Joint Declaration of Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian and Polish Presidents on the situation in Georgia and South Ossetia in English and Estonian

Sunday, August 10, 2008


I read on Wikipedia yesterday that Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland have issued a joint statement condemning Russia's actions in Georgia in the war in South Ossetia. Knowing some Estonian I thought I'd check to see if I could find it in Estonian, and it was much easier than I thought - the first page of postimees.ee (Postimees = Postman). Here it is.

Considering their histories (Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) it's no surprise that these nations aren't exactly willing to give Russia the benefit of the doubt.

Now you know how to officially condemn another country in Estonian.

English Estonian
We, the leaders of the former captive nations from Eastern Europe and current members of the European Union and NATO– Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland – are extremely concerned about the actions of the Russian Federation against Georgia. We strongly condemn the actions by the Russian military forces against the sovereign and independent country of Georgia.

«Meie, endiste anastatud, kuid täna Euroopa Liitu ja NATOsse kuuluvate riikide - Eesti, Läti, Leedu ja Poola - juhid, oleme sügavalt mures Vene Föderatsiooni Gruusia-vastase tegevuse pärast, mõistame hukka Vene militaarjõudude tegevuse suveräänse ja iseseisva Gruusia vastu.»

Following the unilateral military actions of the Russian military forces, we will use all means available to us as Presidents to ensure that aggression against a small country in Europe will not be passed over in silence or with meaningless statements equating the victims with the victimizers.

«Kasutame kõiki meie käsutuses olevaid vahendeid, et Vene militaarjõudude ühepoolset agressiooni selle Euroopa väikeriigi vastu ei vaikitaks maha ning et sellele ei reageeritaks üksnes sisutühjade avaldustega, mis võrdsustavad ohvrid tagakiusajatega,»

To this end we intend to urge our governments to take the following positions in discussions and to raise these concerns in the European Union and the North Atlantic Council:«Seepärast palume tungivalt oma valitsustel võtta arutlusele ning tõstatada nii Euroopa Liidus kui Põhja-Atlandi Nõukogus järgmised küsimused:
- Can the current Russian authorities be called adequate strategic partners of the EU;1) Kas praeguseid Venemaa ametivõime saab üldse nimetada Euroopa Liidu adekvaatseteks strateegilisteks partneriteks?
- Can the family of European democratic countries pursue a mutually beneficial dialogue with a country that uses heavy military armour against an independent country;2) Kas Euroopa demokraatlike riikide pere saab jätkata kahepoolselt kasulikku dialoogi riigiga, mis kasutab teise iseseisva riigi vastu raskerelvi?
- It is pointless to continue a “visa facilitation” program with a country that does not meet even the minimal requirements set by the EU and which uses visa facilitation to issue Russian Federation passports to foreigners and then abuses this EU given privilege to claim intervention rights such as "we are protecting Russian citizens" in South Ossetia.3) Pole mõtet jätkata viisalihtsustuse programmi riigiga, mis ei täida Euroopa Liidu seatud tingimusi isegi minimaalsel tasemel ning mis kasutab viisalihtsustust Vene Föderatsiooni passide väljastamiseks välismaalastele, seejärel aga kuritarvitab seda Euroopa Liidu antud privileegi, et nõuda endale õigust interventsiooniks, öeldes, et «me kaitseme Vene kodanikke» Lõuna-Osseetias.
- The actions of the Russian Federation in Georgia should influence the talks with the Russian Federation, including negotiations on the new Partnership and Cooperation Agreement.4) Vene Föderatsiooni tegevus Gruusias peab mõjutama läbirääkimisi Vene Föderatsiooniga, muuhulgas ka kõnelusi partnerlus- ja koostööleppe üle.
We underline the obvious bankruptcy of Russian “peacekeeping operations” in its immediate neighbourhood. The Russian Federation has overstepped a red-line in keeping the peace and stability in the conflict zone and in protecting Russian citizens outside its own borders.Rõhutame, et Vene «rahuvalve operatsioonide» mandaat riigi vahetus naabruses on ilmselgelt ammendunud. Vene Föderatsioon on astunud üle nn punase joone konfliktipiirkonnas rahu ja stabiilsuse tagamisel ning Venemaa kodanike kaitsmisel väljaspool Venemaa piire.
The EU and NATO must take the initiative and stand-up against the spread of imperialist and revisionist policy in the East of Europe. New international peacekeeping forces should be created as the current setting proved to be ineffective.Euroopa Liit ja NATO peavad võtma initsiatiivi ning seisma vastu imperialistliku ja revisionistliku poliitika levitamisele Ida-Euroopas. Kuna praegune olukord on osutunud ebaefektiivseks, tuleks luua uued rahvusvahelised rahutagamisjõud.
We regret that not granting of the NATO’s Membership Action Plan (MAP) to Georgia was seen as a green light for agression in the region.On kahetsusväärne, et Gruusiale NATO liikmesusprogrammi (Membership Action Plan, MAP) mitteandmist on tõlgendatud kui rohelise tule andmist agressioonidele selles piirkonnas.
We believe that the EU and NATO as the key organizations for European and Transatlantic stability and security should play a leading and crucial role in securing freedom, security and prosperity of countries not only in the EU but also in the neighboring European area.Usume, et Euroopa Liit ja NATO peaksid Euroopa ja Atlandiülese stabiilsuse ja turvalisuse võtmeorganisatsioonidena mängima juhtivat rolli vabaduse, turvalisuse ja heaolu kindlustamisel mitte üksnes Euroopa Liidu liikmesriikides, vaid ka naabrusriikides.
It a litmus-test for the credibility of the EU and NATO to solve the conflict in its immediate neighborhood and to prove for all EU and NATO members, aspirant countries and democratic partners that it is worth being members and partners of these organizations.Selle konflikti lahendamine on Euroopa Liidu ja NATO usaldusväärsuse lakmustestiks, tõestamaks kõigile Euroopa Liidu ja NATO liikmetele, liikmesust taotlevatele riikidele ning demokraatlikele partneritele, et need organisatsioonid väärivad liikmeks ja partneriks olemist.
This Declaration is open for the accession by the leaders of other democratic countries.

See avaldus on avatud liitumiseks kõigile demokraatlike riikide juhtidele.»

8 comments:

Barcodex said...

Frankly, I fail to understand the world's beloved point of view on what's happenning in South Osetia, with all that hostile rhetorics against Russia. Osetins don't want to live in Georgia, Georgian forces come to kill them, Russia comes in to kick armed forces out of Osetia and then is suddenly blamed by everyone. Is it that bad to prevent more people (most of which are Russian citizens) get killed after ca. 1500 already are killed, in just one day?

I wonder if western media makes any parallels between this little loud war and the whole Kosovo affair?

Those clowns in Estonian government who sign papers like this, have nothing in their minds but blind hate of everything Russian. I regret that this was the reason for you to have an exercise of Estonian. But well, every second article on postimees.ee is biting Russia somehow, as if there're no problems in Estonia itself :(

Me said...

Not sure I see why this would be a bad exercise with Estonian, since languages can and are used for everything, both good and bad.

There have been quite a few parallels made between this and Kosovo in the western media, yes.

Isn't the problem in the first place from the dividing up of the S.S.R.'s during the Soviet period in this way?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Caucasiamapussr.gif

Abkhazia was downgraded and integrated into the entire republic later on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abkhazian_SSR

So it's a bit odd to govern them within these borders during the Soviet period and then all of a sudden decide that they don't count anymore upon independence. But then again Stalin was Georgian too. I'm just thinking out loud.

Big countries always get more attention paid to their every move. If Estonia was the size of Russia I'm sure the western media would have a ton of problems with the way it was run.

Me said...

By the way, I've always thought it odd that countries in that part of the world have such a hard time with the difference between ethnic groups and nations. Just across the border from North Korea for example is a Korean Autonomous Region in China where Chinese and Korean are official languages and neither South nor North Korea has any interest in offering them passports, weapons, incorporating them into a larger Korea, or anything else. People of Korean nationality can come here to work with a special visa but they still count as foreigners. The majority of South Koreans don't even want to reunify with North Korea anymore and see them as pretty much different people now. I've always found it odd that these tiny strips of land (Transnitria for example) will prefer to strike out on their own with aid from much larger countries interested in retaining a power vacuum rather than just trying to make things work in the countries they happen to be located in, through historical accident or otherwise.

Barcodex said...

Actually, fall of USSR is a source of lots of different problems, most of which were not new and just waited for its time to come on the surface again. Soviet ideology would not allow anything nationalist as it strongly objected the "peace of nations" principle, which was one of the cornerstones of Soviet state. before 90-s, nations could only quietly hate each other, but when the union dissolved, and soviet ideology disappeared, this hate grew to non-arguable denial of everything Russian as in my country, to military conflicts in Caucasus...

Transnistria is an interesting exception amongst all ex-soviet separatist republics, as it is based on conservation of soviet ideology rather than nationalists ideas.

Finally, can't stop from sharing a book recommendation for you, Dave. If you have any time left for reading fiction, find Efraim Sevela, "Men's talk in Russian Sauna" (Russian title "Мужской разговор в русской бане"). At the time of its writing it could be considered heavily anti-soviet book, but today it just sheds some light onto this "brotherhood of nations" mythology of USSR

Me said...

Sure, this looks like it:

http://lib.ru/INPROZ/SEVELA/mugskoi_razgovor.txt

With Google and the smidgen of Bulgarian I know I bet I can eventually read it all.

Or...you could translate the whole thing into Ido or Interlingua!

(just joking, I know translation takes forever)

Anonymous said...

But please understand us.

This is how Russians came to Estonia. They said they will bring us peace and make us free. All we got were deported close ones and relatives, but that's what you know from the history. What you don't know is the fear and horror in the eyes of my old parents when they were watching the news about Georgia. I still get shivers when I think about that. They had seen something just like that with their own eyes. People dying. And no one came to help. But again, you know that, too.
Just the difference is, that the people here have seen it with their own eyes and felt it in their own hearts. A declaration is what we can do, so do not judge us. We made it from our hearts and

Anyone who says that every second article on Postimees is biting Russia somehow has unfortunately also some kind of blind hate against the creators of it, which is also sad and not better than the point he was trying to make.

I don't hate Russians and I find that a Russian can have much better heart than anyone else. The fact that I dislike our history doesn't mean that I want to look to the future in anger! Past is past, but we don't have to repeat it!

Barcodex said...

Actually, fall of USSR is a source of lots of different problems, most of which were not new and just waited for its time to come on the surface again. Soviet ideology would not allow anything nationalist as it strongly objected the "peace of nations" principle, which was one of the cornerstones of Soviet state. before 90-s, nations could only quietly hate each other, but when the union dissolved, and soviet ideology disappeared, this hate grew to non-arguable denial of everything Russian as in my country, to military conflicts in Caucasus...

Transnistria is an interesting exception amongst all ex-soviet separatist republics, as it is based on conservation of soviet ideology rather than nationalists ideas.

Finally, can't stop from sharing a book recommendation for you, Dave. If you have any time left for reading fiction, find Efraim Sevela, "Men's talk in Russian Sauna" (Russian title "Мужской разговор в русской бане"). At the time of its writing it could be considered heavily anti-soviet book, but today it just sheds some light onto this "brotherhood of nations" mythology of USSR

Mithridates said...

By the way, I've always thought it odd that countries in that part of the world have such a hard time with the difference between ethnic groups and nations. Just across the border from North Korea for example is a Korean Autonomous Region in China where Chinese and Korean are official languages and neither South nor North Korea has any interest in offering them passports, weapons, incorporating them into a larger Korea, or anything else. People of Korean nationality can come here to work with a special visa but they still count as foreigners. The majority of South Koreans don't even want to reunify with North Korea anymore and see them as pretty much different people now. I've always found it odd that these tiny strips of land (Transnitria for example) will prefer to strike out on their own with aid from much larger countries interested in retaining a power vacuum rather than just trying to make things work in the countries they happen to be located in, through historical accident or otherwise.

  © Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP