Latvian Linguistics

    Moscow-based New York Times reporter David M. Herszenhorn writes that Latvian voters rejected efforts to establish Russian as a second official language in recognition of Latvia's large Russian ethnic minority community.  Latvia, a small Baltic nation, became independent along with Estonia and Lithuania in 1991 -- along with their Russian populations.  In Latvia, Russians make up over 25% of the population (about 500,000) -- as many as 40% of the Russian minority have not yet received full citizenship, which Herszenhorn indicates is dependent on passing a test on Latvian language and history in Latvian.  

    About 70% of eligible voters participated in the referendum, which failed overwhelmingly, Russian language rights gaining only about 25% of the vote (less than 14% of the total population).

    Herszenhorn indicates the two sides of the debate through Prime Minister Valdis Dombrovskis, who commended the referendum's "resounding" rejection, and Russian Parliamentarian Konstantin Kosachyov, who felt that the large turn-out indicated the necessity of resolving minority language rights.

    He quotes Dombrovski as saying that while Latvia respected its minorities, the referendum backers were playing politics with the nation's basic identity. 
    Kosachyov however, spoke watchfully regarding the Russian minority and non-citizen Russian-language speakers whom he claimed would continue to press for their basic human and political rights.

    What Herszenhorn fails to bring up is recent Russian intervention in other former Soviet Republics -- most notably sending in troops to occupy Georgia's break-away region of South Ossetia and granting the Ossetians passports in 2008 -- moves that were roundly criticized in North America and Western Europe as a form of aggression against Georgia's sovereignty and which remain unresolved in 2012.

    While Latvia is both a member of the European Union (EU) and NATO, the Georgian precedent should remain be a bit discomfiting.

    Similarly, Ukraine has also suffered political disruptions relating to the status of its large Russian minority (about 17%), especially in the heavily Russian Crimea and in former "Little Russia" area of southeastern Ukraine -- the area in which many of the former Mennonite colonies were located.

    On the other hand, Kosachyov has a point about basic human rights, and the need to resolve the status of Russian minorities in the former Soviet Union (FSU). 

    Herszenhorn indicates that the Russian minority in Latvia is one of the world's largest linguistic minorities proportionately.  The Baltics have also been extremely wary of Russian interference in their sovereignty and internal affairs.  This is indeed a complicated issue.

    Dombrovskis is quoted, "What we need to think now is what additional measures could be done on integration and naturalization policies, including more opportunities to study Latvian ... It is clear that we need to look at what more we can do," (Herszenhorn).

    President Andris Berzins reflected on the vote, "The referendum did not bring anything to an end... All of those who wish to live in this country under an atmosphere of mutual respect and understanding must immediately begin a discussion and dialogue on how to overcome suspicions, offenses or misunderstandings," (Herszenhorn).

    Similar to the minority Russian experience, German-speaking Mennonites and Hutterites faced huge pressures to assimilate culturally and linguistically into America's dominant English-speaking Anglo-American ethnic and social culture -- losing much of their minority ethnic cultural integrity.  (Historically, American politicians, educators and culturalists have often leveraged professional and political fears to enforce an almost Borg-like mentality of "You will be assimilated" towards America's numerous ethnic minority immigrant groups).

    Similar pressures were exerted on Mennonite immigrants in Canada.

    How would German-speaking American Mennonites have voted in Latvia's referendum?

    The Latvians have good reason to both protect their majority ethnic culture, including the Latvian language.  There are only some 1.5 million ethnic Latvians to maintain their culture.  Recent cultural, political and military aggression by Russia in support of Russian minorities in outlying former Soviet Republics indicates that Latvia has good cause to be concerned about the future for both their small nation and their cultural longevity.  Many ethnic Tibetans seemingly feel that they would face similar cultural, population and sovereignty issues -- so Latvia's fears are not entirely unreasonable.

     In the 1950s, many American educators and politicians similarly felt that German-speaking Mennonites would need to learn and utilize English in order to be materially and intellectually successful, to be able to contribute efficiently to the national economy and to be good citizens with a strong sense of cultural and political belonging.  

    Even today, many American politicians would seemingly continue to agree.  In this tradition, the Latvian decision to maintain a single official language would also seem quite reasonable.

    Yet, it seems that the majority of Latvia's Russian minority were already living in Latvia at the time of Latvia's independence in 1991.  This need not be a problem -- Ukraine's significant Russian minority was also inherited from the former Soviet Empire.

    This is where Latvia might have a larger moral consideration.  Regardless of any other concerns, Kosachyov is correct that Latvian citizenship and language requirements might in fact jeopardize or even deprive basic human rights of the ethnic Russians (not only can they not obtain citizenship, but they cannot vote or find government employment).  While it would seem reasonable that all Latvians learn the Latvian language, it would seem a bit disturbing if ethnic Russians were not granted full citizenship when Latvia became independent and the ethnic Russians in question determined to stay and identify as Latvian Russians.

    Dombrovskis and Berzins could seem to come across as a bit aggressive and antagonistic towards a legal ethnic minority.

    When the Mennonites were forced to give up their language rights and to function in English, the cultural, religious and educational toll was devastating and irreversible.  Mennonites might recommend that Latvian officials should take real steps towards compromising with their Russian speakers -- fine, everyone has to learn Latvian, but all legal permanent residents should receive legal citizenship based on international law rather than on ethnic and linguistic identity.  Ethnic Russian speakers should also be enabled to maintain schools, a press, cultural events and institutions and formal language training in Russian.  All persons should have a right maintain their culture and heritage -- the Mennonite experience has been that this becomes difficult if not impossible when basic language rights are violated.

    I am not sure that Mennonites, with their general suspicion of the former Soviet Union, would vote to make Russian a second official language either, but they would probably support formal state-sponsorship of efforts to maintain the cultural, ethnic and language identity of Latvia's minorities -- and a more flexible citizenship process -- especially for those minorities in residence prior to 1991.  Politics tends to be utopian while history tends to require a more measured, pragmatic approach.  

    Most importantly, the Mennonites would probably remind the Latvians that one need not speak the majority language in order to be a good citizen, nor should it be necessary to give up one's minority ethnic culture.  But then again, the Russians themselves ignored that very same lesson when they attempted to force ethnic minorities -- including the Russlander colonists of Molotschnaya, Chortitza, Halbstadt and Borosenko to assimilate in 1874.  There must be better ways to handle this.

Referencing:

Herszenhorn, David M.,  "Latvian Voters Reject Russian as a Second Language," The New York Times, New York, NY, 20 Feb 2012, p A4.