Alarming signs, shall we heed them?

Vaira Vike-Freiberga, who was elected President of Latvia twice (in 1999 and 2003), confessed a few years ago that she had been very impressed by the scope of the Orange Revolution, and even more so by its positive results. The ex-president of Latvia has retained her interest in Ukraine. She recently visited our country, when she was invited by The Institute of World Policy; she held the discussion “Quo vadis, Ukraine?”, and met with government and opposition representatives.

Ms. Vike-Freiberga, what is your opinion about the outcome of the Orange Revolution? Its heroes no longer hold official posts, and instead one hears about the oppression of mass media and disappearing journalists, while the issue of the freedom of speech becomes the main topic during the Ukrainian president’s meetings with European leaders?

“In my opinion, the Orange Revolution really failed to realize the hopes it inspired. When people are influenced by emotions, they often achieve wonderful results. And they expect them to continue. However, if it doesn’t happen, they feel very frustrated.

“Latvia also experienced an emotional upheaval during the Singing Revolution. Even today, people keep saying that we had never been as excited as then, when everything was fine and we were united. Now, those days are in the past, and daily routine has come instead. One can’t be emotionally aroused all the time.

“Coming back to Ukraine, it turned out that prime minister and president who seemed to represent a single force failed to work together. In my opinion, this sabotaged the whole process. They both moved in the same direction, and if they could have supported one another, they would have done a lot. However, this was not the case: due to their conflict, their inability to act in harmony, to adopt the necessary laws, and carry out reforms.

“If the revolution’s promises to provide a better life and more democracy for citizens are realized very slowly, people are disappointed. Sometimes they are unfair because they don’t value the progress that was made. Perhaps this is the case with Ukraine. Many changes for the better took place here but people do not appreciate them because they expected more. Therefore, the result of the recent presidential elections is normal. Now the danger lies in drifting away from what the Orange Revolution supported: the people’s right to be heard, to participate in rallies, and express their thoughts. However, people can’t be deprived of fundamental rights they once gained.”

You talked to representatives of the opposition and the government. Have you noticed any willingness, especially on behalf of the latter, to uphold those achievements of the Orange Revolution that you mentioned?

“I consider this issue very important. I didn’t have a chance to talk to the representatives of the Presidential Administration, since President Viktor Yanukovych is currently in China. I believe that it is precisely the Presidential Administration’s adherence to its decisions on ensuring the freedom of speech and mass media within the next six months, that will play an important role. It will determine the atmosphere in Ukraine and the direction of the country’s development.

This means that civic society, journalists, and people in general must keep their eyes and ears open, especially in the upcoming six months. The international community has started to notice some alarming signs. We wouldn’t like to see Ukraine go in that direction. It is the president and his administration that must ensure the main principles he pro-mised to observe.”

What role do you think the EU can play, regarding the abovementioned principles, which are so important on Ukraine’s path to Europe?

“In my opinion, Chancellor Merkel clearly outlined the principles that the EU is based on and their essence during her negotiations with Yanukovych. I can assure you that the EU wants to see Ukraine observe those principles. The EU is not an empire that conquers other territories or expands by means of other countries. The EU doesn’t knock on the doors of others to come in. The European community doesn’t impose its will on anyone. Latvia asked to be admitted to this club because we want to follow the rules and benefit from a democratic society. I believe that Ukrainian citizens should realize that they shouldn’t choose between making friends either with the EU, or with Russia, or with someone else; actually, Ukraine must first make friends with itself. The best thing Ukraine and its citizens can do is to create a free and democratic society because we know, and statistics proves this, that democratic countries are the most prosperous and peaceful. They are able to overcome economic recession and any difficulties, coming out even stronger than they came in. I must confess that China, which is not a free country, is developing successfully. Of course, there are exceptions, but Ukrainians must think about themselves, about what they want. Do they want to be free and have the freedom of speech? Or perhaps they want to delegate it to somebody? I think Ukrainians must be very cautious and hold on to what they already gained.”

Do you think the decision of the current Ukrainian governing coalition, to steer away from NATO and proclaim Ukraine’s non-aligned status, was correct?

“Certainly, it’s quite the opposite position compared with the previous president and government. If fact, it is a change of direction. Ukrainians elected the new president and now have to reckon with this decision. Surely, Russia will say this is a very wise decision, perhaps the best you could make. After all, fortunately, Russian tanks are not located near your border and they don’t plan to cross it as they did in Georgia.

“To be honest, in our case everybody says you have nothing to worry about, why did you join NATO? But look at what happened in Georgia. Even nowadays belonging to collective security systems is important. Of course, my country is small and collective security is the only one available for us. Ukraine is quite big, so maybe it will cope with this problem on its own. Finland has a long history of nonalignment. Austria saw imposed neutrality in exchange for the Soviet troops’ withdrawal. As far as I know, Ukraine was not coerced and made its choice. You’re happy that you have a choice, if it really was a choice. But it’s clear that at some point the choice can always be changed.”

By the way, I would like to ask you whether the topic of the discussion “Quo vadis, Ukraine?” which held today (the interview was recorded on September 2) in The Institute of World Policy was superfluous. Is it a still an open question or do you already know the answer to it?

“(Laughing.) Yes, it is still a question. Ukrainians must decide where Ukraine is heading. After all, it is their life, their country, and it should be their own decision. But I wanted to say that in my country, an EU’s member, we believe that the way is quite clear. Democracy is still the best system ever invented. It is not a unique system, not a unique recipe. It can’t be applied the same way in different countries. However, there are no perfect systems. Democracy has weak points and disadvantages; I perceive it as work in progress. Democracy and the European Union is a continual working process. We must continue working, improve, and create a more just society. I will work on this my whole life. My children and grandchildren will do that too. This is something that must develop all the time. It’s like a garden you must take care of.”

How would you comment on the recent publications on the failure of the European project, the disintegration of the EU? In particular, the famous American political scientist Zbigniew Brzezinski expressed such an opinion in an interview entitled “Decline of the West.” Or perhaps Europe simply lacks leaders with vision, as some experts opine?

“Europeans feel that sometimes Americans are too quick in pointing out the lack of leadership in Europe. They forget that we are the European Union, not the United States of Europe. While they have a president with broad powers, especially since it’s a presidential republic, we have 28 countries, and each of them has its own constitution, its own system of government. We only share a part of our sovereignty, which we all delegated to the common pool. We do not share everything as the USA does, though one can say that American states also have some autonomy and some distinct laws.

“I’d say Americans are a bit too demanding of Europe when they say: where is the leadership in Europe? We have one strong president, where is the strong president of Europe? However, Europe’s strength lies in other things. For example, our group on the project Europe-2030 recommended greater integration and harmonization, otherwise not only Zbigniew Brzezinski, but also others will say: phew, Europe is not important, who wants to listen to it? If we want to be heard in the world, maybe we should sing the same song in different voices. You know what I mean (laughing).”

I do. But does it mean that the “United States of Europe” may become possible?

“A few days ago I participated in the European Forum Alpbach 2010 and talked to some European federalists there. As you know, the President of the Czech Republic Vaclav Klaus is known in Europe as a eurosceptic. We see this as a sign of democracy. He thinks one cannot give away too much sovereignty. Others say we must share our sovereignty more. Therefore, during the next 20 years we’ll see which of the two forces will move quicker. This is a part of the democratic process.”

Our countries share many similar problems, such as the question of Rus-sian as the second official language. There are also the rifts within the country based on historical issues, especially the role of national military formations that fought both against the Nazis and the Soviets during the World War II. In your opinion, how can one reconcile the different parties and avoid conflicts based on historical truths taken as facts?

“In Latvia at the end of Guntis Ulmanis’ presidency a historical commission was established — it started working when I was president. This commission invited historians from other countries to take part in studying the German and Soviet occupation, as well as other moments in history. We even invited Russian historians to join the work. At first, there was one Russian historian, but later this cooperation was discontinued.

“I think you need research institutes and special commissions like ours to study history. Since it was taboo in Soviet times. Even today, 20 years later, we have a problem and wait for the Latvian president to be invited for an official visit to Russia. When three years ago Valdis Zatlers was elected president, he was promised this visit. At present, there is a new president in Russia and we still wait for the date of the visit. When our foreign minister was asked what our president would discuss in Russia, he answered that we had an issue regarding access to the archives that were taken from Latvia. We got a very sharp answer from the Russian foreign ministry: considering this issue is out of the question, because according to the rules, some archives are open and accessible, and some are closed. Russian archives don’t intend to change their modus operandi for anyone, no matter the circumstances.”

But do you know that the Russians opened their archives on the Katyn massacre for the Poles?

“It is interesting, isn’t it?”

But why does it happen this way?

“This a good question. (Laughing.) This is an interesting question.

Some experts think that this happened because Moscow realized the role of Warsaw in the EU and Poland’s ability to prevent Russia from signing a new treaty on partnership and cooperation.

“I can’t read thoughts. I start guessing what they think, but I see what they do (laughing).”

You have said that Russia doesn’t hear Latvia. Can’t Riga make Moscow hear it following Poland’s strategy? It showed that it can play an important role in the EU and thus got some concessions from Moscow.

“From my own experience I know that one can hardly force Russia to do what it doesn’t want to do. Whoever would try to do it, starting with the US president and finishing with Latvian president, Russians will do what they want. Certainly, it is necessary to negotiate with them on different levels, including the UN or NATO. By the way, this military-political organization (NATO) has a special body negotiating with Russia. All of us negotiate with Russia. We try to persuade one another. Russians try to persuade us on some issues, and we try to persuade them on other issues. Of course, we have to continue the dialog. But it is highly unlikely that one can make somebody, in particular, Russia, do something. However, we should hope that they can be persuaded. It can take a generation; therefore, we should keep trying.”

In one of the interviews to Russian media, you said: we want Russians to become Latvians.

“Indeed, one can often hear that we don’t grant citizenship to Russians who live in Latvia. However, I remind such people that obtaining citizenship in Latvia means being a Latvian. But some people are surprised and upset. The logic is very simple. You get a Ukrainian citizenship and anyone looking at your passport abroad will say you are a Ukrainian. You understand you’re a Ukrainian better if you have a Ukrainian passport. The same is in Latvia. It’s not important who your parents were or what your religion, skin color or nationality is. The Latvian nation created the state to overcome the centuries of oppression and to reach nationhood. We finally managed in 1918. But today the world has become very multipolar and diverse, there are no purely ethnic nations, and even if there are, there are very few of them. We are all to some extent mixed up in our genes and contacts and must live together. I believe you must be devoted and identify yourself with the country where you were born or found refuge, the one you call your motherland.”

Latvian media reported that after the parliamentary elections you could become president again. Are you really going to return to politics?

“I don’t know (laughing). Nobody knows this. The Latvian Constitution states that one cannot be president more than two times in a row. But it says nothing about the possibility of returning to this post. This concerns the Russian prime minister too, who will likely return to this post. Regarding myself, I really don’t know if it’s possible, if anyone is interested in my return. I must confess, I don’t know where I would sit. (Laughing.)”

I’d like to hear your opinion about the importance of women’s roles in today’s conditions, particularly, as heads of governments or states?

“It seems to me that women have progressed throughout the world. The number of countries with women as prime ministers or presidents is growing all the time. I was the first female president in Eastern Europe, not only among the Baltic states. In Finland, a woman became president for the first time after me. Lithuania’s current president is a woman. We can see that women are active (laughing).”

But in Ukraine, at least in the current government, there is no one woman holding a minister’s post. What can you say about it?

“You had a woman — a strong presidential candidate who lost by a very small margin. For me this fact alone is a strong indicator of democracy in Ukraine. In patriarchal or undemocratic countries, women aren’t even allowed to be a presidential candidates. This is a step in the right direction, if there is a woman in the country who is a strong candidate for president or prime minister.”