President Clinton visited the capital of Latvia last week and his speech to a crowd of 35,000 was filled with tributes to the Baltic nation’s independence and celebrations of its freedom-two achievements with resonant parallels in American history.
It also included a call for Latvians to emulate the American melting pot and to scrupulously respect the rights of non-Latvians-a theme that, in this particular setting, sounded patronizing and naive.
The issue Clinton was addressing is the treatment of ethnic Russians, who make up about 40 percent of the population. A draft law in Parliament would impose strict quotas on citizenship for those Russians who arrived after 1940, when Josef Stalin forcibly annexed the tiny nation to his Soviet empire.
That has brought protests from right-wingers in Russia, as well as veiled threats from Boris Yeltsin to “protect” the rights of his ethnic compatriots living in the Baltic states.
This week, Yeltsin said he would complete the withdrawal of troops from Latvia by Aug. 31-but by saying he wouldn’t do likewise in Estonia, he sent a message to Riga.
Latvian President Guntis Ulmanis, under pressure from the West as well as Moscow, has advised his legislators to take a more liberal approach. And tolerance is certainly to be cultivated in Latvia and all the former republics of the Soviet Union.
But it is worth remembering the historical facts that produced this conflict. Many of the Russians in Latvia didn’t arrive by accident: They, or their parents, were sent by Stalin to consolidate Russian control over his conquest. Many speak only Russian, which also was forced on the Latvians. Meanwhile, the native Latvian population was decimated by World War II, by violent Soviet repression of local resistance and by deportations to Siberia.
Having finally thrown off this brutal and alien rule, Latvians are now understandably eager to reassert their Latvian identity. And more: They fear that if Russians are broadly enfranchised, they will strive to rejoin Latvia to Russia.
Given all these facts, and the sudden rise of ethnic nationalism in the old Soviet bloc, it is a bit much to ask Latvia to treat all ethnic Russians as national kinsmen. Latvia is not the United States, with a long history of accepting outsiders into the national family. Nor can it assume that its giant neighbor will fastidiously respect its independence.
Prudence, of course, dictates that Latvia treat its Russians with tolerance, lest it provoke Moscow. But the U.S. emphasis ought to be on making sure that Russia promptly completes its exit from the Baltics and handles its disagreements with its neighbors in a peaceful manner. In this dispute, Latvia is more sinned against than sinning.
