Minority issues in Latvia, No. 47
Reply-To: [email protected]
Sender: [email protected]
From: MINELRES moderator <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 12:00:03 +0300 (EEST)
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
Subject: Minority issues in Latvia, No. 47
From: MINELRES moderator <[email protected]>
Original sender: Alexei Dimitrov <[email protected]>
Minority issues in Latvia, No. 47
Minority issues in Latvia, No. 47
Prepared by the Latvian Human Rights Committee (F.I.D.H.)
April 1, 2002
Minority issues in Latvia, No. 47
Prepared by the Latvian Human Rights Committee (F.I.D.H.)
April 1, 2002
Content
- ODIHR Director speaks about official status for Russian
- Draft "language amendments" to the Constitution adopted in the first
reading
- Saeima considers new political and language restrictions for
municipal officials
- Committee of the European Parliament presents draft report on
enlargement
- Latvians say "no" to EU accession
- The Cabinet extends the rights of the language inspectors; submits
report to CERD
- Society Integration Foundation: profanation of integration?
- European Court of Human Rights: application Shevanova v. Latvia
partly admissible
- March 16: democracy on export?
- Latvian Centre for Human Rights and Ethnic Studies presents annual
report
ODIHR Director speaks about official status for Russian
-------------------------------------------------------
On March 20, the Latvian Centre for Human Rights and Ethnic Studies
held the conference "OSCE and Latvia: Past, Present and Future" in
Riga. The conference was devoted to co-operation between the OSCE and
Latvia before and after recent closure of the OSCE Mission (see
Minority issues in Latvia, No. 41,
http://racoon.riga.lv/minelres/archive//01042002-12:02:29-13464.html).
Several interesting presentations were delivered by the OSCE top
officials (Rolf Ekeus, High Commissioner on National Minorities, and
Gerard Stoudmann, Director of the Office for Democratic Institutions
and Human Rights - ODIHR), former Heads of the OSCE Mission to Latvia,
foreign and Latvian politicians and experts. Latvian MPs, diplomats,
journalists and representatives of NGOs actively participated in
debates on topical minority issues in Latvia, such as abolition of the
state language requirements for deputy candidates, speeding up
naturalisation, elimination of the state-supported secondary education
in minority languages, ratification of the Framework Convention for
the Protection of National Minorities.
Several speakers pointed out that closure of the OSCE Mission does not
mean that Latvia has no problems in the field of minority rights
anymore ("Diena" ("The Day"), March 21).
Unfortunately, the conference was followed by a large�scale tumult.
Answering the question of RFE/RL about establishing Russian as a
second state language in Latvia, the Director of ODIHR Gerard
Stoudmann told it would make sense to recognise that Russian is de
facto the second language. Speaking about de jure status, Mr Stoudmann
told that it would be logical to confirm that Russian has an official
status. "It's up to the people to decide. But as I see it, it would
reflect the reality, the de facto reality", Mr Stoudmann said (see G.
Stoudmann's statements to the press regarding Russian as an official
language in Latvia,
http://www.politika.lv/index.php?id=102757&lang=lv).
After other participants of the conference learned about this
statement, they asked the OSCE HCNM Rolf Ekeus to express official
position of the organisation. Mr Ekeus declared, "we are supportive of
the Latvian being the state language. We have no request or
requirements that any other language, we don't even support the idea
that any other language should be the state language... What we do,
however, what we emphasize, I emphasize and I strongly support that
the Russian language should not be diminished or suffering under the
strengthening of the Latvian language". Some minutes later Mr
Stoudmann pointed out that he was expressing his personal opinion to
some journalists, not the position or recommendation of OSCE. Besides
that, this opinion was a reflection for the future, when in the long
run the issues of the state language will be "de-dramatised" in
Latvia.
As the state language problem is very sensitive in Latvia, reaction of
the state officials to Mr Stoudmann's statement was very harsh. The
Ministry of Foreign Affairs called the statement "unsuccessful
impromptu". The Prime Minister Andris Berzinsh and chairman of the
ruling party "The Latvian Way" parliamentary faction Kristiana Libane
called the statement "unaccountable" and declared that Mr Stoudmann
had to resign (the news agencies TVNET/BNS/LETA, March 21,
http://www.tvnet.lv/news/latvia/index.php?id=965354&z=1).
On March 21, Mr Stoudmann once again commented his position on the
issue, stating "the remarks I made yesterday should not be interpreted
as a recommendation or an official position of the OSCE, or me
questioning the status of Latvian as the only state language. Rather
they should be seen as my personal reflection on the issue. I wish to
stress that my intention never was to suggest that Russian be made the
second state language in Latvia, or that this issue was on the agenda"
(see at http://www.osce.org/news/generate.php3?news_id=2364).
Our commentary
Indeed, the issue of the state language is extremely sensitive in
Latvia. In our view, Mr Stoudmann probably underestimated its
sensitivity, because it was his first visit to Latvia. In the
meantime, we consider the reaction of the Prime Minister overdone.
However, it is apprehensible in the pre-election year, when all ruling
parties are trying to capitalise on "fighting" for the state language.
However, the problem of the Russian language's status in Latvia does
exist. Today only the Latvian language (the state language) and the
Liv language (the language of a small autochthonous ethnic group) have
officially recognised status; all other languages are declared
"foreign languages" (Art.5 of the State Language Law � see
corresponding provisions at
http://www.riga.lv/minelres/NationalLegislation/Latvia/Latvia_Language_English.htm).
According to data of the Population Census 2000, Russian is a
mothertoungue for 36.1% of Latvia's residents, the second higher
percentage after Latvian. This figure is higher than the percentage of
ethnic Russians in the population of Latvia - 29.6% (see at
http://www.csb.lv/Satr/atsk2.htm). In our view, Latvia needs a law on
national minorities or on minority languages, which would assign
Russian the official status of a minority language (not the status of
official or state language!), with all the consenquences envisaged by
the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and
other international instruments on minority rights.
It is unfortunate that the discussion over the status of Russian
overshadowed several much more important minority issues in Latvia
raised at the conference, such as elimination of the state-supported
secondary education in minority languages or ratification of the
Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities.
Draft "language amendments" to the Constitution adopted in the first
--------------------------------------------------------------------
reading
-------
On March 20, the Saeima (Parliament) at its extraordinary plenary
meeting adopted amendments to the Constitution "aimed at strengthening
the status of the state language" (see Minority issues in Latvia, No.
46,
http://racoon.riga.lv/minelres/archive//03182002-19:44:34-4063.html).
79 MPs voted for the amendments, 16 MPs (the pro-minority faction "For
Human Rights in United Latvia" - "HRUL") voted against.
During the debates MPs who supported the draft amendments tried to
convince each other of necessity of the amendments. Kristiana Libane
("The Latvian Way") recognised that adoption of the amendments is the
first step towards abolition of the state language requirements for
deputy candidates and joining NATO after that. At the same time, MPs
from other ruling parties (the People's Party and "For Fatherland and
Freedom") did not speak about the following steps at all. Gunars
Freimanis (Latvian Social Democratic Workers' Party) pointed out that
the struggle for the Latvian language has turned into struggle against
Russian. "HRUL" did not participate in the debate at all. Its chairman
Janis Jurkans declared that the activities of the ruling parties could
be evaluated as "political show", and that it would be much more
constructive to provide real help to Latvia's residents for learning
Latvian ("Diena" ("The Day"), March 21).
Political scientist Ivars Indans mentions that it is hard to believe
that the mandatory MPs' oath to defend the state language will
strengthen Latvians' self-awareness, and will make non-Latvians learn
and use Latvian more actively. When comparing contribution of the
state budget into the State Program for Latvian Language Training with
foreign aid, it appears that foreigners, not Latvian politicians, are
interested more in the Latvian language training, Mr Indans writes
("Diena" ("The Day"), March 28).
Our commentary
As we mentioned in the previous issues of our newsletter, the ruling
parties wish Latvia to join NATO, but also do not want to lose support
of their constituencies. Therefore, amendments to the Constitution
must be adopted as a "compensation" for the abolition of the state
language requirements for deputy candidates, what has been made a
necessary precondition for NATO accession. It is not difficult to
forecast that the election legislation will be amended according to
NATO demands, soon after the amendments to the Constitution have been
adopted.
Some of the amendments can be assessed as decreasing constitutional
guarantees for human rights (for example, the right to receive answers
from state and municipal bodies). Most of them, however, are
declarative, and only repeat provisions already established in other
legal acts.
Saeima considers new political and language restrictions for municipal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
officials
---------
On March 14, the Saeima forwarded to its committees draft amendments
to the law "On Local Governments". The draft, initiated by the radical
nationalistic party "For Fatherland and Freedom", stipulates certain
restrictions for persons wishing to occupy the positions of executive
directors of local governments. The restrictions are the same as
already provided for deputy candidates in local elections. Some of
them are of political nature (former members of the Communist Party
and some other organisations which did not support drive for Latvia's
independence in 1989-1991), and restrictions for former agents of KGB
and other foreign security services. Also those persons who do not
have command in the state language at the highest level of
proficiency, cannot occupy the positions in question.
Our commentary
The restrictions were initiated after the ruling coalition in the Riga
City Council (the Latvian Social Democratic Workers' Party, the
pro-minority coalition "For Human Rights in United Latvia" and block
of small parties not represented in the Saeima), had appointed two
Russian-speakers executive directors of Riga districts. One of them,
Dmitry Pavlov, was head of municipality in one of Riga districts
before 1992, he was also a member of the Communist Party.
In our view, the parties of the parliamentary ruling coalition still
cannot accept their failure at municipal elections in Riga a year ago,
and try their best to hinder activities of the Riga municipal
government formed by their political opponents. The state language
requirements for municipal executive directors are already provided
for by the Regulations of the Cabinet on Proficiency Degree in the
State Language Required for the Performance of the Professional and
Positional Duties and the Procedure of Language Proficiency Tests (see
http://www.riga.lv/minelres/NationalLegislation/Latvia/Latvia_LangRegProficiency_English.htm
).
Although lustration is not related to minority rights, the issue
deserves some brief comments. Lustration (i.e. restrictions of some
political rights of the persons because of their activities under the
Communist regime) is envisaged by the current election legislation -
see Art. 5, para.5 and 6 of the Saeima Election Law at
http://www.riga.lv/minelres/NationalLegislation/Latvia/Latvia_ElecParl_excerpts_English.htm
and Art. 9, para.5 and 6 of the Minicipal Election Law at
http://www.riga.lv/minelres/NationalLegislation/Latvia/Latvia_ElecMun_excerpts_English.htm
The constitutionality of these restictions has been considered by the
Constitutional Court of Latvia in August 2000. The Constitutional
Court decided that these restrictions comply with the Constitution and
international obligations of Latvia. However, the Court ruled that
"...the legislator, periodically evaluating the political situation in
the state as well as the necessity and validity of the restrictions
should decide on determining the term of the restrictions in the
disputable norms, as such restrictions to the passive election rights
may last only for a certain period of time" (see the full text of the
judgement at
http://www.satv.tiesa.gov.lv/Eng/Spriedumi/03-01(00).htm). Besides,
three judges of the Constitutional Court issued dissenting opinions,
stating that, in their view, "...it is not proved in the Judgment that
the restrictions of human rights, established in the disputable norms
are necessary in a democratic society" (see the text of the dissenting
opinion at
http://www.satv.tiesa.gov.lv/Eng/Spriedumi/03-01(opinions).htm).
These legislative provisions are applied in practice. In particular,
in late 1999 Mrs Tatiana Zhdanok, a prominent activist of the Latvian
Human Rights Committee and a member of the Riga city council, was
deprived of her mandate after the court ruled that Mrs Zhdanok had
been a member of the Inner Audit Commission of the Latvian Communist
Party after January 13, 1991 (for more details, see MINELRES posting
of 3 February 1999 at
http://racoon.riga.lv/minelres/archive//02031999-21:11:48-29810.html,
as well as Minority issues in Latvia, No.10, 27 November 1999, at
http://racoon.riga.lv/minelres/archive//11271999-18:57:30-21424.html).
Currently, the case of Mrs Zhdanok is considered by the European Court
of Human Rights (decision on admissibility is anticipated soon).
However, expansion of lustration now, 11 years after the restoration
of independce, is certainly unreasonable, runs contrary to the
conclusions of the Constitutional Court, and can be explained only by
narrow interests of some political parties in the pre-election period.
Committee of the European Parliament presents draft report on
-------------------------------------------------------------
enlargement
-----------
On March 25, MEP Elmar Brok, member of the Committee on Foreign
Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy of the
European Parliament, presented the draft report on the state of
enlargement negotiations (co-rapporteur in respect of Latvia Elisabeth
Schroedter).
In its provisional motion for a resolution the Committee takes account
of the recent measures to facilitate naturalisation of the many
non-citizens living in Latvia; welcomes the fact that the Social
Integration Foundation has now become operational; considers, however,
that its current modest budget should be raised and concentrated on
inter-ethnic integration projects; suggests that Latvia study the
possibility of continuing to provide access to upper secondary level
education in Russian beyond 2004; is convinced that efforts to achieve
greater integration for the Russian minorities must be sustained for a
number of years and, therefore, encourages Latvia to indicate its
intentions for the longer term; hopes that Latvia will promptly ratify
the Council of Europe's Framework Convention for the Protection of
National Minorities and that Latvia will amend the electoral law by
abolishing language requirements as a prerequisite for standing for
election (the full text can be downloaded from
http://www.europarl.eu.int/meetdocs/committees/afet/20020325/449499en.pdf).
Our commentary
The final version of the resolution can be very different comparing
with the current version (TV program "Panorama", March 27).
Nevertheless, we welcome the Committee's competent exploration of
minority issues in Latvia, especially regarding ratification of the
Framework Convention as a matter of priority, as well as maintenance
of the state-supported secondary education in Russian. It will be a
pity if these clear and reasonable points will be watered down as a
result of propagandistic efforts of the Latvian government and ruling
parties.
Latvians say "no" to EU accession
---------------------------------
The European Integration Bureau has published the results of the
public opinion poll on the attitudes towards the EU accession in
Latvia. For the first time ever, negative attitudes prevail: answering
the question of how one would vote in the referendum on joining the
EU, 43% of the respondents said they would vote "against", while only
36% would vote "for".
According to the results, ethnic Latvians are slightly more positive
towards the EU (42,1%) than persons of non-Latvian ethnic origin
(40,4%). Giving the share based on the criteria of citizenship,
citizens of Latvia show higher percentage of positive attitudes
(42,7%) than non-citizens (36,4%). If the referendum took place in
February, 2002, only 38,3% of ethnic Latvian citizens and 33,5% of
citizens of other ethnic origin would vote for joining the EU (see
also http://www.eib.lv/publ.php?doctype=3).
Our commentary
The results of the survey demonstrate clearly, that the mainstream
politicians lately have been overestimating the general support of the
EU. Somewhat surprisingly, national minorities appear to be even less
enthusiastic about the EU accession than ethnic Latvians, although the
political elite used to interpret the decreasing EU support as the
reaction to the "European demands" to amend Latvian legislation
concerning minority rights. In no way are we going to oversimplify
this very complicated and multi-factor problem, however, it seems
clear that the abolition of the language requirements for deputy
candidates, as well as other issues related to streamlining
legislation and practices in compliance with minority rights standards
in Latvia, make a serious problem for ethnic Latvian political elite,
rather than for common people.
The Cabinet extends the rights of the language inspectors; submits
------------------------------------------------------------------
report to CERD
--------------
On March 26, the Cabinet of Ministers adopted amendments to the
Regulations on the State Language Centre � the main state institution
responsible for inspection of usage of the state language.
The amendments establish status of the state servants (officials) for
the inspectors of the Centre (only director, deputy director of the
Centre, and heads of its units were state servants before). Besides,
the amendments stipulate that all officials of the Centre have the
right to require elimination of "language violations"; they also are
entitled to attend examinations held by the state language commissions
as observers, and to summon persons to the Centre if violations of the
State Language Law or other acts are discovered ("Diena" ("The Day"),
March 28).
The same day the Cabinet approved the text of the next country report
on implementation of the International Convention on the Elimination
of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The previous Concluding
Observations of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination were adopted in August 1999 (see Minority issues in
Latvia, No. 7,
http://racoon.riga.lv/minelres/archive//09121999-19:29:23-16392.html).
Only a few problems mentioned in the previous Concluding Observations
(see the text at
http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/CERD.C.55.Misc.39.Rev.4.En?OpenDocument)
can be considered as solved (e.g., the status of persons who do not
qualify for citizenship and are not registered as residents). In two
and a half years, the same issues are on the agenda: slow
naturalisation, differences in treatment between citizens and
non-citizens, elimination of state-supported secondary education in
minority languages.
Our commentary
The amendments to the Regulations of the State Language Centre
substantially raise the status and expand authorities of the language
inspectors. No doubt, the adoption of these amendments is an element
of a large-scale campaign for "strengthening the status of the state
language", which followed the demand of OSCE and NATO to abolish the
state language requirements for deputy candidates. We cannot but
reiterate our concern that Latvia's minorities may lose rather than
benefit, as a result of this demand.
Society Integration Foundation: profanation of integration?
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Last autumn... the Society Integration Foundation (SIF) already
distributed 126,845 Ls (approx. EUR 226,100). The greatest part was
allocated to support the Latvian language, the Latvian culture, the
Latvian publishing houses and official institutions", states the
Russian-language daily "Chas" ("The Hour") on March 26
(http://www.chas-daily.com/win/2002/03/26/g_028.html).
The Ministry of Education and Science directly received one fourth of
the funds, besides getting money for preparation for elimination of
the state-supported secondary education in minority languages, as well
as for Latvian language training program for those wishing to
naturalise. The Minister for Education and Science Karlis Greishkalns
is one of the five ministers - members of the SIF Board. Four of them
represent the ruling nationalistic party "For Fatherland and Freedom".
"Chas" points out that the largest sum, which may be granted by the
SIF for integration project for one NGO is only 1,000 Ls (approx. EUR
1780) per year. Limited liability companies cannot become applicants,
although "many organisations engaged in promoting minority language
and culture were under the necessity" to register as non-profit Ltd
companies, writes "Chas".
Our commentary
We cannot but agree with the daily that the SIF has been made an
additional source for funding for the state institutions, instead of
actively involving civil society. Indeed, the funding limits for NGOs
mentioned above are obviously insufficient to implement any more or
less serious project. Thus, the initial idea behind the SIF activities
is clearly degraded, and many NGOs working in the field of integration
cannot benefit from the SIF at all.
European Court of Human Rights: application Shevanova v. Latvia partly
----------------------------------------------------------------------
admissible
----------
The European Court of Human Rights has recognised application
Shevanova v. Latvia partly admissible. This is one more case related
to the right of the non-citizens to reside in Latvia.
Nina Shevanova has been permanently living in Latvia since 1970. Her
son Eugeny was born in Riga in 1973. In August 1992, both of them were
registered in the Registry of Residents as permanent residents of
Latvia.
In 1994, Mrs Shevanova acquired the citizenship of Russia and
residence registration there, because she got temporary employment in
Russia - in 1995-1996 she left Latvia twice for 100 and for 120 days.
She needed the passport of Russia because of the strict control of
documents � Mrs Shevanova worked not far from Chechnya.
In March 1998, she applied to the Citizenship and Migration Board in
order to receive a non-citizen's passport, because she thought that
all permanent residents of Latvia, who are not citizens of Latvia,
should be entitled to these passports. During the verification process
her registration in Russia was discovered.
In April 1998, Mrs Shevanova's registration in the Registry of
Residents was annulled, and she was issued an expulsion order. She
contested expulsion in all court instances, but did not succeed.
In January 2000, Nina Shevanova with her son, non-citizen of Latvia,
who legally resided in Latvia, applied to the director of the
Citizenship and Migration Board asking to solve the problem of her
legalisation positively. Because they have been together for 26 years,
and have no other close relatives, N.Shevanova's eviction from Latvia
would mean separation of their family. Soon Mrs Shevanova received
negative reply, notifying her about the necessity to leave the
country, otherwise she would be deported. This rejection was appealed
unsuccessfully.
In June 2000, with the assistance of the Latvian Human Rights
Committee (F.I.D.H.) (representative � Gennady Kotov), Nina Shevanova
and her son applied to the European Court of Human Rights, claiming
violation of Articles 6.1 (the right to a fair trial) and 8 (the right
to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on
Human Rights.
March 16 � democracy on export
------------------------------
March 16 is the day of the first combat of the Latvian SS-Waffen
Legion in 1944. Although this day hqd been stripped off the list of
the official memorial days two years ago, during the last years,
former legionnaires and their supporters organised rallies in the
centre of Riga. The procession was usually permitted by the Riga City
Council and took place without any official hindrance.
This year all applications for demonstrations or processions were
declined on the ground of security considerations. Several activists
of radical nationalistic organisations, who might presumably take
active part in the rallies, were summoned the day before to the
Security Police and asked about their plans for March 16. Some others
were detained on the very day of 16 March under different pretexts,
and released in some hours. Still, some hundreds of people
individually laid down flowers to the Monument of Freedom
commemorating the legionnaires.
Our commentary
In our view, March 16 this year has become the day of hypocrisy.
Unprecedented "security measures", in our view, could qualify as
undemocratic restrictions of the freedom of assembly. The government
tried to pretend that "the problem of the SS Legion" was non-existent.
As media reported, several leaders of the legionnaires' organisations
were invited by top officials (e.g. the Minister of Defense), and were
persuaded to refrain from any mass rallies this year. The officials
pointed out that the procession of legionnaires might have negative
impact on the NATO enlargement decision.
Latvian Centre for Human Rights and Ethnic Studies presents annual
------------------------------------------------------------------
report
------
On March 18, the Latvian Centre for Human Rights and Ethnic Studies
(director � Dr Nils Muizhnieks) presented its annual report "Human
Rights in Latvia in 2001". Among other issues, language policy and its
effect on the rights of minorities, the right to private life and
freedom of expression remained a concern in 2001. The Latvian Human
Rights Committee (F.I.D.H.) welcomes this professionally prepared
publication. The report in English can be downloaded from
http://www.politika.lv/index.php?id=102691&lang=lv.
----------------
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
==============================================================