[lg policy] Latvia ’s new voice from the right

[Harold Schiffman]

Latvia’s new voice from the right

Oct 27, 2010

In Latvia’s October 2 elections, the new nationalist party All for
Latvia! and its veteran ally For Fatherland and Freedom/LNNK  took
eight seats. Touted before the polls as likely coalition partners for
the Unity block, All for Latvia! has been denounced by some as
extremist. Russian officials have warned that the party’s inclusion in
the government would set  back bilateral relations, while sections of
the British press have criticized the Conservative Party for being in
the same European Parliament grouping as All for Latvia! and other
Eastern European ultra-right wingers. On October 25, Prime Minister
Valdis Dombrovskis ended weeks of speculation and announced that All
for Latvia! would not be invited to join the coalition. Despite this
setback, 27-year-old  All for Latvia! leader Raivis Dzintars is still
one of the rising stars of Latvian politics. Philip Birzulis spoke to
Dzintars about language policy, Waffen SS veterans and other
controversial issues.

The process of forming the coalition has perhaps been a little more
complex than you expected. The Unity alliance hasn’t greeted you with
open arms.

Government formation is always complex and we expected that it would
be. We also knew that Unity has internal differences, which is as it
should be. The long term results of this are hard to predict, but in
the short term we won’t stay without a government, some combination
will come about. But how long this combination endures is the
question. Right now it is very important to maintain stability in a
time of tough decisions and to retain the trust of the international
community we have earned. It’s a big challenge for Latvia’s
politicians.

Speaking of stability and the international community, the British
press and others have described you as extremists.

There are differing attitudes within the British press, amongst
British politicians and European politicians in general. Russia
undoubtedly has a big influence on the global shaping of information.
These are the results of Russian propaganda and it is very easy to
earn the unfriendliness of Russia simply by sticking to your
principles or refusing to back down. But many of the signals that the
West may not accept All For Latvia! is in my opinion a matter of
internal politics. I have recently met representatives from the US
embassy in Riga, we had an open discussion and they said that there
have been no such signals from the US embassy.

After the elections, Prime Minister Valdis Dombrovksis said that
whether you become part of the coalition depends on how you position
yourselves so that Europe understands you. Do you think you have an
image problem and how can you improve this image?

With regard to Mr Dombrovskis’ comments, you’d have to ask him to
clarify them himself. As regards All for Latvia!, unlike other parties
we have entered politics and achieved something without much money. We
haven’t hired PR experts and we haven’t been able to mount a massive
campaign to inform people about our positions. We have often been the
subject of half-truths put out by media outlets we don’t control,
which is something we take into account and fight against. But in
regard to my own image and the party’s election campaign, as far as
possible we have tried to present ourselves as we really are rather
than doing things just to look good. I’ve heard my political partners
say that it was a good move for us to tidy up at the Jewish cemetery
in Riga on National Clean-up Day in April. But this wasn’t some
rehearsed act to polish our image – it is our conviction. We have
nothing against any nationality, and we understand the suffering of
all nationalities.

What is your attitude toward the annual March 16 march of Latvian
Waffen SS veterans, the so-called Legionnaires?

At what point does laying flowers at a memorial become a march? The
primary objection to this event is that it takes place at the Freedom
Monument in Riga, and when similar events have been held elsewhere,
there have been no objections. So why is the Freedom Monument a worse
place? Because the only motivation of those men who fought, and I know
them and meet them ever year, is the same as the inscription on the
monument – For Fatherland and Freedom. They fought for Latvia’s
independence, and if today in independent Latvia they can’t lay
flowers at our most scared place and remember their fallen comrades on
the anniversary of the only battle in which the two Latvian divisions
fought together, then something is not right in our society. Of
course, the propaganda espoused by various organizations in Russia has
influenced attitudes in the international community about this event.
The job of Latvia’s diplomats should be to explain the situation -
that’s what taxpayers like me pay them to do.

But for several years, Latvia’s leading politicians have considered
that distancing themselves from the march is the best way to explain
it. Doesn’t your attitude differ sharply from the generally accepted
position of the political elite?

Just because something is generally accepted doesn’t make it right.
Distancing ourselves would be correct if we acknowledged that
something was wrong, that we are at fault or have made a mistake. But
these men are not commemorating any occupation regime. Their wartime
songs clearly showed that they were equally negative towards both the
German and Russian occupants. They go to commemorate the independent
state of Latvia, and if politicians acknowledged this, then they
wouldn’t have any reason to distance themselves. What I’d really like
to see is for those Latvian soldiers who fought on the other side to
march together with the Legionnaires, symbolically burying the hatchet
and saying “we are marching together, we have a complex history but we
are all Latvians who fought with one goal.” And that would create new
arguments to explain to the world that March 16 is not about
glorifying any occupation regime. We are in touch with organizations
from both sides, and we will do everything possible to see this
happen.

Your party programme declares that the language of instruction in all
schools should be Latvian. Reforms relating to language in schools
were extremely controversial a few years ago and led to massive
protests. Don’t you think that your policy will just reopen these
wounds in society?

The policy relates to all state-funded schools. In my opinion the
problem with the earlier education reforms was that schools had
started working in one language and then suddenly the language
proportion was changed.  Our proposal is that education in Latvian
should begin from grade 1, because childhood is the best time to learn
languages. Then we will gradually arrive at the logical situation
where the state funds education in the one official state language. If
we want real integration and to avoid the creation of a state with two
separate communities, a situation where someone in Latvia can get by
with just Russian is unacceptable. We have to arrive at a point where
an active social life is impossible without knowledge of the state
language, as is the case in any self-respecting country.

Do you think that Latvia’s minorities will simply accept your ideas or
will they stage big protests like they did over the more moderate
reforms?

Those reforms weren’t more moderate, because they changed the rules in
the middle of the game. Russians and other minorities in Latvia are a
very diverse group. Many are already sending their children to Latvian
schools because they want their children to live in Latvia, to be
fluent in Latvian, and receive higher education in Latvian, because
they see their future as being here in Latvia. Of course, there will
always be a section of the community who are dissatisfied with a lot
of things, but I don’t think that fear of such people is a real
argument. There has to be dialogue, but there cannot be a constant
backing down on all issues. A country that doesn’t respect itself and
politicians who don’t respect themselves will not make society
patriotic.

Are these issues relevant today? Mr Dombrovskis’ first priority will
be economic reforms – are you prepared to get behind the painful
decisions that will have to be made?

We are already involved in various groups working on the government
declaration. In the election campaign business groups praised our
economic programme as one of the best. There are many important
economic reforms that need to be addressed, but we don’t agree with
making other issues taboo. No one is going to forget about economics,
but for our voters and also many Unity voters the sort of environment
we live in is important. Will school children be raised as patriots?
Will they be taught the history of Latvia and our national culture? A
person who isn’t loyal to his or her country will be less productive
in the workplace, and a number of studies show that culture has a very
big impact on economics.

There have been discussions between Unity and Harmony Center about
involving the latter in the coalition in some way. Can you see any way
that you could be in the same coalition as Harmony Center?

If Harmony Center changed, then we could consider it. They have to
acknowledge the fact that Latvia was occupied. There cannot be a party
in the government which has not accepted this - that would be the same
as a party in Israel being in power which denies the Holocaust. They
would also have to reject the idea of Russian as an official language.
We also cannot accept that Harmony Center includes people who openly
oppose Latvia’s independence, such as Alfreds Rubiks and his Socialist
Party, who openly celebrate the anniversary of the occupying army
entering Riga. We cannot accept the agreement that exists between
Harmony Center and the undemocratic rulers of Russia, the United
Russia Party. If these things were to be resolved, we would have no
objections to Harmony Center or their leader Janis Urbanovics. What we
object to is the ideology that this force represents. If there was a
political grouping in Latvia with Russian surnames who didn’t espouse
such principals, then I would have no hesitation in being friends with
them.

I’m sure they could make a similar list of demands from you. Is it
reasonable to expect the other side to cut off their left or right arm
in order to cooperate?

That’s the question. If Harmony Center’s imperialistic stance is like
their left or right arm, then it would be suicidal to accept them into
the government. This is both a practical and a moral question – can
people who were tortured and had their lives destroyed by the Soviet
regime accept having a party in the government that celebrates the
entry of the occupation army? We are a democratic country, and I think
the majority of Latvia’s citizens have made their views on this matter
clear.

http://www.baltictimes.com/news/articles/27261/

-- 
**************************************
N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to
its members
and implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the owner
or sponsor of the list as to the veracity of a message's contents.
Members who disagree with a message are encouraged to post a rebuttal,
and to write directly to the original sender of any offensive message.
 A copy of this may be forwarded to this list as well.  (H. Schiffman,
Moderator)

For more information about the lgpolicy-list, go to
https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/
listinfo/lgpolicy-list
*******************************************

_______________________________________________
This message came to you by way of the lgpolicy-list mailing list
lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu
To manage your subscription unsubscribe, or arrange digest format: https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/lgpolicy-list