|
Mr Chairman!
Mr Prime Minister!
Ladies and Gentlemen!
Allow me to begin by expressing my satisfaction that the promise has been kept, and that for the first time the 9th Saeima is having a foreign policy debate. The Government's decision to come before the Saiema with a foreign policy issue of such significance as the Latvian-Russian border agreement attests to the desire to make a decision taking into account and listening to all the viewpoints of the people. Let us talk and decide here and now, and may God help us to make the most sensible decision.
Truly, the significance of this issue cannot be over-estimated, because the decision that we make will allow the world to understand whether we are looking to the past or to the future. Are we capable of seeing the difference between vital issues of principle and those of lesser importance? Can we tell the difference between grain and chaff? Are we capable of rising to a greater level than those who do us harm?
In 15 years this will be the third political decision of such significance. The first time, in 1994, we had to make a difficult but decisive compromise decision for Latvia, regarding the withdrawal of USSR military units from our land. At the time this decision also had its opponents, who accused those who made and supported the decision of betraying national interests. History has proven that the decision was correct. There are now no foreign troops on our soil. Had we listened to our opponents then, the situation would be different.
The second historic decision came in 1998, when we accepted the principles of naturalization following a difficult referendum. This too was a compromise, with many opponents. We now know that the decision was correct, because it is no longer possible at the international level to accuse us of human rights violations.
Parliamentarians of Latvia!
Today we are at the third turning point. We must decide whether we want to preserve and strengthen that which we have regained with much difficult and ceaseless effort, or whether we want to continue as a voice in the wilderness, demanding that which we no longer have and never will.
We must be clear in our own minds. Do we believe what we say, and if so, are we doing what we promised to do? The issue of the border agreement will be the litmus test by which the international community will judge our actions.
I would like to begin with a brief review of recent history.
Beginning on December 9, 1997, when the Cabinet of Ministers approved the text of the border agreement, the conclusion of this agreement became a top priority item on the agenda of Latvia's foreign policy.
Those were difficult times; the economy was not yet in good shape, and we did not know if we would ever become members of the European Union and NATO, which we regarded, and continue to regard, as the guarantee of our freedom. In order not to cause concern on the part of our international supporters that we may be desirous of more conflicted relations with Russia, to regain the lost territory of Abrene, all of our previous representatives, in their talks with European and American partners, have consistently espoused the view that we wish to conclude the initialed border agreement, and that we have no desire to review the de-facto borders. This has been done by Mrs Kalniete, Mr Ulmanis, and my predecessors.
Since 1998 there have been more that 40 visits at the head-of-state level, about 40 meetings at the prime-ministerial level, and more than 70 at the foreign minister level. In all these meetings Latvia has repeatedly affirmed its readiness to conclude the prepared border agreement.
What is the significance of this readiness? First, it means that Latvia makes no territorial claims; second, it attests to the steadfastness and trustworthiness of Latvian foreign policy; and third, it reflects on Latvia's responsibility for the strengthening of the existing EU Eastern border.
The question of concluding a border agreement was an essential condition of Latvia's accession to the EU and NATO. It was not without reason that Russia was not prepared to sign this same agreement, perhaps because it hoped to hinder the international strengthening of our state.
For that reason, while conducting talks in the EU context, or in inter-governmental conferences at the foreign minister level, or in talks with Commissioner Verhoigen, the Commissioner for Expansion, the Latvian delegation always referred to the draft border agreement and its addenda as approved by the Cabinet of Ministers in 1997. It was pointed out that on the Latvian side everything possible was done, I emphasize – everything possible, and that further movement of the agreement was dependent on the attitude of the Russian Federation. In its discussions with the EU Latvia confirmed that it has prepared the agreement and is ready to sign it with the Russian Federation. In preparing and submitting to the NATO leadership Latvia's annual activity plans for participation in NATO, Latvia has for years re-iterated that among its priorities in co-operation with Russia is the signing of the border agreement. This was also mentioned in Mrs Kalniete's talks with Mr Ivanov. And now, it seemsâÀ¦ we are not ready?
All this means that we cannot reject the past leadup to the agreement, even if we suddenly wanted to, without having to take into account the serious international consequences – most of all, the loss of prestige and credibility which were so hard earned. How can one trust a person who does not keep his word? How can a state be trusted that does not keep its word?
For the past two years the government has sought a juridically correct solution, in order to achieve the conclusion of the prepared border agreement. The solution offered is based on the 1991 Constitutional law "On the status of the Republic of Latvia as a state" , which subsumes an affirmation of Latvia's succession.
It is no wonder that many political analysts have considered this offer by the government to be elegant and precise. The principle of continuity of the state, which is important for Latvia, has been observed, and practically no one has any doubts about that, with the exception of a few who are present here. Is there really anyone here who really believes that after the agreement goes into effect, we will no longer be congratulated on the November 18 celebrations, thereby denying the continuity of our state? It would be naïve to split hairs when decisions based on principle must be made.
The continuity of the Latvian state is ensured by a wide-ranging complex of international obligations, among the most significant being the declarations of more than 30 states in the beginning of the 1990s, recognizing the renewal of independence of the Republic of Latvia. I won't mention the countless letters that have been received by the office of the President.
The border agreement is a practical matter, to be separated from broader historical issues. Harmony on the broader issues with a minority of differing views must be sought over a period of decades, but not now. Let us not try to cover up the scars of historical pain with the border agreement as a band-aid!
Esteemed members of the audience!
The Saeima today has the opportunity to express its support for that course of Latvia's foreign policy which was put into effect after the renewal of independence. Had Latvia at that time pushed the regaining of Abrene as one of its foreign policy issues, the foreign policy goals of those days – the withdrawal of Russian military forces, the accession of Latvia to the EU and NATO, and the strengthening of Latvia's image as a trustworthy and stable state, would not be a part of today's reality. All of us must understand that!
The opponents of this border agreement say that we should maintain the right to demand the return of Abrene. This is a very serious international demand which will have its consequences. What kind? First, by maintaining this demand it will not be possible to sign the border agreement. We need the agreement not only to maintain the continuity of our foreign policy, but also to internationally strengthen that which is dearest to us – our renewed state.
Moreover, it is clear that if today we vote against, we will have a territorial claim against Russia, unlike our neighbours the Estonians, the Finns, Germans and Lithuanians. Abrene is practically beyond the border currently guarded by Latvian soldiers. This would mean the loss of a status which we have struggled so hard to achieve for the past 15 years. That is the status of a stable and predictable state. Are those who will cast their votes against the agreement prepared to carry this burden?
In 1991, after becoming a member of the OSCE, Latvia accepted all OSCE principles without reservation, including acceding to the 1975 Helsinki Final Act, which recognized the principle of inviolability of borders. This means that Latvia has agreed to the state borders, as formed and confirmed after the Second World War in Europe, though not always in a just manner.
The recognition of the renewed independence of the Republic of Latvia, and the renewal of diplomatic relations on the part of our partners, was done taking into account the existing administrative borders of Latvia. Our partners take those borders into consideration, and it has never occurred to anyone in the European Union that it might be possible to expand the Eastern border of the EU at the expense of Russia, with the help of the votes of deputies from Latvia.
My colleague the Swedish Foreign Minister and legendary friend of the Baltic people, Karl Bildt, pointed out in a letter to me this week that Sweden, in recognizing the independence of Latvia respects the continuity of the Latvia state and its actual border with Russia. I assume that there is no need here to provide a translation of diplomatic language.
The discussion about whether or not we need Abrene is not based on objective reality, but rather a virtual one, or perhaps on our psyche suffering from historical injustice. Fellow Latvians, let us not permit this historical wrong to cloud our sound judgment and to deprive us of the ability to make rational decisions. There is an ongoing effort in Latvian politics today to make a symbol out of Abrene for whatever purpose – the attempts at criticism of the opposition, feelings of disillusionment, or the views of national radicals.
We have to understand that the chances of regaining Abrene are no greater than those of recovering Tobago or Gambia. Even if we could do it, are we prepared to pay the price?
We have two choices – either to wave the flag or to work diligently. I invite you to work and to shape history. To those few who invoke a referendum, I would like to say that if that is what you really want, then support the draft legislation before you, because that is the fastest and most direct path to holding a referendum. However, I would like to remind you of the bitter truth that we live in a representative democracy and that referenda are not part of our political tradition. Moreover, those who are familiar with political theory know that referenda are not a means of untying the Gordian knot.
The referendum is a sword that cuts the knot. A referendum cannot and does not provide a qualitative solution, compared with the offer of representative democracy. The referendum affords a quantitative solution, with victory going to the loudest not the wisest. I would like to invite you to make a wise decision. Of course, that does not exclude the possibility of holding a referendum at any time.
Ladies and gentlemen!
The solution of the border agreement is merely a logical continuation of an ongoing dialogue and practical co-operation between Latvia and Russia at the highest political level during the past year – the meeting of the Prime Minister with Fradkov; the visit of the Patriarch; the meeting of the Prime Minister with Putin; the mutual desire to start the work of the inter-governmental commission. Our President has devoted much effort to this work. In her address to the Saeima in 2005 she pointed out that the border agreement is our unfinished task. An unfinished task for the sake of the future.
I will not speak of practical matters, such as infrastructure and transit issues. I would rather return to what I said in the beginning. Following the withdrawal of military forces and the success of the citizenship referendum, a solution of the border agreement question will attest that we have the political will and ability to make difficult but correct decisions. We would prove that the divisiveness of our internal politics can be overcome for the good of the nation. This would be a step toward the goal of becoming a respectable EU and NATO member, and serve as an example for those who have been less successful.
As regards our relations with Russia, we will have proven that we stand above historic injustice, and regardless of the existing divergence of views, we can reach agreement while keeping faith with our individual thoughts on historic issues! Let's support the draft law, while preserving our self-esteem and keeping a warm heart and cool head in approving this decision.
I believe that this is both a patriotic and pragmatic approach.
Thank you!
|
