The other night I was discussing with a few Baltic friends the intriguing controversy surrounding Vaira Vike Freiberga's decision to go to Moscow May 9 for the World War II commemoration. We came to no meeting of the minds, but for the sake of continued argument agreed to each put together a list of the pros and cons of a Baltic presence at the Moscow festivities.
I sat down that same night and started pecking away, first the pros and then the cons. My pros were as follows:
If there is one thing that Russian officialdom, not to mention the hinterlands, still cannot abide, it is the truth 's both historical and today's. Vike-Freiberga, with her written and spoken outbursts giving the Latvian side of the story, has struck a nerve in the Kremlin's propaganda machine. It's even gone so far that there is talk of the Russians uninviting Freiberga.
A determined Baltic presence in Moscow would more than derail the Russian government's plans to present only their side of the issues.
What are we afraid of? It's ludicrous to posit that a Baltic presence in Moscow can be seen (other than by the Russians) as somehow anointing Moscow's reasons for holding this gathering.
Baltic solidarity is one thing, but timely leadership is another. Freiberga is clearly in front of the curve on this issue, Messrs. Ruutel and Adamkus are behind it 's at the moment.
The Western press feasts on controversy. The festivities in Moscow will receive far less press if everything goes according to Russian plans. The Baltic-Russian dispute is sure to gain wide coverage for the Baltic point of view. Again, with no Baltic presence, the Russians have the field alone.
I think its safe to say that the U.S. supports a Baltic presence at the Moscow show. The president of Poland was recently quoted as saying that a condemnation of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact should be on the agenda at Moscow. It's also safe to foresee other nations expressing like views as the time draws nearer to May 9.
The Russian propaganda machine is mighty, but it rests not on measures of quality, but quantity. As in olden days, sloganeering and endless repetition of the same point are its hallmarks. The Baltic counterpoint, like the thrust of a rapier, should be precise and thoughtful.
The Baltic naysayers remind me of the time in the mid-1970s when then U.S. President Gerald Ford was readying for his trip to Europe to sign the Helsinki Final Act. American Balts (myself included) were unanimous in calling out "Gerry, don't go!" But go he did, and it's well that he did so. That document and the events surrounding it turned out to be the springboard for the loosening of the totalitarian Soviet system and its ultimate fall.
More recently, when the U.S.S.R. was starting to crumble, there were many who urged the U.S.A. to more quickly extend official recognition for re-established Baltic independence. But the United States stayed its hand and the Baltic revolution took place with a minimal loss of life. Had the U.S.A. acted prematurely, greater bloodshed would surely have occurred.
Then, the cons:
Zero, zilch. I have none! If the pros hold the water, as I think they do, then the cons simply disappear.
The pros clearly dominate. The Balts stay home at their peril. They can leave the playing field to the Russians, or they can make a contest of it. And yes, three heads are better than one.
Janis Bolsteins
Maryland
It is with great relief that an individual of Richard Holbrooke's standing as a former U.S diplomat is able to be as astute and discerning as one would hope for regarding the upcoming May 9 celebrations in Moscow and the extreme dilemma that faces the Baltic leaders. Hopefully, the rest of the world is becoming interested in and is informing itself about the conundrum the Baltic states are entwined in while they make their individual determinations as to whether each leader chooses to attend. It is not an easy decision, but an extremely important one. One cannot quarrel with the fact that the Soviets conquered Adolf Hitler's Germany along with the help of the Allies, who played a decisive role, but the greater issue has become the fact that on that same date, May 9, 1945, hundreds of millions of people became enslaved for over 50 years by the Soviets. And some countries today are still trying to wiggle out of Russian oppression 's i.e., Chechnya.
One truly must admire the courage of President Vaira Vike-Freiberga in choosing to attend this event 's not a celebration for her, but rather an opportunity to let the world know the real history that accompanies that infamous date, May 9. As long as Latvia continues to make its presence known in world forums, no matter the occasion, there will be no more Yaltas or Potsdams! One can be reasonably assured that Vike-Freiberga will not be standing on any podium with other world leaders as Russian tanks and other arms roll past in a victory parade. To do so would be to destroy her whole reason for going. Her role will be to make sure that the other leaders of European and other countries fully recognize the full significance of that date.
Edite Lynch
Canada
