Mr Georgs Andrejevs
Minister for Foreign Affairs
of the Republic of Latvia
The Hague
6 April 1993
Reference:
No 238/93/L/Rev.
Dear Mr Minister,
Following my visits to Latvia on 15-20 January and 1-2 April 1993, I
take the liberty of sending you, annexed to this letter, a number of recommendations
concerning mainly the non-Latvian population of your country. I restrict
myself to this question because I would go beyond my mandate if I would
comment on other problems concerning your country.
On the other hand, I can assure you that, in making these suggestions,
I have been fully aware of the political and psychological background of
many of the questions I am referring to. I think for instance of the long
years Latvia suffered under Soviet occupation, the bitterness caused by
what is perceived as a deliberate policy of Russificaton during those years,
and your concerns about the continued, though greatly reduced, presence
of Russian troops on your territory. I also recall the way you and your
colleagues have repeatedly stressed the determination of the Latvian people
firmly to establish its national identity in various field. Finally, I
have registered the concern felt by the Latvian
Government about the situation of the Latvians living on the territory
of the Russian Federation.
I am fully aware of the fact that there is no evidence of persecution
of the non-Latvian population since the reestablishment of Latvian independence,
and moreover, that there have virtually been no incidents pointing to interethnic
violence. My hope is that the ideas I am submitting to you - inspired as
they are by the various csce documents to which Latvia, together with all
other csce participating States, has subscribed - can contribute to the
promotion of harmony and dialogue between the various population groups
in your country.
When I drafted my recommendations, my basic assumption has been that,
though a number of non-Latvians have returned to their native country and
more might follow, it would be unrealistic to expect that such a return
will be on a massive scale. The great majority will probably prefer to
stay in Latvia, partially because they have been living there for a long
time or have been born there, and partially because they feel that they
have no prospect of finding homes en jobs if they would move to the Russian
Federation or any other cis state.
During my visits, I was told by officials of the Citizenship and Immigration
Department that according to their estimates the number of non-Latvians
that will have acquired Latvian citizenship before June and who will therefore
be able to participate in the parliamentary elections scheduled for that
month will not exceed 50%. As 98% of all non-Latvians have been living
in Latvia for more than 5 years and 93% even for 16 years or more and as
the prospects of finding jobs and apartments in the Russian Federation
or other cis republics have to be considered very small, it can be assumed
that most of those who so far have not been able to acquire Latvian citizenship
will sooner or later apply for it. This conclusion is supported by official
data which show that per March 22nd out of a total of 617,443
persons registered as inhabitants of Latvia who are not Latvian citizens
593,008 want to acquire citizenship.
On the basis of my conversations, I assume that the Government of Latvia,
confronted with this situation, will not decide to oblige this group or
parts of it to leave the country. Although every Government has the right
to remove from its territory persons whose continued presence could be
damaging to vital interests of the state, it is also obvious that expulsions
on a massive scale would be contrary to generally accepted international
humanitarian principles and would, moreover, probably have very serious
international repercussions.
From the point of view of harmonious interethnic relations, it would
in my view also be undesirable that Latvia would insist on such high requirements
for citizenship that a great number of applicants would not be able to
meet them. As a consequence, the percentage of citizens of Latvian origin
would be higher and that of citizens of non-Latvian origin lower then would
be the case if Latvia would follow a more liberal line. However, the disadvantage
of such a very strict policy would quite probably be that there would be
considerable dissatisfaction amongst the very many who would then not have
the chance of obtaining Latvian citizenship. Even though, as you pointed
out in your speech before the un Commission on Human Rights in Geneva on
February 15, these persons would be free to choose their place of employment,
to engage in professional activities and private enterprise, to receive
pensions and unemployment benefits and to have access to health care and
housing, they would not have the right to make their views known by participating
in the election process.
Another solution would be that Latvia would restrict itself to requirements
for citizenship which, broadly speaking, would not go beyond those used
by most csce states. In my recommendations I have tried to elaborate this
formula in somewhat greater detail. It is my opinion that such a policy
would be the most effective way to ensure the loyalty of non-Latvians towards
Latvia. I do understand that the Latvian Government feels the need, especially
in the light of the demographic changes brought about in Latvia during
the years of the Soviet period, to take measures to strengthen the Latvian
identity. However, there are other instruments than the citizenship law
to promote and strengthen the Latvian identity, especially in the cultural,
educational and linguistic fields.
I am fully aware that the policy I advocate does not only require an
effort on the part of the Latvian Government, but equally a contribution
on the part of the non-Latvian population. Adaptation to the reality of
the reemergence of Latvia as an independent state requires that at any
rate those who have not yet retired from work and who do not yet speak
the Latvian language make a determined effort to master that language to
such a degree that they are able to conduct a simple conversation in Latvian.
In this way they would, without having to sacrifice their cultural or linguistic
identity, provide a convincing proof of their willingness to integrate.
The required psychological adaptation to the reality of the reemergence
of Latvia as an independent state would also be enhanced if it would be
possible to ensure rapid implementation of paragraph 15 of the 1992 Helsinki
Summit Declaration, calling for "the conclusion, without delay, of agreements,
including timetables, for the early, orderly and complete withdrawal of
foreign troops from the territories of the Baltic states."
In a policy aiming at the promotion of continued harmonious relations
between Latvians and the non-Latvian population the most important element
would, of course, be the passing of legislation which demonstrates that
the Latvian Government is taking the interests of the non-Latvians living
in Latvia fully into account. It would be especially conducive to harmonious
relations if the present uncertainty amongst non-Latvians about the forthcoming
legislation concerning their position in Latvia could be brought to an
end as soon as possible. In this connection, I should like to mention the
need for the speedy adoption of a citizenship law.
Experience shows that lack of information about government policies
can lead to serious and perhaps often unnecessary misunderstandings. Against
this background, I am making some recommendations concerning the problem
of communication with the non-Latvian communities.
In my view, it could also greatly facilitate the relationship with the
non-Latvian population, if the Latvian Government would decide to set up
the office of a "National Commissioner on Ethnic and Language Questions".
His or her main task would be to look into complaints by persons which,
in their view, have not been correctly dealt with, to signal possible diverging
interpretations of the same laws by different authorities, and in a general
sense, to act as a go-between to the Government and the community concerned.
In this way, he or she could help to prevent tensions from arising or,
if they already exist, to reduce or eliminate them. I would be willing
to offer you any assistance you might find desirable in developing this
idea.
In addition to the recommendations I have mentioned, you will find some
others which are self-explanatory in the text which follows. Even though
Russians constitute the largest non-Latvian population group in Latvia,
I use the term "non-Latvian" in my recommendations in order to make it
clear that they do apply equally to Russians and non-Russians amongst the
non-Latvian population of your country.
Finally, permit me, Mr Minister, to thank you once again for the kindness
shown to me during my visits to Latvia. I was especially struck by the
openness with which you and your colleagues answered my questions.
(Max van der Stoel)
2) Children born in Latvia who would otherwise be stateless should be
granted Latvian citizenship taking into account Article 24, paragraph 3,
of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article
7, paragraph 1, of the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.
3) As far as the requirement of a minimum period of residence in Latvia
is concerned, such period should not exceed 5 years. This is the period
frequently adopted by states and in this case there do not seem to be good
reasons not to adopt it. In terms of non-citizens eligible for citizenship,
the difference between 16, 10 or 5 years period of required residence is
not great (93 percent, 96 percent and 98 percent respectively). Adopting
a shorter period would also be a good decision for psychological reasons,
since it would be seen as proof of the Government's determination to resolve
the citizenship issue.
4) For those who are already residents of Latvia, the period of 5 years
mentioned in Recommendation No 3 should be reckoned from the date they
came to Latvia or were born there, whichever may be the case.
5) In order to reduce as much as possible the uncertainty prevailing
in the non-Latvian communities, once applicants fulfill the legal requirements
for citizenship they should be granted citizenship without delay and no
further waiting period should be introduced.
6) If the new citizenship law would include a requirement that basic
elements of the Constitution should be known, the requirement should be
formulated in such a way that different interpretations are not possible.
Generally speaking, the requirement that basic elements of the Constitution
be known should not be a major obstacle to the acquisition of citizenship.
7) Whatever language requirements are chosen, they should not exceed
the level of "conversational knowledge" which was required by the Supreme
Council Resolution of 15 October 1991. The Government, administrative authorities
and courts should be lenient in the application of this requirement as
far as citizenship is concerned.
8) A clause exempting elderly persons (60 years and over) and disabled
persons from language requirements when they apply for citizenship should
be introduced.
9) It should be made explicit that any eventual requirement that applicants
should have a steady legal income in order to qualify for citizenship should
not apply to unemployed persons.
10) If certain persons would be explicitly excluded by law from acquiring
citizenship, the law should stipulate that the validity of any allegation
that a person would be the subject of such exclusion would, if denied,
have to be established by court, in order to forestall any attempt at improper
use of such provision.
11) In enacting or implementing legal provisions concerning nationality,
citizenship or naturalisation, Articles 1 (3) and 5(d) of the International
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, prohibiting
any discrimination based on national or ethnic origin, have, of course,
to be fully respected.
12) The effective and uniform implementation of the citizenship law
should be assured by appropriate review or appeals procedure. A rejection
of an application for citizenship, for instance because of a failure to
meet language requirements, should not preclude the applicant from applying
again. These procedures should be widely publicized.
13) In the end, a number of persons will neither qualify for citizenship,
nor have the status of permanent residents. The High Commissioner would
recommend that humanitarian considerations and reasonableness be the guiding
principles regarding those persons.
14) The legislation on language should be made more precise. E.g. Article
7 of the Language Law of 5 May 1989, as amended on 31 March 1992, appears
to require the use of the Latvian language in the internal affairs of all
private enterprises and organizations. However, this had not been the intention
of the legislator.
15) The Latvian authorities should enhance their efforts at helping
non-Latvians to acquire a reasonable level of knowledge of the Latvian
language. More use should be made of the mass media, in particular television.
16) The Government should enhance its efforts aimed at informing the
non-Latvian population about the legislation, regulations and practical
questions which concern citizenship, language requirements etcetera. An
information brochure providing this information should be written in such
a way that it can be comprehended even by persons with no more than a basic
education. The brochure should be distributed in large numbers, not only
to households but also to places where larger groups of non-Latvians can
be expected, such as certain factories, associations and the like. Second,
posters and placards could be positioned at public places and in streets,
carrying the most important passages from the brochure or a summary of
the main points.
17) The office of a "National Commissioner on Ethnic and Language Questions"
should be established. The National Commissioner should be competent to
take up any relevant complaint which he/she considers to require further
attention with any government agency. He/she would have to actively find
out about uncertainties and dissatisfaction involving minorities, act speedily
in order to clarify grey areas, answer to questions within a specified
period of time (e.g. two months) and finally act as a channel for information
and as a go-between to the Government and the minorities in Latvia. The
National Commissioner should have the general confidence of all parties
concerned. If it should prove impossible to find one person who would meet
this criterion, then a commission of three could be established to do the
same thing (one Commissioner with two deputies, a triumvirate, like many
ombudsman offices are structured).
18) In general, it is recommended that the Government consistently implement
a visible policy of dialogue and integration towards the non-Latvian population,
which should incorporate the above-mentioned recommendations. In the High
Commissioner's opinion, early government action in this regard is indispensable.
The Latvian National Minorities department, which is currently part of
the Ministry of Justice, should be made an independent body, so that it
could act with more authority.
Latvia - Conclusions and recommendations
