidable; objectively, however, the term “occupier” does not belong in public discourse. Unfortunately, other insults survive, too.

Walking down the wrong path “together”

“Togetherness” might seem innocuous, but it may be more damaging than “occupier.” While “occupier” might still be used by fringe groups, its use will die out; if “togetherness” gains popularity the effects could be disastrous.

It is a tricky, vague concept that could have huge implications for Latvia’s future, so Zatlers should be careful. When countries are cobbled together by a sense of “togetherness” they are destined for failure. That is because “togetherness” is not a sufficient condition for political unification, when other factors such as race, ethnicity, religion, and history complicate the situation.

Examples are plenty: any pre-WWI empire, Yugoslavia, and possibly Belgium today. All these political units share “togetherness” without social integration. Needless to say, for some of those examples, “togetherness” was manufactured by outside forces, such as in Yugoslavia. Also, their failures are not solely from internal causes, such as the Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman and tsarist Russian empires. Social integration alone would not have saved these states, but “togetherness” ensured their failure.

Different ethnic groups with strong identification but with a sense of “togetherness” that are brought into a common state will politicize their differences and institutionalize their separate identities. In Belgium, for example, political parties have devised quotas to fill government positions with French and Dutch speakers and that leaves tensions high. Now the dysfunctional country seems to be falling apart.

No country can survive on “togetherness” alone, so Latvia should desire something more. “Togetherness” suggests ethnic Russians would live peacefully under Latvian society while maintaining their culture, but it leaves open the unsettled question of citizenship for the approximately 230,000 ethnic Russians in Latvia. Non-citizens lack voting rights and the ability to hold public office, so they cannot effectively participate in the political process. It would be crazy to think non-citizen ethnic Russians will feel a sense of togetherness toward a state that denies them basic democratic rights, such as voting.

Achieving “togetherness” requires settlement of the non-citizen issue. But once that happens, remember Belgium. Some harmony in inter-ethnic relations is needed. Ethnic Russians will likely resist any attempt at integration or assimilation, yet “togetherness” is not a suitable alternative. Integration may be more difficult, but it could spare Latvia a future like Belgium.

Russians need to be integrated — a fact that makes both stubborn sides cringe. “Togetherness” just detracts from that goal.

The problem of social integration cannot be ignored or expected to be solved by itself. Likewise, “togetherness” may make the inter-ethnic tensions worse. Until ethnic Russians feel they have a stake in the Latvian state and seek to actively participate in the political process for the common good, regardless of their culture or how they identify themselves, Latvia’s problems will persist.

Latvians, too, need to show more tolerance. Casual onlookers should welcome the president’s statements this week because by appearance Latvians and Russians seem to be patching up their problems. To some extent, it makes strides in improving the social situation. For the casual guest, that may be enough; however, those here long-term will realize that the problem is much more complicated. Zatlers could be moving everyone in Latvia down a troubling path, together.

Michael G. Dozler is a graduate student of international affairs who received a Fulbright research grant for study in Latvia.

Disclaimer:

Views expressed in the opinion section are never those of the Baltic Reports company or the website’s editorial team as a whole, but merely those of the individual writer.