MINELRES: Minority issues in Latvia, No. 56

[MINELRES moderator]

Original sender: Alexei Dimitrov <minissues@delfi.lv>


Minority issues in Latvia, No. 56
Prepared by the Latvian Human Rights Committee (F.I.D.H.)
October 1, 2002

Content
- Outgoing parliament: pro-minority legislative initiatives rejected
- Pre-election TV debates: minority issues
- Information about elections: in Latvian only
- Private TV: Russian viewers are to be addressed in Russian
- Conference on national minorities and NATO
- Street name signs in minority languages - allowed or prohibited?
- NGO offers free Latvian language training
- Does ethnic origin affect political choice?

Outgoing parliament: pro-minority legislative initiatives rejected
------------------------------------------------------------------

On September 19, the Saeima (Parliament) of Latvia rejected draft
amendments to the Education Law submitted by the pro-minority faction
"For Human Rights in United Latvia" (HRUL). According to the amendments,
secondary schools financed by the state or local governments would have
the right to choose the language of instruction (state language or
minority language) upon agreement with local government. The
pro-minority faction proposed also to cancel provisions concerning
elimination of the state-supported secondary education in minority
languages scheduled for 2004-2006. 18 MPs out of 100 voted for the
amendments, 49 MPs voted against, 18 abstained.

The Education Law of 1998 stipulates that since September 1, 2004 at
10th grades of the state and municipal general secondary schools
instruction will be provided only in the state language (para. 9
subpara. 3 of the Transitional Provisions; see
http://www.riga.Iv/minelres/NationalLegislation/Latvia/Latvia Education
English.html.
In the meantime, the General Education Law of 1999 contains a provision
mentioning minority education programmes also in secondary schools
(Section 42 para, 2), although the language in which these programmes
are to be implemented is not specified. Thus, inconsistency between the
provisions of the two laws is evident. Therefore, the HRUL faction
tabled a parliamentary question to the Minister for Education and
Science, asking whether the Ministry is going to suggest any measures to
eliminate the collision between the two laws.
In his reply, the Minister for Education K.Greiskalns (The People's
Party) pointed out that the Education Law contains more general norms,
while the General Education Law includes more specific provisions.
According to the collision norm of the Latviqn legislation ("one may
apply a more general norm only in cases not covered by an incompatible
less general norm"), the General Education Law is to be applied in this
case. The Minister does not intend to resolve the collision by
submitting amendments to the Education Law, as the collision norm can be
apllied ("Panorama Latvii" ("The Panorama of Latvia"), September 20,
http: //www.panlat.lv/index.php?g=2002&m=Q9&d=20&w2=p&pub=025&wl=r&r=l)
.

Meanwhile, at his meeting with the radical nationalistic faction "For
Fatherland and Freedom" (coalition partner of the People's Party), the
Minister declared that elimination of the state-supported secondary
education in minority languages will be accomplished and the Education
Law will not be amended ("Telegraf" ("The Telegraph"), September 24,
http://rus.delfi.lv/news/press/telegraf/article.php?id=39602IS).
On September 19, the Saeima rejected also draft amendment to the Rules
of Procedure of the Saeima. MP Boris Tsilevich (HRUL) proposed to cancel
a provision stipulating that the Saeima can deprive its member of the
MP's mandate "if he/she does not know the state language at the level
necessary for execution of his/her professional duties". Mr Tsilevich
reminded that in May 2002 the Saeima abolished the state language
requirements for the deputy candidates (see Minority issues in Latvia,
No. 50,
http://lists.delfi.lv/pipermail/minelres/2Q02-May/001910.html). Thus,
since no law requires the candidates' state language knowledge any
longer, it is inconsistent to keep this requirement for already elected
MPs. However, only 18 MPs voted for the proposal, 48 voted against, 20
abstained (MChasM ("The Hour"), September 20,
http://www.chas-daily.eom/win/2002/09/20/l 038.html?r=30&).

On September 26, the pro-minority HRUL faction proposed a bill on
ratification of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National
Minorities signed by Latvia in 1995. It was already the fourth time when
the majority of the Saeima rejected the ratification bill. MP Rishards
Labanovskis (Union of Social Democrats) mentioned that the legislation
of Latvia corresponds to international standards, therefore the Saeima
does not need to ratify the Convention. Even if the Convention is
ratified in future, it should be done with reservations. According to Mr
Labanovskis, only citizens of Latvia could be considered as persons
belonging to national minorities. MP Boris Tsilevich (HRUL) advocated
the ratification. He told that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council
of Europe called on the Latvian authorities to ratify the Convention,
when closing the monitoring procedure in respect of Latvia (see Minority
issues in Latvia, No. 24,
http://racoon.riga.lv/minelres/archive//02042001-20:31:58-6272.html);
that the Latvian society is ready for the ratification of the Convention
- a number of NGOs are implementing projects related to the promotion of
the ratification and analyzing its possible effects. Mr Tsilevich
reminded the statement made by the Secretary General of the Council of
Europe, Walter Schwimmer, that the protection of minorities cannot run
counter to national interests of a democratic state ("Vesti Segodnya"
("The News Today"), September 27,
http://rus.delfi.lv/archive/article.php?id=3984046&ndate=1033Q740QQ&categoryID=35138).
Nevertheless, only 14 MPs voted for the ratification (all of them but
one from the HRUL faction), 27 voted against (MPs from all parties of
the ruling coalition, including chairman of the Parliamentary Committee
on European Affairs E.Inkens), and 33 abstained.

Our commentary

During its pre-election campaign (parliamentary elections will be held
on October 5), the pro-minority coalition "For Human Rights in United
Latvia" submitted several draft laws in the field of minority
protection. Reaction towards these proposals clearly demonstrates that
other parliamentary parties are not ready to support any pro-minority
initiative, particularly during the pre-election period. We hope that
the new Saeima will not follow this tradition.

The Ministry of Education has officially recognised for the first time
that there is a collision between the Education Law and the General
Education Law, and that the provisions of the latter are to be
implemented. At the same time in public the Ministry sticks to its
policy of elimination of the state-supported secondary education in
minority languages. In our view, this double-faced attitude towards the
problem cannot last for long time. Sooner or later the collision is to
be solved by abolition of the transitional provision of the Education
Law.

After the State language requirements for deputy candidates have been
abolished, the provision of the Rules of Procedure of the Saeima remains
the sole instrument allowing to limit MP's activities because of
insufficient command in the state language. We assume that the
aforementioned provision will not be used in practice in a foreseeable
future. However, the very existence of this clause creates a risk of
violation of the right to free elections.

During the pre-election debates between the main political parties, only
the radical nationalistic "For Fatherland and Freedom" was against
ratification of the Framework Convention. Other parties advocated
ratification with reservations and declarations (see Minority issues in
Latvia, No. 53,
http://lists.delfi.lv/pipermail/minelres/2002-August/002234.html ).
However, all parliamentary parties except HRUL rejected ratification of
the Framework Convention, We believe that the new Saeima will have to
ratify the Convention. In our view, some of the reservations and
declarations currently under discussion could be evaluated as
incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention (Article 19
of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties), as well as with modern
principles of minority protection- (see as important precedent PACE
Resolution 1301 (2002) "Protection of minorities in Belgium" at
http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=http%3A%2F%2Fassembly.coe.int%2FDocuments%2FAd


Pre-election TV debates: minority issues
----------------------------------------

On September 9, the next series of the political debates "Fights of
Titans" took place on Latvian public TV channel LTV. Partiesf views on
ethnic relations was the theme of the debates (see
http://www.tv.lv/mconsole.asp?id=8F7DDB26-EF93-49D8-BA8C-CF3522F2S2SSQ).
Representatives of seven most popular political parties took part in the
debates.

All participants agreed on the existence of the provisions on the
national minorities1 rights in the Constitution, but representative of
the coalition "For Human Rights in United Latvia" (HRUL) claimed that
Latvia did not respect the rights of its citizens and non-citizens. Only
HRUL and Coalition of Greens and Farmers supported ratification of the
Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities without
reservations, while others (except the party "For Fatherland and
Freedom" which is strictly against ratification) supported ratification
with reservations. Some parties stressed that the definition of national
minority should be included into the ratification bill (Latvian Social
Democratic Workers1 Party (LSDWP), and the People's party).

None party except HRUL supported the proposal of granting non-citizens
the voting rights at municipal elections. LSDWP permits this in future,
without mentioning the date. Naturalisation rate does not create any
problem and it should be continued as it goes, stated the most of the
parties, while HRUL representative reminded of the promised citizenship
by registration in the Popular Front pre-election programme in 1990.
Speaking about apologising for the Holocaust at the state level, all,
except HRUL, neglected this idea, stating that it was possible at
individual level. Most parties supported strengthening positions of the
Latvian language in everyday life by speaking Latvian to ethnic
non-Latvians. "For Fatherland and Freedom" supported strengthening of
administrative measures in the language sphere. "The New Era's"
representative regretted the liberalization of the linguistic
restriction in private sphere. "The Latvian Way" stressed the need for
additional financial support for teaching Latvian. The HRUL
representative stated that, being a customer, he wished to get served in
his language.

Another major project related to pre-election debates has been
implemented by the private Latvian TV channel TV-5. The project titled
"The Russian Question" was financially supported by Boris Berezovsky's
Foundation, and included a series of four political talk-shows in the
Russian language, with the aim to help the Russian-speaking citizens of
Latvia to make better informed choice at the 5 October parliamentary
elections. Representatives of 10 leading parties were invited to
participate. The program was aired by the biggest private channel LNT as
well. Each talk-show was devoted to a separate topic: 1) the language
policies, 2) accession to the EU and NATO, 3) minority education, and 4)
relations with Russia. The talk-shows were broadcasted every Friday and
repeated on Sundays from September 6 till 27.

The first talk-show about the language issue was filmed on August 26.
Although the language of the broadcast, according to the intention of
the funder, was Russian, representatives of three parties (the People's
party, "The New Era", "For Fatherland and Freedom") spoke Latvian. All
participants except HRUL representative (but including regional party
"The Light of Latgale", seen as prime rival of HRUL for the minority
electorate), neglected the possibility of giving Russian any official
status ("Chas" ("The Hour"), August 28, 
http://www,chas-daily.com/win/2002/08/28/1 043.html).

The second talk-show about NATO and EU accession took place on August
28. Most of politicians supported Latvia's membership in EU. Membership
in NATO was questioned by the representatives of HRUL. Leader of the
newly established "Freedom Party" expressed his anxiety that the
decisions concerning EU and NATO are made only by the ruling parties and
the government. Representative of "The New Era" noted that to become
member of EU and NATO was not at all "a Russian question". This is a
question of healthy politics, regardless of ethnicity ("Chas" ("The
Hour"), August 29, http://www.chas-daily.eom/win/2002/08/29/l 034.html).

The third talk-show about education in minority languages was filmed on
August 29. Elimination of the state-supported secondary education in
minority languages was discussed. Some of the parties supported the
transition unconditionally, few stated that serious preparations are
needed or advocated postponement of the deadline. Only HRUL spoke
strictly against "the reform" ("Chas" ("The Hour"), August 31,
http://www.chas-daily.com/win/2002/08/3I/g 029.html).

The fourth talk-show devoted to relations with Russia was filmed on
September 2. All politicians suggested their methods to improve
relations with Russia: HRUL leader Janis Jurkans considered it necessary
for the government to apologise to the Russians whom it deceived, and
told that he will try to discuss the problem with the President of
Russia Vladimir Putin (the meeting, indeed, took place on September 21).
The Prime Minister Andris Berzinsh noted that he will support Russia's
membership in WTO. Juris Bojars (Latvian Social Democratic Workers'
Party) urged to work on the problems related to transit business and
claimed that since the ruling parties will find themselves in opposition
soon, relations with the East will improve ("Chas" ("The Hour"),
September 3, http://www.chas-daily.eom/win/2002/09/Q3/l 042.html?r=30&).


Information about elections: in Latvian only
--------------------------------------------

The pro-minority parliamentary faction "For Human Rights in United
Latvia" (HRUL) addressed the chairman of the Central Election Commission
(CEC) Arnis Cimdars, asking whether CEC was planning to prepare and
disseminate information materials about the forthcoming elections also
in the Russian language, as the language of the country's biggest
national minority. The faction asked for the permission to translate and
distribute such information itself, if the Commission, due to some
reason, cannot do it.

Mr Cimdars answered that, in his view, the State Language Law prohibits
distribution of the CEC printed information materials in any languages
besides the state language. However, the Commission does not object
against dissemination of information materials in Russian, with the
reservation that it cannot be done at the polling stations. Mr Cimdars
also informed about several projects carried out by CEC in order to
inform the persons belonging to national minorities about the elections,
including the page in Russian at the CEC website.

In the last week before the elections the HRUL, indeed, circulated the
guide for voters in Russian, prepared on the basis of the CEC
information materials, in their pre-election newspaper, as well as
printed as a separate booklet.

Our commentary

The lack of information about the election procedures and candidates in
minority languages can become a significant obstacle for the expression
of free will of the citizens belonging to minorities. Therefore we
welcome the proposal of HRUL. In our view, the language legislation does
not explicitly prevents the CEC from dissemination of information in
languages other than Latvian (see Section 21 para. 5 of the State
Language Law at
http://www.minelres.Iv/NationalLegislation/Latvia/Latvia Language
English.htm
and para. 5 of the Regulations of the Cabinet of Ministers "Usage of
Languages in Information" at 
http://www.minelres.Iv/NationalLegislation/Latvia/Latvia
LangReglnformation English).
In the meantime, the CEC's unwillingness to support an initiative of one
party during the pre-election period is understandable.


Private TV: Russian viewers are to be addressed in Russian
----------------------------------------------------------

Program director of the private TV channel TVS Gunta Lidaka pleaded to
the Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights and Public Affairs, asking
to cancel the language limitations for commercial TV channels ("Chas"
("The Hour"), September 18,
http://www.chas~daily.com/win/2002/09/18/l 041.html?r=30a).
Section 19 para.5 of the Radio and Television Law provides that the
broadcasting time on private radio and TV channels in the languages
other than Latvian should not exceed 25 percent of the total
broadcasting time (see the text of the law at 
http://www.riga.Iv/minelres/NationalLegislation/Latvia/Latvia TVRadio
excerpts English.htm).
It also provides for conducting the whole spot in only one language.
That prohibits interactive involvement of TV-watchers, because it is
impossible to control the language they speak on air. As Mrs Lidaka put
it, "the aim of private channels is to give a picture of what is going
on and not to teach the Latvian language. But the public television,
paid by tax-payers, indeed could concern itself with teaching". "It
violates the right to receive and distribute information. It is logical
that Russian-speakers watch Russia's channels, because the Latvian
television has nothing to offer them", added Mrs Lidaka. The TVS spots
called "The Russian Question" (see above) were the only political spots
conducted in the Russian language before the elections.

Our commentary

In our view, the language quotas for broadcasting/telecasting of private
radxo  and TV companies run counter to a number of articles of the
Latvian Constitution, in particular, Article 89 (human rights protection
according to the Constitution, laws and international agreements), 91
(the prohibition of discrimination), 100 
(the freedom of speech) and 114 (the rights of national minorities - see
http://www.riga.Iv/minelres/NationalLegislation/Latvia/Latvia
Const_excerpts English.htm
for accurate wording), Article 10 and 14 of the European Convention for
the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and Article 19
and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
According to information at our disposal, MP from the HRUL faction
Miroslav Mitrofanov has once again submitted draft amendment to the
Radio and Television Law aiming at abolition of the language quotas. To
date, several HRUL proposals to abolish the language restrictions on
privately owned broadcasting were declined by the parliamentary
majority.


Conference: national minorities and NATO
----------------------------------------

On September 27, the NGO LATO (Latvian Transatlantic Organisation,
http://www.lato.lv) in cooperation with the World federation of Free
Latvians held a conference "Society Integration and Latvia's Security".
Representatives of the state institutions, media, NGOs, and political
parties were offered an opportunity to discuss society integration,
Latvia's security policy and anticipated invitation to Latvia to join
NATO.
Different opinions were expressed during the conference. Representatives
of the state institutions and ruling political parties claimed that the
accession to NATO will facilitate the integration of Latvia's society.
In turn, activists of minority and human rights NGOs, Russian-language
media, as well as the pro-minority political coalition HRUL argued that
NATO is concerned with international security, not with human rights,
therefore one cannot expect NATO to defend minority rights. The case of
Turkey was mentioned by several participants - despite being a NATO
member state, this country has one of the poorest human rights records
in Europe, including treatment of minorities. Recent disagreements
between the USA and European states in different fields (International
Criminal Court, Kioto Convention on climate change, possible
intervention in Iraq, etc) were also mentioned ("Panorama Latvii" ("The
Panorama of Latvia"), September 30,
http://www.panlat.lv/index.php?g=2002&m=s09&d=30&w2=p&pub=026&wl=r&r=l).

Our commentary

We do appreciate this first attempt to discuss Latvia's NATO accession
with national minorities in the context of the society integration. We
particularly welcome the fact that Russian was one of the conference's
working languages, along with Latvian and English. In the meantime,
several participants stressed that Latvia will inevitably become a
member of NATO, and its membership is not a point for discussion. In our
view, such approach was not very correct, as invitation alone does not
guarantee successful accession. If national minorities have serious
reservations against NATO, their voice is to be heard too, and
reasonable compromise must be sought, in order to find the solution
acceptable for as many in Latvia as possible.


Street name signs in minority languages - allowed or prohibited?
----------------------------------------------------------------

On September 20, the newspaper "Vechernyaya Riga" ("The Evening Riga")
published an article about the street name signs in Riga. The newspaper
states that, according to municipal regulations, street names should be
in the state language, however, the regulations do not prohibit spelling
of street names in other languages in addition. Chief Designer of Riga
Atis Lusis states that plates and signs in more than one language "would
spoil the appearance of Riga"
(http://rus.delfi.lv/news/press/vriga/article.php?id=3939592).

Our commentary

In our view, the newspaper's statement is not accurate. Section 18 of
the State Language Law envisages that in the Republic of Latvia, place
names shall be created and used in the state language (see at
http://www.minelres.lv/NationalLegislation/Latvia/Latvia Language
English.htm)
Regulations of the Cabinet of Ministers "On creating, spelling and usage
of place names, names of institutions, non-governmental organizations,
companies (enterprises) and titles of events" state that place names in
the Republic of Latvia shall be created and used in the Latvian
language, but on the territory of the Liv coast they can be created and
used also in the Liv language (see at
http://www.minelres.lv/NationalLegislation/Latvia/Latvia
LangRegPlaceNames_English.htm).
However, as soon as the Framework Convention for the Protection of
National Minorities is ratified by Latvia, its Article 11 para. 3 will
be applicable in this case: "in areas traditionally inhabited by
substantial numbers of persons belonging to a national minority, the
Parties shall endeavour, in the framework of their legal system,
including, where appropriate, agreements with other States, and taking
into account their specific conditions, to display traditional local
names, street names and other topographical indications intended for the
public also in the minority language when there is a sufficient demand
for such indications".


NGO offers free Latvian language training
-----------------------------------------

The NGO "Prata Speks" ("The Might of Mind") has launched Latvian
language courses free of charge for adults. The training is held in
evenings, twice a week, and will last for three months. Lectures by two
teachers are supported by the Institute of Transport and Communications
and the Latvian Academy of Sport Pedagogy (the latter also assisted with
premises). One of the NGO leaders Igor Kuzjmuk said: "We want to show to
the state, that there is a willingness to learn the [Latvian] language
among Russian-speaking Latvians, and it is big" ("Telegraf" ("The
Telegraph"), September 18,
http://rus.delfi.Iv/archive/print.php?id=3922888&categoryID=2078302).
According to him, the gap between ethnic Latvians and minorities is
deepening, therefore the ways for mutual integration are to be sought.
Several hundreds of people signed up for the course ("Telegraf" ("The
Telegraph"), September 24,
http://rus.delfi.Iv/news/press/telegraf/article.php?id=3959878).


Politika.lv: ethnic origin affects political choice
---------------------------------------------------

The article "Discrete charm of ethnic voting" written by Gatis Purins
and Ugis Sulcs is published at the portal politika.lv
(http://www.politika.lv/index.php?id=104534&lang=lv). In the article,
both authors point at the existence of ethnically based voting in
Latvia. According to them, results of newly naturalised citizens' survey
in 2001 about their possible political choice, presented as a proof of
loyalty of the new citizens, are to be understood in the opposite way.
26% of new citizens named the coalition "For Human Rights in United
Latvia" (HRUL) as their political choice at municipal, and 30% at
parliamentary elections. 20-30% abstained from answering this question.
Authors are sure that, as results of other surveys and of the municipal
elections show, those 20-30% new citizens voted overwhelmingly for HRUL,
too. Other new citizens voted mainly for left-wing parties (13%-16% for
the Latvian Social Democratic Workers' Party). "Leftist" political
orientation itself does not mean disloyalty to Latvia, but in the
Latvian political context it can mean nostalgia for the USSR or state
patronage.

The authors date "the ethnic voting" patterns in Latvia back to the
referendum on Latvia's independence on March 3, 1991. They consider that
"minorities' support for Latvian independence" is merely a myth.
Analysing the referendum dataf they conclude that only 26% of minority
population supported independence of Latvia, while 45% voted against,
and the rest abstained. Ethnic Latvians participated 100% with 1% voting
against, what correlates with those ethnic Latvians whose mother tongue
is Russian.

The authors hope that Russian-speakers will stop their "spiritual
emigration" as soon as Latvia joins EU, and they will be offered such
values as "European fortress" and the Brussels "cabbage" (money in
slang). They conclude by noting that Latvian politicians seem to neglect
existence of ethnic voting or do not propose real solutions for it, thus
reproducing it with their rhetoric.

Our commentary

In our view, some conclusions of the authors are dubious. In particular,
the point of "socialist orientation" of the Russian-speakers in Latvia
does not correspond to their high activity in private business. It is
well known that while ethnic Latvians are heavily overrepresented in
state institutions (see eg recent study on ethnic representation and
discrimination in Latvia by A.Pabriks, Minority issues in Latvia, No.
55,
http://lists.delfi.lv/pipermail/minelres/2002~September/002291.html),
many areas of private business are dominated by Russians. Thus, in a
sense, the Russian-speakers live in a more "market environment" than
ethnic Latvians do. Their support for the left-wing parties,
overwhelmingly HRUL, can be explained rather with the fact that this is
the only big party to consistently advocate respect to minority rights
and liberal citizenship policies. In the meantime, the right-wing
parties tend to pursue nationalistic policies (refusal to ratify the
Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities,
strengthening the language legislation, speeding up elimination of
education in minority languages, etc).


----------------
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: minissues@delfi.Iv
Back issues:
http://www.minelres.Iv/count/latvia.htm#MinIssuesLatvia
====================================================================