Vytautas Landsbergis
Dear Colleagues,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
There were four states on the eastern coast of the Baltic Sea - Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland - which moved towards a new independent life after World War One. In the following period between the two world wars, they used to be called "Baltic States" as an entity of four, but three of them - Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia - were more eagerly disposed to regional co-operation. I still posses my primary school textbook of geography: Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. A smaller entity of the three was in 1934 strengthened by trilateral treaties, and its younger generation was encouraged for friendship and better knowledge of each other. In addition, a broader concept of Baltoscandia was already alive and promoted just before the new war. Now we are coming to it again, more than half a century later.
World War Two made distinction in the fate of the four Baltic States, as well as separated them from the Scandinavians. Assaults, occupations, deportations left deep wounds and lessons especially for three most unfortunate southern Baltic sisters. They do not want to repeat these lessons again; they want to be free from such a threat and, because of their experience, are greatly concerned about their security issues.
Years passed, nearly a decade after our recent liberation, before our colleagues Europeans realised better that there is no stable security in separation and being outside the Central-Baltic part of the continent.
Northern countries, with all diversities between them, used to feel best these inseparable European problems related to the Baltic Sea region and three Baltic States on the eastern coast of our sea. These problems were created not by the Baltic States themselves but rather for them. The main problem of the past but also remaining to this day could be called simply: Russia's domination or non-domination here. The way to cope with this was and still is a way of getting sound political mind both in the East and in the West. To achieve this, to get matters more understandable, also on perspectives of NATO enlargement, we should reach and touch the roots, sometimes even psychological ones, of the problems.
The Soviet Union used to dominate over Europe for long decades either as a post-Yaltan oppressor or a terrifying giant beyond the fence, which one could never forget in the West, or push out of one's minds even while sleeping. The presence of that continued international uncertainty, threat, forced accommodation of democracies with heavily armed and nuclear totalitarianism, a sort of conformity with the evil, - all this seemed to be "a guarantee" of our endured slavery and beginning of European, also Scandinavian, slavery. The free part of Europe responded to this general challenge of the time by creating its own economic and social Community, as well as Alliance of Atlantic security.
During long lasting decades, there were two Europes, one of democracies and the other of communism. We all had to overcome this division, and perhaps half of this job is already done.
As you know, Lithuania proclaimed restoration of independence on 11 March 1990. Commemorating that event (followed by the success for all three Baltic and even more States), the Congress of the USA issued on 8 March 2000 its Concurrent Resolution of both the Houses stating that the Congress "congratulates Lithuania on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the reestablishment of its independence and the leading role it played in the disintegration of the former Soviet Union."
The latter valuation can be treated and further elaborated ambivalently. As usually, there always are two options: did we, Baltic States, contribute to something essentially positive as the destruction of the soviet "prison of nations", or to a wrong deal, a regretful dismantling of a fine, exciting superpower - a symbol of the bright future for all the progressive mankind?
If they restored and went on to develop normal relations with their eastern neighbour Russia, - the relations that had been destroyed by Stalin's aggressive expansionism, - then this normalisation was made rightly for a better and democratic all-European future. On the contrary, should they, the Baltic States, be denounced of their continued sovereignty and treated as new-borns, then Mother Russia has nothing to apologise for but wants to be authorised to educate and order those ungrateful children. "No" to NATO, "no" to Soviet war crimes, etc.
There is no need to remind concretely and cite the sources how often the Baltic States were condemned and threatened by Russian top politicians because of bad behaviour of those nicknamed "Pribalts", of their "revanchism" and "rewriting of history". (These are real quotations from a letter of Russian Foreign Minister I. Ivanov to former Secretary of State M. Olbright). It is also worth mentioning the fact that a strange legislation still does exist in Russia about us.
A Motion for a Resolution about one of such cases was recently presented to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
This legislation contains a "Law on Additional Guarantees and Compensations for Military Personnel Serving on the Territories of Transcaucasian States, Baltic States and Republic of Tadjikistan …" of 21 January 1993, with provisions about "fulfilling tasks in defending constitutional rights of citizens" in possible "armed conflicts", which means action of Russian military there. The statement of the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation (of the same date) gives authorisation to the Russian Government to state "in each concrete case" about "the zones of armed conflicts and the time of fulfilling tasks in defending constitutional rights of citizens".
What citizens, of what countries? - It is for Russian Government to state this "in each concrete case"…
Two years later, a new Law of 5 May 1995 amends the previous one by charging the Government to define "the zone of armed conflict in Chechen Republic". The Law of 29 October 1997 (signed by President Boris Yeltsin on 19 November 1997) once again amends the basic law on compensations and speaks more broadly about "Chechen Republic and directly related territories of the Northern Caucasus".
In all the texts of this legislation, the Baltic States remain defined as a possible "zone of armed conflict" being not deleted from the amended versions of the Law. Such a situation cannot be considered as building confidence in relations between Russia and the Baltic States.
Many of these remarkable facts look now as belonging to the past - to the period before September 11. Now the world is changing.
Today president V. Putin could not dare, hopefully, to go publicly with such grim jokes, as he did half a year ago on Latvia: Macedonian option is preferable, "we could send terrorists there, to Latvia, and to give arms, but we are not doing it". Goodies, no less.
Actually, terrorism is neither for jokes nor for hypocrisy any more. If a demand to reject shelter in Russia for those "black beret" terrorists who killed servicemen of the Republic of Lithuania in July 1991, is supported publicly by Nordic and Baltic countries together, we could help Russia to change for the better. Are the units of Riga-OMON and Vilnius-OMON kept on salaries somewhere in Russia, as well as the Communist Party of the USSR - a non-existing country! - and for what sake? What to say then about the confidence-building measures and international solidarity against plotters and killers? After September 11 we must learn to be more outspoken, frank and consistent, and we will then contribute more to our common security and our common better future.
Some more matters, at least, are to be touched upon here on different aspects of security. While a Russian monopoly requests to own and operate Baltic gas companies, making pressure, as the only possible supplier, on the Baltics, we are looking towards Norwegian gas via either Bornholm-Poland or Sweden-Finland lines as a future alternative in a really free market and a guarantee of our security and independence. Do your best for this to come true, as it serves for common security - that is all what we can say now in the framework of the discussed Balto-Scandian community.
Help us to explain to the bigger Europeans that the suggested bilingual option is not the same here, as it is in Belgium, Canada or southern states of the USA. Here geopolitics is quite different, and the consequences would be also different. In a worse case - counterproductive for integration of post-Soviet Russians; in the worst case - a situation pregnant with possible clashes, which, in turn, could be desired by the Big Brother as the means to prevent invitation to the North Atlantic Alliance. Masses of Asian illegals are being collected beyond our eastern border. If pushed westwards, they could create an extremely explosive situation, especially, when Russia and Belarus, for about five years already, are not able to finalise readmission treaties with the Baltic countries. Go and encourage our eastern neighbours to do this, as you, Nordic neighbours, are also concerned with this issue. Poison in corroded shells of the World war Two sunk in the Baltic Sea is a tremendous danger and a matter of our common insecurity. The Council of the Baltic States appealed in 1992 to the world institutions on this matter. We will soon celebrate 10 years of this inability.
Finally, I would like to ask very kindly our friends from Sweden and Finland: please, do not any more suggest us, as well as bigger Europeans, that soft security only inside the European Union is better for the Baltic States than real security via accession to the Euro-Atlantic family of democracies. Similar voices were sometimes heard in Germany: membership in the EU is enough for them, the Baltics. And nobody responded: yes, for the weak Germany to be in the European Union is not enough, Germany needs NATO, while the great and mighty Baltic States can serve European stability even better being left out in a grey zone, beyond the red line illegally drawn "for ever" by the notorious Comrade Molotov. Of course, it is not a proposal for adopting a resolution. It is just a reminder of our constant position that there are no alternatives for our security, only NATO, with EU as a parallel, not alternative, priority.
Russian policymakers are still so deeply concerned how to stop our accession to NATO, that even president Putin finds it difficult to soften such frozen stand of his own military. Therefore, echoing automatically this outdated policy in the Nordic area, if it happens, is even less reasonable and fruitless.
The world situation after September 11 has changed indeed by bringing new challenges. First of all for the Islamic peoples and nations - where do they stand, i.e. on what level are they distancing from the civilisation of hatred and valuing, hopefully, the concept of John Paul II for all of us, Christians and Moslems, being the children of one Father. Non the less this is a challenge for Russia, at whose disposal there is a lot of information about subversive leftist and terrorist groups supported and trained by the services of the USSR in a not so distant past. Will Russia indeed co-operate frankly fighting this network? - It is the question to be responded either by action or inaction during a quite short time.
The three Baltic nations are now at the threshold to the European Union and NATO. We want to co-operate and contribute with Euro-Atlantic democracies, at the same time consistently building good relations with Russia. What does "good relations" mean in a normal sense? Of course, those of equals, marked by good will and mutual understanding. For the Kremlin, so it seems, good relations still mean subordination. It is deeply rooted in its past and should be buried in the past.
You may ask: is it possible and achievable for those smaller ones to be on an equal foot with the big one? It is, when we are in NATO. Then we will indeed have good, normal relations and flourishing co-operativeness with Russia. No more imperialistic temptations, no fear and mistrust. When former domination is turned into non-domination, only co-operation, it is beneficial in all the senses.
So, because of this fact, our strife to be inside of United Democracies, which is NATO, occurs positive for Europe and also for Russia of the future. Appeasement with Russia of the past, denying our freedom, would be a great mistake. It would be a wrongdoing for Russia, too.
On this way, Nordic countries do assist us, the Baltics, well. There are reasons for friendship and good will towards us, going hand in hand with a sound pragmatism. Certainly, independence of the Baltic States did extend and strengthen independence of Finland and Sweden. In the same way, Atlantic security of the Baltic States will work well for security and stability of the whole Baltic region. Poland has realised this well already years ago and proclaimed Lithuania to be its strategic partner. Sweden, our Western neighbour, could say it in an equally explicit manner, as it is frankly helping us very much with military equipment.
There are a lot of grounds for gratitude and hopes for our better common future in security for prosperity. Three Baltic States, after suffering for long decades under Soviet Russian yoke, deserve this understanding.
