Five perspectives on Latvia’s refugee question

RIGA - It is no secret that Latvia has a negative attitude toward the refugees fleeing the Middle East.  The Latvian government reflects the country’s attitude by admitting fewer refugees than the European Commission asks of them and cutting refugee benefits before a single cent has been paid to a refugee.  

As a non-Latvian currently living in Latvia, I wanted to understand why Latvia has a generally negative attitude toward refugees.  If Latvians are simply xenophobic and think negatively about the refugees because they’re not Latvian, then even I should be worried about living here.  

But after spending time with native Latvians, I realize that characterizing the country as xenophobic would be unfair.  Even some Latvians who recognize the humanitarian crisis in the Middle East, and have a generally positive attitude toward non-Latvians like me, are hesitant to allow large amounts of refugees into the country.  

Perhaps, by understanding why even some humanitarian-minded Latvians have a generally negative attitude toward the resettlement of refugees in Latvia, EU leaders can assuage Latvian apprehension and begin resettling refugees here in the near future.

Latvia’s concerns with accepting refugees fall into five broad categories: historical, demographic, security, economic, and political concerns.  

Each of these perspectives on the resettlement of refugees inside Latvia presents valid points.  Therefore, it is important for leaders who want to help refugees resettle in Latvia to recognize and address Latvian concerns in each of these categories.  

It would be naive to assume that every Latvian will embrace Middle Eastern refugees after hearing these grievances addressed.  But if European leaders approach Latvia with an understanding of and solutions for Latvian concerns, Latvians might respond more enthusiastically than they did to the mandated quotas for refugees.

1. Historical

Latvia has a long history of occupation, forced deportation, and disenfranchisement at the hands of foreign minorities.  

But almost every European country can claim a similar tragedy in its past, and yet many of those European countries are willing to accept more refugees than Latvia today.

While many Latvians who fled the Nazis and the Soviets should know what it feels like to be refugees, many Latvians have never had to deal with genuine refugees coming into Latvia.  

Perhaps this lack of experience explains why so many Latvians are wrongly conflating “immigrants” and “refugees.”  

On May 21, 1988, the Latvian newspaper Laiks published an article on page four, which included the words, “don’t give immigrants jobs or apartments and they’ll stop coming.”  In cutting the refugee benefits, the Latvian government in 2015 seems to be implementing a policy recommendation from 1988.  The difference between the times, though, is that the article in 1988 was referring to Russian workers that the Soviet Union was forcibly resettling in Latvia.  

These forced migrants were then expected to work on construction projects, like a Riga metro and a third dam over the Daugava River, that the Latvians adamantly opposed for environmental reasons.  

In 2015, the people knocking on Latvia’s door are neither immigrants or occupiers, but refugees.  They come to Latvia on a bended knee, not with a hammer and sickle.

Historically, as in 1988, opposing foreigners in Latvia was a way to resist the repressive policies that foreign empires all too often imposed on Latvia.  

Today, when Latvia is in full command of its own ship, it has the opportunity to bring refugees aboard, as did so many of its neighbors when Latvians were forced out of their own country by tyrants and violence.

2. Demographic

Latvia is not the only country in Europe with a demographic crisis.  Europe’s low fertility rate is likely to result in “negative natural change,” which means “the extent of population decline or growth will depend largely on the contribution made by migration, as is already the case in several EU Member States.”  

Latvia is no different.  With a fertility rate of fewer than1.5 live births per woman, Latvia’s population has been dropping precipitously since the fall of the Soviet Union.  

It’s been falling even faster since Latvia's accession to the EU in 2004 enticed many young professionals to leave for Western Europe in search of better salaries.  At this rate, there will not be any Latvians left in Latvia to receive the refugees.

Latvia’s shrinking population serves both sides of the refugee argument.  On the one hand, Latvians are rightly concerned that if Latvia keeps losing Latvians and gaining foreigners, it will cease to be the only place in the world where the Latvian language is spoken and ancient Latvian culture is preserved.  

On the other hand, Latvia needs immigrants if it wants to increase its population. In an attempt to have its cake and eat it too, Latvia has been adamantly recruiting exiled Latvians from abroad - Sweden, England, Australia, Canada, and the United States (especially my native New Jersey) all took in Latvian refugees who fled the Soviets and the Nazis.  

Some of them are returning to Latvia as retirees, but not enough workforce-aged Latvians return to and stay in Latvia.  

As if Latvia’s shrinking population were not enough of a demographic crisis, Latvia has to constantly answer questions about the split between its ethnically Russian and ethnically Latvian populations.  

Many Russians were forcibly moved to Latvia during the Soviet occupation, and many stayed after the Soviet Union collapsed, leaving Latvia with the most ethnic Russians (as a percentage of its total population) of any post Soviet state sans Russia itself.  

Many Latvians are bitter about the fact that a large portion of this ethnically Russian population still identifies as Russian, speaks Russian at home, and sometimes refuses to learn Latvian.  

It’s been argued that accepting more non-Latvians into Latvia might set off the already existing demographic powder keg.

However, by challenging themselves to integrate refugees into Latvia, Latvians can reopen the possibility of Russian integration instead of brooding on the problem and hoping it goes away.

If professionals are needed to help teach refugees about Latvian culture and language, why can’t these same professionals reach out to Latvia’s Russian population?

The few hundred refugees that Latvia might admit won’t even make a dent in Latvia’s demographic problem, but the practice of integrating them might make Latvia a more hospitable place for both its already present Russian population and the working-aged Latvians who keep leaving to Western Europe.

3. Security

Latvia’s history with its Russian demographic also poses a potential security threat to Latvia.  

Though the possibility of a Russian incursion seems less likely now, at the height of the Crimea saga, some worried that Latvia’s ethnic and unintegrated Russian population might serve as a fifth column in the case of a Russian attack.

Therefore, coming to terms with its historical reservations and working through its demographic problems might actually alleviate one of Latvia’s chief security concerns.  

The refugees coming to Latvia pose a very similar security concern to many Latvians—that of a potential fifth column.  YouTube videos and Facebook posts about ISIS members hiding amongst the refugees float around Latvia as prevalently as anywhere else.  

While these social media messages are often based in bigotry and foster unproductive suspicions, Latvian security professionals do not have the luxury of dismissing potential intelligence sources as bigoted racists.  

Security leaders must prepare for the worst-case scenario, however unlikely.  Latvia’s two worst case scenarios are that some of the refugees it accepts will act radically and violently, and that Russia will attack.  

Latvia can ameliorate both of its security concerns by drawing closer to the EU and NATO, not pushing away from either, as it threatens to do by resisting refugees.  

More specifically, Latvia has asked for a larger amount of NATO troops to be stationed in Latvia as a deterrent to Russian invasion.  In return, Latvia can spend money on both protecting refugees from right-wing groups, and integrating non-Latvian populations into Latvia.

Thus, Latvia bolsters its own security—and by definition, NATO’s and Europe’s security—by combating the disenfranchisement and dejection that lead to radicalism and separatism.

To put it bluntly, Latvia’s security is almost entirely dependent on EU and NATO guarantees.  But this dependence should not be an excuse for the EU to pressure Latvia into accepting refugees.  

That sort of pressure can lead to trust and communication gaps that Russia will be more than happy to exploit.  Latvia, like other Baltic countries, is already unhappy about how Russian involvement in Syria has successfully drawn attention away from its crimes in Ukraine.  

In order to reassure Latvia that its security is still a priority, NATO should station its requested deterrents at Russia’s border, and Europe should aid in screening refugees for potential radicals.  

Latvia can reciprocate by taking on its share of the refugees in Europe, and integrating them to ensure the stability of Europe’s frontier.

4. Economic

Increasing Latvia’s military budget to meet NATO’s standards and spending money to integrate both refugees and Russians is going to cost a lot.  

Luckily, Latvia has been recovering nicely from its economic crisis in 2008.  Severe austerity measures did their job, taking on the Euro as a currency has helped, and potential new markets in the US may be forthcoming through TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership).  

However, average salaries in Latvia have not rebounded since they were slashed through the austerity measures, and Latvia still faces a future with an aging population that already severely lacks the care it needs.  

Latvia faces moral economic quandaries, with protesters asking how the Latvian government can promise refugees money when elderly Latvians barely have enough on which to subsist.

A cursory glance at various reports on the financial impact of immigrants and refugees in European countries will show that immigrants generally help, or at the very least, do not hurt their local economies.  

The idea that a refugee is a long-term leech on society is usually based in bigotry, not economics.  Of course, if Latvians wanted to help refugees without taking any in, they could contribute to the woefully underfunded UN Commission on Refugees.  

But if Latvia would spend the money to help resettle refugees, why not resettle them in Latvia, and reap the reward of having fresh, working-age, people contributing to Latvia’s economy?  

Back in 1988, when the article about opposing Russian workers was written, the Soviet Union was forcibly moving workers into Latvia to construct projects that would have been harmful to Latvia in the long run.  

The Soviet Union, like any empire, notoriously exploited the resources of its satellite states to fund its capital.  The refugees entering Latvia in 2015 wouldn’t be mining phosphates and sending them overseas, like the Soviets did.  

In 2015, Latvia enjoys the privileges of an open market, and its new immigrants would be subject to that open market’s restrictions, ultimately benefitting their new local economies.

5. Political

Latvia is constantly torn between two political poles.  On the one hand, it wants to be a cosmopolitan and democratic European country.  On the other hand, it wants to be a home and sanctuary for Latvians.  

The extremists on the “Latvia-centric” side of the spectrum might say that Brussels gives orders to Riga the same way Moscow used to do—with no regard for Latvia’s needs or concerns.  

The extremists on the “Euro-centric” side of the spectrum might say that Latvia rejects refugees out of bigotry against Middle Eastern people.  Neither accusation is correct or productive, and as always, the solution lies somewhere in between.

The fact remains that both extremes are well represented in Latvian government.  Latvia’s Foreign Minister, Edgars Rinkevics, published his five reasons for why Latvia should allow refugees.  

But since his article was published in Diena on August 3, 2015, it seems as if some Latvian MPs have only grown more hostile toward the idea of accepting refugees.

Even if domestic politics and budgetary constraints in Latvia’s parliament didn’t tie the Foreign Minister’s hands, it would almost seem unwise for the Foreign Minister to invite refugees into a country where the population seems to be hostile towards them.  

Some MPs, like Augusts Brigmanis, recognize that refugees are unlikely to be sent to an inhospitable place, and plays up Latvia’s hostility toward potential refugees.

Conclusions

Maybe I just haven’t met the “mean” Latvians, but I do not believe that there would be as much hostility toward refugees here as some MPs would like the refugees to think.  

Resettling refugees in Latvia will certainly be a challenge, but that challenge can yield an opportunity to improve Latvia.  

In order for Latvia—indeed, for Europe—to emerge from this refugee crisis stronger and not weaker, both European leadership and Latvian leadership need to meet halfway.  

It is important for European leadership to treat the legitimate historic, political, demographic, economic, and security concerns of member states with respect instead of superciliousness.  

In return, it is necessary for Latvians to rise to the occasion, mute their bigoted few, and show the refugees how good life can be in a Latvian state.

Naphtali Rivkin is a US Fulbright Student Researcher living in Riga.  All opinions expressed herein are his own.