Actions taken by Estonian government contradict basic European standards — interview with Member of European Parliament Sahra Wagenknecht

Read it in Russian

On January, 14, a trial of defenders of the Bronze Soldier monument was started in Tallinn. The prosecution insists that leaders of the Night Watch social movemnet Dmitry Linter, Maksim Reva and Dimitry Klensky together with a student of a Tallinn high school Mark Siryk, whom the Estonian government calls representative of the Russian youth Nashi movement in Estonia, staged mass disorders in Tallinn on April 26-28, 2007. In case they are found guilty, they will face a sentence of up to five years. In late January, Member of the European Parliament Sahra Wagenknecht visited Tallinn. After returning from Estonia, Ms. Wagenknecht published a harsh comment on what she had witnessed to at the trial. In an interview to REGNUM Ms. Wagenknecht explained why she takes such position.

REGNUM: Ms. Wagenknecht, what was your motive when visiting Estonia to observe the trial of the young men accused in organizing disorders?

My fear was — and is — that the trial against the four who are being accused of having initiated and organized disorders last April will go largely unnoticed. This to my mind would be in flagrant disregard of the outrageous accusations brought forth against the four young men by the Estonian authorities, which to my mind and from everything I know lack basic substance. I regard it to be a very important task connected with my mandate as member of the European Parliament to observe what is happening and to try to shed light on matters that I consider important and that tend to be forgotten. Unfortunately this trial may rank among such matters because, unfortunately, there is a general tendency in the European Union to look away when fundamental rights are disregarded by EU member states themselves. The EU is always very quick to judge situations happening outside the Union. When it comes to abuses committed by the member states themselves the EU is more than willing to turn a blind eye. This is what from my point of view is happening as regards all matters connected with the events surrounding the so-called Bronze soldier in Tallinn. I have watched the events closely, and also posed a question to the EU Commission when it became known that the monument was to be displaced by the authorities. The answer I received then was that the EU considered this to be an internal matter, a position that prevailed also when the riots and the abuses committed by the security organs in Estonia, became known. Quite obviously this position is also upheld with regard to the trial. I regard it all the more important to show presence at the trial in order to show that proceedings do not go unnoticed but that there is a public interest also from outside Estonia as to what is happening to the four men who are facing those charges, as well as what regards the general situation in Estonia which is very problematic, especially when it comes to the situation of the Russian-speaking minority.

REGNUM: In your statement, you say that there are grounds to suspect that the government itself provoked the disorders in Tallinn streets in April 2007. Could you, please, elaborate on why you have such suspicions?

It was more than obvious that the removal of the anti-fascist monument would be a provocation especially for the Russian-speaking minority to which this monument has a highly symbolic meaning. The attacks on the monument by the Estonian government had started well before the April events of last year. There were continuous proceedings to change its outlook and to gradually do away with the Bronze soldier as a relic of the anti-fascist past. All those prior proceedings had already been done knowing that this was hitting the Russian-speaking population. When, however, the Estonian authorities decided to remove the monument outright it was a very clear provocation. This is even more apparent when you look at the date — the removal was done right before the day of liberation from fascism. Even the Estonian president Toomas Ilves in an interview with the German magazine SPIEGEL in June 2007 indirectly admitted this by saying that from his point of view “it wasn´t a good idea to move the statue” but was done out of public safety concerns because it “angered the Estonians”. He, however, went on saying that “the Russians, for their part, insisted that this was a holy place and that any change would be blasphemy.” How else can you regard the removal of a “holy place” but as a provocation?

REGNUM: In April 2007, it looked like most European politicians preferred to treat the April 2007 events in Tallinn as the country's internal affair. Why don't you share the idea?

Unfortunately this attitude in the European Union has not changed. As I already mentioned — it is a very typical approach by European politicians to regard everything that happens within the EU to be an internal affair, the more so when this is in coherence with the general political opinion. From my point of view the situation in Estonia came more than handy for the European politicians to indirectly hit at Russia without saying outright that they were doing so. It is more than clear that most European governments, if not completely agreed so at least sympathized with the actions taken by the Estonian government — very well knowing though that there was a contradiction with the standards the EU always emphasizes to be their own — the adherence to human rights, the tolerance of differing opinions, the acceptance of freedom of expression, the anti-fascist consensus, the openness to criticism, the right to demonstrate, and human rights standards that also bind police and security organs. All this was disregarded in Estonia during the April events. Still, there was a silent cover-up by the EU. This can only be understood by the general willingness to turn a blind eye to proceedings in the EU itself — and by the strong anti-Russian sentiment that is prevalent throughout Europe and which was ever more palpable as Estonia is one of the three EU member states that formerly belonged to the Soviet Union.

On the other hand, and this is also something worth noting, there was a determination to use the — quite dubious — accusations of the so-called cyber attack that Estonia is supposed to have been subjected to in the course of the April events, in order to have NATO devise a new strategy against cyber warfare. It is a rather interesting sideline that now, if what is reported in the media is true, one of the culprits of this “cyber-attack” has just been found guilty by a Tallinn court and sentenced to pay a fine of about 1000 Euro. This makes the entire setting ever more dubious — at least the amount of the fine does not in the least coincide with the importance attached to the alleged cyber attack. The story of the cyber attack seems to have come extremely handy for all those in EU, US and NATO who wanted to come up with a new NATO programme.

REGNUM: What are dangers that the precedent of the trial in Tallinn can bring about for the European Union?

The problem the EU is facing already is that standards are being lowered by precedents and actual proceedings. If you look at minority rights in Estonia you cannot but think that there is a general willingness to test there what may become a reality elsewhere later on. The same is true for other rights as well which are enshrined in the European treaties. There are more and more countries which serve as test fields in the EU as regards the lowering of standards in order to ever better enforce a neoliberal policy and a weakening of basic rights. This is particularly true for social standards and labour rights, but it also holds true for other areas, like for example data security. Estonia which so eagerly is working on being a modern technology society seems to have a severe lack of data protection. This is also a major problem from my point of view as regards the ongoing trial in Tallinn. The alleged evidence brought forth by the authorities seems to be based heavily on the disregard of data security standards. It is obvious that a lack of protection in this respect raises serious concern as regards the adherence to elemental privacy rights on the side of the Estonian authorities.

REGNUM: Aren't you afraid that Estonian politicians might accuse you of ties with the Kremlin?

This is already happening, and it does not come as a surprise to me. It is always the easiest way to try and attack somebody who does not fit into the general mainstream attitudes. But what am I doing? I am only asking for the adherence to those standards the EU sets for itself. If it makes me a “puppet of the Kremlin” to speak out against the criminalization of anti-fascists and to call for the Russian-speaking minority to be granted their full rights, then I am ready to take this. I am not willing to accept it as normal that the Russian-speaking minority is deprived of basic rights and to a large extent does not even have citizenship but is considered to be alien in their own country. I am doing nothing but speaking out in favor of the very standards the Estonian politicians who were so eager to join the EU more than readily accepted upon accession to the European Union. If they are now creating double standards with regard to those very rights I have a problem and cannot but think that it is only a change of affiliation which has not been done wholeheartedly but very opportunistically.

REGNUM: Do you plan further actions to explain your position on the Tallinn trial to the European Parliament?

I will definitely follow the further developments and will look for ways to make things public. In what way I will proceed further I am considering at present. It is clear though that my observance of the situation in Estonia is not over with my visit in Tallinn of last week.