MINELREL-L Archive (04221999-22:13:11-25909)

More NGOs on integration of the society in Latvia


Reply-To: [email protected]
Sender: [email protected]
From: MINELRES moderator <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 22:13:10 +0300 (EET DST)
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
Subject: More NGOs on integration of the society in Latvia


From: MINELRES moderator <[email protected]>

Original sender: Genadiy Kotov <[email protected]>

More NGOs on integration of the society in Latvia


DECLARATION OF PUBLIC ORGANISATIONS
ON THE FRAMEWORK DOCUMENT CONCERNING A NATIONAL PROGRAMME
OF INTEGRATION OF THE SOCIETY IN LATVIA
 
Having studied the Framework Document concerning a National Programme
of Integration of the Society in Latvia, we have with satisfaction
accepted the words that the integration "provides change in the
attitude towards national minorities", that "the integration is
ability to trust" and "for the national minorities, the trust is based
on the belief that the Latvian state is not interested in their
violent exile, assimilation or discrimination as for their rights",
that "the integration is only voluntarily to proceed."
 
However, a number of basic provisions concerning the Framework
Document of integration in their roots do  contradict these statements
and do threaten not only to make integration of the society in Latvia
impossible, but to deepen the split even more feasible.
 
That is the liquidation of financing by the state of the secondary,
professional, and higher education in languages of the minorities as
"a source of social segregation" under the guise of a reform of
education of  the minorities.  Also, along with a perversion of the
method of bilingualism at the ground school of the minorities as a
means of transition of all education towards the Latvian language.
Such an approach contradicts not only the Hague Recommendations
Regarding the Education Rights of Ethnic Minorities and  Article 14 of
the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities,
but also Article 114 of the Constitution, as it involves a threat of
assimilation.
 
That is the total refusal of the Latvian state concerning the
obligations as for the help to adult representatives of the national
minorities in the development of their skills in the Latvian language,
which according to the Framework Document given should become the only
language of interethnic dialogue and the main tool of integration of
the society. The Framework Document on integration of the society does
not provide  financing by state concerning this help. We shall note
that during the last seven years, the Latvian state  has not spent
even one santim as an aid delivered for the development of skills in
the state language, as for adult representatives of the minorities.
This in fact spawns doubts as for the actual interest of this state 
concerning the integration process.
 
That is a tendentious interpretation of some facts of the latest
history of Latvia and a forced "necessity" to accept those as an
ideological basis of integration of the society. Meaning that some
events of 1940 are being treated as occupation of Latvia. Although
under the international law those may be qualified only as an
annexation, and just about that annexation of Latvia in 1940 does
inform the most authoritative The Oxford  English Reference Dictionary
(Oxford,  1996, p. 809). The events and processes of the Soviet period
are treated in the negative only. The thesis about the necessity of
unification in understanding the past practically means in particular
the necessity to consider the Latvian legionnaires of Waffen-SS as
"national  heroes", thus threatening the natural human right to
freedom of thought. Symptomatically is also explicated the statement
that "out of the Soviet times Latvia has inherited more than half a
million of settlers." The  number of non-citizens in Latvia is 640
thousand indeed, but more than one half of them were born in Latvia. 
However, the authors of the Framework Document on integration of the
society consider as "settlers" even those, who live in Latvia already
in their third and fourth generations. All this is incompatible with
the idea of integration of the society on the one hand, and makes
ignored the warning contained in the Framework Document itself that
"any simplified and tendentious understanding of history spawns
historical insults", on the other.
 
Concerning the ideological basis  of integration of the society, the
Framework Document is as much totalitarian as the former Soviet
ideology.  However, as far as the minorities' languages are concerned,
it is incomparably more totalitarian and intolerable than the approach
used in the totalitarian Soviet society.
 
The Framework Document puts as its interethnic aim of integration "a
community, in which the national minorities speak fluently the Latvian
language and have overcome alienation from values of the ethnic
Latvian culture." At the same time, it has been spoken about "the
necessity of recognition of the Latvian language as the only state
language", and "the necessity of its use within the public life." This
again gives evidence to the thesis on assimilation of the  minorities.
Within the Framework Document, the right of the minorities to 
preservation of their national identity has been mentioned; however,
the Framework Document does not involve  measures ensuring realisation
of this right. For example, there are no proposals for training of
teachers, teaching the languages, literature, and culture of the
minorities in it.
 
Within the Framework Document, it has been declared that "integration
of the Latvian society is a historical opportunity to build a state
based on panhuman values and reaching co-ordination of interests of
ethnic and  social groups and of each person, too." However, instead
of panhuman values, the Framework Document unfortunately leans on
values of the etnic Latvian society, and mainly of the  nationalistic
values of it. This implies a hegemony of the ethnic Latvians within
this society and this state. It should inevitably conduct to approval
concerning the already existing two-community state. Such a "framework
document" of integration of the society is socially dangerous and
unacceptable for us.
 
We propose to compile a new framework document on integration of the
Latvian society, so that it not only in words, but also actually would
lean on panhuman values. As a judicial projection of panhuman values
may  well serve human rights and among those the rights of minorities.
Referring to the problem of the interethnic integration, these values
are formulated in details within the Framework Convention for the
Protection of National Minorities, which was signed by Latvia in 1995,
but not ratified so far. This convention has necessarily to be
ratified.
 
We propose to create a new working group with a proportional
participation of representatives of the national minorities in it.
Without their weighted participation as in the development of the
programme of integration, and also in its implementation, any
integration of the society is in fact impossible. Among the 24 authors
of the present Framework Document, there were only 2 representatives
of the minorities.
 
We propose - until the adoption of a new framework document - to
postpone considerationof the bill "On the State Language" in the
Parliament and coming into force Articles 9, 41, 56 (Part  2), 59
(Part 2), and Paragraph 9 of the transition rules of the new Law "On
Education," the both based on the present Framework  Document on
integration of the society.  It is necessary to calm the passions
caused by them and to demonstrate on the part of the state the will to
integration, instead of assimilation of the minorities.
 
Only on the basis of a mutual respect, trust, and a fully valued
partnership, integration of the Latvian society would become a
reality.
 
G.Kotov, Latvian Human Rights Committee (F.I.D.H.)
G.Astakhov, The Russian Community of Latvia 
T.Favorskaya, The Russian Society of Latvia
T.Liguta, The Latvian Association of Teachers of the Russian Language
and Literature
D.Igonin, The Russian national and Cultural Autonomy of National
Minorities of Latvia
N.Putyatin, The Russian Community of Jurmala
V.Popov, The Baltic Slavic Society for Cultural Development and
Co-operation
N.Buriy, The Byelorussian Society "Pramen" 
V.Stroy, V.Iljahova - The Union of the Ukrainians of Latvia
G.Ambartsumyan, The Armenian Society of Latvia
V.Tarnovsky, The Latvian Association of Fighters of
Anti-Hitler-Coalition
L.Tess, The Society of the Former Residents of Leningrad Blockaded
During the WW2
N.Volkov, The Association of the Afganistan War Veterans Resident in
Latvia
S.Lisivnenko, The Council of the Housing Committees of the Renters and
Owners of Flats
V.Frolov, The Fund "Pateiciba" 
A.Bartashevich, The Movement "For Neutrality"

-- 
==============================================================
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
==============================================================