He’s Back. Who’d A Thunk It.
Almost before you can say ‘fascist’, the Estonians have hurriedly re-assembled the Bronze Soldier and put him back up, albeit in a different location. They even put out a live TV broadcast to tell the world.
That’s a very different story to Friday, when Government spokesman Martin Jasko said the ‘unnecessarily divisive’ statue had ‘no place in the city centre’ and was being removed to an ‘undisclosed location’.
One can observe that putting him back up was as precipitate as dismantling him in the first place. There’s no guarantee his new location will be any less provocative. More likely the opposite, given that a few war graves have been desecrated in the ensuing controversy.
So, what might have been the pressures on the Estonian Government? They won’t have been from the Russian minority in Estonia, a marginalised, powerless, unemployed and eminently lock-uppable minority.
Over the weekend, condemnation came from from more than a few directions. Notably from the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the LA-based holocaust historians.
Russians in Russia spontaneously responded to the desecration of the war grave. Supermarkets voluntarily stopped selling Estonian goods, while Moscow Mayor Luzhkov called on institutions to freeze financial transactions with Estonia.
Russia’s always amusing deputy speaker, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, offered to fund a replica of the soldier to be installed across the street from the Estonian embassy in Moscow. (Currently under siege from the equally entertaining Nashi kids.)
Predictable stuff. And in all this, who is predictably absent? The EU, of course. ‘It’s a local spat”, was the response, despite an urgent plea from Finland to join the debate.
My previous post, ‘Ethnic Cleansing in Estonia‘ describes how the EU bent its own rules to facilitate the passage of Estonia into the expanded NATO EU.
In terms of human rights, Estonia never passed any normal rules for EU Entry. As ‘The Scotsman‘ notes today:
After regaining independence in 1991, Estonia gave automatic citizenship only to people resident in the country before the annexation of 1941. This has left the vast bulk of Russian-speakers, most of whom arrived or were born during the Soviet period, as non-citizens.
Statistically, that’s a whole third of the population disadvantaged. But according to the EU, and the Estonian Government, it’s one statue that’s divisive.
The funny part is that Belgium - and Brussels - experienced the same kind of language wars that divided and paralysed the country for decades. Now you can’t buy a tin of beans in Brussels that isn’t packaged in two languages and three are official. Are EU MPs so permanently out to lunch that they just don’t get it? Or just pig ignorant?
As said above there never was a plan to dismantle or destroy the statue but to move it more proper location. At the beginning, now for about year ago there was two places considered - either a occupation museum or war cemetery. So dont read russian “news” which are full of lies, propaganda and misinformation.
Thanks for your comment. As it happens, I have been quoting Amnesty International, the BBC and The Scotsman - hardly Russian media. Neither did I use the term ‘blashphemy’ - but desecrating a war grave is correct. We disagree about the numbers of the disadvantaged - and Amnesty International disagrees with you too. But certainly we agree that the numbers decline each year as the ‘ethnic cleansing’ hardens.
While you have every reason to resent Russians, discrimination against minorities is against EU law. The use of language as a discriminatory tool is too. I live in an EU law abiding country which is a net contributor to the EU and subsidises Estonia. I don’t believe Estonia should receive any benefits of membership while it acts in contravention of the Treaty of Amsterdam and the European Council’s Charter of Human Rights - and a good many other human rights conventions as Amnesty International notes.
In most cases, the EU countries have worked to come to terms with the last war and achieve civility and tolerance. What have you achieved by removing the statue? No more than the Americans achieved by toppling Saddam’s statue upon the invasion of Iraq.
Quote: ‘But I must say that I hardly consider it a human rights violation if a person has to be able to speak Estonian if he wants to become an Estonian citizen.’
Except that history has made the country bilingual. Belgium has three official languages - German, French and Flemish. And the respective speakers can’t have their citizenship, birthright or jobs annulled because they don’t speak the others. It is also illegal for them to be put at a linguistic disadvantage - either in education or in filling up a tax form.
People who were born in Estonia speaking Russian have had their birthright cancelled retrospectively. That is a violation of human rights, whether you like it or not, EU law and Amnesty International is quite clear about this.
When your last Estonia related article was mostly true, albeit with several historical mistakes, the present one is mostly wrong.
First of all - from start of the whole Bronze Soldier ordeal, it has been made clear that the statue will be removed not destroyed. Either to the WW2 memorial complex in Pirita (a suburb of Tallinn) or to the military cemetery on the outskirts of the city centre. The latter was chosen. The cemetery hosts a number of graves of Estonian, German, Soviet and other soldiers. It’s also the place for the memorial stone to “the unknown soldier”.
And your Scotsman’s quote is misleading - automatic citizenship was granted not only to the citizens of the first Estonian republic, but also to their children and their childrens’ children.
To explain this, we must take a look into not too distant history - in 1991 Estonian Republic was re-established based on the principle of continuity, which means that the years from 1940 - 1991 are from the legal point of view, illegal occupation. By recognizing the re-established Estonia, the recognizing countries also recognized the re-establishment procedures. And Yeltsin’s Russia was amongst the first to recognize us. Interestingly, AI didn’t bother to note that in the report, as this would have complicated the correctness of their legal conclusions.
People not entitled to Estonian citizenship had a choice of either taking Russian citizenship (Russia was the legal successor of the SU) or take the so-called Alien passport. Presently the number of people with the Alien passport is afaik somewhere around 100000 - 120000 people. The number, as has been pointed out earlier, is decreasing. And I’m quite confident that once the number hits 30000 or 20000, a zero option will be introduced as the mass isn’t critical anymore.
“Statistically, that’s a whole third of the population disadvantaged.”
Wrong, since about one-third of the ethnic Russian community already has Estonian citizenship. The others have either Russian or no citizenship.
Since the trend is in favor of obtaining Estonian citizenship (I believe anyone born in the country after 1991 gets it automatically), this issue will probably disappear over the next decade or so.
Estonia is not a bilingual country, is it wrong or not is another topic, but it has been like that for a long time. During the Soviet era Estonians had to learn Russian and they did it and now, when Estonians are alarge majority and the official language is Estonian, then Russians have to learn this one. If you want to be a citizen of USA you need to speak English, know the consitution and history of USA. Same is in Estonia with knowing Estonian. Estonian government agreed in the beginning og 1990’sto pay for language courses, but very few Russiand were interested in it. So they are responsible for not being able to speak Estonian after 15 years. OK, I understand if these Russians are 50-60… it might be bit late to learn Estonian, but for people who were born in Estonian Republic and educated when country was independen i cannot possibly see any reason why they didn’t learn Estonian, but the fact they don’t respect this country.
It is bit sad if an adult like you gets so emotional and in order to get support needs to change the facts. e.g. “People who were born in Estonia speaking Russian have had their birthright cancelled retrospectively”. Very pathetic lie, but if you need to lie to get support, then it is your problem. Russians had a choice after Soviet Union collapsed whether they wanted Russian or Estonian citizenship. Some chose Estonian and there is no problems with them. Some chose Russian citizenship or chose not to choose none of them. They made their choice and they are treated as citizens of another country, because this was their choice. If they now want to have Estonian citizenship, they need to do language tests.
Another thing, Estonia never wanted to destroy this monument.Estonian government wanted to remove this monument and take it to another place, because Russian drunks came there and acted in a way not appropriate. They did not come there to honour the dead, but say they wanted Estonia to be a part of Russia.This unfortunately is impossible, because none of the Estonians want that and they are a majority. This was when estonians said that if they wanted to be a part of Russia, then they should move there.
i don’t agree with the language issue stated by commentators here. an ethnic minority has right to use its own language and i do believe it is stated by eu laws or something like that. especially if the minority is a large one. if i got the right information, russians make about 9-10% of estonian population. that is a large minority.
for example, italians are making about 0,4% of croatian population but still they have right to its own language as official for their needs. that means they have their personal documents in italian, right to education in italian language etc. the same is with other minorities in croatia. of course i admit not everything is perfect but the choice of using different language for minorities is given. that is not the case in estonia.
just checked, wikipedia states the number of russians living in estonia is 345,168 what is about 25.67% of total population. a quarter of population is very high minority.
but i have a question: since russians make 25% of population, do they have guaranteed proportional representation in estonian parlament?
No, the ethnic Russians do not have proportional representation in the Riigikogu — for one thing, about 100 000 of them chose Russian citizenship. About a third of them are non-citizens who haven’t naturalized. But the main thing is that we (Latvia and Estonia) do not want bicommunal states — we would like to see the homines sovietici integrate (integration being distinct from assimilation), and many Russophones have done so and are doing so. Dividing Parliament by ethnicity would mean perpetuating the ugly divide brought about by the occupation — enshrining the divisions Stalin wrought, basically. In that case, we will never see eye to eye.
Regarding Belgium — it is divided geographically, with strict language rules and considerable linguistic tension. Only Brussels is bilingual — the Flemish Community oversees education and language in Flanders, etc. It’s intricate and doesn’t necessarily facilitate individual freedom — see Wikipedia’s article on the “linguistic facilities,” for example. The same is true of hyper-democratic Canada — only New Brunswick is bilingual. In Québec, French is the official language and the language laws are in some ways yet more strict than they are in the Baltic states, despite the fact that Québec is not a nation-state and was not occupied and colonized by a totalitarian power.
Regarding supposed “discrimination,” see Edward Lucas’ “Estonia is Right and Amnesty is Wrong.”
Estonia and Latvia met all EU requirements prior to accession. The Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities is a Council of Europe and not an EU document. Both Estonia and Latvia have defined what a national minority is to exclude Soviet migrants. Similarly, Turks are not a “national minority” in Germany, and Arabic is not an official language in Belgium. Russia, which has one of the worst records for the treatment of minorities (vide Chechnya or Mari El), adopted no such appendix, except to say that it objects to other countries’ declarations. We were careful to adopt the appendices because, unlike Russia, we do not tend to violate agreements whilst the ink is still wet.
We’re sovereign states and have the right to decide what’s best for us. I live in Daugavpils, where Russophones are a majority. In my personal experience, Lettophones here are subject to far more discrimination than Russians are, in Latvia, the only land in the world where Latvian is spoken, even a decade and a half after the restoration of independence. Back in 1991, only ca. 15% of the ethnic Russians in Latvia could speak Latvian (whilst nearly all Latvians were fluent in Russian). That figure has risen to over 50%. Moreover, ca. 85% of the Russians think Russians should learn Latvian. Nonetheless, I have to do much of my shopping in Russian. Because of the language laws, the situation — that if asymmetrical bilingualism — has improved.
Education in Latvia is provided in six minority languages, at the expense of the state. The Russian have a thriving local press, theaters, community associations, etc. No one is asking them to cease being Russian or forget their language or culture. What we ask is that they stop behaving like conquerors and respect the country in which they live. Russian is spoken from here to Vladivostok; consider how the non-Russians fared just east of our borders. As Copydude notes, most EU countries have come to terms with the last war — the difference, of course, is that most EU countries were not under occupation until 1991, and most titular nations did not nearly become minorities in their own states due to deportations and colonization. Overcoming that legacy is difficult, and it’s not done in a day.
in fact i’m not russian, i’m croatian and i live far from russia and estonia. also i didn’t think of using different language at home but in official terms starting from education to legislative. after all isn’t that one of the principles of european union. you should have in mind that democracy starts from recognizing human and minority rights.
The removal of the ‘Soldier’ is part of a deliberate process of cultural cleansing of anything Soviet in Estonia. No one can pretend otherwise.
Last year, a bill was introduced in Estonia to criminalise the display or possession of anything ‘Soviet’. The removal of just about every other public Russian artefact is testimony to the programme.
Following cultural cleansing, there is now a form of ethnic cleansing of the minority Russian speakers by the Language Directorate. No one denies this.
And it’s also a fact that it is against the EU Charter of Human Rights and the EU’s own Treaty of Amsterdam.
No one disputes that Estonians have their grievances. But as members of the EU they have laws and obligations, while desecrating a war grave can hardly be described as anything but a provocative act .
Estonia chose to pick a fight with Russia and it’s more than likely it was encouraged in this. The missile bases in Poland are also part of ‘baiting the Bear’ - as is the programme in Latvia to push for occupation reparations. All of it is turning the clock back and not helpful to Europeans living together. The Nuremberg trials were concluded early many years ago by men of wisdom for that very reason. The trials were not achieving retribution, only propagating hate.
As a member of another EU state, I wish neither to bail out a country which ignores its citizen’s rights obligations, divides societies illegally or gets into a spat by desecrating a war grave. Or one that is having its strings pulled as a US vassal state.
I understand your concern with the discrimination of minorities. Do you have any articles about the same issue in Russia. Would very much like to know your opinion about that.
“for example, italians are making about 0,4% of croatian population but still they have right to its own language as official for their needs. that means they have their personal documents in italian, right to education in italian language etc. ”
Same is in Estonia. Russians get their education in Russian, though they also have to learn Estonian and Estonians learn Russian. Also they can have their personal documents in Russian, but if they want to use them, they might need to get them translated..something that is same in all other countries. Also as Crotia and Italy both are in EU, both languages are official languages in EU. As Russia isn’t in EU, Russian isn’t an officiallanguage in EU.
Dear copydude, I agree with matilda and I would like to hear about minorities in Russia? Why don’t you talk about them, for example brutal killings by Russians in Chechnya? About the fact that in Russia many people who criticize Putin have been killed or jailed? At the moment it is clear that Russia is using this monument in order to distract Europe and World, so they wouldn’t notice what dictator Putin in doing.
Copydude,
regarding your last comment - “Last year, a bill was introduced in Estonia to criminalise the display or possession of anything ‘Soviet’. The removal of just about every other public Russian artefact is testimony to the programme.” that is a misrepresentation of the actual realities. The bill that was introduced didn’t ban the right to “display anything Soviet”, this is just another lie from Russian news media (and possibly from misinformed Western journalists). The use of both Soviet and Nazi symbols in a way that disturbs public order, calls for hatred, violence or discrimination based on race, colour, ethinicity, language, heritage, religion or sexual preferences was criminalised.
And the soldier was, first and foremost, removed because the site became a meeting place for the ultra-nationalists of both sides. Do you think a grave is a reasonable place to have fights on? And, as the exhumation has shown, the bodies were buried not next to the monument but some 15-20 metres away, partially under the bus stop. What is more of a desecration - digging up the remains and reburying them to a military cemetery where many Soviet fallen are already buried or having people walk over them on daily basis and occasionally fighting on top of them?
And while spouting legal accusations, you are still ignoring the main legal arguments - the fact that Soviets massively brought in Russian speakers during their rule is, in itself, a blatant violation of all the conventions and treaties regarding the treatment of occupied territories.
All this is not to say that we don’t have problems, we do, and a lot of them, but you are approaching them from a faulty angle. Estonia has done way too little to bring the Russian speaking minority in from the cold - they are unhappy people - they don’t feel at home in Estonia nor do they feel at home in Russia and that is why a damn bronze monument was their symbol of identity. I was originally indifferent to the statue. Veterans gathering there, dancing, singing and drinking vodka was imho a nice tradition. But lately certain local Russian opinion leaders (financed from you know where), started to turn the monument to the fallen soldiers into monument of liberators of Estonia. And that what provoked Estonian anger.
And the real problem for Estonia is that the local Russians are not united - there are no real leaders to talk to. Their leading politicians rise, fill their pockets and fall in disgrace. Last two parliamentary elections Russian voters have preferred populist Centre Party (Estonian party) to local Russian parties. A strong but reasonable leader that could unite local Russians might actually be good for Estonia - at least there would be someone to sit down with. Maybe the recent events will create one.