Minority issues in Latvia, No. 43
Reply-To: [email protected]
Sender: [email protected]
From: MINELRES moderator <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 09:04:26 +0200 (EET)
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
Subject: Minority issues in Latvia, No. 43
From: MINELRES moderator <[email protected]>
Original sender: Alexei Dimitrov <[email protected]>
Minority issues in Latvia, No. 43
Minority issues in Latvia, No. 43
Prepared by the Latvian Human Rights Committee (F.I.D.H.)
February 2, 2002
Content
- The President's "language initiatives" declined by MPs - so far?
- The Commission on the State Language begins functioning
- The European Court of Human Rights considers "the Slivenko case"
- Saeima to ratify the European Convention on Nationality with
substantial reservations
- Next conference on integration in Latvia: a dialogue without a
partner
- First study of discrimination by ethnic origin in Latvia
- Compilation of a "Registry of Russian taxpayers" suggested
- Left extremists try to register their party
- New publication: Estonia, Latvia and the European Commission�s
Recommendations on the Language Regulation in 1999-2001
The President's "language initiatives" declined by MPs - so far?
----------------------------------------------------------------
The expert group established by the President of Latvia Vaira
Vike�Freiberga to discuss some topical problems of the language
legislation in Latvia (see Minority issues in Latvia, No. 42,
http://racoon.riga.lv/minelres/archive//01182002-19:05:35-26586.html )
finished its work without surprises. On January 18, the experts
declared that the state language requirements for deputy candidates
run counter to the Sarversme (the Constitution of Latvia) and
recommended to abolish them. At the same time the group suggested to
take some measures aimed at strengthening the status of the state
language.
On January 21, the President discussed possible abolition of the state
language requirements for deputy candidates with the representatives
of all parliamentary factions. The consultations lasted for 10 hours.
None of the leading factions supported the President's initiative
unconditionally.
The radical nationalistic "For Fatherland and Freedom" is even ready
to initiate a referendum if the amendments are adopted. The People's
Party believes that the NATO member states understand Latvia's
situation, and that rejection of the amendments will not become an obstacle for joining NATO. Moreover, this party suggested to introduce the language requirements for
deputy candidates in Art.9 of the Constitution (see
the text at
http://www.riga.lv/minelres/NationalLegislation/Latvia/Latvia_Const_excerpts_English.htm
), instead of the election laws ("Diena" ("The Day"), January 25).
"The Latvian Way" party declared it necessary to hold public
discussions on the topic, before the amendments are considered in the
Saeima, and also considers constitutional amendments strengthening the
positions of the state language, e.g. in Art.4, a necessary
prerequisite for any changes in the election legislation ("Vesti
Segodnya" ("The News Today"), January 22,
http://www.cm.lv/index.php3?br=$br&g=2002&m=01&d=22&w1=r&r=2&w2=p&pub=002#banner
; "Chas" ("The Hour"), January 22,
http://www.chas-daily.com/win/2002/01/22/l_043.html ).
Both oppositional social democratic factions (created after the split
of the faction of the Latvian Social Democratic Workers party in early
January 2002) also reject the proposed amendments, as they are afraid
that "the Russian language becomes the second official language in
Latvia". In turn, the pro-minority faction "For Human Rights in United
Latvia" ("HRUL"), which suggested the same amendments in October 2001
(see Minority issues in Latvia, No. 38,
http://racoon.riga.lv/minelres/archive//11102001-13:09:24-14154.html
), expressed its concerns about the proposed "package approach" - i.e.
that the amendments to the election laws will be considered together
with the new limitations on use of minority languages. Besides, "HRUL"
is dissatisfied with the way how the proposed amendments are
substantiated: the President does not mention any longer that the
language restrictions for deputy candidates are discriminatory and
unconstitutional, the only argument for their abolition is to ensure
smooth NATO accession, not to protect the minority rights ("Vesti
Segodnya" ("The News Today"), January 22,
http://www.cm.lv/index.php3?br=$br&g=2002&m=01&d=22&w1=r&r=2&w2=p&pub=002#banner
).
In the meantime, the President's initiative was supported by the party
under constfruction "The New Time". This right-wing party led by the
former president of the Bank of Latvia Einars Repshe, is to be
established officially only in February, but is already considered a
favourite of the October 2002 parliamentary elections (17% electoral
support, according to the latest polls). However, Mr Repshe mentioned
that his party supports speeding up elimination of education in
minority languages in exchange for the proposed "concession".
The government coalition decided to set up a special working group
comprising 11 representatives of all ruling parties. According to Vineta Muizniece, chairperson of the People's party faction, "changes in legislation are not on the
agenda at all. We will discuss how to strenghten the status of the state language" ("Chas" ("The Hour"), February 2, http://www.chas-daily.com/win/2002/02/02/l_066.html
). The ruling parties intend to prepare their proposals before the President's return from the USA (expected on February 12).
International repercussions
Reaction of foreign states and international institutions towards the
President's initiative was also quite active. The Minister for Foreign
Affairs of the Netherlands Jozias Van Aartsen declared on January 21
during the OSCE summit in Lisbon that the OSCE considers it very
important to follow, whether Latvia adopts amendments to the election
legislation; the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities will
monitor this process ("Diena" ("The Day"), January 23). US Deputy
Secretary of State Richard Armitage in his letter to the Latvian
Minister for Foreign Affairs Indulis Berzinsh urges to adopt the
amendments without delay ("Vesti Segodnya" ("The News Today"), January
26,
http://www.cm.lv/index.php3?br=$br&g=2002&m=01&d=26&w1=&w2=p&pub=004#banner
).
In turn, attitude of the European Union towards the issue remains
unclear. On January 25, daily "Diena" ("The Day") wrote, with
reference to the draft EU report, that EU welcomes Latvia's
willingness to continue co-operation with the OSCE, and calls the
Saeima to respond to the President's initiative. In the meantime, new
head of the European Commission's Delegation to Latvia, Andrew Rasbash
told in his interview to the same newspaper that abolition of the
language requirements for deputy candidates is not a criteria for
Latvia's EU accession ("Diena" ("The Day"), January 30).
Our commentary
The forthcoming parliamentary elections certainly play a crucial role
in this debate: indeed, most of MPs feel hostages of the alarmist
sentiments related to "the threat to the state language" fuelled by
themselves for years.
It is apparent that the initial arguments related to fair
implementation of the Constitution, ensuring equality and protection
of minority rights, remain beyond the discussion. The sole reason why
the question is still kept on the table, is the "new demands" in
connection with the NATO accession. It should be stressed that none of
the parliamentary parties, except for "HRUL", considers these "new
demands" well-reasoned: after "all international organizations more
than once stated that everything is fine with minority rights in
Latvia" (or rather permitted their views to be interpreted in this
manner), "suddenly appeared new conditions" are perceived by political
elite as "unfair", "finding fault with us under Russia's pressure",
etc. In our view, this is one more example of how precise and careful
the international organizations should be when choosing wording of
their conclusions about the situation in the candidate countries.
Moreover, vague and insufficiently consistent attitude to minority
issues on the part of the European Union (see next evidence above) can
hardly be considered constructive.
The Commission on the State Language begins functioning
-------------------------------------------------------
On January 23, the newly established Commission on the State Language
(see Minority issues in Latvia, No.42,
http://racoon.riga.lv/minelres/archive//01182002-19:05:35-26586.html )
began its work. During the first meeting the Commission discussed its
statute and structure, including creation of sub-commissions.
Chairwoman of the Commission, poetess Mara Zalite, invited Latvian
philologists, academics and writers to join the Commission. As
promised, also some persons belonging to national minorities have been
invited: poetess Ludmila Azarova-Vaciete, writer Roald Dobrovensky,
director of the Riga Ukrainian School Lidiya Kravchenko, and company
"Tilde" software development director Andrey Vasilyev. The latter is
one of the best experts in "Latvianization" of computer software,
while the three former persons are known for their support of the
governmental language policies.
Mrs Zalite highlighted the main tasks of the Commission and her vision
of the situation in her interview to Russian-language daily "Vesti
Segodnya" ("The News Today"), January 31. "Ethnic Russians must
understand the psychology of ethnic Latvians", said the Commission
chairwoman, "Russians must demonstrate their loyalty, and they will
get good jobs, if they will value the state where they live" (see the
full text at
http://www.cm.lv/index.php3?br=$br&g=2002&m=01&d=31&w1=&w2=p&pub=001#banner
).
Our commentary
The composition of the Commission follows the usual pattern of the
refusal to engage in a dialogue with the mainstream leaders of the
Russian-speaking minority. The situation is similar to e.g.
representation of minorities in the Society Integration Foundation
(see Minority issues in Latvia, No. 37,
http://racoon.riga.lv/minelres/archive//10272001-11:04:15-14998.html
). This is one more indication that the state authorities are
interested, at best, in imitation of the dialogue with national
minorities, rather than in the dialogue as such.
The European Court of Human Rights considers "the Slivenko case"
----------------------------------------------------------------
On January 23, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights
announced its decision on the admissibility of application submitted
by Tatjana Slivenko and others v. Latvia. The applicants contest the
legality of the deportation carried out by Latvia in respect of
Tatjana and Karina Slivenko. Tatjana Slivenko had been a resident of
Latvia before she married Nikolaj Slivenko, Soviet military officer,
in 1980, while Karina is their daughter born in Latvia in 1981. For
more details on the principal facts, see the Press release issued by
the Registrar of 25 January, 2002, at
http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Press/jan/Admissibility%20decisionSlivenkoepress.htm
Latvian authorities acted on the basis of the bilateral treaty between
Latvia and Russia. According to this treaty, all persons who remained
Russian military officers after January 1992, as well as members of
their families, had to leave Latvia when Russian troops were withdrawn
in 1994. Special reservation was made in respect of those persons who
permanently resided in Latvia before their conscription to the Soviet
army - these persons could stay in Latvia. However, this reservation
was not extended to the spouses of Russian military servicemen who
were born in Latvia or permanently resided there before marriage, and
to their children born in Latvia.
The application to the Court was submitted in respect of 11 articles
of the European Convention on Human Rights. The applicants considered
that their rights to liberty and security were violated during their
detentions in October 1998 and March 1999; their rights to respect for
their "private life", their "family life" and their "home" were
violated because of their removal; they were removed from Latvia as
members of the Russian-speaking ethnic minority and the family of a
former Russian military officer and were subjected to different
treatment than other non-original Latvian residents.
The Court decided that all complaints of Nikolaj Slivenko must be
rejected, because he left Latvia before the European Convention
entered into force in Latvia. At the same time the Court declared
admissible, without prejudging the merits, the complaints of Tatjana
and Karina Slivenko under Article 5, Article 8 and Article 14 of the
Convention, while the remainder of the Tatjana and Karina Slivenko's
complaint was considered inadmissible.
Our commentary
In 1992-1995, controversy around the legal status was the most urgent
issue for many thousands of the residents of Latvia, in particular,
because of systematic administrative abuses during the process of the
registration of residents (see e.g. Human Rights Watch report
"Violations by the Latvian Department of Citizenship and Immigration",
1993, http://www.hrw.org/pubweb/Webcat-60.htm ). However, most of
these cases were completed in this or that way (persons in question
either reached recognition of their right to reside in Latvia through
courts, or were forced to leave Latvia) prior to 1997. The "Slivenko
case" is one of the few cases of the kind still pending at the moment
when the European Convention of Human Rights entered into force in
Latvia. Nevertheless, the case is very essential.
Unfortunately, media commentaries on the case were often politicised.
For example, some Latvian-language newspapers wrote that "European
Court of Human Rights recognised that Latvia was occupied by the
Soviet Union in 1940".
In our view, the most interesting legal aspect of the case is the
possible collision of the European Convention (ratified by Latvia only
in 1997) and the Latvian�Russian treaty of 1994 to be examined in this
case.
Saeima to ratify the European Convention on Nationality with
------------------------------------------------------------
substantial reservations
------------------------
On January 24, the Saeima began to consider ratification of the
European Convention on Nationality (
http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/EN/cadreprincipal.htm ) signed by
Latvia on May 30, 2001. The Cabinet of Ministers suggested
ratification with six reservations. In particular, the ratification
bill provides that:
- the state is entitled to stipulate additional conditions for
granting the citizenship to stateless children, besides those
mentioned in Article 6 para. 2 subpara. b) (currently, the Citizenship
law stipulates such conditions as the state language proficiency, if
the child has attained the age of 15, and lack of criminal record);
- the state declares Article 6 para. 4 subpara. a), f) and g) not
binding, but subpara. e) binding only in respect of stateless persons
who were born in Latvia after the independence was restored in 1991
(i.e. Latvia does not grant its citizenship automatically to spouses
of its citizens, persons who were resident in Latvia before the
independence was restored and are resident in Latvia now, stateless
persons and refugees, persons who are lawfully and habitually resident
in Latvia for a period of time beginning before the age of 18);
- the state declares Article 6 para. 4 subpara. c) binding only in
respect of children, whose parents had been granted the citizenship
before the child attained the age of 15.
Our commentary
In fact, all reservations suggested by the Cabinet of Ministers are
aimed at preventing any changes in the Citizenship law currently in
force. In other words, the government does not intend to amend the
Citizenship law in accordance with the European Convention on
Nationality, but instead suggests reservations in respect of those
articles of the Convention with which the Citizenship law does not
comply.
In our view, the reservations proposed by the Cabinet are significant
to the extent that they may appear incompatible with the object and
purpose of the Convention (see Article 19 subpara. c) of the Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties,
http://www.un.org/law/ilc/texts/treaties.htm ).
Next conference on integration in Latvia: a dialogue without a partner
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 23, the Ministry of Justice of Latvia in cooperation with
the UNDP held a conference "Identities, Dialogue, Integration". The
aim of the meeting was to expose the shortcomings of the public
relations exercised by the state administration, impeding the process
of integration, as well as to decide upon how to fix them.
The need in the dialogue within the society was acknowledged, yet,
without mentioning any particular group to be involved in this
dialogue. As the Head of the Board of the Society Integration
Foundation Ramona Umblija put it, the dialogue supposes that there is
a partner, but in the situation with the minorities in Latvia it is
unclear who is to be the interlocutor representing each of the
existing ethnic groups. According to Mrs Umblija, this is the main
reason why the government still fails to involve minorities into the
decision-making process.
The participants of the conference - state officials, leading PR
specialists and journalists (mainly from the Latvian-language media)
insisted on avoiding speaking about the society of Latvia as about two
distinct communities. The state officials also emphasised the
necessity of evolving the communication in order to inform the society
about the government's decisions, thus promoting integration.
Our commentary
In our view, the idea of the "lack of partner" is often employed just
as a pretext to avoid the dialogue. Both political representation of
minorities (the "HRUL" faction) and most active and popular minority
and minority rights NGOs are excluded simply because the government
officials do not like their ideas. Thus, the real problem for the
government is the lack of "convenient" partners who would gladly
support the official views. This conference once again confirmed that
our concerns about the "export-oriented" nature of the integration
policies are well-reasoned: the government is interested in selling
the integration policies to western donors successfully, rather than
in fair internal dialogue.
First study of discrimination by ethnic origin in Latvia
--------------------------------------------------------
On January 31, the Latvian Centre for Human Rights and Ethnic Studies
(LCHRES) and the Institute of Human Rights of the University of Latvia
held a seminar on ethnic discrimination in Latvia.
The acting director of the Institute of Human Rights Martinsh Mits
presented a research on Latvia's legislation's compliance with the EU
Race Directive (Council Directive 2000/43/EC implementing the
principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or
ethnic origin, see at
http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=32000L0043&model=guichett
).
Mr Mits mentioned the lack of a definition of direct and indirect
discrimination in the legislative acts of Latvia, including the
Constitution. Latvia's residents are not properly informed about the
possiblities to defend their rights in the cases of discrimination,
while the legislative acts do not provide effective measures of
protection. The full text of the research will be available at the
website of the Institute http://www.humanrights.lv from Monday,
February 4.
Dr. Artis Pabriks (LCHRES) presented his research project
"Representation of ethnic minorities in the state bodies and
companies: proportionality, stability, discrimination". One of the
main ideas of the research was to explore the extent to which
minorities are represented at the state level. As Dr. Pabriks pointed
out, it must be kept in mind that even presumed under-representation
(i.e. one which cannot be proven with facts) might cause feeling of
insecurity among those being under-represented, thus producing
mistrust towards the entire system.
According to the presented data, posts in the ministries are up to 90%
occupied by ethnic Latvians. One of the possible explanations of the
situation, as Dr. Pabriks put it, is that the stuff of the ministries
was assembled in the 1991-1993 mainly from the members of the Latvian
Popular Front (main political movement fighting for Latvia's
independence in late 1980s). Among other important factors, the lack
of information about the positions available in the state sector was
mentioned (as the respective announcements are published only in the
Latvian-language press), as well as mistrust. The author concluded
that "it would be misleading to comprehend the data as proving ethnic
discrimination in Latvia, if only we do not understand the language
and citizenship requirements as discriminatory by their nature�.
The project is to be completed by the end of March.
Compilation of a "Registry of Russian taxpayers" suggested
----------------------------------------------------------
On January 25, the conference "Russian Dialog: New page. Ethnopolitics
as a Vector of Integration" took place in the NGO Centre - Riga.
Dmitry Nikolayev, leader of a small organization "Russians of The
West" and member of the Board of the Society Integration Foundation
(see Minority issues in Latvia, No. 37,
http://racoon.riga.lv/minelres/archive//10272001-11:04:15-14998.html )
suggested creation of a Registry of Russian Taxpayers of Russian
Self-Government. The aim of this idea is to show, how much do
minorities pay taxes, to use this for the protection of their rights.
According to Nikolayev, this Register is really needed now, as new
passports without mandatory ethnicity entry are to be issued soon.
"Thus, we would not have bureaucratic definition of whom to consider
Russian, whom � Latvian".
The newspaper "Telegraf" ("The Telegraph"), January 28, reports Mr
Nikolayev saying: "We'll start work on creating the Registry in the
nearest future � this is a part of my pre-election campaign. I'm going
to run for the parliament from the list of 'The Latvian Way'". "Chas"
("The Hour"), January 26, notes that only 13 persons � 7 speakers and
6 journalists � attended the event which was not anyhow publicly
announced
( http://www.chas-daily.com/win/2002/01/26/l_053.html ).
Left extremists try to register their party
--------------------------------------------
On January 24, Vladimir Linderman, leader of the notorious extreme
left National Bolshevik movement "Pobeda" ("Victory"), told the media
that his organisation wants to be legalised as the National Bolshevik
party to participate in the parliamentary elections this year (
http://www.delfi.lv/archive/index.php?id=2533073 ). This new party
will grant citizenship to everyone, declare Russian as the second
official language, create state Russian television in Latvia, reject
membership in NATO. In addition, liberalisation of the election
legislation is proposed to allow citizens to elect from 15 and be
elected from 18 years old (now 18 and 21 respectively) (
http://tribunal.narod.ru/ ).
Our commentary
Activities of various marginal groups are certainly connected with the
forthcoming parliamentary elections. According to polls, electoral
support of the minority-based coalition "HRUL" is growing, and so does
the share of voters of non-Latvian ethnic origin. Other major parties
are not ready to support ideas aimed at better protection of minority
rights. Thus, small groups (like "Russians of The West" mentioned
above) hope to receive direct and indirect support of major ethnic
Latvian parties in order to scatter the Russian-speakers votes. One
could expect that several new lists trying to fish "Russian votes"
will appear before the elections.
New publication: Estonia, Latvia and the European Commission's
--------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendations on the Language Regulation in 1999-2001
-------------------------------------------------------
The article titled "Estonia, Latvia and the European Commission:
Change of the Language Regulation in 1999-2001" has been published on
the website of the EU Accession Monitoring Program of the Open Society
Institute. It is written by Vadim Poleshchuk, legal advisor-analyst of
the Legal Information Centre on Human Rights in Estonia (
http://www.eumap.org/articles/content/40/402 ).
The paper scrutinises the recommendations of the European Commission
and their impact on the language legislation of Estonia and Latvia
before the accession, gives the history of languages spoken in
both countries, as well as describes the regulations introduced after
the restoration of independence.
----------------
Compiled by:
Alexei Dimitrov
Tatyana Bogushevitch
Yuri Dubrovsky
==============================================================
Minority issues in Latvia
Newsletter published by the Latvian Human Rights Committee (F.I.D.H.)
Subscription/inquiries: [email protected]
Back issues:
http://www.riga.lv/minelres/count/latvia.htm#MinIssuesLatvia
==============================================================
--
==============================================================
MINELRES - a forum for discussion on minorities in Central&Eastern
Europe
Submissions: [email protected]
Subscription/inquiries: [email protected]
List archive: http://www.riga.lv/minelres/archive.htm
==============================================================