|
Mr. Speaker of the Saeima,
Distinguished members of Parliament,
Ministers,
Excellencies,
Ladies and gentlemen,
The restoration of relations between Latvia and Russia as two sovereign states began after the recognition of the independence of the state of Latvia in August 1991 by the Russian Federation, based on the Constitutional law "On the Status of the Statehood of the Republic of Latvia", adopted by the Supreme Council.
In the first years both Latvia and Russia were still on the quest for their place in the world. In both countries there were forces, which wanted to push their country in incompatibly opposite directions. In Latvia there were forces, which wanted "to turn over a new page" and forget all wrongs done to the people of Latvia over the fifty years of occupation. Some other forces insistently denied the legitimacy of the restoration of the Republic of Latvia and referred to the Supreme Council and later the Saeima as institutions of "the unlawful regime of 4th May". In Russia there was a confrontation between those, who wished to develop Russia into a Western democracy and those, who cherished hope of the restoration of the Empire, no matter in what form.
The struggle between these forces hampered the withdrawal of the armed forces of the Russian Federation from Latvia. Negotiations on the withdrawal were long and tough. Latvian politicians split into those who paid lip service to immediate expulsion of the Russian army and those who understood the necessity of compromises. I believe that many of those who categorically rejected compromises knew deep in their hearts that their words were inconsistent with reality.
After lengthy debates agreement on the withdrawal of troops was achieved and approved with their signatures by Presidents Guntis Ulmanis and Boris Yeltsin as well as Prime Minister Valdis Birkavs in Moscow. Time has shown that this was a correct choice. The Russian army was withdrawn, Skrunda radar facility was demolished and Latvia could with greater security and confidence advance towards its goals: membership of the European Union and NATO as guarantees of our independence, economic growth and security.
When I entered upon office more than seven years ago, Latvia-Russia relations still could often best be described as verbal wars. The last militaries that had served at Skrunda radar facility had just left in as late as 1998. In 1998 our bilateral relations saw both sharpening of political contradictions triggered by a small rally at Riga City Council, as well as a serious crisis of economic relations caused by the banking crisis in Russia.
The fundamental position of Latvia's foreign policy reflects our country's desire to develop constructive, equal and dignified neighbourly relations with Russia. I am confident that good neighbourly relations require both a political dialogue, honest attitude towards history, active economic co-operation as well as completed legal basis.
In the course of these years I have tried to work on these issues. I have several times met the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin. On my initiative and with my continuous support the Historians' Commission of Latvia has worked actively and fruitfully for many years. In 2005 Latvia met broad understanding from the part of European and world leaders regarding the darkest pages of our history. Replies of heads of state and government to my statement, by which I explained Latvia's position on the events of the Second World War and the special symbolic meaning that Latvia attributed to the commemorative events of the 60th Anniversary of the end of the Second World War in Moscow, have been compiled in a separate publication that you, distinguished members of parliament, have on your tables.
Letters published in this book leave no room for the slightest shadow of doubt about international recognition of the continuity of our statehood. In their letters European and world leaders - Presidents of Germany, France, USA, Austria, Portugal, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Estonia and Croatia, Prime Ministers of UK, Canada, Denmark, Netherlands, Ireland, Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Belgium and Japan - speak about Soviet occupation and regained independence. The European Human Rights Court, too, in its verdict in the-so-called Zhdanoka's case refers to forcible incorporation into the USSR as an indubitable historical fact.
These leaders thus clearly express the official position of their states that Latvia's incorporation into the USSR had been unlawful and the existing Republic of Latvia is a restored, not a newly founded state. In 1991 more than 30 states declared recognition of the restoration of the independence of the Republic of Latvia. We do not need to prove to anyone that we are not a newly founded state. Nobody has any ground to question the continuity of our statehood. Latvia has consistently abided by the principle of the continuity of its statehood both in the process of the restoration of its independence as well as in the elaboration of legislative acts in diverse fields, be it restoration of citizenship or restitution of property. On the basis of these laws Latvia has become a member of the EU and NATO: our approach as been accepted internationally. The continuity of our statehood in no way depends on Russia's willingness to recognize or deny it. Moreover, Russia, too, recognized Latvia as an independent state and it was based on the Constitutional law that it did so and this law on its turn is based on the principle of legal continuity.
Distinguished members of parliament,
Ladies and gentlemen,
Latvia's membership in the EU and NATO has opened new opportunities for the development of relations with Russia. We may feel safer in our thoughts and deeds as now we have two new guarantees of our statehood. Latvia is taking part in NATO-Russia dialogue and together with the other member states shapes and influences the policy of the entire European Union vis-à-vis its relations with Russia.
At the same time there is a clear geo-political framework, in which we can act. In 1991 Latvia regained independence within the borders that we physically have now. We joined the United Nations, OSCE, European Union and NATO within the currently existing borders, repeatedly and emphatically declaring that we did not have any territorial claims towards any state nor any territorial conflict with any state. If we declared that Latvia regarded Abrene as its irretrievable part, our current partners and allies would have regarded it as our territorial dispute with our neighbour and today we would not be a member of either the EU or NATO yet. Having joined the international structures that give Latvia guarantees of independence, security and development, we have to accept the facts of life that have transpired in Europe, including the fact that Abrene or Pitalovo is no longer under the control of the state of Latvia. At the same time I would like to note that Latvia is not the only state in Europe that lost part of its territory after the Second World War. Germany, Finland, Romania and other states suffered similar and much larger losses that Latvia did.
There has been much discussion on whether the Border Agreement parafied in 1997 is compatible with Clause 3 of our Constitution: "The territory of the State of Latvia, within the borders established by international agreements, consists of Vidzeme, Latgale, Kurzeme and Zemgale". Same as the government of Latvia I am confident that the Agreement does comply with it and therefore I support the signing of it. We have heard a contrary opinion, too. The verdict of the Constitutional Court would be of decisive importance in this matter. Latvian laws provide a clear procedure of how to contest a law in the Constitutional Court. If the Constitutional Court declares that the Agreement affects the substance of Clause 3 of the Constitution, the issue will have to be decided in a referendum.
During my presidency of almost 8 years all Prime Ministers - Andris Šķēle, Andris Bērziņš, Einars Repše, Indulis Emsis and Aigars Kalvītis, as well as all Ministers of Foreign Affairs - Indulis Bērziņš, Sandra Kalniete, Rihards Pīks and Artis Pabriks both while talking to me personally as well as in international forums have firmly underlined the readiness to sign the Border Agreement, which was parafied in 1997 and the mandate for the drafting of which was granted by the government of Andris Šķēle while Gundars Krasts' government approved parafying of the drafted text. All these heads of government and ministers of foreign affairs have emphasised that Latvia did not have any territorial claims, that Latvia did not have any territorial disputes and that a border agreement that reflects the actually existing border was acceptable for the government of Latvia. Willingness to conclude a border agreement with Russia has been a consistent position of Latvia's foreign policy and I in my work have supported and facilitated the implementation of it.
I regard this as an appropriate occasion finally to resolve the long since pending issue of the conclusion of Border Agreement with the Russian Federation as now willingness to deal with this issue is felt from the part of Russia itself. The years 2005 and 2006 marked positive trends in our bilateral relations. On my invitation Latvia received the visit of His Holiness Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Alexiy II. Deeply symbolic was the visit of the first President of Russia Boris Yeltsin. The Prime Minister of Latvia has met both his Russian colleague as well as President Putin. After an interval of many years two agreements have been signed: Agreement on Economic Co-operation and Agreement on Inter-Governmental Commission. Now we have an opportunity to develop this positive dynamics. Conclusion of the Border Agreement would provide new opportunities for co-operation between the neighbour states. On the other hand the fact that elections to the Russian Duma as well as the Presidential elections are expected soon, must also be taken into consideration. We do not know who will be the next President of Russia, nor how ready he will be to sign a Border Agreement with Latvia, which consideration makes the readiness expressed by President Vladimit Putin to conclude Border Agreement with Latvia even more important. It is in Latvia's interests to use this opportunity.
Of course, we must not cherish any illusion that signing of the Border Agreement will immediately resolve all pending problems of our frozen bilateral relations. In all 16 years of our restored independence not a single high-level bilateral visit has taken place between Latvia and Russia in either direction. Our states and societies still evaluate significant 20th century historical events in radically different ways. Conclusion of the Border Agreement gives no guarantees to our entrepreneurs of millions-worth contracts coming next day or year. However, signing and ratification of the Border Agreement will be a serious step of progress that would allow improving the atmosphere of inter-state relations, continuing and expanding of bilateral dialogue on equal basis. It will encourage co-operation between entrepreneurs and representatives of our societies.
By concluding the Border Agreement with Russia we will demonstrate the maturity of our statehood and our ability to deal with difficult and complicated foreign policy issues in our national interests. It will add more weight to Latvia's statements in the framework of the European Union, it will assert Latvia as a serious partner of co-operation.
Distinguished members of parliament,
I have supported the aspirations of Latvia's government to conclude the Border agreement with Russia - whenever there has been willingness to do so - and I have urged the government to return to and work on the conclusion of the Border Agreement at times when there has been lack of such willingness. I am pleased that the current government has worked out a solution that provides an opportunity to sign the Border Agreement, simultaneously reasserting the continuity of the statehood of the Republic of Latvia.
Taking into consideration the great political significance of the Border Agreement, I believe it would be important to involve in the signing of the Border Agreement both the executive power as well as the Presidents of the two states - similarly how it was done with Agreement on the Withdrawal of the Russian army. As the President of Latvia I am ready to support the government of Latvia and co-sign the Agreement together with its representative.
The conclusion of the Border Agreement indeed offers parallels with the conclusion of the Agreement on the Withdrawal of the Russian Army 13 years ago. Both the Agreement on the Withdrawal of the Army then and the Border Agreement now requires Latvian legislator to make a complicated choice. However, both these Agreements are necessary for the consolidation of the state of Latvia. Both these Agreements are necessary for secure future of Latvia.
National Border is one of the attributes of statehood. National security requires clarity about the border. Security on state border has many aspects. Security may be threatened by smuggling; security may be threatened by illegal migration and trafficking of people. Security requires not only border control points, but also a legally clear border, on which these control points can operate. Resolving of the legal status of the border would help to deal with the issues pertaining both to the improvement of border facilities and border infrastructure. It would help to come to an agreement about construction of new border-crossing points, to lessen jams of transit traffic on the Latvian side of the border, make the daily life of inhabitants of the frontier territories considerably easier and improve prospects of future economic growth. I am confident that time will prove that conclusion of the Border Agreement with Russia is the right step at the right moment, same as it has justified the Agreement on the Withdrawal of Army. Therefore I call on the members of parliament to demonstrate political courage and statesmanship and to support the draft bill that authorizes the government to sign the Border Agreement.
|
