Mikus wrote:

To me, when you are occupied, you are no longer independent. So PC, are we both “wrong”?

We have continuity issues, don’t we?

The occupations (not to mention nearly everything else about our, um, islands) are not comparable except in fragmentary, superficial ways. There were numerous Haitians in the media saying the Yanks are welcome to stay longer than they did in 1915. Haiti has been misgoverned for most of its history; Latvia, too, but I’m certainly not nostalgic for occupation. There are those who are, of course.

What could be interesting is a comparison of hangovers and the observation of how established patterns run deep. In here some constantly focus on the Soviets (and/or Russians, most often ridiculously conflated) and what they did to us, from genocide to supposedly depriving us of the ŗ.

This is part of the victim complex. It’s always somebody else screwing us, whether Russkies or Swedish banks or the EU or Uncle Sam. Add to this a pronounced fatalism—ko var darīt, we always screw ourselves. The nearly hysterical focus on acknowledgment of the wrongs done to us is not in any way a way out of this complex—in many ways it’s little different from other venomous Eastern European nostalgias, whether for a Greater Hungary or a Greater Romania, whatever.

There are differences, but the similarities—especially when laced with bigotry—are overwhelming and disturbing.

A superficial fragment for you. When we were on Hiiumaa (really an island), we ended up in a bar with a bevy of secret policemen and their wives. There was also a writer there, and when many had entered the crying in our beer about evil fate phase, he said that—after years of being kept from the island where he was born (it was a border zone)—he attended a NATO fleet shebang, he and his fellow Esths so happy to greet a Western navy. He expected civilization. “But you know what? The sailors—they were exactly the same.”

Please note that I do not think they’re the same; they’re not. On the other hand, some here had an almost religious belief in freedom. I won’t knock the goddess—I’m into bare-breasted liberty myself—but… well, which cliché would you like? It doesn’t work that way.

And then there were and are others who got over the West = good, East = evil phase p.d.q., if they ever even suffered from such Manichean difficulties.

There was a joke that went around—America has the Statue of Liberty. We have a Freedom Monument. Piemineklis, like a tombstone.

“Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose,” except that we’re now saddled with an astronomical debt; it turns out that one can lose a lot more than nothing. And in nearly two decades, we’ve built almost nothing of real value; you know very well how I feel about Ulmanis, but the first independence both as a dictatorship and as a democracy built schools, libraries, hospitals, museums, monuments, and a real economy…

We’ve built shopping centers, mostly. On credit. Clumsily repeating borrowed mantras about free enterprise all the while.

Vysu lobu,
/P

Two recent articles for Mikus:

“To Heal Haiti, Look to History, Not Nature”

“Some Frank Talk About Haiti”

Vysu lobu,
/P

PC seems to be back in his old usual good form… peaked no doubt by some new major “subject”? (And don’t get me wrong here, as things different do often seem refreshing/resurrecting.)

…But “continuity issues” existing between myself and PC?!!! (—-And here, I note towards any continuity of discussion in of itself.)

The one thing that your “preferred” article correctly points out, is that despite the article’s label of another, but “the most brilliant and bloody of Haiti’s dictators”; Haiti had seemed to had achieved a “new independence” by 1957 (…such as it was indeed inferred by Mark Danner—- the author).

—-The thing that I find more interesting, is again the commonly published lengths of “no history” for Haiti. (And I made a note of that by asking PC to please provide “it”.) But even though this same referred author does as well, why did he deliberately ignore the common conflicts between Haiti and nature? So just who did the final determination of their “today” suffering?
Was it the US that “set the stage for the vast conurbation of greater Port-au-Prince” (and thus the definite modern “cause”—- hey, do notice the “loaded” vast-conurbation ), or was it the do good-ers after the previous very damaging hurricane?
(And give “global-warming” a rest here! Besides, isn’t “global climate” the new “liberal” terminology in the face of recently “revealed”/hacked science?—-Oh a term that will certainly now encompass normal cyclical climate changes—- and not ever then exclusively exclude this normal notion?)

Mikus E.

P.S. So PC, was Latvija badly govern when she chose to join NATO? (Hmmm, by your early standards …YES!) Was Latvija badly govern when she joined the EU? Was Latvija badly govern when most of the world economically “fell”?
—-Of the three questions, the EU issue might indeed be the only “issue”. …An economic issue that will always try to demand parity with the rest of the “world”.
No PC, there is very little to compare with Haiti, other than showing the common human idea of compassion.

“So PC, was Latvija badly govern when she chose to join NATO? (Hmmm, by your early standards …YES!) Was Latvija badly govern when she joined the EU? Was Latvija badly govern when most of the world economically “fell”?”

I hear that some people think that Latvia joined the EU and Nato prematurely.

Labdien Miku, Aleks, et al.,

By continuity issues, Miku, I mean that we consider our independence to date to its proclamation in 1918; Haiti proclaimed its independence more than a century earlier.

What I meant to allude to, though, with my question of “what does independence mean,” was interdependence. No country is an island—not even an island.

In saying “misgoverned for most of its history,” I mean to include everything from the beginning of recorded history (Cielēns’ “people without a history” prior to the “political awakening” and/or/vs. a view like Krēsliņš‘s).

All periods have positives and negatives, don’t they? Latvia’s problem of the landless coincided with the development of our own conurbation.

Bad government doesn’t mean every decision made is bad; it’s often a question of how decisions are made. I strongly supported both NATO and EU membership, so I don’t know what you’re referring to re my “early standards,” Miku.

As to accession being premature—I don’t think that’s true at all. Even some of the countries that have long been EU member states are messed up, to put it mildly. The window of opportunity for expanding both NATO and the EU was small—I most definitely wouldn’t want to be in the position Ukraine is now in, for instance.

Vysu lobu,
/P

Peteris Cedriņs et al.,

” I strongly supported both NATO and EU membership, so I don’t know what you’re referring to re my “early standards,” Miku”.

To refresh your memory: “Pec iestašanas NATO varbutiba, ka pret Latviju tiks versts teroristu trieciens, pieaugs daudzkart.”—Juris Paiders, not someone I generally agree with, with an obvious truth.
/P “.

Visu labu,

Aleksejs et al.,

“I hear that some people think that Latvia joined the EU and Nato prematurely”

And some people wish that Latvia had not joined EU and NATO.

Visu labu,

Bruno - that does not express opposition, just a truth. Though we have not had any direct (in LV) terrorist attacks, it is reasonable to think that our participation in Afghanistan can be used (however irrationally) as justification for attacks.

“Bruno - that does not express opposition, just a truth. Though we have not had any direct (in LV) terrorist attacks, it is reasonable to think that our participation in Afghanistan can be used (however irrationally) as justification for attacks.”

I agree!  And I think about what one of my cousins in Latvia said at the time about Latvia’s joining NATO, the EU—something to the effect of Lorenzo Dow’s words: “Damned if you do…damned if you don’t.”  He expressed it much more bluntly, to the point in Latvian, but my better judgement tells me to refrain from repeating it on a public forum, since I’m all for upholding a modicum of decorum.

Ar viltigu smaidu!

Irena

tom, et al.,

“Bruno - that does not express opposition, just a truth. Though we have not had any direct (in LV) terrorist attacks, it is reasonable to think that our participation in Afghanistan can be used (however irrationally) as justification for attacks. “

What truth ?  It was about joining NATO and EU. Stop whitewashing it , by bringing up Afghanistan .  In whose interests was it for Latvia not to join NATO and EU.?  Pleners was not talking about “terrorist attacks ” from far away moslems.

I suppose you too think Latvia should not have joined NATO and EU.

Visu labu,

Bruno wrote:

What truth ?  It was about joining NATO and EU. Stop whitewashing it , by bringing up Afghanistan .

Juris Paiders, formerly the editor of Dienas Bizness, not “Pleners”—and yes he was talking about “far away moslems,” [sic] among other things:

“Saasinoties karam ar teroru, vieglāk būs vērst triecienu pret tām NATO dalībvalstīm, kurās iekšējā drošība klibo ar abām kājām, piemēram, Latvijā.” (Here are other extracts from Paiders’ observations in Nē Eiropai!)

You’re the one whitewashing it, Bruno. Afghanistan is of direct relevance. NATO had taken command of ISAF in 2003; Latvia joined in 2004.

Being blind to the costs of joining NATO is unwise. The last time I heard talking heads on TV praising the infallibility of Uncle Sam (including a head of state, Adamkus), it was with regard to the invasion of Iraq. 

Speaking of poor government, part of the problem is that people aren’t especially informed or involved in these momentous decisions. There were voices in the Cabinet that quite explicitly said that the élite will decide whether we join or not.

Our neighbors in rural Svente don’t even know the difference between NATO and the EU. The fact is that most people here have no idea why we have boys dying in Afghanistan. As I mentioned before, when I was asked to translate a book on Afghanistan into Latvian—there wasn’t one. Not one book.

Latvians are instinctively against invading countries (how surprising?!); not only was a vast majority against the US invasion of Iraq (also relevant, since our loud support for that misadventure was based primarily on our desire to join NATO, though this connection was played down, thus further degrading public debate)—most were also opposed to the invasion of Afghanistan. If you think the élite is far more knowledgeable, I beg to differ. What you then end up with is a degradation of democracy; empty rhetoric about our supposed “Western values” in the service of a particular, narrow politics.

There’s a vast difference between doing what Washington says and doing what Moscow says, but we often act as if there is not; the principal difference is that we have a voice… unfortunately, however, we’ve had little to say. It’s also incredibly stupid to delude oneself into believing that the intentions of the West are altruistic.

Bruce Jackson, probably the most important figure in bringing the Baltic states into NATO, is a perfect poster boy for the military-industrial complex, for example.

Being aware of drawbacks and of our responsibilities (what our membership in these structures actually entails) is part of being “Western”—marching in lock-step with the US, especially the US right wing (e.g., giving The Soviet Story to Glenn Beck) is little different from singing songs about the glories of the USSR.

It makes our Potemkin village a joke both within and without.

Vysu lobu,
/P

“And some people wish that Latvia had not joined EU and NATO.”

There’s a difference between the opposition to joining and the question of readiness. I don’t think anyone expected Latvia to be flawless, but certainly by comparing Latvia to, say, Estonia, with whom Latvia shared some of the history, one may draw a conclusion that Estonia was generally ready to join the EU a few years before Latvia. After all, Estonia was invited to join the EU a few years before Latvia and Lithuania. And that could mean possibly that a decision to join the EU and NATO was a political one, and not based on merits.

I see the same with Latvia joining the eurozone. A very important person at a very important conference on the euro convergence once asked a very important person from the European Commission if it is possible to let Latvia join the euro zone without meeting all the criteria because “it wouldn’t cost you anything and we’d benefit from it greatly.” I think that kind of mindset is all too common that could be reflected in Latvia’s bid to join the EU and NATO as well. 

Incidentally, if one recalls Latvia was the last one of the newcomers to hold the referendum on joining the EU. I think that’s significant. One person I know is doing a research on how the EU referendum campaign unfolded. It had little to do with the country’s readiness to uphold common European values. ;)

Aleksejs et al.,

“There’s a difference between the opposition to joining and the question of readiness”

Latvia joined NATO and EU to have some form of insurance agains your slavic brothers to the east, and everything else mattered little..  This was discussed here on the forum some years ago.  The question of “readines”  and “terrorist threats”  from far away places , was brought up by those in whose interests it was for Latvia not to have this insurance. Apparently these elements would prefer a Latvia that was in the same camp with White Russia.

Visu labu,

Lovely, Bruno—but you can’t possibly accuse me of that. All I ask is that one faces facts and is honest. I would rather get away from Russia in any way possible. What I try to ask is—how does that work out. The trouble is that it doesn’t. If you don’t have anything to offer but a negative—tant pis.

Cieņā,
/P

Funny. I don’t really know why it was brought up, but it was a comment I heard from people who came from the West in the context of Latvia’s troubles today. I agree - it _was_ true at the time, but I’m not entirely convinced it holds true any longer after the fact that Latvia had joined the EU and NATO.