[LINK] Two Transitions Online articles about Latvia and Russia

[rfmcdonald]

The first Transitions Online article on Latvia I found interesting was Martin Ehl's "For Latvia, Another Declaration of Independence". Membership in the Eurozone, Ehl argues, is seen by Latvians not as welcome but as necessary, in order to further remove the country from the Russian sphere of influence.

Latvians themselves are cautious. In surveys, only a third of those questioned favor entry into the euro zone. They are concerned mainly by price increases after the introduction of the euro at a time when two-thirds say they carefully plan their spending each month and must restrict purchases of consumer durables, as well as shoes and clothing. In the EU, Latvia is poorer than only Bulgaria and Romania, and unemployment – though down from the 22 percent of 2009, the worst year of the crisis – is still high at 10.9 percent.

Foreign investors and entrepreneurs have a different view. A recent survey from the German-Baltic Chamber of Commerce showed that 91 percent of the German companies operating in the Baltics support both the introduction of the euro in Latvia from 1 January 2014 and the planned entry of Lithuania into the euro zone one year later. In particular, German firms expect a reduction in their exchange rate risk, a simplification in accounting procedures, and lower transaction costs. Although Latvia fares the worst in the eyes of German investors among the three Baltic countries, the proportion of those who expect a downturn has dropped by a third over the past year.nto the euro zone, afraid that Latvia could become a second Cyprus because its banks are popular among wealthy clients from the former Soviet Union. Latvia is simply some kind of eastern Switzerland.

[. . .]

In 2005, in the run-up to joining the euro zone, the Latvians introduced a fixed exchange rate for the Latvian lat to the euro. It amounted to an internal devaluation, and that was how Dombrovskis and Rimsevics explained extensive austerity measures. Eventually, even the International Monetary Fund reproached Riga for its toughness (the IMF oversaw the Latvian reforms because the country had taken a 7 million euro rescue loan in 2008, which was paid back early last fall).

Most Latvians understood the tough measures – such as reducing salaries in the public sector by 30 percent, closing schools, and shuttering hospitals – and accepted them for one simple reason: that the ultimate goal would be geopolitical disengagement from Russia, which since Latvia’s declaration of independence in 1918 has been everything possible for Latvians, just not a friendly neighbor. The dual German-Russian occupation and World War II wiped out one-third of the population, who either fled or were killed. In contrast, the Soviet regime settled thousands of immigrants in Latvia, so that ethnic Russians now make up about one-third of the country's population, concentrated mainly in the capital.

The second article, Nirvana Bhatia's "In Latvia, V Is for Victory – or Vanquished", relates to continued divisions among the Latvian population regarding the interpretation of 1945. What does 1945 mean for a Latvian who sees this as the second Soviet conquest? Or for a Russophone who sees this as part of the victory against fascism?

Though relations between the two communities are largely normalized in daily life, politicians continue to argue over the rights of ethnic Russians and the country’s other “non-citizens” – nearly 300,000 people who moved to Latvia during the Soviet era, and their descendants, but who were not eligible for Latvian citizenship after the fall of the Soviet Union. Those tensions often come to a head during this patriotic week in May, when two very different interpretations of history are on display.

The Victory Day festivities are a particularly sore spot for Latvian nationalists, who view 9 May merely as the day one occupier left and another took its place. Ethnic Russians – who account for a quarter of the country’s population – on the other hand, see it as an occasion to celebrate their heritage and collective identity. Or, as University of Latvia’s social sciences dean, Juris Rozenvalds, told the Russian-language Vesti segodnya newspaper, to show the governing authorities that “we are here, we are many, and we must be taken into account.”

Rozenvalds believes the government is weary of 9 May not because of what it represents, but because the substantial numbers (more than 150,000 people attended the events last year) seem to legitimize the Russian community’s active presence in Latvia. He said 2012’s failed referendum to elevate Russian to official language status or bids to make Orthodox Christmas a public holiday were similar appeals – and rejections – for recognition by Latvia’s largest minority.

Last week, Latvia’s National Alliance Party, a junior member of the governing coalition, urged the demolition of the Soviet Victory Monument and recommended turning the site into an amusement park. “As long as the monument stands, it will remind you of the consequences of Latvia’s occupation and encourage Russia’s military hopes for the restoration of the empire,” Aleksandrs Kirsteins, a National Alliance parliamentary candidate, told Delfi.lv. Other political leaders proposed placing an exhibit on communist crimes and Stalinist-era atrocities near the monument to serve as a reminder of what the Latvian people experienced after the Soviet liberation.