Official website of the President of Russia

Over the last two years, the President has received more than 2,000 letters on the status of the Russian-speaking community in the Baltic states.

The letters’ authors are generally happy with the measures taken by the Russian Federation to settle the problems of Russians in the former Soviet republics. Particularly welcome is the decision to introduce simplified procedures for obtaining Russian citizenship for a number of categories of Russians living abroad. The letters’ authors also recognise Russian diplomacy’s contribution to the introduction of new legislation on national minorities in Lithuania, based on Council of Europe standards, and the settlement of the status of the Estonian Orthodox Church belonging to the Moscow Patriarchate.

On obtaining citizenship. Letters make it clear that problems still exist in the Baltic states, however, especially in Latvia and Estonia. The naturalisation problem is still having a negative impact on Russian speakers’ welfare in these countries. Up to 500,000 residents of Latvia and more than 160,000 residents of Estonia still do not have citizenship. Between 2000–2003, around 40,000 people in Latvia and 15,000 people in Estonia obtained citizenship. Letters’ authors say that if the naturalisation process continues at this rate, it could drag on for many years and would have serious social and political consequences.

Restricted rights for non-citizens. Doctor of technical sciences M. Lekakh of Riga, writes that there are 59 differences between the rights of citizens and non-citizens in Latvia. The situation is similar in Estonia. Non-citizens are indignant that they have no opportunity to participate fully in political life. Letters note that 73 percent of the Russian-speaking population in Estonia, or 22 percent of the country’s population, were not allowed to take part in the referendum on Estonia’s accession to the European Union. Latvia’s referendum on EU membership also ignored the opinions of hundreds of thousands of Russian speakers. This situation was repeated during elections for the European Parliament. Leaders of the Latvian movement for integration, Runa, write that, “in this way we can say that the Russian-speaking population of Latvia and Estonia is being politically repressed”.

Economic discrimination. There is concern over discriminatory economic policies. V. Sofronov, chairman of the Foundation for Supporting Russians in Estonia, writes that loans and public procurement contracts go above all to Estonian entrepreneurs. Moreover, cities with a large Russian-speaking population (Kohtla-Jarve, Narva, Sillimae and others) are clearly under-funded. Mr Sofronov writes, “the unemployment level is highest here and small and medium-sized business is developing only slowly. There are 50 percent more unemployed Russians than Estonians, though the Russian community accounts for only a third of the population”.

Letters’ authors point out that there are more than 20 restrictions for non-citizens in getting into a profession, buying real estate and so on.

Language policy. Letters express condemnation of language and education policy. Letter writers from Latvia, for example, categorically oppose the fact that Russian schools in Latvia are only allowed to devote 40 percent of teaching time to instruction in the Russian language. A. Vasilyev, chairman of the Daugavpils Headquarters for the Defence of Russian Schools, writes, “When a government representing the ethnic majority carries out an education reform that decides the fate of future generations of ethnic minorities without their consent, this is nothing other than discrimination”. Letter writers from Estonia have expressed similar concerns.

Government policies that limit Russian speakers’ interests in culture, science and the media come in for severe criticism. In particular, letter writers oppose the “foreign language” broadcasting quota of 10 percent of air time set for the Estonian electronic media. A similar quota has been introduced in Latvia.

Restrictions in sports. Letter writers draw attention to divisions along ethnic lines that have emerged even in sports. Candidate of technical sciences V. Golubenko from Kohtla Jarve in Estonia, wrote to protest against the decision by the Estonian Chess Federation not to allow children who do not have Estonian citizenship to take part in the children’s European and world championships, which “is in violation of the founding principles of the International Chess Federation”.

Oppression of World War II veterans. Letters on this subject note a climate of social and psychological pressure in Latvia and Estonia where court proceedings have been launched against World War II veterans and former security services officers, and memorials to soldiers who died fighting the Nazis have been destroyed. Attempts to elevate former SS legionnaires to the rank of national heroes have met with indignation. World War II frontline veterans from Riga, for example, write, “The Baltic states incessantly insist that they are looking to the civilised West, but by way of comparison, the Germans restored the monument to the Soviet soldiers in Treptow Park, while in Latvian Salaspils they have erected a monument to SS legionnaires and are alloting building plots on land that is the burial ground for tens of thousands of innocent people tortured and killed by the Nazis. We see this as a challenge to Russian and international public opinion”.

Letters note that this situation calls for a decisive reaction.

First, it is recommended to appeal more actively to international organisations such as the United Nations, Council of Europe and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe in order to restore Russian speakers’ rights. Every measure must be taken to ensure that the EU guarantees regarding new European Union member countries’ commitments to protect human rights and national minority rights do not remain just a formal declaration.

Second, one effective way of inciting the European Union to reject double standards is to strengthen ties with influential individual EU member states. Letter writers suggest that increased economic, political and cultural cooperation with countries such as Germany, France and Italy will encourage these countries to take a more active stand on settling the problems faced by the Russian-speaking community in the Baltic states.

Third, there are calls for a more selective approach in dealing with the Baltic states. A. Chertov, the director of the public association Russian Bloc in Tallinn, Estonia, writes, for example, “Significant political and economic preference should be given to those countries who, perhaps gradually but nonetheless consistently, take the steps needed to bring the rights of the Russian-speaking population into line with international standards”.

Fourth, there are proposals to step up negotiations on the problems faced by veterans. There are calls to be more forceful in demanding that Estonia fulfil its commitments regarding welfare guarantees for Soviet Armed Forces pensioners. Retired Rear Admiral S. Smirnov, chairman of the presidium of the Union of Estonian Veterans’ Organisations, writes, for example, that armed forces veterans are seen in Estonia as a potential security threat and they and their families are therefore denied permanent residence. This creates many problems for people in getting pension payments and access to social and health services. The letter also notes that Estonia is the only former Soviet republic that does not pay long-service pensions to Interior Ministry veterans.

Fifth, there are calls for Russia to be more active in building up ties with the Russian-speaking communities abroad. In particular, proposals have been made to amend the legislation on citizenship to make it possible for more categories of people to obtain Russian citizenship without being permanently resident in Russia, as having to move to Russia earlier than planned can entail a lot of expense. The question has also been raised as to making it easier for Russians in the Baltic states to enter Russia. Letter writers also ask that Russian embassies establish closer contacts with public organisations, which otherwise “will not be able to become an influential force that can consistently stand up for the interests of national minorities”.

Presidential Directorate for Communication and Public Feedback