Fast-track deportation for Russian 'colonist'

RIGA - As campaigning for upcoming local elections in Latvia heats up, a row has erupted between Riga councilors over a statue of Russian Czar Peter the Great, which was raised from the bottom of the Baltic Sea half a century ago and is now undergoing restoration.

Riga City Council voted on Feb. 13 to give the statue to the Russian city of St. Petersburg, angering ethnic Russian councilors and also the real estate company that has paid for the restoration.

In 1910, when Latvia was a Russian province, the bronze statue of the Russian leader mounted on horseback was unveiled close to the spot now occupied by Latvia's Freedom Monument. But in 1915, the authorities decided the metal should contribute to Russia's war effort and dispatched it to St. Petersburg to be melted down. The ship carrying the statue was hit by a torpedo and sank off the Estonian coast. Two decades later a team of Estonian volunteer divers retrieved the statue after cutting it into pieces on the sea bed.

It was then returned to Riga, but plans to place it in a new statue park were aborted by the onset of war. The statue was moved from one warehouse to another during the Soviet period, before restoration work began in 1989.

Yevgeny Gomberg, president of the real estate company Teikas Nami, which has been footing the bill for the work under a verbal agreement with the Council, said he was angered by the decision to give the statue to St. Petersburg now, in preparation for the 300th anniversary of its founding in 2003.

"We've only done two-thirds of the work," he said. "They can't give a pile of scrap to St. Petersburg. It was meant for Riga, to mark its 800th anniversary this year, not for St. Petersburg. It was the citizens of Riga who raised the funds for it to be put here in 1910, and they brought it back here in 1934."

Gomberg says the statue is not a symbol of Russian colonial power. It should be placed in Riga's Viestura Gardens, formerly Peter's Park, he says.

"This is an extraordinary artistic masterpiece. We want it to be placed at surface level in the park so it will be very close to people, very human, not a demonstration of Russian power. Peter did so much for Riga. He planted trees, laid out parks, and paid for the reconstruction of St. Peter's church."

The decision to get rid of the statue is an electoral ploy, designed to win nationalist votes, added Gomberg.

Alexander Gilman, a councilor in the For Human Rights in a United Latvia party, which gains much of its support from Russian-speaking voters, criticized Riga Mayor Andris Argalis who two weeks ago called for public discussion about where the monument should be placed.

"Why did they decide this so quickly?" asked Gilman. "Our ancestors decided to build this statue. In a democratic society these things should be discussed."

The Council has not asked the St. Petersburg authorities if they want the statue, said Gilman.

Argalis said in a statement that the decision showed the Council's support for the "positive changes observed in relations between Russia and Latvia." He had received many letters from local residents encouraging him to make the decision, he said.

But Russia's embassy in Latvia issued a statement questioning the Council's plans, reported the Baltic News Service.

"It may not be easy for the residents of St. Petersburg to accept such a "donation" if they are not convinced it is being given with the free will of Riga's citizens," read the statement.

Arnis Radins, director of the Latvian History Museum, rejected the idea that Latvia should honor Peter the Great - referred to by Russians and Latvians simply as Peter I - with a statue.

"Riga doesn't need this statue; it's a symbol of Russian colonialism," he said.

"Peter I cut Latvia off from Western Europe and used it as a transit route to Germany. He may have increased Russia's presence in Europe, but this was a colonial system. Latvia was united as a province, but it underwent great Russification. Latvian farmers remained serfs until 1861.

"I'd be happy to see the statue go to St. Petersburg. If we had kept all our statues, it would be okay, but as it is it would become a meeting place for people with special interests; another political symbol. From an artistic point of view there is nothing extraordinary about it."