Early this week, a mob of young Moldovans crushed police barricades to wreak havoc in government buildings. Before the night was over, the triumphant protesters were waving their flags above the ruins of a regime that maintained control of the country for the last eight years. And one of those flags was Europe’s.
Great timing: two years ago, to the month, the continent watched another riot. On April 26th, 2007, two thousand predominantly russophone youths trashed central Tallinn. The pretense was the relocation of a WWII memorial. The cause was the discontent of a minority. Though foreign flags were waving above the violent crowd, it was not disputing an election.
Since I take it upon myself to represent Estonia, it is inevitable that I periodically find myself in the position of defending its policies. In fact no less than two th!nkers have challenged me on the subject of my country’s treatment of its sizeable minority: Joeri Oudshoorn back in Brussels, and Frank Schnittger on the site.
Estonia’s Citizenship and Migration Board says that as of January 2nd, 2009, there were 110 284 stateless persons living in Estonia; out of those, 98 359 are permanent residents. None of them are entitled to vote in the European Parliament elections. So, under the assumption that discussing this is more fun than crawling through the EPP manifesto in search of a point: why did this happen, and just how much of a breach of democracy and European values is it?
Q: Who are all these people, and where did they come from?
A: Overwhelmingly, they are people who were relocated to Estonia under Soviet rule (and their children). Before the Soviet occupation in 1940, Estonia’s ethnic-Russian population was just under 10%, the result of natural intermingling with a neighboring state. By the time the country became independent in 1991, it was around 40%. This was a deliberate policy of the Soviet government: relocated labourers have no loyalty to the land, or an identity derived from it. They were almost universally Russian-speaking and predominantly thought of themselves as Russian, but it would be more appropriate to call them Soviet. They were brought in to work in huge Soviet factories and live in huge Soviet tower blocks. They didn’t speak the local language, and had no motivation to learn.
Q: So why aren’t they citizens?
A: Because of a funny thing in international law. Short version: a lot of countries refused to recognize the Soviet annexation of the Baltic states, so their legal governments technically still functioned between 1940 and 1991. There was an Estonian Government in Exile, a succession of Presidents, and diplomatic offices in Britain and the USA. So as far as the law is concerned, nobody ever stopped being an Estonian citizen. In 1991, they just finally got their passports back. The Soviet immigrants didn’t qualify.
Q: You didn’t just give citizenship to everyone who lived in Estonia?
A: Sure we did - in 1918, when the Republic of Estonia was created. That’s a one-time deal. In some countries, like the USA, you’re a citizen if you’re born on their soil. That’s worked out great for them, and they have my congratulations. But they were never occupied by another country with a massively larger population that deliberately settled foreigners on the captured territories. (There isn’t really a very good analogy for the peculiar situation that the Baltic states found themselves in. Ancient Rome’s colonies? Australia? South Africa after the end of apartheid? The closest equivalent in modern history is probably Northern Ireland, and I like to think we handled it better than they did.) So now, Estonian citizenship follows the right of blood: if one of your parents was a citizen, you’re a citizen too.
Q: What about Latvia and Lithuania?
A: Latvia’s got even bigger problems than us, because the Soviet immigrant population there is larger. Lithuania never had that sort of massive influx though. In 1991, more than 90% of residents were entitled to citizenship anyway, so they just went ahead and gave it to everyone. It was a good decision, but wouldn’t have worked here.
The Estonian 5-kroon note, depicting Narva Castle (left) opposite the Russian Ivangorod fortress.
Q: So you denied human rights to part of your population!
A: No we didn’t. Like I said, it could’ve been Northern Ireland. Everyone who lived in Estonia in 1991 was allowed to stay. Those who were citizens, got to decide the fate of the country. If the Soviet immigrants want a say, they can get citizenship. In fact, a lot of them did.
Q: Why place barriers?
A: The barriers are trivial. You can get citizenship by passing two tests: one on history and the text of the Constitution, and one on language. Both are actually quite easy. The point is that to be a citizen, you have to make an active, conscious decision that you like this country and want to be its citizen. Once you do that, you can vote in the European Parliament elections.
Q: Didn’t they already make the decision?
A: There was a public petition about Estonia’s independence from the Soviet Union just before 1991. Those who signed it got citizenship, even if they weren’t entitled to it by blood.
Q: So why are there ninety-eight thousand permanent residents who still aren’t citizens?
A: Practical reasons. The immigrants’ kids prefer not to apply for citizenship until are too old for army service. They can still travel all around the EU without visas, and just recently, Russia instituted a visa waiver for them. Since a lot of them like to visit relatives across the border, they find that avoiding the Russian consulate is more of a benefit than electing MEPs.
Q: Are any of the Soviet immigrants standing as MEP candidates in this election?
A: Sure they are! There is even one who participated in the riots two years ago. He was caught on tape breaking a store window and stealing things, so he got 18 months in jail (on a suspended sentence). Went to Brussels to complain about human rights violations, but nobody cared. There’s also an entire united front claiming to represent Estonia’s Russian population.
Q: Will any of them get in?
A: Not a chance. They can’t even get elected to local councils, where their supposed power base gets to vote. They weren’t anywhere near getting seats in the Estonian parliament during the last elections. As for the Europarliament - not even the majority can really be bothered to vote for that. And we have billboards about star-shaped power sockets.
(34 votes, average: 3.62 out of 5)
Loading ...
So, as i understand it is not a big deal because the some migration official says so? Do you have your opinion about this?
In Latvia the situation is rather sad but as the officer said, everybody can gain the rights with just 2 tests.
It’s not a big deal because anyone who actually cares about voting only has to take a trivial step.
I’m not copying a press release - what does the title I’ve chosen tell you about my opinion?
i though maybe you have a more elaborated opinion and that this was more like a journalistic approach..
and i think it`s not so trivial step for many in Latvia at least. I know its discussable, but many elderly dont speak Latvian and have difficulties to learn, even in 20 years.. and many still have different history interpretations and thats why they have difficulties to tick “Baltic`s were occupied” in this so called trivial history test. I sometimes feel it more like a matter of honor if there is history test. Language and constitution test in my opinion is rather fair..
Marta, these elderly have had far, far longer than 20 years to learn the local languague and customs, unless they immigrated right before USSR’s breakup.
many elderly dont speak Latvian and have difficulties to learn, even in 20 years.. and many still have different history interpretations and thats why they have difficulties to tick “Baltic`s were occupied” in this so called trivial history test.
Then they don’t get a say in how this country is run.
I don’t think my elaborated opinion would be appropriate to this website’s format. Information from a source close to the issue is more valuable.
But is there any real benefit from citizenship for these stateless, often disaffected people other than voting for who to them are nameless eurocrats in Brussels? To understand this question, readers would have to be familiar with Estonian politics and the electoral climate. It is one in which the very few who stand up to be heard are usually not listened to, and most people are just plain apathetic to or unaware of their rights.
To paraphrase Mr. Tuch, it’s only a human rights violation if those violated complain. There ain’t no complainin’ yonder here!
People could be bolder about exercising their rights under consumer protection law, for one thing. But I wouldn’t pick on Estonia as exceptionally apathetic among societies. Plenty of resources to make any initiative potentially rewarding, whether you’re a citizen or are thinking of becoming one. And I sincerely believe that if I have a civil law problem, I can get it resolved just as fast here as I can anywhere else.
Marta wrote:and many still have different history interpretations
There is some legal wrangling about the terms “occupation” and “annexation” within the context of international law in 1940, but the ‘different interpretations of history’ argument isn’t particularly convincing. The incorporation of Estonia into the USSR was organized by the Soviet embassy in Tallinn and carried out under threat of force. It was as legitimate as the German occupation of Czechoslovakia. To what extent acknowledging this should be a component of being naturalized, I do not know.
Mingus wrote: To understand this question, readers would have to be familiar with Estonian politics and the electoral climate.
One can see it this way. The fewer stateless persons get to vote, the higher the likelihood that right-wing parties will elect MPS to the European Parliament. If stateless, long-term residents are allowed to vote, then the chances of the Center party electing MPs increases (which is why the Center Party has argued for letting them vote!)
The issue is linked to populism, either way. There can be no honest debate about it in Estonian society because the different political parties have either so much to lose or so much to gain.
In 1993, when these laws came into force, it was very clear that there were still Russian troops on Estonian soil, and that Estonia’s only chance to reorient to the West was to enact a conservative citizenship regime. That is the context in which the national interest was defined.
Today, with the demographics quite different, as well as Estonia’s geopolitical situation, the argument is purely a legal one. We believe it is right because it is the law. And since the law has worked to some extent, it will only be altered in the future, but never completely changed.
Brilliantly written, and very visual. I’ll just keep reading you to improve my own writing skills :-).
Since it’s such a great read, I resist the urge to comment on the “funny thing in the international law”, but if you are interested in a more accurate reference point, take a look at Richard Visek’s article “Creating the Ethnic Electorate Through Legal Restorationism: Citizenship
Rights in Estonia”, Harvard International Law Journal, 315 (Spring 1997)
Apologises for going off-topic here but I have been reading around and the issue of Northern Ireland has been thrown around alot on TAI recently in analogy with human rights in Estonia.
I’d sort of at a loss as to where to connection is. Someone care to help me out?
Great post!