Latvia, 1993

Mr. President, please

accept Latvia’s congratulations on your election to the

presidency of the General Assembly at its forty-eighth

session. The people of Latvia wish you a successful term as

leader of this body.

Latvia wishes to pay its respects to those nation States

which have recently been admitted to the United Nations and

looks forward to cooperation with them.

It has been an eventful year for Latvia. On

18 November 1993, Latvia will celebrate the seventy-fifth

anniversary of the declaration of independence of Latvia in

1918. Our seventy-fifth year of statehood has been marked

by the election and the convening of our Parliament, the

Saeima. The convening of the Saeima was an especially

solemn occasion in that it meant the full restoration of

parliamentary democracy and the Constitution of 1922.

Moreover, the convening of the Saeima completed a

three-year restoration process that included the

re-establishment of our de facto independence in August

1991 and our admission to the United Nations. The

re-establishment of Latvia’s independence and the restoration

of its Constitution, following a half century of suspension,

is testimony to the power of democracy, the endurance of

the human will and the supremacy of international law.

To understand the processes currently under way in

Latvia and in our region, it is helpful to note some aspects

of recent history. According to a secret protocol to the

Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939, signed by Nazi Germany

and the Soviet Union, Latvia was relegated to the Soviet

Union’s sphere of influence, an act which cleared the way

for the Soviet Union’s illegal occupation of Latvia in 1940.

Even though the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and its secret

protocols were, under international law, void at their signing,

Latvia was forcibly annexed by the Soviet Union shortly

after the occupation.

Although Latvia lost its sovereignty and independence

de facto, its status as a State continued de jure. Latvia’s de

jure status continued to be recognized by many States, and

this position was echoed in their declarations throughout the

fifty-year period of Latvia’s occupation. The continuing

identity of the State of Latvia was preserved by the

application of the principle that illegal acts cannot validly

change an existing legal situation - ex injuria non oritus jus.

Consequently, when it re-established its independence in

l991 Latvia was quickly able to renew diplomatic relations

with those States with which it had had such relations prior

to its occupation in 1940. In addition, Latvia continues to

adhere to certain bilateral and multilateral agreements to

which it became party between 1918 and 1940.

I have stressed the matter of Latvia’s continuous identity

between 1918 and 1991 in order to emphasize that Latvia is

not a newly independent State. This fact is important

because the de jure continuity of Latvian statehood has legal,

political and economic consequences for Latvia, in particular

with respect to our relations with the Russian Federation.

The key to stable and friendly relations between our two

States, in both the political and economic spheres, is

recognition by both parties that Latvia was illegally and

forcibly occupied and annexed in 1940 by the Soviet Union.

I should like to express Latvia’s support for the various

efforts by the Secretary-General and the Member States to

promote the maintenance of international peace and security,

in particular, efforts that were initiated by the report of the

Secretary-General entitled "An Agenda for Peace".

Recognizing the pragmatic and forward-looking approach of

the proposals contained in the Secretary-General’s report,

preventive diplomacy in particular, we must also consider

proposals that will similarly address other responsibilities of

the United Nations, including the enhancement of respect for

human rights and fundamental freedoms and the promotion

of sustainable development. Latvia’s experience with regard

to the utilization of preventive diplomacy may be useful in

developing such proposals.

I should like to emphasize that Latvia has utilized

preventive diplomacy to the maximum extent possible.

Latvia has initiated or welcomed United Nations and

regionally sponsored efforts in fact-finding and confidencebuilding in connection with the issues facing Latvia and our

region. Among these efforts is our recent agreement with

the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe to

establish a presence in Riga, our capital. These efforts have

resulted in an increased understanding of the situation in

Latvia, providing the United Nations, Member States and

regional organizations with the knowledge and perspective

to respond adequately to our problems. The

Secretary-General, Member States and regional organizations

have been involved, in cooperation with Latvia, in applying

these measures to the most important and urgent matter now

confronted by Latvia - namely, the continued illegal presence

of the military forces of the former Soviet Union on Latvian

territory.

Forty-eighth session - 29 September l993 7

For over two years, Latvia has sought the removal of

the former Soviet Union’s military forces from its territory,

through bilateral negotiations with the Russian Federation

and with the assistance of the international community. Yet

these forces, now under the control of our large neighbour,

the Russian Federation, are still stationed on our territory.

Last year the General Assembly addressed this issue

under the agenda item entitled "Complete withdrawal of

foreign military forces from the territories of the Baltic

States". In adopting resolution 47/21 by consensus, the

General Assembly called upon the Baltic States and the

Russian Federation

"to conclude without delay appropriate agreements,

including timetables, for the early, orderly and complete

withdrawal of foreign military forces from the

territories of Estonia and Latvia". (resolution 47/21,

para. 2)

The Russian Federation, in joining in the consensus for the

adoption of resolution 47/21, affirmed its obligation to

withdraw its military forces from the Baltic States, which it

had earlier assumed as a participating State of the

Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe at the

Helsinki meeting in July 1992.

A fact-finding mission headed by Tommy Koh,

Ambassador-at-Large of Singapore, recently returned from

Latvia and the Baltic States to report to the

Secretary-General on the implementation of resolution 47/21.

We thank the Secretary-General for his efforts at ensuring

the implementation of this resolution. We also wish to thank

Mr. Stoyan Ganev, President of the General Assembly at its

forty-seventh session, for accepting our invitation to visit

Latvia in July 1993 and witnessing the situation in Latvia at

first hand. I hope that, in addition to reviewing the situation

regarding foreign military forces, Mr. Ganev gained insight

into Latvia’s process of renewal.

Before I report to the Assembly on the present situation

regarding the issue of the foreign military forces on the

territory of Latvia, I should like to express Latvia’s support

for the ongoing democratic processes in the Russian

Federation, at whose head is the lawfully elected President

of the Russian Federation, Boris Yeltsin. I hope that the

political and economic reform process in the Russian

Federation will continue and that political forces there will

solve their problems using peaceful and democratic means.

At critical moments in the past, democratic forces in the

Russian Federation have demonstrated their ability to act

decisively to keep the Russian Federation on the road to

democracy. I am convinced that this will also be the case in

these, for Russia, difficult and complicated times.

Since February 1992, State delegations of Latvia and

the Russian Federation have held eight sessions of

negotiations on the subject of troop withdrawal from Latvia.

These negotiations resulted in various agreements, which

govern technical matters during withdrawal. Unfortunately,

we have failed to secure agreement on the important

question of a withdrawal timetable. Latvia has consistently

demanded that withdrawal be completed by the end of 1993,

two and a half years after Latvia regained its independence.

The delegation of the Russian Federation has offered final

withdrawal dates ranging from 1994 until 1999, without ever

submitting a concrete timetable or systematic plan for

withdrawal. The problem of the final withdrawal date is

compounded by the demands of the Russian Federation to

maintain three bases in Latvia: the radar station in Skrunda,

the cosmic intelligence centre in Ventspils and the naval

base in Liepaja. We have repeatedly stated, and the

international community, including the Russian Federation,

has concurred, that withdrawal should be early and complete;

furthermore, we cannot permit our soil to be used for

purposes that may be directed against third countries.

A second principal issue on which the Russian

Federation has held up its withdrawal from Latvia is its

demand for extraordinary social benefits for pensioned

officers of the former Soviet Union and the Russian

Federation who are residing in Latvia. For years, the officer

corps of the occupying army was granted favourable access

to apartments, medical care and other social services.

Demands for continuation of such privileges are not only

unacceptable to Latvia, but unjust to all its residents; we

shall not permit these demands to delay the withdrawal

process.

At the beginning of the negotiations between our two

States, in February 1992, agreement was reached on certain

matters. Among these was the requirement that both parties

refrain from uncoordinated, unilateral actions during the

period of withdrawal. The time since then has been marked

by such incidents as the military forces of the Russian

Federation conducting unauthorized troop movements on the

ground, unauthorized naval movements through Latvia’s

ports and unauthorized air sorties in Latvian skies. Contrary

to agreement, fresh recruits have secretly entered Latvia to

replace departing troops.

In the light of the continued presence of these forces,

foreign investment in Latvia, which is necessary for the

development of our small country, has been discouraged. In

8 General Assembly - Forty-eighth session

addition, the military forces of the Russian Federation have

done substantial damage to Latvia’s environment.

Latvia seeks an assurance that its sovereignty,

independence and territorial integrity will be respected and

that a threat to international peace and security will not arise

from its territory. I hope that the negotiations with the

Russian Federation, which began yesterday, on 28 September

1993, will be pragmatic in nature and will soon lead to an

agreement providing for the complete withdrawal of foreign

military forces from the territory of Latvia. Such an

agreement would have the potential to open a new chapter

in the relationship between our two States, a chapter

containing neither suspicion nor animosity. We could then

even foresee a time when our societies and children would

be free of the prejudices of the past.

Latvia welcomes the complete withdrawal of the

military forces of the Russian Federation from Lithuania,

which is a step toward improving the security of the Baltic

region.

As I have stated, it is important to recognize that Latvia

was illegally occupied and annexed, and that a principal

consequence of these events is the significantly altered

demographic situation there. This situation must be taken

into account if one is to understand the internal situation in

Latvia. In 1940, 75 per cent of Latvia’s inhabitants were

ethnic Latvians but today they constitute only 52 per cent of

Latvia’s population. During the Soviet occupation, hundreds

of thousands of persons were deported to Siberia, and many

thousands were arrested and executed. During the Second

World War tens of thousands died, were sent to Nazi

Germany for forced labour, or were forced to emigrate to the

West in order to escape the Red Terror. In sum, during the

occupation, the pre-war population of Latvia was reduced by

one third. Among the victims who suffered this fate were

the Livs, one of the indigenous peoples of Latvia, who at

present number only a few dozen.

During the post-war years, the deportation and massive

involuntary emigration of Latvians from their native land

was paralleled by a heavy influx of residents of the Soviet

Union. In 1945, newly arrived Soviet military personnel

were immediately allocated approximately 25 per cent of all

the apartments in Riga, the capital of Latvia. Many of these

apartments had earlier been vacated by Latvian families

which had been deported to Siberia or which had been

forced to flee to the West. In addition to the introduction

into Latvia of active and retired military personnel, the

Soviet regime, using offers of various privileges, enticed

civilian labourers and managers from the Soviet Union to

migrate to Latvia.

The pace of population transfer increased dramatically

after 1959, when Soviet leaders initiated a policy of

colonization for Latvia by undertaking a heavy

industrialization drive there. During the next 30 years the

total population of Latvia increased by 27 per cent. While

the indigenous population grew at a rate of 7.6 per cent,

population growth in the migrant community was 58.5 per

cent, with the result that mechanical growth exceeded natural

growth by close to a factor of eight. I should like to stress

that no other country has lost, as a result of occupation and

colonialism, such a large part of its indigenous population

during modern times. In no other modern-day country has

the indigenous population nearly become a minority in its

own country, as has happened in Latvia.

We believe that the restoration of our independence has

given us the opportunity to improve our demographic

situation. If we can reach a point where Latvians feel secure

about their future, we will then have the freedom to invest

more of our resources in finding solutions to global

problems.

The change in the demographic situation of Latvia

during the Soviet occupation cannot be conveyed by

numbers alone. Latvians were subjected to discrimination,

in particular with respect to the use of the Latvian language

and professional development. Command of the Russian

language became necessary in both the educational system

and many workplaces, while use of the Latvian language

was eliminated in many spheres. Further, the policy of the

Soviet authorities was to prevent access by Latvians to

professions in various governmental and strategic fields.

With a view to ensuring the survival of the Latvian

people, it has become necessary for Latvia to develop a law

on citizenship which will safeguard the national identity of

its indigenous population. Concurrently, Latvia will uphold

its obligations under international human rights law.

Latvia has already determined its present body of

citizens through a process of resident registration. In 1991,

along with the restoration of its sovereignty and

independence, Latvia restored citizenship to those persons

from whom it had been taken in 1940; this was done

regardless of their national, religious or ethnic backgrounds,

and citizenship was granted to their descendants as well.

Pursuant to Latvia’s Constitution, it is this body of persons

which participated in the June 1993 parliamentary elections.

Latvia’s present body of citizens includes approximately

Forty-eighth session - 29 September l993 9

400,000 non-ethnic Latvians, or approximately 25 per cent

of the electorate - a figure that reflects the non-ethnic

Latvian composition of the electorate prior to the occupation

in 1940.

Latvia’s democratically elected Parliament, the Saeima,

will in the near future adopt a citizenship law which will set

the requirements, in accordance with international law, for

obtaining Latvian citizenship for residents of Latvia who

arrived after 1940. Persons transferred into Latvia during the

Soviet occupation exercise freely all rights granted by

international human rights instruments. According to experts

of the Council of Europe, the protection afforded by Latvia’s

legislation is comparable to that provided by the

constitutional instruments of most States members of the

Council of Europe and guaranteed collectively by the

Council of Europe, in particular through the European

Convention on Human Rights.

Historical minorities of Latvia such as Russians,

Belarussians, Poles, Jews and others have their own schools

and active national cultural societies, which help to maintain

each group’s national identity.

A peaceful, legal and pragmatic restoration process has

begun in Latvia. Numerous appraisals by the international

community have affirmed that this process is in fact peaceful

and is being conducted within the confines of international

law.

Latvia has no reason to hide its internal situation and

has thus welcomed numerous examinations of its human

rights record. On behalf of Latvia, I should like to thank the

Secretary-General and the States Members of the United

Nations for the fact-finding mission, headed by the present

Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights, Mr. Ibrahima

Fall, which visited Latvia in October 1992. I should like to

quote from the Mission’s conclusions:

"Latvia is going through a transitional period

following the reestablishment of independence. During

this period the Latvian Government is endeavouring to

redress certain historical inequities and injustices

perpetrated during Soviet rule from 1940 to 1991.

"This has given rise to anxiety among the

non-ethnic Latvians about their future status and role in

the country. It is this sense of insecurity rather than

any gross violation of human rights that is most

characteristic of the situation prevailing in Latvia today.

"The information received and examined by the

Mission does not reveal gross and systematic violations

of human rights in Latvia. Individual violations which

have been reported are limited and not related to

discriminatory policy as such and they should and can

be remedied at the appropriate level. On the positive

side, it should be emphasized that no instances of

violence, no mass dismissals from employment,

exclusion from educational establishments, evictions

from apartments, or expulsions were reported."

(A/47/748, paras. 21-23)

The report of the United Nations human rights

fact-finding mission to Latvia is similar to reports submitted

by the Council of Europe, the Conference on Security and

Co-operation in Europe and the European Court of Human

Rights. Despite these numerous affirmations that human

rights are not being violated in Latvia, it has become the

object of political attacks - the Russian Federation constantly

accuses Latvia of human rights violations. Latvia has

expended great efforts and resources to refute these

unsubstantiated allegations. In addition, resources of

international organizations, including the United Nations,

have been expended.

I shall now address the grave financial crisis that faces

the United Nations and has forced the Secretary-General to

take drastic measures to economize. Latvia believes that a

solution to the crisis that is acceptable to all Member States

and based on the principles enshrined in the Charter of the

United Nations must be found.

Latvia wishes to bring to the attention of the General

Assembly an ad hoc decision which was made for reasons

of financial and political expediency, but which will in fact

contribute to the financial crisis. I am referring to the

decision taken by the General Assembly in December 1992

to determine, inter alia, the assessment rates of 15 Member

States, including Latvia, according to an ad hoc method

rather than the standard method for determining capacity to

pay.

The December 1992 decision is not in accordance with

the Charter principle of sovereign equality because the two

different methods for determining assessments result in

unequal financial obligations for different Member States.

Notwithstanding the fact that Latvia and the other two Baltic

States are not successors to the former Soviet Union, they

have been made to assume excessive financial obligations of

the former Soviet Union and even to accept a portion of its

contribution to the Working Capital Fund.

10 General Assembly - Forty-eighth session

Latvia is now entering its third year as a State Member

of the United Nations. We expect to increase our

involvement in the work of the United Nations and other

international organizations, participating in the search for

solutions to global problems. At the World Conference on

Human Rights in Vienna, we addressed two problem areas

where we should be able to make contributions: the rights

of minorities and the rights of foreigners.

Latvia reiterates the offer it made at the Earth Summit

in Rio de Janeiro to host an international conference in its

resort city of Jurmala to examine possibilities for redirecting

resources from armaments towards rehabilitating the

environment.

Latvia supports the establishment of the post of United

Nations high commissioner for human rights. We also urge

an increase in the percentage of the regular budget allocated

to the Centre for Human Rights in Geneva.

The position of Latvia regarding non-governmental

organizations is that they play a valuable role on the

international stage, especially in the area of human rights.

Their access to the United Nations human-rights system

should be increased.

With respect to the debate on restructuring the Security

Council, Latvia supports increasing the number of members

of the Security Council. Such reform must ensure that the

Council is adequately balanced between large and small

States.

Latvia supports the efforts aimed at rationalizing the

structure and the agenda of the General Assembly.

Latvia welcomes the positive processes under way in

the Middle East, South Africa, Cambodia and Haiti. We

hope that, with the efforts of the United Nations and other

international organizations, peace will prevail in the former

Yugoslavia, Georgia, Somalia and elsewhere where blood is

still being spilt.

Latvia has a history of participation in international

affairs, including its term as Presiding Member of the

Council of the League of Nations. In order to mark our

historic contribution to international relations, and to

celebrate the seventy-fifth anniversary of the signing of our

declaration of independence, Latvia has undertaken the task

of restoring a hall at the United Nations Office in Geneva.

This hall, located in the Palais des Nations, and adorned

with amber collected from the shores of the Baltic Sea, was

decorated and endowed by the Government and the people

of Latvia in 1938 as a donation to the League of Nations.

May the return of that hall at the Palais des Nations to its

original splendour symbolize the victory of justice

constituted by the return of Latvia to full membership in the

international community.

It is my belief that the restoration of our independence

will enable Latvia, a small State, to play a greater role in

securing peace and democracy in the world. I am convinced

that together we can leave our children a better world with

more security, more faith and more freedom.