Conference turris::scandia

    From: [email protected] (Lars Aronsson)
    Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
    Subject: Re: Lithuania & Sweden
    Date: 23 Mar 90 23:10:55 GMT
    Organization: Lysator computer club, Link�ping Institute of Technology
 
[email protected] writes:
>I believe Sweden was one of the few countries to recognize Biafra when
 
    What is a country? The Swedish government (social democrats except
    1976-1982) might have recognized Biafra (I am among the younger ones).
    A government may do a lot of things, but that doesn't mean that every
    citizen agrees or even cares. Maybe democrats in the USA see Bush as
    their president, but Swedish conservatives and liberals tend to see a
    social democrat government as a political enemy.
 
    Swedish social democrat governments tend to recognize very quickly and
    to support countries like Vietnam, Ethiopia, Cuba, and Nicaragua, plus
    organizations like PLO and ANC. They also tend not to criticize
    mistakes done by such bodies. Most Swedes have no natural connections
    with these far countries. The buzz word is solidarity and this is very
    important to active social democrats. Democratic elections and free
    market economy are not as important.
 
>... What are the prospects of Sweden's recognition of Lithuania now? 
 
    Now, this is a totally different chapter of Swedish foreign policy.
    During WW II, "neutral" Sweden sold steel to Germany and in exchange,
    they never invaded us (why? they didn't have to!). Some of this steel
    was probably used when Germany invaded Norway and Denmark.
 
    This is the foreign policy of saving your own skin by selling your
    friends. The same psychology was behind Swedens early recognition of
    Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania as being parts of the USSR in 1940. The
    USA still considers this an illegal occupation.
 
    Some refugees from these Baltic states, who came to Sweden at the end
    of the WW II, were sent back and the red army sent them to Sibiria. The
    Russians didn't even ask us to return the refugees! "When you think
    we've settled everything, I will agree just a little bit more", the
    tune goes. Maybe someone can fill in the details on this.
 
    My guess is that the USA will recognize free Lithuania, Latvia, and
    Estonia long before the Swedish government does.
 
    Should one criticize this foreign policy. Have Swedish governments been
    too careful? Yes, to some extent, I think. But one must also remember
    that it takes muscles to be brave. We spend a lot (per capita) on armed
    forces (I have no numbers, sorry). We do not have "the bomb", but we
    manufacture our own fighter jets (with varying success) and most other
    kinds of weapons. We are only eight million people in a country which
    is 1000 miles long and perpendicular to the direction from Moscow to
    the Atlantic. The Baltic states (and the Red Army) are 300 miles from
    where I sit and I don't even live by the coast. Three free Baltic
    states with their own armies would make Swedes feel a lot easier.
    Today, the only buffer is the Baltic Sea.
 
    Also, foreign policy is inter-governmental. The inter-person contacts
    between Sweden and the Baltic are intense. Many Baltic WW II refugees
    live in Sweden. Many joint ventures have been started between Swedish
    companies and Estonian and Latvian organizations in the last few years.
 
    I have no relationship with the Baltic states whatsoever, but just for
    the fun of it I started to pen-pal students at Tallinn Technical
    University last summer. In November we (six students from here) visited
    our new friends in Tallinn and in June they will visit us. If anyone of
    you would like pen-pals, that could be arranged.
 
    Lithuania is a catholic country and has as few traditional ties with
    Sweden as Poland does. For more discussion on Lithuania, have a look in
    the newsgroup soc.culture.polish or the POLAND-L mailing list on
    BITNET.
 
    >What does it look like from just across the Baltic?
 
    Right now, the Swedish armed forces on Baltic island Gotland are
    preparing to receive a flood of refugees from Lithuania just in case
    anything tragic would happen over there. The immediate (next couple of
    weeks) threat is not on Sweden.
 
    Lars Aronsson, student at Linkoping University, Sweden
    [email protected] or [email protected]

    From: [email protected] (Ian Feldman)
    Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic,soc.culture.polish
    Subject: Re: Lithuania & Sweden
    Summary: Declare Lithuania independent.  Then what?
    Date: 24 Mar 90 09:38:43 GMT
    Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
 
In article <[email protected]> [email protected]
(Lars Aronsson) attempts to quantify the amount of "traditional" ties
between the various Baltic states:
 
> Lithuania is a catholic country and has as few traditional ties with
> Sweden as Poland does.                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
    What, pray, is few?  In what frame-time?  It seems to me, a fact  not
    widely taught in Swedish secondary and tertiary schools, nor readily
    admitted by the Swedish public, that Poland and Sweden  has at least as
    much collective history as Sweden and Finland may have together.  Of
    course, the last 50-odd years of "folkhemmet" (the "people's home"
    ideology, as expressed by the reign of Social Democratic party here)
    may have obliterated the facts, but they're nevertheless still there,
    for all motivated parties to see. 
 
    One shouldn't forget the fact that, various wars between the two
    notwithstanding, Sweden and Poland have shared a dynasty of kings, and,
    what is more important, at one time constituted something that we might
    call a North-South Axis in Europe; one that effectively and for a long
    time prevented a creation of a East-West, Russo-German one. Indeed, it
    wasn't until the peace at Nystad in 1821 (date?) that the latter sphere
    of domination came about.  So, what are these "few tradidtional" links,
    that Lars is talking about?
 
 
    Replying to a poster's question, Lars says:
 
>> What does it look like from just across the Baltic?
>
> Right now, the Swedish armed forces on Baltic island Gotland are
> preparing to receive a flood of refugees from Lithuania just in case
> anything tragic would happen over there. The immediate (next couple of
> weeks) threat is not on Sweden.
 
    Yes, these are the facts, that the Swedish Army has chosen to
    publicize, chiefly in the yellow, afternoon, media.  For that, and
    other, reasons one shouldn't perhaps pay that much attention to these
    endeavors. Whatever may happen in Lithuania -- and a limited martial
    state has already been declared there, no matter what one elects to see
    --  there are bound to be political considerations as to whether Sweden
    ought to allow entry to boatloads of Lithuanians, Latvians and 
    Estonians, that'll also appear in the event of any armed/ violent 
    developments on Lithuanian soil.
 
    Perhaps we shouldn't underestimate the present Swedish governement's
    many-faceted dilemma, as to how to proceed in relation to the
    Lithuanian (and, by extension, the coming Latvian, Estonian, Georgian,
    you-name-it equal developments) declaration of independence; let us not
    forget that it wasn't that long ago that Sten Anderson, the Foreign
    Relations Dept. Minister declared, during a visit to Estonia, the
    latter not to be an occupied state -- which, from the Swedish point of
    view is, undoubtedly, true.  After all, Sweden has at one time
    recognized the Sovjet annexation of the Baltic states; therefore being
    an integral part of the Union they can't be occupied at the same time,
    see?  Besides, judging from times past (the official) Sweden has easier
    to declare support to newly hatched states the farther away from Sweden
    they are.  After all, as the Lithuanian President Landsbergis recently
    pointed out, the Swedish official motive not to recognize his state for
    the moment, as that of "not being in control of its own territory",
    doesn't really hold water in relation to Sweden's recognition of, say,
    Angola, at that time, and still, able to control but a smal portion of
    its own, from Portugal "liberated" land.
 
    So it doesn't take any genius to understand that inofficially the
    official Sweden (ie, whatever the governement doesn't dare to say
    publicly, but nevertheless realizes) doesn't welcome ANY refugees from
    that area, the pressures from various "native" Balitic groups
    notwithstanding.  Indeed, from the political-science point of view,
    this is the only proper standpoint.  The Polish Marshal Pilsudski once
    said, in relation to Polish wishes for independence that "Poles would
    like their independence to cost them but a drop of sweat and a drop of
    blood".  This seems to me to apply equally well to the Baltic situation
    too.  Therefore any drainage of able-minded minds and bodies from there
    is, in fact, contrary to the region's wishes to become independent
    state(s).  You want independence, then stay and FIGHT* for it.
 
    * fighting doesn't necessarily mean bloodshed; Poles fought back during
    the 8 long years of native martial law; so have Chileans.  Poles used
    the time to educate themselves and search for new solutions for
    half-a-century old problems. Perhaps there is a lesson in it for the
    Lithuanians as well, or two.
 
--Ian Feldman /  [email protected] || uunet!nada.kth.se!ianf  / "There, Watson!
             /  Obviously he is not the ImageWriter hacker we were looking for"

    From: [email protected]
    Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
    Subject: Re: Lithuania & Sweden (& Lutherans & neutrality)
    Date: 25 Mar 90 20:37:47 GMT
    Organization: Marshall University
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Lars Aronsson) writes:
> 
> Lithuania is a catholic country and has as few traditional ties with
> Sweden as Poland does. For more discussion on Lithuania, have a look
> in the newsgroup soc.culture.polish or the POLAND-L mailing list on
> BITNET.

    	I'm very interested in the fact that the new president of Lithuania
    is named Landsbergis.  It looks like a Lithuanian adaptation of
    Landsberg, which could be Swedish originally.  One should also consider
    that the shapes of these countries (Estonia, Latvia, & Lithuania),
    although adopted in 1918, actually reflect centuries of Swedish
    colonial influence dating to before the Thirty Years' War.  There was
    also, as someone else has mentioned, a strong connection between Sweden
    and Poland in this time period and afterward.   Because it is closest
    to Poland, Lithuania is the most Roman Catholic of the 3 Baltic states
    in question.  The others have strong Lutheran populations--there is a
    smaller Lutheran church in Lithuania, also.  All of these traditions
    [plus having people named 'Landsbergis' and such] are direct results of
    the Swedish presence.  It's a shame Sweden is adopting an attitude of
    isolation in these cultural matters.  The Germans, by contrast, are
    interested in strengthening and maintaining ties with all German
    culture wherever they find it.  But we can continue that in
    soc.culture.german.

    	The notion of diplomatic recognition is of course quite different
    from reality [no humor intended].  The USA did not *recognize* the
    People's Republic of China until 1973, even though they seized the
    country in 1947-49.

    	And one last item on the World Wars.  Yes, Sweden sold iron ore to
    the Germans.  But they also allowed much British intelligence-gathering
    to be conducted from there--and they were a refuge to people escaping
    from occupied Denmark and Norway.  In World War I, Sweden let Germany
    use its undersea telegraph cable lines.  Being neutral, Sweden also let
    Britain tap those lines.  Now, THAT'S neutrality!

    -- 
         [email protected],Marshall University
         Fred R. Reenstjerna     | Life is like a 'B' movie.  You
         400 Hal Greer Blvd      | don't want to leave in the mid-
         Huntington, WV 25755    | dle, but you don't want to see it
         (304)696 - 2905         | again.     ---Ted Turner, 1990

    From: [email protected] (Lars-Henrik Eriksson)
    Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
    Subject: Re: Lithuania & Sweden
    Date: 26 Mar 90 08:24:15 GMT
    Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science
 
In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Lars 
Aronsson) writes:
> Swedish social democrat governments tend to recognize very quickly and
> to support countries like Vietnam, Ethiopia, Cuba, and Nicaragua, plus
> organizations like PLO and ANC. They also tend not to criticize
> mistakes done by such bodies. Most Swedes have no natural connections
> with these far countries. The buzz word is solidarity and this is very
> important to active social democrats. Democratic elections and free
> market economy are not as important.
 
    This is political rethoric rather than a description of Sweden's policy
    for  recognising foreign states. For one thing, Sweden has *not*
    recognised  Palestine (the state the PLO has declared). ANC has not
    declared any state,  so there there isn't even anything there to
    recognise.
 
    In general, Sweden will recognise every state that have control over
    its own territory, and no other. (Of course, there could be exceptions
    to this warranted by circumstances).
 
    In light of this it is easy to see why Sweden has not recognised either 
    Palestine or Lithuania, but has recognised Vietnam, Nicaragua, Cuba
    etc.
 
    In other words, Sweden specifically does not want to use diplomatic 
    recognition as a political vehicle, but as soon as a state controls its 
    territory, Sweden will recognise it, no matter what feelings Sweden or 
    Swedish politicians might have towards it. In my humble view, this is a
    most sensible policy.
 
    (If you think that a state cannot be a state unless it controls its 
    territory, feel free to substitute "government" for "state" above.)
 
  Lars-Henrik Eriksson                           Internet: [email protected]
  Swedish Institute of Computer Science          Phone (intn'l): +46 8 752 15 09
  Box 1263                                       Telefon (nat'l): 08 - 752 15 09
  S-164 28  KISTA, SWEDEN
  

Denmark has (like the USA) never recognised the Soviet 
annexation of the Baltic republics. On the other hand the
conservative Danish government has been very quiet about
criticising the USSR about the recent developments, believing
that such criticism would only provoke the Russians. This
policy has been roundly criticised in the Danish press and the
government has now begun to publicly support Lithuania. The
Danish foreign minister has just delivered a very strong message
to the Soviet ambassador regarding the recent developments in
Lithuania. Of course, a "strong message" from a such a small
country to a super power does seem a bit comical, doesn't it? 

    re .-1
    
    The Nordic countries are obviously coordinating their diplomatic
    activities again.  The same thing happened yesterday in Norway;
    the foreign minister called in the Soviet ambassador.
    
    Before we get all moralistic, however, I must add that I am in
    agreement with the current "careful" appoach.  The situation is
    far from black/white good-guys/bad-guys. After all, mouthing off
    from a high moral position, supportin A unequivocally vs B may relieve
    some feelings of past national guilt. However, is that the best
    way of achieving the desired effect, AND without bloodshed. Actually,
    if the result is bloodshed, I find it hard to believe that the
    independence sought by the Baltic states will be achieved at all
    in the foreseeable future.  Personally I think that Estonia is taking
    the more intelligent approach, with their 6-month forewarning. This
    allows for much wider choice of face-saving negotiations, etc.
    
    And negotiations are necessary even if the USSR would say "yes"
    tomorrow. After all, what is independence all about in this day
    of pretty complete economic integration. Symbolism is great, but
    it should mean something. The Baltic states have most of their export
    oriented towards the rest of the USSR, dealing in Rubles. They buy
    all their oil at cut rate prices from other Soviet parts. What happens
    to the Russian enclave (ex East Prussia) which is separated from
    the main body of Russia by Lithuania and Poland, etc., etc. (also,
    who owns what with respect to facilities, materials,...)
    
    The wisest course for us is to contribute to a resolution that will
    benefit the Baltic countries in a real as well as symbolic way.
    That means that we may have to hold back on our natural Scandinavian
    instincts to moralize (at least for the time being), or the even
    more tempting instinct to "get back" in kind at all the left-wing
    moralizers that we have had to put up with through the years.
    
    There are some real parallels to 1905 here (i.e., Norwegian withdrawal
    from the union with Sweden)
    

    Mauritz
    

    From: [email protected] (Magnus Rimvall)
    Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
    Subject: Re: Lithuania & Sweden
    Date: 26 Mar 90 15:41:38 GMT
    Organization: Schenectady, NY
 
    In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Lars-Henrik
    Eriksson)  writes:
    
>In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Lars 
>Aronsson) writes:
>> Swedish social democrat governments tend to recognize very quickly and
                                               ^^^^^^^^^BAD CHOICE OF WORD
>> to support countries like Vietnam, Ethiopia, Cuba, and Nicaragua, plus
      ^^^^^^^ BETTER
>> organizations like PLO and ANC. They also tend not to criticize
>> mistakes done by such bodies. [...]
>
>This is political rethoric rather than a description of Sweden's policy for 
>recognising foreign states. For one thing, Sweden has *not* recognised 
>Palestine (the state the PLO has declared). ANC has not declared any state, 
>so there there isn't even anything there to recognise.
>
>In other words, Sweden specifically does not want to use diplomatic 
>recognition as a political vehicle, but as soon as a state controls its 
>territory, Sweden will recognise it, no matter what feelings Sweden or 
>Swedish politicians might have towards it. In my humble view, this is a most 
>sensible policy.
>
 
    The Swedish foreign policy (as the foreign policy of any country) can
    be divided into three parts:
 
    1) Formal diplomatic activities such as recognition of statehood      
 
    2) Non-diplomatic (or at least unofficially non-diplomatic) activities 
       such as foreign-aid, economical sanctions 
 
    3) Statements by state-department officials and high politicians
 
    As Ericson points out, Sweden has always been cautious NOT to use
    formal diplomatic activities to meet any political ends (Part 1).
    Aronsson's statement applied to the non-diplomatic activities (Parts 2
    and 3) is IMHO also correct.  Thus, BOTH statements are relevant.
    However, the IMPRESSION of Swedish foreign policy in other countries is
    colored by the non-diplomatic activities. This is only natural, as a
    politician can and "must" make many statements  in the course of a
    single year, but diplomatic recognitions of statehoods (etc.) are
    granted only once. 
 
    The foreign impression of non-diplomatic Swedish policy has, indeed,
    been that it is not neutral but quite loopsided. Examples:
 
    1) Heavy criticism against US actions in the Vietnam war. Much
       weaker critisism against USSR's actions in Afganistan a decade
       later.
 
    2) Many communist and socialist dictatorships receive Swedish
       foreign aid (e.g. Vietnam, Nicaragua under Ortega, Tanzania).
 
    3) Friendly and personal relationships with foreign dictators "of
       the right color" (such as Palmes relationship with Castro; the
       "statesman-like" visits of Arafat).
 
    Sweden is a sovereign state and may, of course, adopt any foreign
    policy it wants as long as it does not lead to military confict with
    other countries. It is, however, hypocritical of Eriksson to claim that
    the Swedish foreign policy is "neutral" when this is only true for the
    formal diplomatic activities. 
 
    Remember, the IMPRESSION foreign nationals get is governed by their own 
    observations of actions and statements, not by some official words to
    the effect "we are neutral and you are to believe so" (if I give
    $10.000 to the republicans, $0 to the democrats and then state that I
    am apolitical, would anybody believe me?)
 
 
    Magnus Rimvall
 
 
    Disclaimer: The ideas presented in this article are my own. They do not
    reflect the opinions of my employer of choice or my country of choice.

Regarding the developments in the Baltic:

The Danish Navy has a Corvette (the biggest ship they have!) 
patrolling in international waters off the coast of Lithuania. 
Are any of the other Nordics keeping that close an eye on the 
situation militarily?

    From: [email protected] (Karl Tigerstedt)
    Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
    Subject: Finnish foreign policy and Lithuania
    Date: 31 Mar 90 23:26:57 GMT
    Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
 
 
    Finnish foreign policy sucks! In a speech held by Lithuanian president
    Vytautas Landsbergis he says something like this:
    
    "Finland is the only free democratic country, which has not taken a
    clearly condemning standpoint against the actions of the USSR in
    Lithuania. Their foreign policy is simply too influenced by Moscow to
    allow official anti- Soviet statements. We are very disappointed."
    
    As a Finnish citizen, this is the kind of speech one would least like
    to hear, but we simply can't shut our eyes against this fact. Finnish
    foreign policy, in my opinion, has no backbone today. An example:
    
    Our president, Mr. Koivisto, was (is) vacationing in northern Finland
    and was going to hold a press conference regarding some domestic issue
    (can't remember what, not important, anyway). The press conference was
    however can- celled, due to a request from Mr. Koivisto. The reason, as
    he explains it, was the rumour that "misleading information, as to the
    subjects to be discussed in this press conference, has been spread".
    This was a clear statement that he was not willing to discuss the
    situation in Lithuania. Foreign Minister, Pertti Paasio, did comment
    the Lithuania question, but all his answers  (couldn't call them
    statements) were carefully chosen, in order not to "irritate" our
    eastern "Big Brother". 
    
    Then, on the other hand, a nationalistic Soviet magazine makes an
    interview with Esko-Juhani Tennila, a Finnish  communist of the extreme
    left-wing. In this interview, mr Tennila says that "most of the Finnish
    people think that Lithuania has acted foolishly and that we hope that
    the borders of the USSR remain as they currently are. Nobody has told
    the Lithuanians what a catastrophy the break-out from the USSR would
    be." 
    
    Incredible! And nobody in Finland has even bothered to counter-attack
    Tennila. We Finns always talk about our neutrality, but if it means we
    can't even raise "the smallest finger" against the USSR, I really will
    start believing in the term finlandization. I used to be proud of being
    Finnish - that pride is now gradually fading. 
 
 
    ----------------------
   Karl Robert Tigerstedt                        email : [email protected]
   Helsinki University of Technology            packet : [email protected]
   Faculty of Electrical Engineering
    
    ============================================================================
    From: [email protected] (Kimmo Saarinen)
    Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
    Subject: Re: Finnish foreign policy and Lithuania
    Date: 1 Apr 90 10:18:00 GMT
    Organization: Technical Research Centre of Finland
 
    In article <[email protected]> [email protected]
    (Karl Tigerstedt) writes:
    
   >
   >We Finns always talk about our neutrality, but if it means
   >we can't even raise "the smallest finger" against the USSR, I really will
   >start believing in the term finlandization. I used to be proud of being
   >Finnish - that pride is now gradually fading. 
 
    I agree, what can I add to this ? The Finninsh politicians seems to
    have a remarkably bad habit to be inefective in every turn, lots of
    talk but no results and this time not even talk. Maybe the reason is
    that all comments concerning the status of Lithuania and differing from
    the official policy is banned by the goverment (?) and the heads of the
    parties. Shame on us ! Not all of our MPs are satisfied to the Pertti
    Paasio's statement but they remain silent. 
 
    What a miserable political climate we have here, something should be
    done and fast !
 
    Kimmo
  
   -- 
   Kimmo Saarinen                         ! e-mail  [email protected]
   Technical Research Centre of Finland   ! Tel.    +358 31 163 357
   Medical Engineering Laboratory         ! Fax             174 102 
   P.O.BOX 316, SF-33101 Tampere, Finland !   ... completely mad ...

From: [email protected] (Jorma Korkiakoski)              
Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
Subject: Re: Finnish foreign policy and Lithuania
Date: 2 Apr 90 13:46:37 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki
 
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Karl Tigerstedt) writes:
 
>      Our president, Mr. Koivisto, was (is) vacationing in northern Finland and
> was going to hold a press conference regarding some domestic issue (can't
> remember what, not important, anyway). The press conference was however can-
> celled, due to a request from Mr. Koivisto. The reason, as he explains it, was
> the rumour that "misleading information, as to the subjects to be discussed
> in this press conference, has been spread". This was a clear statement that he
> was not willing to discuss the situation in Lithuania. Foreign Minister,
> Pertti Paasio, did comment the Lithuania question, but all his answers 
> (couldn't call them statements) were carefully chosen, in order not to
> "irritate" our eastern "Big Brother". 
 
    Well ... Finnish politicians do seem to know the famous words by J K
    Paasikivi:  "Kaiken viisauden alku on tosiasioiden tunnustaminen." 
    (Acknowledging facts is the very beginning of wisdom) (Translation may
    stink,  sorry in advance...) 
 
    Besides, Mr. Koivisto (he has no opinions at all), Mr. Paasio (no
    comment)  and Mr. Holkeri ('I'm drinking coffee now') are extremely
    "talkative" anyway, so it's no wonder why Finnish political image is
    what it is today: a limbo.
 
 
>					Then, on the other hand, a nationalistic
> Soviet magazine makes an interview with Esko-Juhani Tennila, a Finnish 
> communist of the extreme left-wing. In this interview, mr Tennila says that
> "most of the Finnish people think that Lithuania has acted foolishly and
> that we hope that the borders of the USSR remain as they currently are.
> Nobody has told the Lithuanians what a catastrophy the break-out from the
> USSR would be."
>          Incredible! And nobody in Finland has even bothered to counter-
> attack Tennila. We Finns always talk about our neutrality, but if it means
> we can't even raise "the smallest finger" against the USSR, I really will
> start believing in the term finlandization. I used to be proud of being
> Finnish - that pride is now gradually fading. 
> 
 
    Finns did complain of Tennila's 'facts' and in today's 'Helsingin
    Sanomat' he  apologises for what he had said. Also, he explains that
    what he ment was  that most of the Finns are pro-perestroika. 
 
    +                            +
   -+-- -- ---    -- ---     - --+--+--- ------ --- --  -----+----
  --+ [email protected] +--+ University of Helsinki +---
   [email protected]  -+--+     Department of      +--
    +    --- -     ---     + +   +--+    Computer Science    +-
     + What? Me worry ?   + +    +--+-- ---------- ------ ---+
      + -------- -- ---------- +-+--- -   -

    From: [email protected] (Dag Stenberg, Univ of Helsinki, Finland)
    Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
    Subject: Re: Finnish foreign policy and Lithuania
    Date: 3 Apr 90 14:06:07 GMT
    Organization: University of Helsinki
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Lauri Toropainen) writes:
> [email protected] (Lehtinen Pertti) writes:
>>	Comments of finnish government to any happening in the world have
>>	been quite silent.
> 
>>	No comments about Beijing.
>>	No comments about Panama.
>>	No comments about Transylvania (now or earlier).
>>	No comments about Lithuania.
> 
> The Finnish government seems to have this idea about neutrality: let the
> others do anything they want as long as they leave us alone.
> 
--          
    
    In today's "Hufvudstadsbladet" (the major daily in Swedish language in
    Finland), it is asked what the Secretary General of the International
    Red Cross, Mr. Paer Stenbaeck, formerly Swedish People's Party Leader,
    Member of Parliament, and Minister, is going to do about Soviet
    military having entered Red Cross stations and abducted Lithuanians who
    sought refuge there...
 
    It is felt that at least some comment might be reasonable.
 
    (Mr. Stenbaeck was a succesful politician in his time, skillfully
    avoiding getting hurt politically, and consequently making a  good
    career.)
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    Dag Stenberg				[email protected]
    Department of Physiology		        [email protected]
    University of Helsinki			tlx: 100125 finuh sf
    Helsinki, Finland			        fax: int.+358-0-1918366
					        tel: int+358-0-1918532
    -----------------------------------------------------------------

    I can't really sit by and let all this criticism of Finland roll
    past on my screen without putting in a little item for balance.
    
    It is not true that Finnish polititians are always afraid of making
    statements that are critical of other (bigger) countries. A number
    of months ago, even we who are blessed with Norwegian TV were able
    to view a portion of an interview with Mauno Koivisto where he is
    asked to comment on the foreign policy of a larger, neighbouring
    country; to wit, Sweden.
    
    The question was: "How do you distinguish the neutrality of Finland
    from that of Sweden?"
    
    Mr Koivisto answerd,
    

    "Finland's policy is to have equally friendly relations with all
    countries; Sweden's policy is to have equally unfriendly relations
    with all other countries."
    
    He was indeed criticised for this rather frank utterance.
    
    In my own humble opinion, I think the statement is a masterpiece
    of description of the two opposing types of neutrality that we have
    in Scandinavia (in Norway we have a chaotic mixture of the two).
    
    Mauritz
    

    From: [email protected] (JULIAN M. ISHERWOOD)
    Newsgroups: clari.news.gov.international,clari.news.hot.east_europe,
        clari.news.economy,clari.news.europe
    Subject: Lithuanian premier arrives in Norway
    Keywords: international, non-usa government, government, non-usa economies,
	economy, natural gas, energy
    Date: 18 Apr 90 22:43:56 GMT
    Location: soviet union, norway
    Slugword: lithuania-norway
 
    	OSLO, Norway (UPI) -- Lithuania's premier and foreign minister,
    arriving in Oslo for a two-day visit designed to win foreign support
    for their republic's independence, urged Moscow Wednesday to end its
    threats.

    	"Moscow is now openly threatening us with an economic blockade. The
    only way to counter these threats is to win support from friendly
    countries," Prime Minister Kazimiera Prunskiene said on arrival at Oslo
    airport.

    	"It is high time that they stop these actions," Prunskiene said.
    "All the measures have been tried. We have been very calm and
    reasonable in confronting Moscow's threats. Our people don't panic and
    even the threat of this very brutal economic blockade has been met by
    Lithuanians with calm. They must stop."

    	The Lithuanian officials arrived before it was announced in
    Vilnius, the Lithuanian capital, that the Soviet Union had cut off the
    flow of crude oil to the republic's refinery. "The flow of crude oil to
    the Mazeikiai oil refinery in northwest Lithuanua was cut off tonight
    at approximately 9:30 p.m.," a Lithuanian government spokeswoman in
    Vilnius said.

    	Prunskiene said her visit to Norway with Foreign Minister Algirdas
    Saudargas was her first foreign visit as an official representative of
    her country.  "Although we have been invited by parties and not the
    government we both feel we represent our country in an official
    capacity," Prunskiene said. "I hope this is the beginning of developed
    contacts between our two countries ... but it would not be sensible of
    us to try to pressure any government into recognizing our declaration
    of independence."

    	Saudargas said the visit comes at a "troublesome time" for
    Lithuania, which has stubbornly refused to rescind its March 11
    declaration of independence from the Soviet Union.	"This is a very
    difficult time for our country. We feel much support and help from many
    countries in the world. These personal contacts will strengthen us,"
    Saudargas said.

    	Prunskiene said her message to Western countries on her first
    official visit to the West was, "The West should be more determined to
    solve not only the Lithuanian question but also the problems of the
    whole world."  But she said she was aware that Western states could not
    give Lithuania supplies that the Soviet Union might cut.  "We realize
    that governments as such can't give us oil but the oil companies can on
    contract," Prunskiene said, adding that if agreements were reached with
    Norwegian oil and gas companies, Lithuania would be able to honor its
    commitments.

    	"The oil and gas companies can't give us anything free, of course,
    so much depends on what type of contracts we can reach," Prunskiene
    said. She did not say whether she would be trying to negotiate such
    contracts in Norway.

    	Prunskiene was invited to visit Norway April 5 by the governing
    bodies of Norway's non-socialist coalition government.  Norway's
    Foreign Ministry said the Lithuanian premier was to have talks with the
    leaders of all Norway's parliamentary parties on Thursday. On Friday
    Prunskiene was to visit Stavanger, the off-shore oil and gas center on
    Norway's west coast.

    	Several Norwegian parties earlier urged their government to agree
    to deliver oil and gas to Lithuania should the Soviet Union carry out
    its threat to cut supplies to the rebellious republic.  The Norwegian
    government made it clear it will not make any state arrangement with
    Lithuania on oil and gas deliveries, but it remains unclear whether
    private companies would be permitted to attempt to deliver supplies.

    	If Norwegian or other Western companies decide to help Lithuania,
    it remains unclear how they would transport supplies to the republic
    whose customs functions and borders are manned by Soviet officials.	
    During her visit to Stavanger, Prunskiene was expected to visit the
    country's state-owned Statoil oil company as well as the major gas
    producer Norsk Hydro.

    From: [email protected] (JULIAN M. ISHERWOOD)
    Newsgroups: clari.news.gov.international,clari.news.hot.east_europe,
	clari.news.economy,clari.news.europe
    Subject: Lithuanian premier seeks support, supplies from West
    Keywords: international, non-usa government, government, non-usa economies,
	economy, natural gas, energy
    Date: 19 Apr 90 15:49:44 GMT
    Slugword: lithuania-norway
 
    	OSLO, Norway (UPI) -- Lithuanian Prime Minister Kazimiera
    Prunskiene, rebuffed by the Norwegian government in her quest for
    supplies following an energy cutoff by Moscow, Thursday declared the
    republic's resolve to pursue independence.	"There is no question of
    rescinding our declaration of independence," Prunskiene said as reports
    of a reduction in natural gas to Lithuania reached her in the Norwegian
    capital. Oil supplies were cut off late Wednesday.

    	Prunskiene and Foreign Minister Algirdas Saudargas arrived in
    Norway late Wednesday on a two-day visit to drum up support for
    Lithuania's declaration of independence and to seek ways of
    compensating for reductions in Soviet fuel shipments.  "We've been
    expecting this. We were warned. But the question of cuts in gas
    supplies is much more complicated than cuts in oil deliveries and has
    much graver consequences," Prunskiene told a news conference.	
    "But Lithuania will survive -- also without gas -- although life will
    be reduced to a minimum."

    	She said Lithuania's engineers were working on plans to use other
    fuels in industry and to use bottled gas for homes. She said she saw
    "no obstacles in importing to and exporting products from Lithuania."	
    "We have a border with White Russia, Latvia and Kaliningrad. There is
    no reason that these cannot be used," Prunskiene said.

    	Prunskiene said she planned to visit Norway's state-owned oil
    company, Statoil, and the private Norsk Hydro company to discuss energy
    contracts.	"I do not expect these discussions to end in contracts yet.
    They will be exploratory," Prunskiene said.

    	The Norwegian government said earlier it could not assure Lithuania
    of fuel supplies.	"The Norwegian government cannot promise Lithuania
    any oil," Prime Minister Jan P. Syse. "Lithuania must contact the oil
    companies itself and I expect that they will be treated as any other
    buyer."

    	Statoil said a Lithuanian request for oil would be considered on a
    purely commercial basis and would be paid for in U.S. dollars.  "If we
    can enter into a normal commercial agreement there is no reason why we
    cannot supply Lithuania with oil," Statoil spokeswoman Berit Rynning
    Oyen told United Press International.

    	"But there would be many problems involved. Lithuania does not have
    the facilities to take our large tankers. We could send smaller tankers
    but would also have to obey international maritime laws," Oyen said.	
    Prunskiene said Lithuania would have to seek foreign credits to pay for
    such contracts.  "Up to now Lithuania's money has been kept in Moscow's
    pocket. Moscow is not the good mother type who will open her purse
    strings to such a spoilt child," she said.

    	Prunskiene, who will travel to Denmark Saturday before flying to
    Ireland and an informal EC foreign ministers' meeting, vowed to honor
    any contract with Norwegian companies on a commercial basis.  She
    called on the West to support her republic's fight for independence
    saying foreign support was the only way to prevent further threats from
    Moscow.  "Moscow is now openly threatening us with an economic
    blockade. The only way to counter these threats is to win support from
    friendly countries," she said.

    Okay, so the people of the USA got BUSHwacked in the last election, but
    it makes me angry that the U.S. will not finally stand up to the USSR
    about the annexation of the BALTIC countries.  So FDR was a wimp, do
    all the following presidents have to compound the problem.  Georgie
    should simply say, "Thor's Hammer, now you have done it Mikey, Back off
    and let the Baltic States alone, or by gosh, you will not get any more
    technology, no pepsi, and no wheat."  
    
    I am an American who was born in 1940, and I believe that the world was
    cowed by Stalin and Hitler to name but two of the dictators.   And the
    problem is that they have never got any spine back since.
    
    Ruskies go home for a change!
    
    JMHO...
    
    Dave
    
    

    First of all I think both FDR and Stalin felt that the Baltics were
    actually a part of the Soviet Union. The only reason that the Baltics
    were independent for 20 years was that Lenin had to give up huge
    areas of land in order to get out of the war in 1917. The Russians
    felt that the land was more or less taken from them by the Germans
    and when the Germans started a new war they felt it was OK to take
    back what they lost in WWI (this was a part of the Ribbentrop (sp?)
    pact).
    
    Before that the Baltics where Russian for over 100 years and before
    that they were Swedish for over 200 years, Lettland,Latvia and Estonia
    has been 'foreign property' for a long time. If they were allowed
    to get 'free' then all the 'old' countries in Europe should reappear.
    
    Hell, we would like to have Finland since it was Swedish for over
    500 years. Norway should be a part of Denmark, and Germany should
    once again be divide into 200 small countries. Just forget it!
    
    As for Bush, if you were the POTUS would you jeopardise the biggest
    disarmament (sp?) deal of the century because of a small part of
    the Soviet Union that wish to be free. I wouldn't, since the deal
    that is coming up now may ensure peace in Europe a good way into
    the next millennium.
    
    Also, it's their backyard, you invaded Grenada when you didn't like
    the new regime there, so I wouldn't keep yelling too loud if I were
    you...

    re .12 & .13
    
    First .12, for the record (FDR bieng "wimp"), my question "Relative
    to whom at that time?"
    
    At the time of the anexation (actually 1940; though the Hitler/Stalin
    pact was signed in August 1939), the US was neutral, and adamently
    so. The Republican opposition to FDR was essentially criticising
    him for not being wimpish enough; i.e., he should not meddle in
    European affairs at all. 
    
    At the time of the anexation of the Balts, armies were crushing
    France (& also Dk & Nw) and in comparison, the anexation of Estonia,
    Latvia & Lithuania seemed quite "peaceful" in contrast (even if
    their "election" were rigged). If FDR was not supposed to utter
    an opinion on overt military invasion of independent nations, being
    accomplished without even a pretense of provocation, it would have
    been inconsistent, to say the least, to expect him to suddenly point
    fingers and get involved with whether a referendum in another state
    were legal or not (whether or not people were aware that it was
    being conducted under pressure).
    
    With regard to .13, I would take a view somewhere between Paul &
    Dave. Your comment could be read (though I do not hink you mean
    it so) to say that the Baltic states should not have independence.
    I read you to mean that the timing right now is not right; the
    overriding concern of "the greatest good for the greatest number"
    argues in favour of the West not taking specific actions against
    the Soviet Union with regard to Baltikum.
    
    I take what might seem paradoxical at first glance. I agree that
    we should not take provocative actions as such at this point. However,
    I also support the Baltic republics' rights to agitate for their
    independence and to go as far as they deem advisable in order to
    achieve it. I also favour our constant restatement of what we feel
    is their reghts to independence. These two factors will contribute
    to the nature of the relationship between the Soviet central government
    and the Baltic republic in the next few years, AND they will keep
    the issue alive so that independence will at least be assured over
    time (how much, we don't know).
    
    In 1814 Norway declared its independence.  The large powers wished
    that Norway should be part of Sweden.  Adament resistence (to the
    point of armed conflict---with a poor showing by the Norwegians)
    underscored the fact that Norway as a whole had no desire to be
    part of Sweden. It took until 1905 before the union was disolved;
    however, the nature of the union, with complete domestic autonomy,
    was one of virtual independence. It is a fact that the actions taken
    in 1814, including the writing of a constitution, estblishment of
    parliament AND armed resistance to Sweden, had a very direct effect
    upon the type of union that was the outcome. (The form of the union
    that Carl Johan (Jean Bernadotte) finally accepted was purely one
    of the two countries having the same joint monarch, to wit, him).
    Norway had all the other acoutrements of an independent country:
    National currency, own army, etc.  In retrospect, this turns out
    to have been a very good solution all around. There is no doubt
    to day that Norway benefited from the union (in many subtle ways---
    too long to go into right now, but I'll gladly oblige elsewhen &
    in another note). It is also clear that the fianl break in 1905
    was a good thing (all sorts of timing issues can be discussed, but
    what happened, happened, and it all turned out OK in the end).
    
    There are, by the way, lots of parallels in these two situations.
    BTW, for the record, I am NOT suggesting that the Balts wait 91
    years for thir "full" independence. Things move a lot faster now.
    We also have a lot of other conditions that were not around in the
    last century (not even pre 1950), like the movement towards a United
    Europe.  Everything is in flux now; if we keep our heads cool, we
    could achieve the best of all worlds for EVERYONE, never mind the
    old "good guys/bad guys" thinking---we are all people (politicians
    possibly excepted).
    
    Mauritz
    

    Disregarding the histories, we would have to be part of the British
    Empire (God Save Us!) if we were returned to what history had been.
    And then the land all given back to the Indians.  And all the Settlers
    of the new world would return to the points of origin!  Really crazy,
    HUH!
    
    Okay if I could be in Bush's shoes for a while, I would meet with 
    Gorby, and simply say:  "Look Mike, I know that you are having internal
    problems, but you have people who want independance, and that is right.
    If you make too strong a move, I will be forced to respond, as the
    leader of the wests largest country.  Since we are involved in
    peaceful discussions, PLEASE do not do anything that will jeopardize
    this.  If your people want freedom, and you want to remain united, I
    will not respond unless human rights are trodden upon."
    
    Yes, the United States was neutral prior to WWII and that is a damn
    shame.  Shame on us, and a shame that so many good people died because
    of that neutrality.  Hitler stated if the French had resisted his
    annexation of the parts that he took back in 1937? he would have had
    to retreat, because he did not have the strength to continue.  What if
    the U.S. had told him to back down or else, then.
    
    While I dislike war, I love freedom more.  The only war that I
    partially condone is the U.S. civil war, and I detest the loss of lives
    and the harm that the country suffered, but if I were there then, I
    would fight too, I think that the slaves freedom justified the means.
    
    From that You may think that I am Black, no I am not.  I just think
    that all men, women, and children should be free.  Slavery is not a
    thing that I could ever tolerate.  People belong to the human race and
    are not property... should never have been.
    
    Dave

    Re: .15
    
    The north did share your view when the south wanted its independence
    in the 1860's. I have another question, if the Indians wanted their
    land back, in order to form an independent nation, would you give
    it to them?         
    
    Bush knows that it's impossible to play it that way. That's maybe
    why he the POTUS and you're not.
    
    What I argued about is your attitude, that is very common among
    americans, that there are only two solutions. The american way,
    which is right, and everybody else's which is wrong.
    
    I have even met americans that feel it's right that USA intervenes
    in other countries, just because the Constitution says (I think) that
    the Armed forces must protect american interests.
                            
    -------
    
    I also want to see the Baltics independent, but they definately
    have gone too fast and too soon. If they would taken it a little
    bit easy and moved one step at a time, they may have gained their
    freedom by the year 2000. Now they wanted it all at once, and they
    will probably end up with nothing.
    
    My personal feelings are that the Latvia people has acted stupidly,
    not by wanting freedom, but because they were so naive that they
    thought that the Soviet Union would grant it to them just like that.
    
    Paul.

    From: [email protected] (Kjartan Stefansson)
    Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
    Subject: Re: Lithuania
    Date: 28 Apr 90 04:25:28 GMT
    Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY
 
    In article <[email protected]> halldors
    @paul.rutgers.edu (Magnus M Halldorsson) writes:
 
  >As of now, Lithuania is still a part of the USSR. As such, problems
  >there are *internal* to that country. Therefore, it is not only
  >unadvisable and improper to try to affect that situation, but also
  >quite irresponsible.
 
    Well, my fellow Icelander.  Possibly you are going along with the
    mainstream here, but what about the mainstream back home? I was
    wondering about our nations standpoint on this issue.  In Iceland, as
    in several other countries, there has been quite a debate, whether
    Iceland should officially recognize Lithuania's declaration of
    independence.  Earlier this century, when Iceland belonged to Denmark,
    Lithuania was recognized by Danes.  So, after Iceland got its
    independence, according to the book, that declaration does still hold,
    whatever Denmark did decide to do after that.  
    
    In current debate, Iceland's prime minister, Steingrimur Hermannsson
    (Denni, or Big Red, as his nickname was known in US - nobody can
    pronounce those Icelandic names anyway), wants to take the
    "Bush/Halldorsson-line" and avoid reiterating the acknowledgement of
    Lithuania as an independent country.  We do get "Morgunbladid"
    (Iceland's largest newspaper) here at Cornell, but that's irregular and
    far between.  So I was wondering if we could get some update on
    Iceland's official policy these days. The last thing I read was that
    there was an intensive debate in Althingi (Congress) about a
    "reiterated" independence acknowledgement. Any news from our fellow
    Icelanders?
 
  >Magnus
 
    Kjartan.

    re: .-1
    
    
    >My personal feelings are that the Latvia people has acted stupidly,
    >not by wanting freedom, but because they were so naive that they
    >thought that the Soviet Union would grant it to them just like that.
    
   > Paul.
    
    	You mean Lithuania, not Latvia. Latvia (nor Estonia) have not
    	gone as far as Lithuania, and their conflict with Kremlin 
    	is yet to be seen.
    
    	My personal feeling is that a lot of the Litnuanian problems
    	are caused by their politically very inexpreienced president
    	(ex. music ? professor or something like that). He was relying
    	on western economical support and thought that he could do what
    	ever he wanted. No when the Russians have started the Oil/Gas
    	empargo, none of the western countries have offered any help.
    
    	Norway hsa promised to sell them oil, but only with dollars.
    	And they don't have any.
    
    	We finns have been accused of our 'Neutral' position on the 
    	Lithuanian problem. Well we may be wrong, but sure also the
    	other Scandinavian countries have things to make better.
    	I mean ' talk is cheap'. Nobody has yet given them any real
    	help.
    
    	But to be real, there is no chance of indepencence for the Baltic
    	countries, Unless the Russians agree. No matter what ever
    	Mr Bush chooses to say or not to say.  And to be honest i believe
    	that the Russians will allow Baltic indepence some day in not
    	so distant future. The problem is that the Lithuanians want it
    	today. And it is not going to happen.
    
    		Pekka

    From: [email protected] (JULIAN M. ISHERWOOD)
    Newsgroups: clari.news.gov.international,clari.news.europe,
	clari.news.politics.people,clari.news.hot.east_europe
    Subject: Landsbergis: Europe is Lithuania's only hope
    Keywords: international, non-usa government, government,
	political personalities, politics
    Date: 24 Aug 90 17:25:09 GMT
    Location: denmark, soviet union
    Slugword: landsbergis
 
    	COPENHAGEN, Denmark (UPI) -- Lithuanian President Vytautas
    Landsbergis said Friday that western Europe was the only guarantor of
    independence for Lithuania.	"Either Europe helps Lithuania to rejoin
    Europe, or Europe rejects the Baltic states and forces them to remain
    in the Soviet Union," Landsbergis said.
                          
    	The Lithuanian president was in Copenhagen Friday on a two-day
    official working visit as the guest of Danish Prime Minister Poul
    Schluter.  "The time is coming when the European states will have to
    see the situation as it is and make their decisions accordingly,"
    Landsbergis said.  "The West says it wants to support (Soviet President
    Mikhail) Gorbachev, but does not seem to realize that to do this, they
    must support the Baltic states. We are the ones who have given
    Gorbachev most assistance in bringing about real change in the Soviet
    Union," Landsbergis said.

    	The Lithuanian president added that Lithuania had the right to take
    its independence and sovereignty, "things which could never be a gift
    from Moscow."  "If we find an agreement whereby they think that they
    are giving us independence, but we know we are simply taking it -- that
    will leave us no problems," Landsbergis added.  "We have no hate of the
    Russians, we know that they too have been victims of a cruel system. It
    is this system that must be destroyed, and we in Lithuania have
    destroyed quite a bit of it already," Landsbergis said.

    	The Lithuanian president went on to reject the notion that the
    Soviet Union could retain the Baltic port of Klaipeda as part of any
    agreement on full independence for Lithuania.  "According to the Treaty
    of Versailles in 1919, Klaipeda was separated from Germany. In 1924
    Lithuanian sovereignty over the port was recognized by the world,"
    Landsbergis said.  He said Soviet politicians were making "a great
    mistake" to think Klaipeda, Lithuania's only major port, could be a
    Soviet port "simply because it was taken over as part of the Soviet
    Union."   "If you accept that annexation, then you also have to re-draw
    Europe. It would make Hitler's annexation of (Poland's) Silesia and the
    anschluss with Austria still valid," Landsbergis said. 

    	The Lithuanian president said that the most important element for
    Lithuania at present was to rewin control over its borders.	"At the
    moment there is a foreign army there. They must eventually go,"
    Landsbergis concluded.

    From: [email protected]
    Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
    Subject: Estonia
    Date: 15 Jan 91 19:53:16 GMT
    Organization: University of Helsinki
 
    From:	XRAY::MATTI        15-JAN-1991 12:04:21.24
    To:		HYLKA::MNIKKOLA
 
 
    TO THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY OF THE WORLD

    At this moment, when the Soviet Armed Forces, starting from Lithuania
    and  paying no attention to human lives, are in their way to eliminate 
    democratic structures, freely and rightfully elected parliaments and 
    appointed by them executive branches,we, the community of Estonian 
    scientists and scientific institutions, wish to state the following:

    1) It is time to realize that in prognosing the future of the Soviet
    Union,  its influence to the peace and stability of the world, the
    traditional  liberal Western pattern of thinking has now become
    irrelevant and  unjustified.  Realistic prognosis must start from the
    knowledge and analysis  of its roots and psychology, since the
    Soviet-type imperialism has already  a long history and traditions. Its
    methods can be tracked back to the Civil  War, occupation and
    annexation of independent states and territories in 1939 -40, to
    Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968, Afghanistan and to much more  recent
    events in Tbilisi, Baku and elsewhere.

    2) Those who carry this ideology in USSR and sacrifice about a half of
    the  national income to the military industrial complex, are today 
    psychologically determined for looking for compensation for the loss of
    the  "socialist camp".

    3) The only feasible strategy for the democratic countries to withstand
    the  powerfully rising counter-perestroika with its neoimperialistic
    attitude  is in an open and clear support not only to persons, as it
    has happened so  far, but to democratically elected legistlative bodies
    of republics.  Governments and parliaments of democratic countries
    should, without delay,  once again carefully and responsibly analyze
    the reality behind the words  and to decide, which is a more sound
    guarantee for peace and stability in  Europe and elsewhere: the
    unitarian empire with constant lapses to  brutality or a democratic
    community of free states, the russian Federation  among them. We hope
    that current developments in USSR allow scientists and  social thinkers
    to reevaluate a still prevailing routine in this for us so clear
    problem.

    We ask all scientists to persuade their governements to take a strong
    and unequivocal position supporting Lithuania, the other Baltic states
    and freedom seeking republics of the entity still referred to as the
    Soviet Union.
 
    Scientists of the Estonian Academy of Sciences and universities,
    Estonian  Union of Scientists, Estonian Science Council and Estonian
    Science Fund  Council. 

    From: [email protected]
    Newsgroups: clari.news.gov.international,clari.news.europe,
	clari.news.demonstration,clari.news.fighting,clari.news.top.world
    Subject: Lithuanian foreign minister links Baltic crisis to gulf
    Date: 15 Jan 91 19:10:44 GMT
 
 
    	LONDON (UPI) -- Britain attempted Tuesday to allay Lithuanian fears
    that the Persian Gulf crisis will divert world attention from the
    Soviet crackdown on the Baltic states, with Prime Minister John Major
    condemning the military attack in Vilnius and warning it jeopardized
    economic development aid.

    	Major deplored the Soviet actions as the republic's foreign
    minister, Algirdis Saudargas, flew to London for talks with British
    officials and linked the two crisis. Saudargas declared that war in the
    gulf would by used by the Soviets as a pretext for a further crackdown
    on the Baltic states.

    	In the House of Commons, Major warned that more violence could
    severely deter support for economic development in the Soviet Union.	
    "I deeply deplore the actions in Vilnius and of course their tragic
    consequences," the prime minister said. "I regard them as unnecessary,
    undesirable, and I hope they will never be repeated."

    	Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd and Major have previously condemned
    the Soviet use of force to stop the Baltic republic's drive for
    independence.

    	A Foreign Office spokesman said Saudargas met Minister of State for
    Foreign Affairs Douglas Hogg during the afternoon and would see Hurd on
    Wednesday.	The spokesman said Britain remained concerned over the
    tense political situation and the +authoritarian trend+ unfolding over
    recent months. Hogg made it clear that despite the Gulf crisis +we were
    keeping a close eye+ on developments in the Soviet Union, the spokesman
    added.

    	Saudargas' mission was part of an international lobbying effort
    launched following the bloody crackdown on Lithuania over the weekend,
    when Soviet troops in tanks seized the television center in Vilnius in
    an attack that left 14 dead.

    	On Monday, a Lithuanian envoy asked the United States to take
    action against Moscow over the military assault.	"We asked the
    United States to give a signal to the Kremlin to the effect that if
    force is used in the Baltic region something will happen, " said Stasys
    Lozoraitis, charges d'affaires of the Lithuanian legation, after he and
    heads of the Latvian and Estonian legations met with U.S. State
    Department officials.

    From: [email protected] (Ron Joma)
    Newsgroups: soc.history,soc.culture.nordic,talk.politics.soviet
    Subject: Re: Lithuania in the shadow of Saddam Hussein
    Date: 18 Jan 91 16:59:11 GMT
    Organization: AT&T Canada Inc., Toronto
 
    In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Daniel Tuijnman)
    writes:

   > 
   > A noteworthy fact is that in the last millennium the Baltic states only
   > had 21 years of independence, from 1919 until 1940 -- at least this
   > accounts for Estonia and Latvia. Maybe it is interesting to give a
   > summary of the history of these nations -- as far as known to me. 
   > It is not much -- I hope someone can give additional facts, as I think,
   > not very much is widely known about these countries.
   > ...
 
    Your points in this post are essentially correct, however some of the
    analysis needs some work.  First, one should consider the numbers of
    the population concerned.  Balts do not represent a substantial
    population when compared to those of their neighbours (Scandanavia,
    Russia, Germany (Ost Preussen), so combined with the lack of natural
    defences it is rather easy to overtake or saturate these countries. 
    Conquer would not be a good word, because even with a 1940's population
    count (1.8 Million in Latvia, cannot recall Estonia or Lithuania),
    there were many armies who outnumbered the entire populations of the
    country.  This says nothing about the battles the Balts put up - just
    that they have essentially been outnumbered for hundreds of years.
 
    This should not influence their desire for self determination or
    freedom. It would be like saying, that just because you have suffered
    break and enters a number of times, you really don't deserve the
    stereo.
 
 
   > 
   > What surprises me, I haven't read anything of previous revolts (well,
   > I'm not specialized in Baltian history :-)). And why are especially the
   > Lithuanians so anxious to get their independence today? From the other
   > two Baltic states I heard nothing of great uprisings and military
   > actions by the Soviet government.
   > 
   > Greetings,
   > 
   > Daniel.
 
    Lithuanians are probably the highest concentration of the population in
    Lithuania, hence the most vocal.  Latvia, has been saturated with
    ethnic russians and others to the point where the Latvian component in
    the country is barely 50%,  Estonia fares betters but not to the extent
    of Lithuania.  (Consider going up against the Soviet establishment if
    every other person is a Russian, got to basically choose your moves
    more carefully.
 
    As for participation in anti soviet activities, I would suggest you try
    to distinguish amoungst the other flags in the crowd:
 
    The Red White Red of Latvia.
    The White, Blue, Black of Estonia.
 
    The presence is definitely there.
 
    Finally I will conclude with a tactical observation.  Given some of the
    points above, there is also a certain method to the maddness over
    there.  Latvians and Estonians are giving the Lithuanians all the
    support that can be given, food fuel and other materials during the
    embargo.  When three try to separate, let one with the best  situation
    make the opening moves.  The Balts will not fare better if all three
    together make their moves - The soviet response will be a replay of
    1940.  Instead by having Lithuania as a hot spot and Latvia/Estonia
    relatively (emphasis on relatively) cooler, then the resulting soviet
    response will not be as great.
 
    The Baltics are allied, and mutually supportive.  During their gaining
    of independance (1919-1920's) they essentially all cooperated in
    sweeping the russians (and then the rogue germans) out of their
    countries together.  Each fought on the sides of the others during each
    phase of this cleanup.
 
    These are a people who have managed to retain their individual cultural
    heritage since the 900's (at least).  They certainly will continue to
    survive this current situation until they can once again be free.  DO
    NOT CONSIDER THIS AS COMPLACENCY.
 
    Ronald Joma
    Letts do it better

    From: [email protected] (Erland Sommarskog)
    Newsgroups: soc.history,soc.culture.nordic,talk.politics.soviet
    Subject: More on Baltic history
    Date: 20 Jan 91 23:32:52 GMT
    Organization: Enea Data AB, Sweden
 
    (I don't read soc.history or soc.culture.nordic, beware of this if you
    want to correct me.)
 
   Also sprach Daniel Tuijnman ([email protected]):
   >To be more precise, Estonia and Latvia were conquered by Russia around
   >1700, and were until then part of the Swedish empire. Lithuania became
   >part of Russia with the first partition of Poland in 1772.
 
    Actually, we didn't hold the entire Latvia. Kurland, Semgallen and part
    of Livland were Polish. The border was just south of Riga.
 
   >Lithuania was for about 6 or 7 centuries part of a Polish-Lithuanian
   >double-monarchy which, after initially being dominated by the Lithuanians,
 
    Lithuania became a great-power in the 13th century extending down to
    the Black sea. The fusion with Poland took place in 1386 as a personal
    union - the Lithuanian king was elected king also in Poland. (In fact,
    Sweden and Poland were also united in such a union 1592-1599.)
 
    Klaipeda, or Memel, was Prussian/German until the early 1920s when the
    Lithuanians seized it. (To be exact: Memel was supposed to be a free
    town like Gdansk after WW1.) On the whole, old Lithuania had very
    little if any coast on the Baltic Sea.
 
    Vilnius was never really part of free 20th century Lithuania. Poland
    occupied it, and the occupation was internationally acknowledged. The
    one document that did not, and therefore made it possible to include
    Vilnius in the Lithuanian SSR was  the so behated Molotov-Ribentrop
    pact.
 
    It could be added that Danes also had interests in Estonia. Tallinn
    means "the Danish town". One of the islands outside Estonia, Saaremaa,
    was Danish until 17th century I believe. --  Erland Sommarskog - ENEA
    Data, Stockholm - [email protected] One likes to believe in the spirit of
    muzak.

    From: [email protected] (Kimmo Saarinen)
    Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
    Subject: Re: Lithuania
    Date: 22 Jan 91 08:58:49 GMT
    Sender: [email protected]
    Organization: Technical Research Centre of Finland
 
   >Finland (may I add of course ?). President Koivisto has said that
   >President Vyutatas (sp?) Landsbergis is to blame for the events
   >in Lithuania.
 
    Hoah, maybe you are exaggerating a little. It's true that Koivisto said
    that Landsbergis shouldn't be so stubborn as he is. Koivisto preferred
    negotiations between the Sovjets and Lithuanians to avoid these events
    happened in Lithuania. But it's not true that  Koivisto has blamed
    Landsbergis for being on charge of this crisis.
 
    President Koivisto made an error when he said just two days before the
    violations in Lithuania started that the Sovjet goverment don't use any
    force to solve the situation in Lithuania. Koivisto is not in high
    favor in Finland in this moment (well, I'm not sure about this, but the
    newspapers and public opinion attacked very heavily against President
    Koivisto). But as the way here in Finland goes he don't admit that he
    has been wrong. No politician here ever says that (s)he has made an
    error or (s)he has mistaken something. I'm getting pissed on this ...,
    they still stay in power ...
 
    And as you can imagine our goverment stays in being just concerned
    about the events, more concerned, deeply concerned ... (and so on). No
    clear and Baltic supporting attitude is taken and showed officially.
    Dammit.
 
    BTW, I'm getting more and more clear opinion that quite many persons
    should be changed in our parliament and goverment. I don't like to have
    Koivisto any more as a president. The problem is that we don't have so
    many alternatives to choose from. Next elections are in this spring,
    new parliament will be selected then. Let's see ...
 
  -- 
  ========================================================================
  Kimmo Saarinen                         ! e-mail  [email protected]
  Technical Research Centre of Finland   ! ... here ... and there ...
  Medical Engineering Laboratory         !       ... usually nowhere ...

    From: [email protected]
    Newsgroups: soc.history,soc.culture.nordic,talk.politics.soviet
    Subject: Governments in the Baltic States, 1918-1940
    Date: 2 Feb 91 14:02:38 GMT
 
    In article [email protected] (John McCarthy) writes:

 >    The Finns and Ukrainians were active in collabortion with the German Army.
 >    Does that make these government right-wing?
  
    No, of course not. They had motives for taking the positions they did
    that lay quite outside the traditional polarities of the second world
    war.

 > 
 > What was this alleged active collaboration with the Nazis before the war?
 > Remember that there was an active industry of justifying Soviet policy
 > before and after the war, e.g. I. F. Stone, so just because you read
 > it somewhere doesn't prevent it from being an outright lie.
 
    The Times (of London) is not exactly an apologist for the Soviet Union,
    and their _Concise Atlas of World History_ maintains that Lithuania,
    Latvia, and Estonia had "repressive or conservative" regimes for all or
    part of the Inter-War period.  This does not necessarily mean that they
    collaborated with Nazis, or didn't, it just means what it says-
    "repressive or conservative." (Inter-war Poland, no collaborator, also
    recieved this label).
 
    Just to give the breakdown (from the COLUMBIA ENCYCLOPEDIA, 1963 ed. 
    Paraphrased by AMB):
 
    ESTONIA:  From 1918 to 1933 more than twenty coalition governments rose
    and fell.  A new Constitution was promulgated in 1933, which granted
    sweeping powers to the President.  In 1934, President Pats abolished
    parties and instituted an authoritarian regime.  This was reformed
    somewhat in 1938, but only two years later, Estonia reached the end of
    the line.
 
    EVALUATION: Badly flawed, but after 20+ coalitions who can blame them? 
    Had begun to come around before war broke out.  B-
 
    LATVIA: History in the twenties similar to Estonia, characterised as
    having had "no political stability."  In 1934 not only the partes but
    the assembly itself were dissolved completely.  In 1936 a fellow named
    Ulmanis became "virtual dictator." Unlike Estonia, no moves toward
    reform were made in the years before the war, and Latvia cut deals with
    both the Soviets and the Germans in the years just before the war.
 
    EVALUATION: Unimpressive. Can perhaps be forgiven for slipping, but
    made no attempt to recover.  C
 
    LITHUANIA: Much more turbulent twenties history than either of her
    neighbors to the north.  At war with Poland (technically) from
    1920-1927 (at which time it also resisted attacks from Soviets and
    unofficial groups of Germans.  Lost Vilnius to Poland almost
    immediately.  "Virtual Dictatorships" from 1926 to 1940, which was
    finally formalised in a 1938 fascist-style constitution.
 
    EVALUATION:  Hardly surprising, given the circumstances, but very poor
    nonetheless.  D+
 
    That many Balts collaborated with the Nazi's cuts no ice with me, not
    because it was an ok thing to do, but because millions of people all
    over Occupied Europe did the same, even in countries like France, and
    we aren't damning *them* fifty years after the fact, are we?
 
    Now, I support Baltic Independence.  It might be nice if they didn't
    want it, but they do, very badly.  Best to let them go, and see if
    someday they came back.  Gorbachev should let the serious malcontents
    go, and then concentrate on making the Soviet Union a really attractive
    proposition, like the EC.
 
    -Tony

    From: [email protected] (JULIAN M. ISHERWOOD)
    Newsgroups: clari.news.gov.international,clari.news.hot.east_europe,
	clari.news.military,clari.news.europe,clari.news.politics.people,
	clari.news.top.world
    Subject: Lithuania urges international vigilance against Soviet actions
    Date: 1 Feb 91 05:28:02 GMT
 
 
    	COPENHAGEN, Denmark (UPI) -- Lithuania's vice president called for
    foreign support to break "an impasse" with the Soviet Union over
    independence for his Baltic republic.  "Lithuania cannot solve this
    problem alone," Bronislavus Kuzmickas said Thursday. "What happens in
    Lithuania does not just affect us Lithuanians."     "We are at an
    impasse," said Kuzmickas, second in command to President Vytautas
    Landsbergis. "This situation now needs internationalizing if we are get
    out of the cul de sac."

    	Lithuania's Foreign Minister Algirdas Saudargas said foreign
    mediation meant the Helsinki process or Conference on Security and
    Cooperation in Europe, of which the Soviet Union is a member along with
    the United States, Canada and all European nations except Albania.

    	Kuzmickas, Saudargas and Emanuelis Zingeris, the chairman of
    Lithuania's Foreign Policy Committee, were in Copenhagen at the
    invitation of Denmark's Foreign Minister Uffe Ellemann-Jensen.

    	Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev has maintained Lithuania's
    status must be decided internally and has offered a referendum as the
    first step for the largely Roman Catholic Baltic republic to regain the
    statehood it enjoyed before being annexed by Moscow in 1940 along with
    sister republics Estonia and Latvia.  But the latest crisis started
    because the Soviet president's sent paratroops to Lithuania three weeks
    ago, resulting in the killing of 14 Lithuanian civilians on Jan. 13 in
    the storming of a TV station in Vilnius, the capital.

    	Kuzmickas said he had not yet seen evidence that Soviet troops were
    being pulled out of his republic, despite declarations by Gorbachev's
    press secretary and assurances President Bush said he had received of
    an impending withdrawal.   "As far as we see, they (the troops) are
    going to take part in seasonal maneuvers," Kuzmickas said.

    	Saudargas, who has a standing order from his government to form a
    government-in-exile if Moscow puts an end to Lithuania's independence
    drive, said only Western support kept Moscow from suffocating
    Lithuania's legally elected government.  "It is a tribute to these
    forceful reactions that the first stage of the Soviet aggression
    against the Baltic states was stopped," the foreign minister said.	
    But, he added, the West needed "to be vigilant, and to make sure that
    in the shadow of the gulf crisis stage two of the Soviet plan" was not
    put into effect.	"Lithuania appears to have been a rehearsal. The
    troops are still there. They patrol the streets," Saudargas said.

    	Kuzmickas accused Soviet troops in Lithuania of carrying out 
    "illegal acts."   "They stop people in the streets and demand identity
    cards. They stop buses and cars and force people out of them and harass
    them. There are permanent military patrols in the streets," Kuzmickas
    complained.  He added that Soviet forces, in enforcing their orders to
    round up draft resisters, systematically beat up Lithuanians who fail
    to answer the army callup.

    	"Balts do not want to join the Soviet armed forces. Those that are
    forced to go are severely beaten on their first day in the army. Some
    of them come back to their mothers in coffins," the vice president
    said.

    	Saudargas called for continued discussion of the Baltic issue in a
    more international forum, in order to break the deadlock in
    negotiations with the Soviet Union.	"The United Nations Security
    Council is hardly the place at the moment, given American needs for
    consensus on the gulf crisis. But we need help from the international
    community," Saudargas said.

    	He added that Lithuanians were aware that the West could neither
    negotiate on behalf of the Baltic States "nor fight their battles".	
    "That is something we have to do and are doing. What we need is the
    outspoken support of the international community. That will help us get
    negotiations under way," he said.

    	But Saudargas said that Lithuania would not, nor could it afford to
    relinquish its drive to give real content to its 1990 declaration of
    independence.  "The West told us to wait and let Gorbachev out of a
    corner. We did. And now look what he's done. He started shooting,"
    Saudargas said.  "Gorbachev is titular head of the Soviet Union. But it
    is only titular at the moment. The military, the KGB and the Communist
    Party are pulling strings," he concluded.

    From: [email protected] (JULIAN M. ISHERWOOD)
    Newsgroups: clari.news.gov.international,clari.news.europe,
	clari.news.issues.civil_rights,clari.news.hot.east_europe,
	clari.news.demonstration
    Subject: Latvia fears Soviet show of power
    Date: 8 Feb 91 18:38:07 GMT
 
 
    	COPENHAGEN, Denmark (UPI) -- Latvia's Foreign Minister said Friday
    his government has been warned that Moscow planned a show of power in
    his Baltic republic in the next week.  "We have been told by a very
    reliable source that something is being planned for the 13th of this
    month and we are afraid of that date," Foreign Minister Janis Jurkans
    said. He refused to disclose the source of the information.

    	Jurkans was in Copenhagen Friday on the second day of a two-day
    official visit to Denmark, hosted by the Danish Foreign Ministry as
    part of a drive to help the Baltic states gain independence.

    	"Our source is the same one that correctly predicted the crackdown
    in Riga on January 20th," Jurkans said referring to an incident in
    which four people were killed in the Latvian capital when Soviet troops
    took over the Interior Ministry.  Asked why warnings had not been made
    public before the Jan. 20 incident if the Latvian authorities had been
    tipped off Jurkans said:  "Well we're doing it this time to try and
    prevent it."

    	"I fear primarily for the television and radio stations in Riga on
    February 13th. There is no doubt that the Soviet Union is embarked on a
    campaign to intimidate the Baltic States into submission on the
    independence issue," Jurkans said.

    	Jurkans added that Soviet actions were geared to forcing Baltic
    populations to vote "yes" in a union-wide referendum on a new plan for
    republican federation in a revamped Soviet treaty of union.	"But no
    Latvian authority will be involved in carrying out that referendum.
    They will have to do it themselves. We plan to boycott the referendum,"
    Jurkans said.

    	He added that Latvian authorities planned a referendum of their
    own, probably before the March 17 date for the Soviet referendum, which
    Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev has said will provide the basis for
    a liberalized federation of union republics with increased
    independence.  Jurkans said the Baltic republics of Estonia, Latvia and
    Lithuania were looking for their "full and rightful independence of the
    Soviet Union."

    	"What the countries may or may not decide to do in the future
    cannot be looked at now. At the moment we want to negotiate for our
    full independence and the decentralization of our economies," Jurkans
    said adding that some 80 percent of Latvia's businesses were still run
    from Moscow.

    	Gorbachev appointed delegations Feb. 1 to hold talks with the three
    mutinous Baltic republics, but he did not mention independence in a
    decree setting up the groups.  Pointedly avoiding any reference to
    independence, the Soviet president said he was appointing the
    delegations "to discuss a package of political, social and economic
    issues" with the republics, which were annexed by the Soviet Union in
    1940.

    	Although he urged the West to keep a watchful eye on developments
    in the Baltic States, Jurkans said his government was aware that
    Moscow, and not the West, was the real guarantor of Latvian
    independence.  "The West can help us by watching closely and reacting.
    That effectively stopped the last spate of intervention. But we can
    only get our independence from Moscow. At the moment, however, Moscow
    is not willing to negotiate," Jurkans said.

    	"It is a very worrying and insecure situation and nobody knows what
    will happen in a week, let alone a year," Jurkans said when asked how
    long he expected the process of Latvian independence to last.	
    "There's a saying. It's going to get worse before it gets better,"
    Jurkans said.

    From: [email protected] (Fridrik Skulason)
    Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic,misc.headlines
    Subject: Iceland to establish diplomatic relations with Lithuania
    Date: 13 Feb 91 10:02:08 GMT
    Organization: University of Iceland (RHI)
 
 
    The Icelandic Parliament has passed a resolution, where they:
 
	...confirm that the 1922 recognition of Lithuania as an independent
           country is still in effect. (Estonia and Latvia as well)
 
	...instruct the government to establish full diplomatic relations
	   with Lithuania as soon as possible.
 
    This had been expected to pass without any 'No' votes, but one member
    of the parliament voted against this, not because he was against the
    recognition of Lithuania, but because he felt the timing was wrong.
 
  -frisk
 
  Fridrik Skulason      University of Iceland  |       
  Technical Editor of the Virus Bulletin (UK)  |  Reserved for future expansion
  E-Mail: [email protected]    Fax: 354-1-28801  |   

    From: [email protected]
    Newsgroups: clari.news.gov.officials,clari.news.hot.east_europe,
	clari.news.hot.ussr,clari.news.issues.civil_rights,clari.news.europe,
	clari.news.gov.international
    Subject: Kremlin protests Danish-Baltic ties
    Date: 19 Mar 91 18:49:38 GMT
 
 
	MOSCOW (UPI) -- The Soviet government Tuesday threatened retaliatory
action against Denmark for its recent signing of protocols with the
Baltic republics intent on ending a half century of Kremlin rule.
	Deputy Foreign Minister Yuli Kvitsinky summoned Danish Ambassador
Vagn Egebjerg and handed him a note protesting the accords with Estonia,
Latvia and Lithuania, Foreign Ministry spokesman Vitaly Churkin told
reporters.
	Latvian Foreign Minister Janis Jurkans went to Copenhagen on Monday
and signed a working protocol with his Danish counterpart, Uffe Elleman-
Jensen. The accord commits the two neighbors across the Baltic Sea to
expanding their areas of cooperation, including the establishment of
diplomatic relations "as soon as it becomes possible."
	Denmark signed similar protocols earlier this month with fellow
Baltic republics Lithuania and Estonia. In implicit recognition of the
three states' desire to secede from the Soviet Union, Denmark signed the
documents in the same order as their independence declarations last
year: Lithuania first, followed by Estonia and Latvia.
	The Soviet statement Tuesday, read by Churkin at a Moscow briefing
for journalists, noted that Copenhagen ignored an earlier protest at the
accord with Lithuania in signing the pact with Latvia.
	"The signing of a new document proves that the Danish side has not
understood the Soviet Union's considerations that the development of
relations between Denmark and a union republic is possible only within
the framework of the Soviet Constitution," the statement said.
	"In this respect, the new action by the Danish side is considered an
unfriendly act toward the Soviet Union."
	Moscow warned that "Copenhagen's actions in the Baltics are damaging
normal Soviet-Danish relations and doing harm to perestroika. If
amendments are not introduced in Denmark's current course, the Soviet
side will be forced to think over retaliatory measures."
	The Soviet statement also accused Copenhagen of violating 
"obligations under the 1975 Helsinki Final Act concerning the respect
of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, non-interference in domestic
affairs and inviolability of borders" of all 35 nations that signed the
document.
	Moscow briefly withdrew its ambassador from Iceland last month after
that nation announced plans to establish diplomatic relations with
Lithuania. The Kremlin sent the envoy back to Iceland, ostensibly to get
a full explanation of the decision.

    From: [email protected] (JULIAN M. ISHERWOOD)
    Newsgroups: clari.news.military,clari.news.europe,
	clari.news.issues.conflict,clari.news.hot.east_europe,
	clari.news.hot.ussr,clari.news.interest.people,
	clari.news.gov.international
    Subject: Gorbachev holds talks with Swedish government
    Date: 6 Jun 91 13:46:53 GMT
 
 
	STOCKHOLM, Sweden (UPI) -- Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev met
Swedish Prime Minster Ingvar Carlsson for several hours Thursday at the
start of a brief trip to Sweden. 
	Gorbachev and Carlsson were expected to discuss bilateral relations,
disarmament and in particular prospects for the independence of the
Baltic republics of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania during his eight-hour
visit.
	Unlike its Scandinavian neighbors, Sweden recognizes Soviet
sovereignty over the Baltic republics. But with large Baltic emigre
populations, and recent heavy government criticism of Soviet military
actions in Lithuania, the Baltic issue was expected to dominate the
talks. 
	Carlsson has said that Soviet military action in the rebellious
Baltic republics placed a strain on Swedish-Soviet relations.
	Opposition politicians called for Carlsson to express severe distaste
to Gorbachev over a report by the Soviet prosecutor general on Monday
that Soviet troops had no part in the killing of 14 people during
demonstrations in the Lithuanian capital Vilnius last January.
	Gorbachev and first lady Raisa arrived in Stockholm from Oslo where
the Soviet president delivered the Nobel Peace Prize lecture Wednesday
in which he appealed to the West for aid and for a new era in
international cooperation.
	The short visit to the Swedish capital was tightly packed with
official events in a Stockholm teeming with heavily armed security
forces who closed off the government district. 
	In the late afternoon, Gorbachev was to have a short private meeting
with Brazilian President Fernando Collor de Mello who Thursday was to
end a three-day official visit to Sweden.
	Soviet sources said Collor was to invite Gorbachev to an
international environmental conference next year in Brazil.

   From: [email protected] (Pekka J Taipale)     
   Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
   Subject: Re: Just a quick question....
   Date: 28 Aug 91 12:19:23 GMT
   Sender: [email protected] (Usenet pseudouser id)
   Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
 
    In article <[email protected]>
    [email protected] (H. Peter Anvin, N9ITP) writes:

   >Just a quick question, if anyone knows:
   >Has Sweden and Finland recognized the Baltic *countries* yet?
 
    What do you mean with the emphasis on *countries*? If you mean
    recognition of Estonia, Latvia (sp?) and Litthuania, the answer is yes.
 
    Finland announced on Sunday (Aug 25th) that she will establish
    diplomatic relationships with the Baltic countries.  Prime Minister Aho
    said that Finland never formally recognized USSR's annexation of the
    Baltic countries, so the recognitions of 1920 act as 'de jure'
    recognitions and this announcement is 'de facto' recognition. Of
    course, Finland accepted the Russian annexation of Baltic countries 'de
    facto' because there was no choice; that's the reason for this 'de
    facto' re-recognition.
 
    Sweden announced yesterday (Aug 27th) that it recognizes the Baltic
    countries. This is a 'de jure' recognition because Sweden formally
    recognized the annexation in 1940 'de jure'.  Sweden also announced
    that it will give significant financial aid to the Baltics. This is
    partly due to the popular opinion and coming elections. Finland has
    been uncomfortably (me thinks) silent about financial aid, even though
    both commercial and cultural co-operation has been rising rapibly
    between Finland and Estonia during the last year or so.
 
--
Pekka Taipale                       "Anyway, who is this guy they call 
[email protected]                   Wayne Kennebunkport - you know, the one
[email protected]        they show on CNN almost every night?"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   From: [email protected] (Lars P. Fischer)
   Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
   Subject: Denmark to open Embassies in Latvia, Lithuania, Estonina
   Date: 26 Aug 91 21:45:49 GMT
   Sender: [email protected]
   Organization: Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Aalborg
 
 
    The Danish foreign ministry announce Saturday that Denmark will
    establish official diplomatic representations and hence open embassies
    in the Baltic states. An ambassador to Lithuania has already been
    appointed.
 
    Furthermore, Denmark is putting pressure on the rest of the EC to
    follow suit. The Germans have declared that they are positive, and it
    is expected that that rest of the EC members will follow.
 
    I have heard that Iceland is also planning diplomatic representations,
    and that Norway and Sweden is seriously considering the move. I don't
    know about Finland.
 
    I has been suggested here that the Baltic republics should be given the
    offer to join the Nordic Council, although I don't know if anyone is
    taking it seriously.
 
    Personally, I see the move as logical, if rather late. It is only
    logical that the Baltic republics should have close ties to the nordic
    countries. Hopefully, the Nordic countries will do some serious work in
    helping the Baltic republics gain access to new markets, now that the
    future of their traditional trade relations seems pretty bleak. Being
    an EC member, Denmark of course have a special responsibility here,
    which we hopefully will be able to meet, now that we have finally
    pulled ourselves together and realized that the Baltic republics *are*
    nations, not part of the (late?) USSR.
 
  /Lars
  --
  Lars Fischer,  [email protected]   | It takes an uncommon mind to think of
  CS Dept., Univ. of Aalborg, DENMARK. | these things.  -- Calvin

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   From: [email protected] (H. Peter Anvin, N9ITP)
   Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
   Subject: Re: Denmark to open Embassies in Latvia, Lithuania, Estonina
   Date: 27 Aug 91 00:15:03 GMT
   Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA
 
    In article <[email protected]> of
    soc.culture.nordic, [email protected] (Lars P. Fischer) writes:

  > 
  > I has been suggested here that the Baltic republics should be given
  > the offer to join the Nordic Council, although I don't know if anyone
  > is taking it seriously.
  > 

    I do, very seriously.  I think that the Baltic Countries are as much
    Nordic countries as Finland is, i.e. not strictly a Scandinavian
    country (which is Sweden, Norway and Denmark) but with close historical
    ties.  I think Sweden and Finland should join their neighbours and
    recognize the Baltic Countries as independent, and that they should be
    permitted to apply for membership in the Nordic Council (and thus into
    the Nordic common market) as soon as possible.
 
      /Peter
   -- 
   INTERNET: [email protected]   ([email protected] after this summer)
   BITNET:   HPA@NUACC           HAM RADIO:  N9ITP, SM4TKN
   FIDONET:  1:115/989.4         NeXTMAIL:   [email protected]
   "finger" the Internet address above for more information.

    From: [email protected]
    Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
    Subject: Re: Is Estonia "Nordic"? (Was: The Samii languages....)
    Date: 9 Jan 93 15:21:16 GMT
    Sender: [email protected] (Uutis Ankka)
    Organization: University of Helsinki
 
    In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]  (Bob
    Hammarberg) writes:
 
   > Well, isn't part of Estonia's claim to "Nordicness" based on once having 
   > been part of an indisputably Nordic realm, ie Sweden?  (that's how I 
   > understood your argument).  
 
 
    That's a part of the Estonian claim. I will illustrate it in one
    detail: during the previous year, the Estonians made a big number of
    the royal visits from Sweden and Denmark. They found these connections
    profoundly important for their nation.
 
                                              
   > Realistically (again), Estonia's desire to join 
   > the Nordic Council is based on economic considerations, 
 
 
    Economic, cultural and political motives are behind their desire. Could
    we require them have any better motives?
 
 
   > and a desperate wish 
   > to get out of the XUSSR sphere of influence.  
 
 
    The wish is determined, but not desperate! Estonia got - to most of us
    in a surprising manner - independent in 1991. I think this indepencence
    shold be supported by the Nordic peoples. We could contribute to the
    integration of Estonia in World community (first UN, then CSCE, next
    European Council. Why not Nordic Council?).
 
 
   > The Swedish resistance to the 
   > idea seems to be its (Sweden's) traditional wish for neutrality: stay out 
   > of anything that could cause trouble later, in case Russia decides to 
   > reassert its claims to the Baltic regions.
 
 
    Expressed more clearly: one should do nothing for Baltics because there
    might emerge some problems with Russia.
 
    This has, fortunately, been neither the policy of Bilt government nor
    the Schlueter government.
 
    The arguments against "Nordicness" of Estonia were based on the fact
    that Estonian is no Scandinavian tongue. Neither is Finnish. Should we
    be excluded from "Norden" because of that?
 
 
   with best regards
   Tapani Hietaniemi, Universitas Helsingiensis urbs fennorum
  

    Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
    From: [email protected] (Tapani Hietaniemi)
    Subject: Sweden supports the Baltic states!
    Organization: University of Helsinki
    Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1993 14:05:56 GMT
    
This is from Balt-list:
 
>      SWEDEN TO CONTINUE HELPING THE BALTICS
>      TALLINN, JAN 11, BNS - Sweden is going to continue helping the
> Baltic countries also in the next financial year despite that the
> draft budget foresees cuts also in foreign ministry spendings,
> Swedish Foreign Minister Margaretha af Ugglas said.
> 
>      The minister added that the only sphere of operation that had
> escaped cuts was cooperation with East European countries. "Stability
> of development in the Baltic Sea region is of vital importance to our
> situatuion in the field of security policy," she said.
> 
>      According to the foreign minister, the Swedish government is
> going to set up a 1 billion Swedish crown export credit guarantee for
> trade with the Baltics, the foreign ministry press office told BNS.
> 
>      Sweden in the next financial year is going to allocate 50
> million crowns to the Baltics in so-called sovereignty assistance.
> Also continued will be programmes in the fields of education and
> nuclear security.
 
 
with best regards,
Tapani Hietaniemi, Universitas Helsingiensis
                   urbs fennorum

    Newsgroups: soc.culture.baltics,soc.culture.nordic
    From: [email protected] (Tanel Tammet)
    Subject: Re: Visa-free travel to ESTONIA
    Sender: [email protected] (News administrator)
    Organization: Dept. of CS, Chalmers, Sweden
    Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 11:52:38 GMT
 
    In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Martin
    Bergendahl) writes:

  >
  >What are the reasons that Swedes and Finns requires visa
  >to enter Estonia? They are unduobtedly nearest.
 
    You tell me. The single & obvious reason is that neither Sweden nor
    Finland have so far agreed for mutual visa-free travel accords,
    although Estonia has expressed her interest several times. In
    particular, Finland seems to be the most active adversary of the
    potential agreements, as Finland is probably concerned over the
    possibility of making it easier for  Estonians to find jobs in Finland.
    Finland is also trying to push Sweden and Norway for the delay, being
    afraid of the situation where Finland would be the only Nordic Council
    country requiring visas from Estonians. 
    
    The fact that Estonians are both by language, geography and culture
    closely related to Finns actually seems to backfire on the issue,
    making the visa-free agreements harder to reach. Personally I am very
    much in doubt whether the visa-free agreements would do much harm for
    the Finnish job market or anything else, for that matter. There are
    only approximately one million Estonian citizens out there over the bay
    and the ones who are really interested of either finding a job in
    Finland or carrying out any criminal activities there have mostly done
    that already.
 
    The need to get a visa (offically certified invitation is required for
    this) for even a one-day visit to Helsinki is particularly annoying for
    the reason that a whole lot of countries have not established their
    embassies in Tallinn, but have given their embassies in Helsinki an
    additional task to serve the Estonian citizens. Now, Estonian citizens
    cannot easily visit these embassies (eg, to get the visas) since
    Finland requires a Finnish visa first. Needless to say, the requirement
    hinders trade and cooperation.
 
    Finns and Swedes can, for a fee, get the Estonian visa on the Estonian
    border, without any restrictions. The reason is the wish to attract
    more people to visit Estonia. In particular, for Finns Tallinn seems to
    be a very popular place to buy all kinds of stuff, making Finns an
    important (imported) market.
 
    Despite the sensiblity of the reason for the existing simplification, I
    am rather against it, since it is unilateral: Estonians cannot get the
    Finnish or Swedish visa on the border. As I understand, from the 1st
    July the tariffs for the border-issued visas are going to rise a
    little, but the practice is not going to be abolished. Visas issued on
    the border: transit visa 160 Estonian kroons (about USD 12),
    single-entry visa 400 kroons (about USD 31), and a multiple-entry visa
    1,400 kroons (about USD 112). Visas issued at embassies will cost
    approximately three times less.
 
    Estonia has so far signed bilateral visa-free travel accords with 7
    countries: Bulgaria, Denmark, Great Britain, Hungary, Latvia,
    Lithuania, and Poland. Negotiations with Iceland are expected to begin
    in the near future.
 
    On May 4, Estonia unilaterally added 10 more countries to its visa-free
    list beginning June 1. The Estonian cabinet decided to remove its visa
    requirements for citizens of the United States, Canada, Australia, New
    Zealand, Japan, Holy See, Andorra, San Marin o, Liechtenstein and
    Monaco.
 
    Regards,
	Tanel Tammet

    Newsgroups: soc.culture.baltics,soc.culture.nordic
    From: [email protected] (JARI SEDERGREN (COMM))   
    Subject: Re: Visa-free travel to ESTONIA
    Sender: [email protected] (Uutis Ankka)
    Organization: University of Helsinki, Faculty of Social Sciences
    Date: Mon, 31 May 1993 16:41:12 GMT
 
    It has been a vivid conversation of Finnish foreign policy towards
    Estonia. Strange enough, In Finland it has never been discussed by
    foreign ministry or foreign minister himself. So mostly we can have
    only hypotheses!
 
    I think here are the few principles in Finnish foreign policy towards 
    Baltic States:
 
    1) All decisions are made together with other Nordic countries
	- read: Sweden is important
	- read: Denmark is not important
	- f.eg. visa-questions must be solved together
 
    2) It is not only a question of Estonia, but also Baltic countries: 
    
    Finnish decisions are made concerning on all the Baltic states at one
    time.  What is decided about Estonia, must be possible for Latvia and
    Lithuania. This is not only a problem for Nordic countries, it is also
    a problem for Baltic countries. Does Estonia want to keep the unity of
    Baltic States or does she try to have her own "Sonderweg", "Special
    Road", independent of other Baltic countries? Maybe Estonia has
    economical possibilities to make this (as was decision to have own
    currency), but are there enough political resources to survive alone.
    
    What kind of guarantees can Estonia have alone? And from where? When
    Mr. Hietaniemi and Mr. Tammett, too, are saying Estonia is a Nordic
    country and all the Nordic countries should accept this, it is a
    question of deeper political analysis, a question of geopolitics and a
    political question concerning on Russian politics.  Latvia and
    Lithuania could not be declared easily as Nordic countries.  Does
    Estonia want that Baltic States are divided into two groups of 
    development: first comes Estonia and later less-developed Latvia and 
    Lithuania? And that Nordic countries should have different policies to 
    each respective country in Baltic area? If I were in a position to make 
    decisions I would like to have an answer to these questions first.    
 
    3. Policy of Russia is important. I hope that Estonia can show a little 
    progress in her relations to Russia. For an observer it looks like
    progress  is made very slowly, even I have to admit that f.eg.
    announcement about regulations of coming local elections were better
    news than ever at the time of Laar-government. Especially it is
    important that Russia can solve one of her biggest problems: the
    questions of borders. There should be a possibility of reasonable
    agreement on borderline between Russia and  Estonia. Now it looks to me
    as this question is still politically open and only a little progress
    were made at the negotiating table. 
    
    There is also a question of keeping guard on borders: it must be
    secured before any political decisions concerning on visa-policy of
    Nordic countries are politically possible. Estonia must decide what
    passports she accepts and what passports citizens and inhabitants
    (read: non-citizens for various reasons) carry with them when
    travelling abroad as Estonians. I think this problem is solved in few
    years after the inhabitants of Estonia have got SOME permanent
    citizenship.   
 
 
    I'm sure there will be answers enough to carry on this later.
 
    regards,
    Jari Sedergren
 

   From: [email protected] (Tapani Hietaniemi)                
   Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic,soc.culture.baltics
   Date: 28 Oct 1993 13:12:17 +0200
   Organization: University of Helsinki
 
    The Estonian republic has expressed it's interest to be included in the
    Nordic countries. It has even launched informal talks on joining the
    Nordic Council. BTW, couple of years ago I was visiting the  Frankfurt
    Book Fair and there Estonians were situated (it was their own will) in
    the Nordic section. Latvians and Lithuanians preferred selling their
    merchandise beside the Poles and the Czechs, they are Eastern Central
    Europe oriented, instead.
 
    The republic of Estonia is currently planning to grant it's Swedish
    minority a special legal minority position, which would include some 
    cultural self-government and Swedish education accompanied with
    governmental support for maintaining the remnants Swedish culture in
    Estonia. I just  visited a Swedish exhibition in Tallinn featuring the
    paintings of all Swedish regents in Estonia and an exhaustive coverage
    of the Swedish era in the Estonian territory.
 
    And the Estonians have re-established the statue of Gustaf II Adolf in
    Tartu/Dorpat - a similar statue to that in Turku/Aabo. Moreover, the
    Estonians are the only East European nation, which provide Swedish
    lessons in their public Television broadcasts.
 
    With an easy access to Estonian press and television, this is common
    knowledge to me. But I wonder if the Swedes are aware of such facts?
 
    with best regards

    Tapani Hietaniemi
    Helsinki/Helsingfors