February promises to be an exciting, if not tumultuous, month in Latvia. Starting the first day, Parliament will open a debate on whether to sign a border agreement with Russia, a deal that, while not obligatory to the functions of state, is long overdue. President Vaira Vike-Freiberga has even promised to take part. The European Union wants Latvia to finalize its borders, and Russia is willing to cross the 't's' and dot the 'i's' on the agreement, which was supposed to have been signed in May 2005.
The debate will pit pragmatists against populists, right-wingers against, well, everyone else. In a nutshell, the nationalists want a phrase ("explanatory note") inserted in the agreement referring to the 1920 treaty between Russia and Latvia. That document established a significantly different state border than the one today, as a small rump of land now known as Pytalovo was part of Latvia. The territory, which Latvians call Abrene, was taken from the Baltic state at the beginning of post-WWII occupation. The Kremlin claims that mentioning the 1920 treaty amounts to "irredentism," that Latvia wants to get Pytalovo back. Latvians counter by pointing out that their modern state dates back to those post-WWI years, and that any agreement demands "legal continuity."
So what to do? It goes without saying that the occupation was illegal and that its detrimental effects on the nation should be nullified, as much as that is possible. At the same time land is the holy of holies, and no one in their right mind can claim that Russia would sign a border treaty that could in any way be interpreted as an encroachment on its sovereign territory. Thus the status quo, or living without a formal border treaty.
If one weighs the two options, it is obvious that Latvia has more to gain from signing an agreement without a reference to the 1920 treaty than by insisting on the explanatory note, in which case it gets nothing. Without a border treaty Latvia's accession to the visa-free Schengen zone, something every Latvian wants, will be complicated. Also, relations with Russia are bound to improve, if only incrementally. The 21st century will be defined by trade relations, and those nation-states that embrace every opportunity will benefit the most. Latvia needs to better utilize its geographic advantage, and sealing the border agreement with Russia is a step in that direction.
"Legal continuity" sounds nice at conferences and debate halls, but in practice it is too abstract to be of much use. Nationalist Latvians would do wise to set aside their emotions and vote for the future, not the past.
