Latvia 25 years on from the Baltic Way

• 2014-12-23
• by Doug Wake

As Riga completes a year as a European Capital of Culture and Latvia prepares to take over the Presidency of the Council of the European Union, a recent three-month stay prompted some reflections on the remarkable developments this region has undergone over the past quarter-century, some of the key challenges still facing Latvia and its neighbors, and what this American observer sees as generally bright prospects for the future of the Baltic states.

My life has been quite closely linked to the three Baltic states since I visited each of them more than 25 years ago, shortly after I was assigned in 1988 to the American Consulate General in what was then Leningrad. While the United States Government didn't recognize the incorporation of the Baltics into the USSR, we were responsible for reporting on the Baltics as well as north-western Russia just as the Baltic Revolution was really getting underway. 

Suddenly I visited parts of what Moscow considered the Soviet Union, where people were telling me boldly and fearlessly that their countries had been illegally occupied and devastated by decades of criminal misrule – and that they were determined to change the situation, to again live in "normal" European countries.

I sat in amazement in a Tallinn conference center as Estonians launched their Popular Front in October 1988, just as similar developments were getting underway in Latvia and Lithuania. I joined tens of thousands of Latvians as they marched from central Riga to Mezaparks on a rainy Saturday in March 1989 to mark the 40th anniversary of mass deportations. I saw how Latvians calmly voted the next day to elect Popular Front candidates to Gorbachev's first and only Soviet "Congress of People's Deputies." And I saw how perhaps two million formed a human chain from Tallinn to Vilnius to mark the 50th anniversary of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in August of that year. 

These were historic moments I was privileged to witness, to see the determination of people in a very abnormal situation who merely wanted to live a dignified, normal European life. I still marvel that things like this year’s impressive Independence Day ceremonies that I observed here in Riga are almost routine –  without the drama or danger of those revolutionary days a quarter century ago – at the same time they are still very moving and meaningful.

During my longest stay in the Baltic region, as an American diplomat assigned to Riga in the mid-1990s, one U.S. Ambassador summarized a vision for Latvia which its friends were seeking to support.  First, Latvia would be increasingly well integrated into Euro-Atlantic structures, engaged in strong security cooperation with the United States as well as European partners. Second, it would be a well-functioning market economy with a good climate for trade and investment, including U.S. trade and investment. And third, it would be a robust democracy with institutions to guarantee the rule of law and human rights, including the rights of minorities.  How does it look, almost twenty years after Larry Napper told his American Embassy staff that our job was to help Latvians turn that vision into a reality?

Based on my observation over the past three months, Latvia has made remarkable progress in all these areas. To start with foreign and security policy, the Latvia that I first visited in 1988 was an occupied country with foreign troops on its soil and an internal security system subordinated to Moscow. Already in 1990, I observed how Baltic leaders were making determined efforts to wrest control of security, justice and law enforcement structures from Moscow or to establish alternative institutions.  By the mid-1990s, independent Latvia had made modest steps to build up credible defence and internal security structures capable of meeting multiple challenges: organized crime, new threats from the East, and demands from its would-be NATO Allies to be a "net contributor" to global security.

When President Bill Clinton spoke at the Freedom Monument here in July 1994, he made clear that the United States would assist Latvia in developing its military capacity through the Baltic Peacekeeping Battalion. The U.S. would also demolish an unfinished Soviet radar in Skrunda and support the final stages of Russian troop withdrawal through housing construction in Russia for demobilized military officers returning from the Baltics. And the U.S. would also provide its first non-lethal military equipment to Latvia – some excess boots and uniforms.

Active duty ex-Soviet forces departed Latvia on schedule at the end of August 1994, but we soon learned of demobilized troops whose departure was delayed – ostensibly, in some cases, because their American-financed housing was not ready in Russia. We worked through this problem along with many others, like the fact that those excess boots and uniforms destined for Latvia had mistakenly been sold at an auction in Germany. (Oops – the U.S. Army found new boots and uniforms and sent them to Latvia to fulfill the President's promise.)

I was also involved in overseeing the U.S. project to demolish the unfinished new radar in Skrunda on 4 May 1995. That dramatic "implosion" was very memorable: Latvia's leadership and the diplomatic corps assembled on a field in Kurzeme, a nationally televised broadcast, and an early morning champagne toast before the dust settled from the controlled demolition of a 19-story building that symbolized the painful Soviet era.

Fast forward to 2014:  Latvia is a full member of NATO, with American-led NATO exercises and a regular presence of U.S. troops, not to mention tanks and armored fighting vehicles on display during these exercises and at last week's Independence Day parade. Latvian forces have deployed to multiple peacekeeping operations. Latvia is committed to spending two percent of its Gross Domestic Product on defense, with forces increasingly well-trained, well-equipped and professional. The country joined the European Union a decade ago and can now be satisfied with the successful conclusion of a year in which Riga has been a European Capital of Culture, and is preparing to take on the Presidency of the EU Council and an elected seat on the UN Human Rights Council.

So things look pretty good, right? An amazing transformation of Latvia's defence posture and foreign relations? Absolutely. But not so fast.  Friends should be polite and diplomatic, but also owe it to each other to tell a difficult truth or two.

Even though Latvia worked hard to bolster defences, join NATO and obtain the Article 5 security guarantee that comes with Alliance membership, we’re still a bit uneasy right about the overall security environment, aren’t we? We're actually downright nervous about Russia and a Russian leader that has shown a willingness to cross internationally recognized boundaries and use brute force to re-draw maps, right? So if I were to pinpoint the main security problem facing Latvia, it's the same one facing Ukraine and this entire continent so starkly right now. It's a matter of great disappointment to me that this is the case – I still recall the warm and collaborative relationships developing at the end of the 1980s between Baltic independence fighters and Russian democracy advocates.  But the reality is that more than two decades of Baltic-Russian relations had not produced very satisfactory results even before 2014 - in many ways despite the efforts of Latvia and its Baltic partners.  I nevertheless encourage my Latvian friends to re-double efforts to reach out to those in Russia (or from Russia) who can look forward to a better day and to better ties among neighbors.

In the meantime, I recall the commitment to spend two percent of GDP on defence.  Will it be met?  Is it enough? Some have doubts. It seems to me that a country facing such serious security challenges might be even more energetic about shifting some resources toward the security and defence sector, or at least showing a bit more resolve to turning the two percent commitment into reality.

I would point to one other issue where Latvia has a great opportunity to shine:  leadership on global human rights and universal democratic values. What do I have in mind? Well, I've seen quite a few excellent Latvian foreign policy pronouncements about the need for democracy to triumph in Russia and Afghanistan and for human rights to be respected in Iraq and Syria and Crimea - places that matter, of course. But I've seen few if any similar statements about democracy in Uzbekistan or Turkmenistan, for example, and not even so many about Belarus. Of course I understand realpolitik and economic interests and neighborly relations –  all are important. But I trust that, as the EU Presidency and membership on the UN Human Rights Council push Latvia to make its views more widely known on such issues, the right messages will come through clearly.

Let's turn now to the economic front, where things were grim when I first visited Riga in 1988. Of course things could have been worse; they were, in Leningrad, where cheese and meat had all but disappeared from the stores (let's not even talk about fresh vegetables and fish). Soviet-occupied Latvia may have looked like the land of plenty when viewed from Pskov or Novgorod, but the supply of goods and the quality of service was so poor by Western standards that it hardly seems like the same world we now inhabit. When we returned in 1994, things were beginning to look up – if one didn't look too closely.  A banking sector had developed, there were shiny new offices for some larger enterprises, but somehow it didn't all look quite real.  And it wasn't: by mid-1995 the economy was in trouble as the largest bank collapsed in a pile of criminal deals gone bad.

Again, what a difference twenty years makes. We've returned to a Latvia with a decade of benefiting from EU membership, a country in both the Schengen and Euro zones. Both foreign and domestic investments seem healthy, with notable improvements in infrastructure and bright signs of enthusiastic entrepreneurship. I've particularly noted the renovation of so many classic buildings in Riga, the availability of all imaginable consumer goods, improvements in roads and other infrastructure outside Riga, and development of a world-class tourist trade with excellent hotels, restaurants, museums, etc.

It's worth noting that all this progress reflects not only a successful climb from the depths of Soviet stagnation and the crime-laced early 1990s, but also steadfastness in face of a real world economic crisis that hit Latvia hard.  I'm impressed how real tough austerity measures in the wake of the world economic downturn have been accepted with surprising calm and dignity.

Even against a positive background, I do see areas for improvement. Corruption, real and perceived, still seems to make Latvia look a bit less attractive than some other countries. I don't mean to under-value the progress made over the past 20 years, from the dark days of Banka Baltija and its ilk. Nevertheless, even if this relates more to perception than reality, more needs to be done than the admirable step of posting the anti-corruption posters which I see on the Riga trolley buses.

I was also struck during a recent forum by the comments of former President Vaira Vike-Freiburga  While justifiably taking credit for leadership during the run-up to EU accession, she frankly acknowledged that Latvia needs to "look at the figures" to see where further progress is needed.  (She mentioned the high incidence of cardio-vascular disease as an example.) While I have not "looked at the figures" systematically, some would worry me if I were responsible for Latvia's future. They relate to issues like inequality and poverty, life expectancy, the number of young people seeking work abroad, and the size of the prison population. I don't have answers to "solving" the underlying problems that these figures highlight, but I cite them as areas where forward-looking Latvian leaders will want to focus attention.

Returning to the positive gains of the past quarter century, let's turn to issues like democracy and elections, rule of law and human rights. None of these existed in a proper way when I first visited in 1988.  The Soviet-imposed system of one-party rule and cosmetic non-competitive elections had only begun to show its first cracks when the Estonian "parliament" adopted its Declaration of Sovereignty (not independence) and a few Baltic deputies in the old-style USSR Supreme Soviet declined to support measures proposed by the Kremlin in November 1988.

What have we seen since 1988? As mentioned already, in March 1989 we saw a dramatic demonstration that democratic elections could make a difference. Just as democratic forces in Moscow and Leningrad took advantage of President Gorbachev's opening to multi-candidate (not yet multi-party) elections to the USSR Congress of People's Deputies, we heard from activists in Latvia and its Baltic neighbors that they had coalesced around Popular Front candidates contesting most of these seats. Only after we observed the voting on 26 March 1989 did we really believe that these election results would be respected and independent candidates would sweep to victory. This was the beginning of something big: an unbroken string of essentially democratic elections across the Baltics that would span from the dying days of the Soviet period right up until those that took place here last month.

Second, the Latvian judicial and law enforcement systems met basic EU standards and seem to be making gradual progress toward modern European practices.

And third, despite all the doomsday predictions, we have seen remarkable stability across ethnic and economic divides in Latvia along with work on naturalization and reducing statelessness. I’ve been particularly gratified to observe that many children of non-Latvian and/or non-citizen parents appear comfortable speaking Latvian and participating, as fully engaged citizens, in Latvian public and private institutions.

So Latvia's progress along with that of its Baltic neighbors is nothing short of amazing in comparison to most post-Communist states. Competitive elections, civilized debate, diverse media, respect for fundamental freedoms, an absence of open ethnic conflict are all considerable achievements. And all this in a country where two highly popular politicians are an openly gay Foreign Minister and the ethnic Russian mayor of the capital city. Who could have imagined?

Balancing the good with the more problematic, while few if any basic international norms are being violated, this outside observer is disappointed that Latvia does not have what I would describe as a more fully developed "democratic culture." Multiple conversations convey the sense that too few voters and politicians place high demands on the political system. Too many seem willing to accept the idea that an imperfect, rather "oligarchical" democracy is "good enough" and that violations (like alleged vote-buying or insider moves that ignore popular will) are just things that happen. Somewhat related to "democratic culture" are apathy among those with voting rights, with very low turnout in recent elections, and a sense that independent civil society organizations remain weak.

Finally, I have heard from many that there has still been too little progress on "social integration" and that there is still too big a divide between ethnic Latvians and others. Almost every conversation on this topic includes a reminder of the good news: tens of thousands have been naturalized, children of non-citizens now obtain Latvian citizenship at birth, and many with non-Latvian ethnic backgrounds are now Latvian-speaking participants in society, working and learning and playing alongside their Latvian compatriots. I've seen young Russians enjoying Latvian cultural events and heard Latvian speakers among the devotees of Riga's excellent Russian theater. Nevertheless, I still hear that there is considerable work to be done before all communities share ownership of a Latvian state defined in other than ethnic terms. In my own subjective view, too many Latvians still find it difficult to accept that non-Latvians can be absolutely loyal to the Latvian state, with equal rights to participate in the highest levels of its political life. Simultaneously, too many non-Latvians fail to recognize the value of learning the state language or accepting unequivocally that independent Latvia is the state to which they owe their unfettered allegiance.

And of course almost every conversation on this topic has also turned to the question of whether a continuing divide – particularly in terms of the "information spaces" in which different communities live -  makes Latvia vulnerable in light of Russia's aggression against Ukraine. Most agree that it does, though I hear varying answers to the question of what can be done to bridge the divide.  Efforts to extend public broadcasting to Russian-speaking audiences are obvious steps already underway, and I know more are under discussion.  Some make sense to me while others - like trying to cut off broadcasts from the East - seem largely futile and counterproductive.

What do I conclude as I weigh up the pluses and minuses, assessing whether the situation in Latvia is "normal" against whether there is "still a lot of work to do"?  In my view, both sides win.  If we look at the problems facing any modern democracy, including my own, Latvia is well within the "normal" range. Nevertheless, if we consider the outstanding challenges Latvia faces, many are somewhat extra-ordinary precisely because they relate to the legacy of the Soviet era. So history still matters, just as neighbors still matter. And domestic matters matter most. Just as the development of a grassroots movement inside Latvia was critical to re-gaining de facto independence in 1991 and just as internal reforms and hard work qualified Latvia for joining NATO and the EU in 2004, the key to overcoming external threats and increasing prosperity in the coming years will depend largely on the determination and steadfastness of Latvia's own population. Friends like the United States can and will help, but the future of Latvia and its neighbors is largely in the hands of Latvians, Estonians and Lithuanians. I am quite confident that the right choices will be made and that the future, while not without troubles, will ultimately be quite bright.

Douglas B. Wake is a former U.S. diplomat and international civil servant who served at the American Embassy in Riga from 1994 to 1997 and was a Visiting Fellow at the Latvian Institute of International Affairs (the LIIA) from September through November 2014.  This text is based on a presentation organized by the LIIA on Nov. 24, 2014; the views expressed by Mr. Wake are solely his own and do not necessarily represent the positions of the U.S. Government, the LIIA, or any other entity.