LHRC Communication to the UN
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 97 13:22:44 -0500
From: MINELRES moderator <[email protected]>
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: LHRC Communication to the UN
From: MINELRES moderator \ Internet: ([email protected])
Original sender: Latvian Human Rights Committee \Internet:
([email protected])
LHRC Communication to the UN
In September 1997 Gennady Kotov, co-chairman of the Latvian Human Rights
Committee (F.I.D.H.) submitted a Communication to the UN for consideration
under the "1503" procedure, with the title "Relay-Race of Apartheid: South
Africa - Latvia". Fragments of the Communication follow.
--------------------
It appears to be significant that at the beginning of 1991 by efforts of
the international community the apartheid was abolished in South Africa, but
in autumn of the same year its metastasis stroke Latvia.
However grievous it be, the present-day situation of national minorities in
Latvia can be defined as THE CRIME OF APARTHEID under Article 2 of the UN
International Convention "On the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of
Apartheid" (1973).
After seven years' lapse since the restoration of the Republic of Latvia
state independence, ALMOST ONE THIRD PART OF THE PERMANENT
RESIDENTS OF THE REPUBLIC, HAVING PREVIOUSLY ENJOYED EQUALITY IN RIGHTS
WITH THE REST RESIDENTS OF LATVIA, ARE NOT STILL RECOGNIZED AS LATVIAN
CITIZENS. About 99 percent of these non-citizens are representatives of
national minorities. Almost half of them are the natives of Latvia. Only 30
per cent of the national minorities' representatives have the citizenship of
Latvia. Nowhere in the world is such a high persentage of non-citizens among
population.
ESSENCE AND SIGNS OF APARTHEID
THE SEPARATED INHABITANCY OF RACIAL OR ETHNIC GROUPS IS NOT RELEVANT TO
THE ESSENCE OF APARTHEID, BUT IS ONLY ITS CONSEQUENCE. The latter is, not
least, induced by "security" considerations of the dominant racial group.
The essence of any consciuos activity is determined through its motives and
its purpose. As it appears from the definition of the term of the crime of
apartheid in the UN Convention "On the Supression and Punishment of the
Crime of Apartheid", APARTHEID HAS THE PURPOSE "of establishing and
maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial
group of persons and systematically oppressing them".
Likewise the relevant article of the Dictionary of Political Thought runs:
"The major intention was to allow political power only to the white
population, and to deny to the remainder all rights that would be tantamount
to political access, including the right to vote at an election" (1996,
Second Edition, Roger Scruton, Macmillan General Books, London, p. 22).
THEREFORE, NOT THE SEPARATED INHABITANCY OF THESE OR THOSE RACIAL OR ETHNIC
GROUPS, BUT ESTABLISHING AND MAINTENING DOMINATION OF ONE GROUP (in this
case, the Latvians) OVER OTHERS (the non-Latvians) BY MEANS OF DEBARRING THE
LATTERS FROM POLITICAL LIFE AND THEIR DISCRIMINATION IN OTHER SPHERES
CONSTITUTE THE ESSENCE AND THE MAIN INALIENABLE SIGNS OF APARTHEID.
APARTHEID AS WEAPONS OF MASS OPPRESSION
In the course of the restoration of the Latvia state's independence ALL the
permanent residents of the country were promised to be granted the Latvian
citizenship IN CONFORMITY WITH THEIR WISH (paragraph 2.5. of the Popular
Front's pre-election Programme adopted in October 1989). On October 15, 1991
parliament of Latvia passed the Enactment "On the Renewal of the Republic of
Latvia Citizens' Rights and Fundamental Principles of Naturalization". By
this document, only those Latvian residents who had the citizenship of
Latvia before June 17,1940 and their descendants have been recognized as the
citizens of Latvia. Thereby one third part of the permanent residents have
been deprived of all the political rights they disposed of before.
Ironically, they had exercised one of these rights when electing the very
same parliament which disfranchized them later. This is the unique example
in the history of parliamentarianism.
The Law "On Citizenship" adopted in July 1994 left the problem unsolved in
essence. ONLY ABOUT 5,000 out of almost 700,000 Latvian non-citizens have
succeeded in acquiring citizenship by the way of naturalization since the
time of its adoption. There are 2,500,000 inhabitants in all, living in
Latvia. With a pace of naturalization like that the solution of the
statelessness problem in Latvia will take at least several centuries.
Thus ALMOST ONE THIRD PART of the Latvian population TURNED OUT TO BE
SUBJECTED TO POLITICAL REPRESSION. THAT MEANS, THEY, IN A PERFIDIOUS WAY,
HAVE BEEN DEPRIVED OF ALL POLITICAL RIGHTS, as well as of access to public
service AND COMPLETELY DEBARRED FROM RULING OVER THEIR OWN COUNTRY.
Therefore, THIS PART OF THE LATVIAN POPULATION IS DEPRIVED OF THE MOST
EFFECTIVE INSTRUMENTS FOR REPRESENTATION AND SELF-ASSERTION OF THEIR
NATURAL HUMAN RIGHTS. IT SIGNIFIES THAT THE RIGHTS DOOM TO BE
VIOLATED.
150 years ago Victor Hugo wrote that the recognition of the universal
electoral right had abolished the people's right to insurrection. It is
difficult not to agree with the logic of this idea. However, following from
this, the right to insurrection has been restored for almost one third part
of the Latvian residents now.
Restoring the state independence on May 4, 1990, Latvia gave the solemn
promise to put no discrimination between its citizens and its permanent
residents having no Latvian citizenship in the field of economic, social,
cultural rights and political freedoms (Article 8 of the Declaration on
Renewal of the State Independence of the LR). Today there are about 60 items
of distinctions in legal rights between the citizens and the non-citizens of
Latvia only on the level of legislation and sub-legislative documents, more
than 20 of them connected with the prohibition of access to professions. But
there are much more discriminations in real life.
APARTHEID MACHINERY IN LATVIA
One third part of the Latvian population is absolutely debarred from
political life and ruling over their state due not to their skin colour but
to their ethnicity - non-Latvians. It is not mere chance that record of
ethnicity in the passports of inhabitants of Latvia is compulsory. But, as
distinct from the Republic of South Africa, in Latvia this debarring is
made INDIRECTLY. It has been carried out by the use of three main
instruments.
The first one is non-granting the citizenship to the overwhelming part of
the ethnic non-Latvian population.
The second is the imposing on them the obligation of mastering Latvian on
the highest attestation level to have access to public service or to the
representative bodies of power.
And, at last, the third is the consecutive implementation of the personnel
policy, which assumes the promotion to leadership, as a rule, for ethnic
Latvians exclusively.
As a result, making up almost half the country's population and numbering 8
per cent of the Saeima (the parliament) deputies, the representatives of
national minorities can hardly be found among the state clerks and are
absolutely absent among the high-ranking officials. With such scarce
representation and most unfavourable attitude towards the "aliens"
dominating in the state and society, it looks almost natural that national
minorities are debarred from the real participation in the state and public
life.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, it should be noted that the general tendency of the present-
day development regarding national minorities in Latvia, unfortunately, is
not evidence of normalization.
On August 7, 1997 Latvian parliament has affirmed G.Krasts as head of the
Latvian government. Mr Krasts is a representative of the "Tevzemei un
Brivibai/LNNK" party, the party of the extreme nationalistic orientation,
the party that is rigidly blockading all the initiatives aimed to
normalization of the situation with national minorities, the party which
does its utmost not only to prevent the speeding-up of the naturalization
process, but to stop it completely. The party actively and successively
pursuing the policy of toughening discrimination of the national minorities.
On April 21 of this year at the meeting of solidarity with Chechnya the vice
-chairperson of the "Tevzemei un Brivibai" Ms P.Lace stated in public:
"FREEDOM RECEIVED AS A PRESENT IS NOT FREEDOM. IT CAN ONLY BE GAINED WITH
A SWORD. AND THE MOMENT COMES WHEN WE SHALL DRIVE THE RUSSIANS OUT AND
FEEL FREE".
Ultranationalistic forces not only dominate in the country's political and
social life, but are strengthening their positions and influence more and
more. The state of national minorities in Latvia is aggravating and cannot
be regulated without the international community's help in the near future.
------
Annexes enclosed to the communication:
- the list of differences in rights between citizens and permanent resident
non-citizens in Latvia as of fall 1997;
- monthly surveys of the human rights situation in Latvia in 1997 compiled
by the LHRC and published in local media;
- examples of cases delt with by the LHRC (refusal and annulment of
registration in the Registry of Residents of Latvia, annulment of
citizenship, problems of politically repressed by Soviet regime, violations
connected with issuing provatization certificates, expulsion from housing,
problems with issuing residence permits, deportations, separation of
families).
Gennady KOTOV
Co-chairman of the Latvian Human Rights Committee (F. I. D. H.)
--
==========================================================================
MINELRES - a forum for discussion on minorities in Central&Eastern Europe
Submissions: [email protected]
Subscription/inquiries: [email protected]
List archive: http://www.riga.lv/minelres/archive.htm
==========================================================================