zinātnes dzīve Restoration of sovereignty and independence of the of 1986–1994

Restoration of sovereignty and independence of the Republic of Latvia 1986–1994 EDUARDS BRUNO DEKSNIS and TĀLAVS JUNDZIS Rīga, Latvian Academy of Sciences, Baltic Centre for Strategic Studies, 2015 ISBN 978-9934-8373-9-5

This review is perspectival. The review’s science and of law, a prominent participant meanings of “perspective” derive from the in the restoration history of RSIRL, an author, philosophy of Ronald Giere (Scientific Per- editor, and contributor to a dozen and half spectivism, 2006). The reviewed volume other works on restoration. The reviewer’s (RSIRL from now on) or this review contain perspective is that of a Latvia-born American two perspectives on historiography. The first exile, a chemistry doctor, a history-of-science is biographical. The other is methodological teacher, a former member of BATUN (Baltic with application to the restoration of the in- Appeal To UN lobbied at the UN against So- dependence of Baltic States. viet occupation of the Baltic States), a retired The biographic perspective of the book’s Latvian diplomat at the UN, and a co-author first author is that of a Latvian exile born in of a historiography-in-progress of BATUN. Germany, educated in North America and the (The two authors have sought and received , a doctor of applied math- the reviewer’s assistance with documents on ematics, a retired scientist and administra- nonviolent resistance against Soviet occupa- tor with the European Commission, and a tion.) researcher of Latvian identity and European The historiography of the restoration of integration. The second author’s perspective the sovereignty and independence of Latvia, is that of a native Latvian, a doctor of political 1986–1994, is an industry that since the

99 2016. gads 70. sējums 2. numurs

early 1990s has produced many proceed- tober 1989 to pursue full independence on ings of scholarly conferences, and other col- the “parliamentary road”: LPF would gain lections of scholarly articles, reminiscences, independence through Soviet parliamenta- and documents, as well as volumes on the ry institutions. After the successful March juridical or other aspects of the restoration. 1990 elections of the Supreme Soviet of the The volume under review is the first schol- Latvian SSR, on 4 May the now pro-inde- arly book-length survey of the restoration in pendence Soviet (from then on: Latvian Su- Latvia. preme Council) declared Latvia in transition The authors tell their restoration history to full independence under the authority of in two hundred pages that are divided into the 1922 of Latvia. eleven chapters containing text and sixty pho- The next three chapters cover the transi- tographs. The photographs are conveniently tion period that ended on 21 August 1991 by located within the relevant text. A second decision of the Latvian Supreme Council. One convenience is footnotes, easier to access chapter describes the dual governance in Lat- than endnotes. The over 270 footnotes refer via after the Supreme Council had appointed to numerous informative Latvian and foreign a pro-independence that had no primary and secondary sources, many found power over Moscow-controlled institutions in on the web. The authors note one foreign Latvia, first of all the Soviet military. The Su- source in particular: the George Bush Presi- preme Council’s and the Government’s lim- dential Library. ited power was in part due to Moscow’s deal- Around three-fifths of the text covers ing with both as normal Soviet institutions, domestic restoration events and policies, except for condemning their pro-independ- one fifth — restoration-promoting interna- ence aspirations. The next chapter describes tional relations and negotiations. Well over a international relations during transition. The tenth — the restoration role of Latvian ex- third chapter covers attempts to restore the iles in the West. The rest is the introductory rule of Communists/Moscow in Latvia. and concluding chapters that provide a con- Two chapters deal with post-restoration densed version and a foreign context of the problems. The first chapter covers interna- restoration history. tional relations and domestic governance Of the remaining nine chapters the first during the post-restoration period that ended three cover 1987–May 1990 public activi- with the convocation of the Fifth on ties that ended in a declaration on the inde- 6 July 1993. The Saeima is the pendence of Latvia. In circumstances where specified in the 1922 Constitution. The sec- many feared that they were soon to ond chapter covers the negotiations on the become a minority in their own country, the withdrawal of the Russian, formerly Soviet, year 1987 saw the first public protests or- military stationed in Latvia and the with- ganized against historical injustices such as drawal itself ending on 31 August 1994. the deportations in June 1940. The protests Inserted between these two chapters is one grew into large meetings and demonstra- on the role of Latvian exiles in restoration his- tions, the largest being the Baltic Way that tory. The chapter covers exile communities in protested the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact on the West starting with the end of World War 23 August 1989. In the previous October II and ending in the early years of restored the Latvian Popular Front had been founded. independence. Rather than a “legal approach” — ask the Beside the restoration history, the book international community to end Soviet oc- includes a foreword, English translations of cupation of Latvia, the LPF decided in Oc- nine restoration documents issued in 1990

100 zinātnes dzīve and 1991, a bibliography of foreign language historiographies are provisional knowledge, sources predominantly in English and Rus- dynamically bounded by known and un- sian, a sketch of the history of Latvians and known ignorance. Latvia for the foreign reader, a chronology of RSIRL is a traditional one-nation his- key events 1918–1999, and an index. The tory from diverse Latvian and foreign written foreword is by medical doctor Georgs An- sources. It is strongest on restoration in Lat- drejevs, a pro-independence politician dur- via and on Latvian political perspectives or ing restoration and foreign minister of Latvia interests. It could be a promising start for a 1992–1994. broader historiographical effort to explain the The reviewer sees two technical deficien- unique Baltic restoration history 1988–1991. cies in RSIRL. Adding subjects to the Index A sketched model of restoration history of persons would have made it more useful. follows. Future research could elaborate, The quality of the generally readable English modify, or reject the model. Compared to suffers uneven editing. The readable English RSIRL, it has a wider range of stakeholders, of the introductory chapter is now and then it recognizes the self-interests of all stake- absent in subsequent chapters. holders, and incorporates the stakeholders’ The reviewer’s methodological perspec- resources; it is multi-causal. The model’s tive on history in general and that in RSIRL particularly detailed description of West’s role emerges from the evidence-and-analysis- includes the reviewer’s experiences. supported conclusion that humanity’s igno- The Estonian and Latvian popular fronts rance far exceeds its knowledge about the and the Lithuanian Sajudis led euphoria- extremely complex world it lives in. The mod- motivated restoration movements that dem- ern traditional history that Leopold von Ranke ocratically pursued their simple interest, as and others began in the 19th century is about identified in RSIRL (p. 67): at first true sov- a far simpler world. Its historiographies nar- ereignty within the USSR, from mid-1989 rowly peruse written records as sources for on — independence. The results of elec- a historical truth about a Hegelian world of tions and referenda held 1989–1991 show wise men, nations, and states. Its “unlimited” that over two-thirds of Baltic States’ resi- truths ignore the vast ignorance about history dents were stakeholders in the movements. A outside its sources. stakeholder to varying degrees was a follower In recent decades alternate historiograph- and a leader. The stakeholders formed a com- ical perspectives, more complex than the plex hierarchy — pure followers at the bot- traditional one, have emerged. Two widely tom and trusted, nearly pure political leaders sourced examples that inspired the reviewer at the top. In between were near-bottom to are big history that begins with the Big Bang near-top leaders with diverse political, cul- (initiator: David Christian) and deep his- tural, or technical functions. The euphoric tory that is about humans and their homi- movements produced far-from-perfect, yet nin ancestors before written records (initia- reasonably stable, qualitative-enough and tor: Daniel Lord Smail, contributors: Andrew productive . After restoration the Shryock and others). The perspective used Baltic States became immature democracies. below models the Baltic restoration history That this Baltic achievement was a difficult as multi-causal hierarchies of stakeholders, one is implied by the lesser successes of the of their human and material resources. The former Soviet and the failures of the feedback causes are stakeholders’ coinciding Arab Spring. and conflicting self-interests, limits on their One cause of the movements’ rapid suc- resources. The resulting multi-disciplinary cess was access to the human and material

101 2016. gads 70. sējums 2. numurs

resources previously under the formal control Also essential to was deliberate of Soviet leaders. support from within the . The The stakeholders acquired their basic hu- Yeltsin-led sovereignty-then-independence man resources in the Soviet education system movement helped protect the Balts against and developed them while working in Soviet Soviet violence in 1991 when the interests of educational, cultural, economic institutions. the Baltic and Yeltsin-led movements briefly During restoration these resources were used coincided. for pro-independence goals. Restoration lead- Western stakeholders were of second- ers came out of the formally Soviet creative ary significance in restoration history. As did unions and institutions of science. There were Yeltsin’s movement, they also protected Balts even top “bridgers” — Communist leaders against violence. They helped train Baltic of the Soviet republics such as Brazauskas, officials, hosted Balts in international gov- Gorbunovs, Rüütel. They bridged the Soviet- ernmental fora, and recognized the renewed Baltic chasm and even became the heads of independence of the Baltic States. The sec- the renewed Baltic States. ondary role was due to the limited non-vio- The movements acquired considerable lent resources they could deploy within the Soviet material resources. The movements’ Baltic republics and to their large bouquet activities were carried out in Soviet buildings. of global interests. Support for Baltic inter- They extensively used Soviet communication ests was secondary. A primary interest of the and transportation infrastructures. Even dur- disarmament-oriented, nuclear-war-fearing ing the tense nine months from December United States and the rest of West was to 1990 on, the non-strategized, sporadic So- avoid the violence and chaos in a collapsing viet efforts to regain control of the resources Soviet Union that might lead to dangerous had few successes. consequences, worst of all — nuclear weap- Of primary significance was the move- ons falling into the wrong hands. It helped ments’ passage through two Soviet-generated that, as recognized in RSIRL (p. 217), Gor- bottlenecks. In June 1988, the 19th CPSU bachev was desperately seeking assistance Congress decided to promote perestroika from the West and therefore would not defy via largely free elections to Soviet legislative the West publicly. RSIRL describes (mostly bodies and thus created the election bottle- on pp. 103–112) Western–Baltic relations neck. The movements bravely began a long during restoration history in an idealistic and complex passage through the bottleneck. tone that is more judgmental about Western They established the popular fronts/Sajudis and even Baltic officials than elsewhere in that functioned as political parties. Against RSIRL. resistance by conservative Communists, they Given their secondary interest in Baltic campaigned to elect legislative bodies that restoration, Western governments arrived at could pass pro-independence laws. a common Baltic policy late – after Lithu- The failure of the August 1991 putsch ania’s declaration of independence in March created the second bottleneck that allowed 1990. The policy was: discourage Soviet a quick exit to full independence by means violence against Balts, who thereby gained of the Baltic Supreme Councils’ timely in- space for developing the governance of Bal- dependence declarations. Hesitation at this tic States and negotiating agreements with time could have left Balts in the quagmire USSR. The US and the European Community that was the on-off asymmetric “negotia- issued statements in March 1990 that urged tions” with Moscow yielding an uncertain re- negotiations as a nonviolent means to settle sult, at best, conditional independence. the differences between the Soviet Union and

102 zinātnes dzīve

Lithuania. Subsequent non-violence state- hagen, and Brussels. The bureaus had infor- ments covered all three Baltic States. Non- mation, training, and other roles in 1991 and violence was the common policy of Balts and after restoration. the West. The third, not in RSIRL, was the West’s Western governments’ major violence- condemnation of Soviet violence in Vilnius discouraging pro-actions supported Balts in and Riga in January 1991 at the annual ses- three international fora. The first pro-action sion in February of the UN Commission on lasted from June 1990 to June 1991 when Human Rights in Geneva. Under pressure, an ever-increasing number of Western gov- Soviets unprecedentedly agreed to report to ernments repeatedly sought admittance of CHR the results of its investigation of the vio- Balts as observers at meetings of the Con- lence. The condemnation continued as a draft ference for Security and Cooperation in Eu- resolution at CHR’s expert sub-commission in rope. At some meetings Balts were seated August, until the failure of the Moscow coup. as guests of Scandinavian or other countries. These Western pro-actions relieved the At the start of the Paris Summit of CSCE in intergovernmentally inexperienced Baltic gov- November 1990 the pre-planned seating of ernments and their exile assistants from the Baltic Foreign Ministers as guests of France, need to develop their own initiatives. the host country, encountered a last-moment A multi-disciplinary Baltic, even inter- ultimatum by Gorbachev: he will leave un- national team is needed to research this less the Balts sit with the USSR delegation. restoration model. Building a high-quality The Balts would not sit with the USSR del- integrated research team will be a long-term egation. France followed its primary interest effort that can learn from research/authors and responsibility for a successful Summit teams in the natural sciences. Multi-disci- and apologetically disinvited the Baltic FMs. plinarity will produce historiographies with These events generated enormous publicity broadly interpretative perspectives based on for the Balts at a press conference organ- many sources — diverse written, oral (as ized by Denmark and Iceland, a Latvian In- interviews of the hierarchy’s stakeholders), dependence Day reception attended by many visual ones, and more. European Prime and Foreign Ministers, and RISRL is a good achievement. It may in- elsewhere. RSIRL (pp. 106–107) judges spire further educational historiographies that France’s self-interested action as “an infa- will yield lessons about Baltic survival in a mous example of Western perfidy”. historically dangerous neighborhood, includ- The second pro-action, actually three ing on how to sustain Baltic independence, a separate bilateral pro-actions, grew out of concern of RSIRL (p. 217). Western contacts with Baltic homeland and exile representatives (briefly noted in RSIRL, Uldis Bluķis professor emeritus p. 112). During 1990, it led to the establish- Brooklyn College, ment of host-financed Baltic proto-embassies City University of New York or information bureaus in Stockholm, Copen- [email protected]

103