Latvia

Please accept Latvia's congratulations on your election to the presidency of the forty-seventh session of the General Assembly, Sir. The people of Latvia wish you a successful term as its leader. Latvia wishes to pay its respects to those nation States which have recently been admitted to the United Nations and looks forward to cooperation with them. More than a year has passed since the Republic of Latvia, with the support of the world's democracies, restored its independence. This past year has been characterized by the renewal of our State institutions. The restoration of independence is a complicated process during which we have learned from our mistakes. Our own experience and that of other nations has contributed to making the transition process more effective. The goal of independent Latvia to become a democratic free market State has not changed. Unchanged also are Latvia's efforts simultaneously to find an optimal solution to two acute and unavoidable problems: the correction of the injustices fostered by the illegal occupation and the protection of the rights of all residents of Latvia. The majority of States never recognized the annexation of Latvia. This was of vital significance for the restoration of our independence. It is only now that we have begun fully to understand the complexity of our situation. The stabilization and development of our independence is largely dependent on the objectivity with which the consequences of the former colonial policies are evaluated and on the manner in which they are eliminated. I would even say that in the recent past the restoration of independence in the Baltic States was of the utmost importance for security and stability in Europe. Today the international appraisal of the consequences of the annexation is just as crucial. A flawed approach to this question, which would legitimize these consequences, could severely destabilize the political situation in Latvia. But now I invite representatives to take a fundamental and unprejudiced look at the consequences of the half-century-long illegal incorporation of Latvia into the Soviet empire. Foreign military troops are still stationed on the territory of Latvia. Moreover, the Latvian Government has been denied the right to monitor these forces. The lack of control over this army, its sometimes chaotic demobilization, and its wilful and covert merging with economic enterprises and civil institutions in Latvia, create the threat of unsupervised arms transfers, even to international markets. Today there is no other nation State in the world with as many active or retired military persons per civilian as in Latvia. Our small nation has been pressured to provide social guarantees, including living accommodation, to the military forces of a great Power upon their withdrawal from Latvia. Meanwhile, Latvians who were deported to Siberia on a mass scale in 1941 and 1949 are still unable to find housing in their homeland. Latvians who fled to the West as a result of oppression by the former occupation regime, and who now wish to return to their native land, are also unable to find accommodation. The great neighbouring Power also attempts to determine the political basis of our State the composition of its body of citizens. We welcome the adherence of the Russian Federation to the Helsinki Document of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, particularly paragraph 15, in which the participating States committed themselves to end the "stationing of foreign armed forces on the territories of the Baltic States without the required consent of those countries." (A/47/361. annex, para. 15) In our turn, we can affirm the willingness of Latvia to see that the commitment expressed in this paragraph is fulfilled in our negotiations with the Russian Federation. Unfortunately, to date we have not seen similar interest on the part of Russia. It is a matter of concern that the view has been expressed in the Parliament of the Russian Federation that the agreement already concluded on the withdrawal of troops from Lithuania should be annulled. In the negotiations with Latvia, the Russian delegation is constantly changing its position even on matters previously agreed upon. Therefore Latvia, together with Estonia and Lithuania, requested that the issue of the complete withdrawal of foreign military forces be included on the agenda of the forty-seventh session of the General Assembly. Latvia also invites the Security Council to send observers to the negotiations with the Russian Federation, and is looking forward to the other party's consent. Aside from the serious issue of foreign military forces in Latvia, one of the most serious consequences of the annexation of Latvia is the dangerous alteration of the demographic situation as a result of forced migration and the Soviet Union's colonial policies. In the last 50 years no other State has had its indigenous population reduced to the status of a near minority as a result of both immigration and the loss of a large part of its indigenous population during occupations by two criminal regimes. Communist and Nazi. Latvia must now devote great efforts to preserving its State language, the major component of Latvian culture and heritage. Another truth is becoming more transparent. We cannot utilize only existing schemes and models to solve our internal problems. Our unique demographic situation requires us to solve the citizenship question with respect to immigrants on the one hand, to create a secure environment to preserve our national identity, and on the other to give immigrants every opportunity to integrate into Latvia's society while preserving and developing their own languages and cultural traditions. The State of Latvia, of course, is interested in expanding its body of citizens, but not with retired officers of the former Soviet army who, even now, do not recognize the independence of Latvia. There are other States from which the armed forces of the former Soviet Union are being withdrawn but the possibility of granting the citizenship of these States to former Soviet officers has not been an issue. The current domestic debate suggests that the Latvian Parliament adopt a law on citizenship in which the principal criteria for granting citizenship would be a 10-year residency and a basic knowledge of Latvian. Such a law, if accepted by a referendum of citizens, would have legal force. Currently, all permanent residents of Latvia are being registered and are being given the opportunity freely to declare their intention to become citizens of Latvia or to remain citizens of another State which is their country of birth. Furthermore, the laws of Latvia guarantee, according to international standards, each individual's human rights, which quite frequently, consciously or unconsciously, are confused with the right to citizenship. Some political forces in Latvia have requested that decolonization policies be carried out. The notion of a colonized country in twentieth-century Europe may seem strange. However, an examination of evidence provided by 50 years of annexation suggests the possible validity of this notion. When referring to decolonization, in no case do we imply that all immigrants must or will leave Latvia. However, our internal situation requires clarity on the very important question of who must leave Latvia. First, the former Soviet military forces must leave. Secondly, all those foreign citizens to whom the existence of an independent Latvia is unacceptable must leave. Thirdly, those who wish to live among members of a single ethnic group, in Russia or elsewhere, will leave on their own initiative. However, the great majority of immigrants will stay in Latvia, and our desire is that they be integrated into our society. In regard to the protection of human rights in Latvia, we wish to follow examples found in independent and democratic States: the indigenous people, Latvians, should have the same rights as similar groups in other States, whereas minority and immigrant groups should have cultural autonomy, including opportunities to use and develop their language. We reject the accusations, made here by the Russian Federation, that the rights of minorities are being violated in Latvia. We are ready to have our human rights situation examined by experts of the Commission on Human Rights. We are linking our hopes with the experiences of States that have travelled the road of decolonization, and from these States we expect understanding and support. The economic reforms, which have brought good results to many of these States, are very attractive and can be used by us. The situation in the world, especially in Europe, is changing qualitatively. In the past, the world order was dictated by the great Powers or, to be more precise, by military-political blocs created by the great Powers. For better or for worse, this system worked, even if through mutual fear rather than mutual trust. The stated goal of the former world order was the maintenance of world peace and stability. Contradictory or delayed actions are not the best means of increasing stability. The international recognition of Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina was delayed precisely because of such considerations; the tragic consequences of such a delay are still with us today. In international relations there exist problems of yet a different nature, problems related to the unification of nations as well as to the representation in the world community of sovereign parts of a divided nation. The Government of the Republic of China in Taiwan has been created by the tides of history. In our opinion, the international community has been unfair in ignoring this fact. Does not international experience bear evidence that participation in the international community by two sovereign parts of one nation provides an opportunity for a productive dialogue between these parts? The United Nations must pay attention to the problems of both large and small States. In our opinion, the security of small States should be a central concern of the Organization, since there does not exist a balance of power or agreement on goals between small States and their larger neighbours at this time. In my opinion, when discussing the relationships between nations, one must remember that there are neither great nor small nations. A nation is only as great as its will. Large and small States, however, can be equally free even if not equally powerful. We place high hopes in the United Nations. Latvia values highly the documents of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, in particular "Agenda 21". We therefore reiterate our proposal, first made at Rio de Janeiro, that a conference be convened in Latvia on the subject of "Disarmament for Environment". We ask the United Nations and all States for their support. Latvia is grateful for the support received from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). A UNDP representative now resides in Riga and assists the Latvian Government in the preparation of projects on technical assistance. A matter of great importance to Latvia, from the viewpoint both of respect for our sovereignty and of our capacity to pay, is the determination of the assessment rate for the contribution of Latvia to the regular budget, a rate that will in turn determine our total contribution to the United Nations system. Respect for our sovereignty requires that the assessment be determined on the basis of data accepted by Latvia itself, rather than on data provided by the State Statistical Committee of the former Soviet Union in particular, because it is not and never has been the position of Latvia that it is a successor to the rights and obligations of the former Soviet Union. Latvia unequivocally supports the statement adopted at the first summit meeting of the Security Council that the Secretary-General be invited to study methods of strengthening and making more effective the capacity of the United Nations for preventive diplomacy, peacemaking and peace-keeping. We support efforts that will decrease threats to the maintenance of international peace and security and to our own sovereignty. Regrettably, in the presence of the internal instability of large neighbouring States, the security of small States is not guaranteed. Latvia would support the granting of authority to the Secretary-General to use not only diplomacy against aggression but force as well. Of course, it will be necessary to create and approve a legal basis as well as a mechanism for the implementation of such authority. We shall always be responsible to our nation for observing United Nations legal norms and principles. Were we to fail in meeting our responsibilities, we would not excuse ourselves by reference to our limited political experience, nor to our economic problems. It is our hope that no State will use its size or its economic and military power as an excuse for ignoring United Nations standards. Latvia values highly the report "An Agenda for Peace", the inspiration for, and author of, which was the Secretary-General. Latvia hopes that United Nations support for the rightful demand to withdraw foreign military forces will be evidence of the good will of world opinion and a good example of preventive diplomacy.