print version
email this link

"From the Baltics to the Barents Sea:
a Developing Vision for Cooperation and Development" 
Statement by Dr. Valdis Birkavs
Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Latvia
at the Conference
"Opening Doors in the Baltic Sea Region: Latvian and Norwegian Perspectives" 

Melbu, Norway, 11 July 1998

Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am very pleased to be here and to find friends within the Arctic Circle.

My thanks to the hosts and organisers for creating this marvelous opportunity for sharing stories of our cultural and political character as individuals and people.

Today, I would like to talk about Latvia and about how Latvia plays a role in the process by which Russia is linked with the west. We are re-building our nation again after regaining independence but our independence meant that the Nordic countries and Europe had to draw new maps. We want to be drawn on the inside, in the circle of European friends. Because of our geography and history, we cannot afford to be outsiders.

At the beginning of September, the Norwegian king and queen will arrive in Riga by yacht. I also sail whenever I can. It is interesting that the street going by the boat dock at our local yacht club is called "Viking Street." No one really knows why it is called that. Archeologists say the street near the yacht club is part of a path was used by the Vikings as they travelled between the northwestern tip of Latvia to the bay of Riga.

The Vikings established also one of their strategic forts at Grobina near Liepaja. We today, as our ancestors before us, go looking for our fate across the Baltic Sea. We enter into alliances and continue the tradition of cooperation. Latvian cooperation with the Vikings was founded on mutual respect for courage and the common respect for the sea, its wealth and its risks.

The same is true today. Latvia cooperates very effectively with Norway bilaterally and in a formula of 5+3. The Nordic countries and the Baltic States. We also can extend cooperative links to countries that do not belong to our groups���we just add a country. Instead of 5+3, we have then 5+3+1.

Once upon a time, the Norwegian Vikings ruled in a space extending from northern Scotland and Ireland, in the Orkney Isles, the Shetlands, the Hebrides and on the Isle of Man. Latvia���s ancestors also extended their culture far beyond the present boundaries. The Duchy of Courland had colonies in Gambia and Tobago.

History placed us on similar paths. Both of our states were under the rule of great powers for a long time. For both Norway and Latvia the last century represented a time of cultural activity and national awakening. In these hard times, we developed a pride in knowing that our stubborness would help us survive. We trusted in God - or the gods - and in plain stubborness. The qualities of self-determination and self-reliance are visible today in our both our nations.

Our generation finally saw results of our determination to continue to exist with a separate identity when Latvia sought the path of renewed independence five years ago. In Norway this spirit manifests itself in a conscious desire to maintain an independent path of prosperity.

In Latvia we are now forced to choose between a life in Europe or falling back into the the remnants of the empire from which we so happily emerged. For Latvia, maintaining our identity will be possible only with the cooperation of our neighbours and our friends.

So, Latvia, in order to succeed in the present circumstances, Latvia has opted to become is a a generator of cooperation, a cooperation generator. This is perhaps the main idea that I would like to leave with you after I will be done talking.

We understood that we were on this policy path last year. The EU analysed Latvia���s progress in a paper called "Agenda 2000" which was released in July 1997. The paper is referred to as the avis, because it expresses the opinion of the European Commission on the status of our progress to accession.

The avis said that Latvia had a long way to go before it would be accepted for negotiations on accession. In issuing such a paper, the European Union took a risk of sorts. The risk is in alienating individuals that by virtue of culture, history, and values, ought to be integrated. Why should Latvians have to prove something which is theirs by right of birth? Why should we be held responsible for the results of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?

But how then, did we choose to react to the avis? We set a schedule to overcome shortcomings so that we could present ourselves on a higher level the next time round. That time is coming up soon, and we have done rather well. Latvia is now significantly ahead of the mark reached by Estonia when Estonia was accepted for accession negotiations.

In the process of catching up and of trying to prepare without sponsorship (or piggyback rides) from countries like Finland and Poland, Latvia has become perhaps the chief advocate for cooperation-building in the Baltic States. I don���t want to argue the matter. It���s simply evident from our behavior.

One sees in Latvia a country very strongly pushing cooperation between the Baltic States and in the Baltic Sea region. The conscious focus on cooperation is a distinguishing characteristic of Latvian foreign policy since the release of the avis.

One can make jokes about it��� but the reality is that we all need the spirit of cooperation that Latvia is generating. Cooperation benefits all in the region.

An emphasis on cooperation compensates for the competitiveness of spirit that is currently built-in to the EU accession process. Truly it is positive is that we should push ourselves and race against one another so that we will develop faster. The downside is that jockeying for the best position on the track we might not be so worried if our running partners stumble.

During the hard years of occupation, Latvians will always remember the Norwegian attitude and of the Nordic countries generally; you have always been supportive towards the Baltics. We are also grateful that Norway decided not to recognise Latvia's incorporation by the USSR. This decision showed faith in our persistance.

Now in Latvia we are concentrated on raising living standards and making prosperity available to all our people.

In many ways, it is far easier to become independent of a failing and bankrupt system then it is to repair the spiritual damage caused by a half century of stagnation.

In this process, Norway has shown a deep concern for helping Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania throw out the old baggage.

Projects such as the Vidzeme University will bring in the most precious Norwegian import of all, education and teachers. Every year hundreds of students spend time learning and sharing experiences in Norway and the other Nordic countries. Today over 5000 people in Latvia speak fluently at least one of the Nordic languages and this number is continually growing.

Nordic support has contributed to Baltic integration with international organizations.

It was close to being our last chance in August of 1991. If our culture had retreated any further, we might have fallen in to a different history. Take almost any measure today and you see a country making steady progress. Riga is a Baltic metropolis. Of the Baltic States, Latvia has the largest trade turnover with Norway. Our influence and our success are increasing.

The Financial Times this past Monday reported that Latvia has the lowest inflation of any country in the former eastern bloc. Inflation runs at about eight percent currently. We had 6.5 percent GDP growth last year. Privatisation is in the final stages���still some unfortunate industrial dinosaurs, but over two thirds of our GDP is generated by the private sector.

Learning how to take care of our country when we really own it ourselves, when it is completely up to us what to do with it or not to do with it, this is in one sense second nature but in another sense a second birth. We have growing pains. Our identity as a multi-ethnic society is in formation.

I truly believe that in order to have a stronger society with durable stability, we must have an integrated society. I never expected that I would find myself at the forefront, presenting the case for OSCE recommendations to our Parliament. It should not have been my job as Foreign Minister to get so much involved in domestic legislation.

But there you have it. I have spent much time presenting the concerns of our Scandinavian and European friends to Parliamentarians. These same Parliamentarians have pledged their support to Latvia���s objective of joining with the EU, of combining with euro-Atlantic institutions, and are beginning to understand that the Commission has linked Latvia���s membership assessment to our success with domestic integration.

With the implementation of the amendments to the citizenship law made on June 22^nd, all registered permanent residents of Latvia will be able to apply for citizenship in full conformity with OSCE recommendations. The discussions on adopting OSCE recommendations to incorporate immigrants were tough. But we did the right thing. We understand in Latvia that security at home is the foundation for international security. And only well-integrated societies are secure societies in the long term.

Messages of steady integration into euro-Atlantic structures will facilitate social integration in candidate countries, because they offer hope of a better life. The message of a future in Europe needs to be loud and clear.

To look at things for a moment from the side of Latvians who want to defend their culture and Latvian identity could also be instructive for those who happen to be wondering why integration is taking so long.

It is true that many arrived in Latvia between 1944 and 1991 and thought that they were in their own country. Maybe they have all along thought that Latvian was a language probably spoken by gnomes or Druids that no one really needed to know unless they are talking to their goat or their teapot like in Karlis Skalbe���s fairy tales.

They are right of course, in one way: Latvian is a magical language.

Now, many of the persons who were displaced by the break-up of the Soviet Union are just beginning to look around and find out that life is no longer like being in the army with someone to tell them what to do all the time, and they don���t like it. There is no party-line or politically-correct model. No arbitrary rules that they have to live by. In good old lazy days of the USSR we didn���t worry about making our own laws and taking part in community meetings with real dialogue and where opinions needed defending.

For people who have been part of a class system of privileges to learn to live in a modern democracy with the spirit of listening to what others have to say, and the disorderliness of many opinions under one roof, it means that as a member of government, I have a lot of explaining to do.

Work in a democratic system requires flexibility and even compromise, but for people who have lived under an occupying power, this sounds like once again swallowing their pride and hiding their personal principles.

We in the Latvian governments since independence have been constantly asked why we should be re-orienting ourselves toward Brussels when we just got rid of a higher authority from Moscow. We had the Soviet Union, and now there is the European Union. Why is one going to be so much better?

And Latvians have heard about all kinds of strange EU rules about the size of bananas and strawberries, and they don���t want people telling them that the strawberry in their garden is so small or too odd or strangely wrinkled in appearance so that it cannot be classified as a strawberry for sale across the border. What should tape measures have to do with a fruit?

Latvians think their strawberry is a strawberry if it tastes good.

Latvians also think that they can do without higher authorities. They cannot remember when their government did something very good for them, but they can easily remember big taxes and small pensions, and hospitals with rusty equipment.

In Latvia, we need to create a positive image of Brussels at the same time when we are busy creating a positive perspective on life in Riga.

This has been my job through six governments. To make government work for Latvia and to gain seats at the decision-making tables in Brussels and Mons.

How well we have put our own house in order will be analysed by the European Commission in the time leading up to the Vienna Summit. Brussels is advising us not to delay on the implementation of OSCE recommendations concerning naturalisation of non-citizens, but this strong advice from Brussels is being made at the same time that we are experiencing pressure from Moscow. Moscow is looking at other objectives than Brussels and the OSCE but, to people on the streets, it sometimes looks almost as if Moscow and Brussels were supporting one another in a bid to shape Latvia to their liking.

When pushed to choose a certain course even if it is the right thing to do, people may choose in another direction just so that they feel free. That is the problem today in my country. There is pushing and reacting to the pushing, and the consequence is not enough people acting with the future of the country in mind.

During this spring phase, your Norwegian government has been quite active on all levels. You are well represented by your excellent Ambassador.  Norway is one of the few places where our history is not a matter for long discussions and we can get right down to the search for solutions of problems. You understand our history because you have been part of it.

NATO vs. EU enlargement

I���d like to speak a bit about enlargement and European integration. ���Enlargement,��� as I see it, is that process by which Europe will become indivisible, interoperable, and interdependent.

Of course, EU enlargement is one thing and NATO is another. NATO is hard security. The EU is soft��� or pretty soft. Security is necessarily part of NATO enlargement and incidentally part of EU enlargement.

NATO has managed to sort out ahead-of-time the consequences of enlargement upon the voting and the institutional structure. The EU has not been so swift.

So, NATO enlargement, speaking of NATO as an institution, is much easier than EU enlargement���money is an issue but it is not the main issue. Interoperable equipment is a considerable expense but it can be budgeted over years.

It is enough to mention the name of Berlin to figure out that the defensibility of the Baltic States is not the issue for NATO. The issue of NATO enlargement to the Baltic States is a political decision. It���s a question for the U.S. Congress and parliaments on the other edges of Europe.

Anchoring

Security in the Baltic Sea area should involve a policy and planning of anchoring the Baltic States so that they do not drift from European moorings. Latvia needs countries like Norway that can moor us westward.

We have our own work to do. But much as you constantly remind us that we will be helped if we do not help ourselves - and that you cannot do the job for us - you know that your deeds and your words make a difference and that you could do more.

With the Baltic States, we see lots of small successful steps. And you know maybe one of Parkinson���s rules. Lots of small successful steps could be also the road to ruin.

There is an absence of bold steps taken in favour of the Baltic States and part of the problem is a lack of a vision. Some European countries seem to lack a Baltic policy entirely. They are big and powerful countries with vast interests and no policy covering these new states.

Some of them even forgot to buy new maps after 1991. We know who they are.

A common agenda for security and a single vision of development of the Baltic Sea region would set a new trend in cooperation. On the common agenda would be a discussion of measures that lead to the practical realisation of cooperative security concepts. And a single vision of regional development for the Baltic Sea should be inclusive and promote indivisibility.

The best channel to influence Russia to become democratic is the Baltic Sea region. Our region is a channel of communications with Russia. If this channel were used more consciously, it could be used more effectively.

In the past centuries, there was no policy to bring in Russia and make it part of Europe���s daily planning. Russia itself may not have been interested. But we need a policy to deal with longer term problems. Encouraging Russia to abide by western values can best be accomplished by people-to-people contacts over many generations.

Investment in Latvia is part of the work to keep Russia on track. Russia's western border is its most stable. Russia should be happy for that. And an enlarged NATO embracing the Baltic States will only enhance the stability of that border.

Russia has managed to come to terms with the first enlargement of NATO and it is growing accustomed to the idea that one day the Baltic States will also join.

Still, Russia has some leftover habits of thinking of us in a proprietary sense, but we know they are just habits. Russia knows that we are ���off base.��� At least, they know that for the time being while their economy is in a mess and they have other security priorities to the south and east.

It is when thinking from a Latvian security perspective toward the future that I fail to see an effective alternative to enlargement of the North Atlantic Alliance.

We understand better than anyone else how the hesitance of western European states to assert their regional presence can be quickly interpreted as the emergence of a gray zone.

For us on the outer limits of Europe, an open door policy at least supports the process of implementing reforms even if it does not solve our security questions. The open door means that work and funding devoted today will not be wasted. The energy spent will accrue. The open door policy must therefore continue.

The Washington Summit should not be weaker than Madrid in July 1997. The Madrid Summit recognised the aspirations of the Baltic States for NATO membership. In our view, the Washington Summit should continue the work of erasing the divisions which emerged during the Cold War.

Our active participation in this regional cooperation, our willingness to deal with Russia in an open and frank manner ��� this indicates how we are already capable of contributing to security in Northern Europe.

There are also of course other specific areas where our contribution has been and will continue to be made. The Baltic Peace-keeping Battalion, BALTBAT, is now ready and keen to operate in a mission. The Latvian Parliament voted strongly in favour of offering support to the proposed operation in Iraq earlier this year. Although modest, the Battalion is the core of our well-trained defence force and we will keep improving its capabilities. We appreciate the support of the Norwegian government on this project.

Various modes for cooperation in the Barents and Baltic sea regions are already operative. As mentioned earlier, Nordic-Baltic dialogue following 5+3 and 5+3+1 formulas has contributed to the work of preparation and to the understandings which are a ground for constructive regional dialogues.

In the CBSS forum, we have pursued investment promotion, elimination of trade barriers, combat of organised crime, environmental protection, encouragement of cross border cooperation, and the search for inter-locking mechanisms on crisis management.

Trade also is a basis for dialogue as well as prosperity. To build our economy in Latvia, we are not merely encouraging trade with the EU and Nordic countries. While diversifying especially our sources of supply, we would like to maintain the positive aspects of interdependence with Russia. Baltic State sea ports have remained competitive and cost effective when compared with the Russian Baltic ports of Kaliningrad and St. Petersburg as well as Black Sea ports.

Clearly, shipments of goods to and from European markets contribute to the depth of the Latvian-Russian relationship.

The support of many of your Governments in condemning the use of trade restrictions and encouraging Russia to engage into dialogue is very important. Of the Baltic States, Latvia has been subjected to the greatest pressure. To stop and desist from coercive and demogogic tactics, Russia evidently needs even stronger signals. Discriminatory economic practices affect trade flows in the entire Baltic Sea region.

On our part, we will refuse to be provoked. We will continue to seek dialogue and open contacts. But friends of the Baltic States should not tolerate Russian attempts to mix political and economic issues.

Russia's ability to demonstrate good will will be measured by their compliance also with international agreements. The Russian-Latvian agreement on the Skrunda phased array radar facility calls for the radar station to be shut down by September 1^st this year and for the entire facility to be dismantled within eighteen months of that date. This is the final chapter, and Russia���s ability to maintain its international commitments will be demonstrated.

Another chapter where we are very close to an ending is the Russian-Latvian border agreement. Experts from both sides agreed and concluded that this agreement was ready for signing last November. Here as an agreement that will put minds to rest. And it has been held at a distance for too long already. We are ready to sign it today. Sooner rather than later, we keep saying.

A Northwest Passage

One idea of Baltic cooperation could help Latvia succeed more quickly in a dialogue with Russia. This has to do influencing developments in Russia in our favour. If you agree with me that best channel to influence Russia is through the northwest of Russia, than you start to draw conclusions.

The Northwest is where the most intensive cooperation with the west has always been taking place. Even now though the leadership in Moscow has given encouragement to a campaign of economic pressure, Latvia���s business with St. Petersburg proceeds unabated.

So what we have in northwest Russia is a place where a ���funneling effect��� of cooperative development could be concentrated. Think of how Baltic Sea and Barents Sea cooperation merges, comes together, in the neighbourhood of St. Petersburg. Then think of how the effects of this Baltic-Barents confluence would be moving through St. Petersburg and the St. Petersburg region and onward and beyond to Russia as a whole.

The logic of Baltic regional development is ���democratic.��� All the democracies within the Baltic Sea region, but especially the old democracies ���Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Germany have already influenced new democracies very positively. You can see the positive effects already in the three Baltic States and Poland.

New democracies together with old democracies will influence the closest neighbours and the northwest of Russia which traditionally has been more democratically oriented and cosmopolitan. So then we three newer democracies of the Baltic States plus the old democracies and the northwest of Russia will influence the greater mass of Russia.

All of Russia can be influenced with positive cooperation, good neighborliness and a faster pace of economic and social development in the Baltic States.

We need to expect more out of economic development eastward. Right now we don���t expect much.

This vision of cooperation would prevent divisions and gray zones. Such a vision of cooperation is not for the sake of regionalising Russia but to strengthen market economy, democracy and rule of law in Russia.

During the CBSS Prime Ministers meeting in Riga this January, I felt Russia was interested more than ever in cooperation in the Baltic Sea region.

We should encourage Russia. We should help. We can think already that here we have one of the fastest growing regions in terms of economic development. The figures show that. But only with the strong involvement of Russia can this region be growing fast continuously.

Let me then start to sum things up

Latvia recognises that community development and enlargement are parallel processes. Security and integration at home are the best basis for becoming security contributors.

If you agree that the Baltic Sea region is the best channel for influencing positive changes in Russia then you might also agree that investment in Latvia is an investment in the link between Russia and the West. Strengthening Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania serves the goal of creating a positive evolution in the space of the former Soviet Union.

We in Latvia believe that a greater diversity of active interests in the Baltic area lessens the chances that economic agencies external to the Baltic States could be used to dominate them. That is why Latvia is supporting the trans-Atlantic link for Baltic Sea security. The United States has been even more helpful than most of our European partners in reaching the conviction that the Baltic States must be quickly joined with Europe and with the trans-Atlantic security alliance.

Substantive discussions on hard security in the Baltic Sea Region would be natural only under conditions of NATO membership.

* * *

On the island of Bornholme, there is an inscription in a very old church. It says ���God protect us from storms and from Kurði (Courlanders).��� Stockholm is located where it is because the Swedes felt the Courlanders were too close for comfort in the town of Birka. I don���t think that the people of Melbu needed ever fear Courlanders.

To fiercely defend what is one���s own is not a bad thing at all; today we can work together with Norwegians to defend what is ours. Allow me, however, to leave you with my hope that our seashore which was a place of battles shall now become a beachhead for peace and expanding stability. The sea which was between us can become the sea that links us into one community.

It will be a great pleasure receiving all of you in Latvia.