Excellencies,
Ladies and gentlemen,
Dear audience,
I
The Latvian national resistance to the occupation, the de iure safeguarding of independence and the restoration of independence is an important historical, political and legal testimony to the Latvian nation’s desire for its own state.
We were not merely passive sufferers and victims of the division of spheres of influence by totalitarian superpowers, we were not mere objects in the flow of global history. We were also the makers of our own history.
The national resistance movement in Latvia and in exile upheld the idea of an independent and democratic state of Latvia throughout decades of occupation.
This provided the opportunity to restore the independence of Latvia and the democratic system of the state as stipulated in the Satversme.
II
Last year, in response to my proposal,[1] the legislature established 17 March as the official Day of Remembrance of the heroes of the national resistance movement.
For several years already, based on public initiative, on 17 March homage has been paid to our national resistance against occupation powers.
Now this decision of the legislature has granted national status to this public initiative.
It thus ingrains into the historical policy of the state the obligation to remember, pay homage to and restore in popular historical memory the heroes of our national resistance movement.
III
I have already stressed on several occasions that the state of Latvia cannot be attained just once and for always.
Our own free and independent state of Latvia will stand strong and sustainable as long as every generation is willing to yet again uphold their state and protect it.
The war by Putin’s regime in Ukraine during the past several weeks has been a stark reminder of this truth.
IV
The history of the 20th century has not yet ended. The Russian Empire is continuing its bloody process of collapse.
Putin’s regime wants to carve out its spheres of influence on the world map and on Ukrainian soil, deprive Ukrainians of their right to decide the future of their state.
It is our obligation to provide military, economic and humanitarian support to Ukraine. It is our responsibility to act together with other democratic states in Europe and the world to isolate Russia politically, economically and socially.
Yes, this will have an impact on our own well-being. But let us always keep in mind that we are merely paying euros and dollars, whereas Ukrainians are paying in blood.
V
Dear audience,
Protecting one’s state is the obligation and responsibility of any citizen.
But even more so – it is an obligation for politicians, cultural and social workers, scientists, generals, lawyers, doctors, civil servants, journalists.
They are the ones to act as role models for the nation, especially during dire times. Latvia’s history provides a vivid example of this.
The memorandum adopted on 17 March 1944 by the Latvian Central Council has been listed in UNESCO’s Memory of the World. Unbelievably, it has stayed intact from the times of the national resistance movement.
This political memorandum, which was officially addressed to the occupation powers, but in effect – to the free world at large, was signed with the names, surnames and positions held of nearly 200 Latvian patriots: members of the Saeima, professors, justices, generals and figures in culture.
VI
At that time, as the German occupation power was ruthlessly persecuting those carrying on the idea of Latvia’s independence while the second Soviet occupation was rapidly approaching with its plans to completely annihilate Latvia’s statehood and Latvianism, taking a stand for Latvia required immense civic courage.
This memorandum identified that “according to provisions of international law, the Republic of Latvia has not lost its sovereignty and thus legally still exists”, explicitly indicating specific violations perpetrated against the state of Latvia and its people by the USSR and Nazi Germany.[2]
Furthermore, the memorandum confirmed, on behalf of the Latvian nation, the people's common wish to defend their state “when the life of a nation is being threatened”.[3]
The Memorandum of the Latvian Central Council provides a legally correct substantiation for the continuity of the state of Latvia and its legal existence despite the control over Latvian soil and people effectively exercised by occupation powers.
On behalf of the people of Latvia, the signatories of the Memorandum called for the restoration of the independence (actual sovereignty) of Latvia and the democratic system of the state based on the Satversme of 1922.[4]
The political programme of the Latvian Central Council[5] which the national resistance movement had fought for since the first day of occupation, was finally implemented 46 years later with the restoration of the independence of Latvia based on the principle of the continuity of the state and its democratic Constitution.
VII
The first signature beneath the Memorandum of the Latvian Central Council belongs to the highest legitimate Latvian official at the time – the Speaker of the last constitutionally elected Saeima social democrat Dr. Pauls Kalniņš.
This year we celebrate the 150th birthday of this excellent Latvian statesman and democrat. He devoted his life and work to the democracy and independence of Latvia.
VIII
When in the summer of 1940, based on the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact the Soviet Union occupied Latvia, there were plenty of those who believed in a rosy future to come. Even Kārlis Ulmanis remained in his post in the hopes of establishing a dialogue with the Kremlin. Especially among social democrats there were many who betrayed Latvia and collaborated with the occupants.
Yet in response to attempts to persuade and convince Pauls Kalniņš that the communists and the KGB had changed and that they could be talked to, he remained steadfast. The democrat’s proud answer has gone down in history: “What is it that they have learned? Only how to better pull fingernails and nothing more!”[6]
This is an answer that ought to be reminded to anyone who still today says that dialogue with an aggressor is possible and necessary.
The blood being shed in Ukraine as we speak is a stark reminder that this observation by Pauls Kalniņš remains prophetically true still today.
IX
According to the Satversme, Pauls Kalniņš was the incumbent Speaker of the Saeima.
The Latvian Central Council chaired by professor Konstantīns Čakste acted on behalf of Latvia based on the Satversme and authorisation from Pauls Kalniņš.
On 8 September 1944 in Riga, Pauls Kalniņš signed the Declaration on the Restoration of the State of Latvia, whereby he officially assumed the duties of President of Latvia, reinstated the functioning of the Satversme throughout the territory of Latvia and authorised sentor Mintauts Čakste to create a government.
X
I have emphasised that this Declaration on the Restoration of the State of Latvia is to be considered a document of constitutional ranking and is part of the constitutional foundation of our state.[7]
The Latvian Central Council tried to create a functioning government which could lead Latvia’s fight for independence, but this attempt in the territory of Latvia failed at that time.
After the end of World War II, the Latvian Central Council continued its work out of Sweden and Germany attempting to set up a government in exile.
After the death of Pauls Kalniņš on 26 August 1945, in accordance with the Satversme, the duties of the highest official of Latvia were assumed by Deputy Speaker of the Saeima bishop Jāzeps Rancāns.[8]
He performed the duties of President of Latvia and Speaker of the Saeima for the rest of his life – until his death on 2 December 1969.
XI
When assuming the office of President of Latvia, I listed Speaker of the Saeima Pauls Kalniņš and his successor Deputy Speaker of the Saeima bishop Jāzeps Rancāns among the symbolic ranks of my predecessors – the legitimate acting presidents of Latvia.[9]
Their political legacy and life-long service to Latvia must be restored to our historical memory.
XII
Active political work was done at refugee camps in Germany, there were attempts to create national representative bodies and a government, a conference of Latvian parliamentarians was even organised.
Unfortunately, Western states and the international community were not ready to politically and legally recognise the authority of the Latvian government in exile.
However, the occupied state of Latvia had internationally recognised institutions.
The diplomatic and consular service of Latvia continued to operate in Western states from the first day of the occupation and throughout its duration, representing Latvia’s interests and expressing Latvia’s opinion.
Latvia’s envoys in Western states, especially the envoy in London Kārlis Zariņš and the envoy in Washington, D.C. Alfrēds Bīlmanis, who was succeeded by Anatols Dinbergs, protested against the illegal actions of the USSR and, on behalf of the Republic of Latvia, upheld the demand to not recognise the occupation of Latvia.
XIII
Western states responded to the protests lodged by our envoys by adopting non-recognition policies. The occupation of Latvia, as well as Lithuania and Estonia, was never legally recognised. Western states continued to recognise the Baltic States as legally existing subjects of international law and its envoys – as the legitimate representatives of these states.
The most prominent document of the non-recognition policy is the declaration issued on 26 July 1940 by Acting US Secretary of State Sumner Welles.
Non-recognition policy is a tool for the international community, a means to disallow the legal acceptance of realpolitik and an aggressor’s position of force and power.
If any state acts against another, violating international law, the international community has an obligation to not recognise such changes.
Sometimes the restoration of justice and law requires a very long time. In the case of the Baltic States, it took 50 years. But we also know that eventually international law and justice prevailed.
XIV
I would like to mention another unique fact regarding the upholding of the continuity of the state of Latvia. The diplomatic service of Latvia headed by envoy Dinbergs was legally the state body implementing the continuity of the state.
On 7 May 1990 Ivars Godmanis established a government based on the doctrine of the continuity of the state as stipulated in the Declaration on the Restoration of the Independence of the Republic of Latvia adopted on 4 May 1990. However, this government was not recognised internationally as the government of the state of Latvia founded on 18 November 1918, because the territory of Latvia was still partially under the control of the occupying Soviet Union. The cabinet headed by Godmanis still stood in a somewhat grey area in regard to recognition.
In this situation, envoy Dinbergs refused to visit Latvia to avoid such a visit being construed as a certain legitimisation of the ongoing occupation. The first meeting between Dinbergs, Prime Minister Godmanis and Minister of Foreign Affairs Jurkāns took place in the autumn of 1990 in Copenhagen during a session of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. The meeting was organised by the World Association of Free Latvians. The outcome was a conceptual trilateral agreement on cooperation. At the time, I was consulting both the Godmanis’ government and the diplomatic service of Latvia. An official agreement on cooperation was signed at a meeting on 17 and 18 February 1991 in Germany, near Hannover, with Latvia being represented by Godmanis and Jurkāns, and the diplomatic service of Latvia represented by Counsellor of the Legation in Washington Jānis Lūsis, as well as Gunārs Meierovics and Jānis Ritenis as representatives of the World Association of Free Latvians.
This carefully deliberated agreement on enhanced cooperation drafted by myself provided for the appointment of a joint head of the foreign service of Latvia to be seated in Copenhagen and holding a quasi-diplomatic status, who would be authorised to act by envoy Dinbergs, as well as Minister of Foreign Affairs Jurkāns (Jānis Ritenis was appointed to this post). It is important to note that this agreement also included a “safeguard clause” – this was not yet a full recognition of the government of Latvia by the diplomatic service, because the situation still remained volatile. It provided for cooperation only insofar as the government of Latvia was basing itself on the continuity of the state and furthering efforts to restore the de facto independence of Latvia.
Following the events of 21 August 1991, Latvia’s government was finally recognised internationally. At this time, envoy Dinbergs also recognised the cabinet headed by Godmanis as legitimate. As of that moment, the diplomatic service of Latvia officially submitted itself to the government of Latvia. Immediately after this, on 18 September the restored state of Latvia appointed him as Ambassador to the US and Representative to the UN.
This may very well be the only case in international law where, rather than a government appointing its diplomatic representatives, the head of the diplomatic service recognised his own government as legitimate transferring to it the state authority bestowed to him by the last legitimate government prior to the occupation.
Anatols Dinbergs led a singular life – he joined the diplomatic service of the independent Latvia in 1932, for 50 years of occupation he represented the independent state of Latvia, which continued to exist de facto, and in 1991 he handed over the “keys” of the continued state to the government of the restored state of Latvia.
This example demonstrates the sense of responsibility and care with which these “keys” were guarded and how they reached us today.
From Kārlis Zariņš and Alfrēds Bīlmanis to Anatols Dinbergs, our diplomatic and consular service performed its duties excellently being able to maintain in existence the state of Latvia, secure the non-recognition of its occupation and facilitate the restoration of its independence.
The state of Latvia continued to exist throughout the occupation and through its diplomatic service it was able to express its wishes.
XV
Just like other member states of the European Union, Latvia has not and never will recognise the violation of the independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine forcefully perpetrated by Putin’s regime in breach of international law.
When speaking with President Zelensky I proposed to him that an international platform ought to be created, where member states would commit to constantly maintain on the international agenda the issue of the occupation and annexation of Crimea. This idea was implemented in August 2021 when President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky created the international Crimea Platform. This is an institutional framework to constantly keep the issue of the need to deoccupy Crimea on the international agenda.[10]
This platform is based on our experience as to the importance of international law and using it to restore national independence, which can now be employed by Ukraine. More than 40 states have already joined the platform.
There is a reason why the aforementioned 1940 Sumner Welles declaration on the non-recognition of the occupation of the Baltic States has been expressis verbis included into the declaration on Crimea issued on 25 July 2018 by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. It states: “As we did in the Welles Declaration in 1940, the United States reaffirms as policy its refusal to recognise the Kremlin’s claims of sovereignty over territory seized by force in contravention of international law.”[11]
As the aggression against Ukraine by Putin’s regime continues, support of the international community is more important than ever before.[12]
I believe that in future the Crimea Platform needs to become the core for a broader Ukraine Platform. Bringing together states, civil society and especially Ukrainian diaspora organisations, the Ukraine Platform could become an effective international solidarity initiative helping restore the territorial integrity of Ukraine and providing necessary support after the end of the war to remedy the damage caused by the aggression of Putin’s regime.
XVI
Dear audience,
Several decades ago, the efforts of the Latvian Central Council failed to yield successful results.
However, national resistance was not futile as our nation’s desire for its own state and the demand to restore statehood based on the principle of continuity were upheld.
It is deeply logical and also symbolic that in terms of the ideological and legal structure of public law the 4 May 1990 Declaration on the Restoration of the Independence of the Republic of Latvia is very similar to the 8 September 1944 Declaration on the Restoration of the State of Latvia.
It was the same fight for the state of Latvia, which lasted from the first day of the occupation until the complete restoration of independence. This fight was based on the constitutional foundation of the immutable desire of the Latvian nation for its own state, the continuity of the state and its democratic constitution.
It required faith in Latvia, many casualties and long years.
Our experience can serve as an inspiration and a reminder to others that it is worth fighting for your independent state and that fight must always be continued despite all circumstances and losses. That is precisely what the Ukrainian people are doing today.
There is no “making nice” with occupants and aggressors.
XVII
By including Pauls Kalniņš and Jāzeps Rancāns in Latvia’s presidential lineage, we have demonstrated that the duties of the highest official of the state of Latvia were performed with genuine statesmanship and responsibility for the state and its people even in the most dire of times.
The last words from Riga Castle were not about non-resistance and naïvely staying in your place. Riga Castle continued to speak through Pauls Kalniņš and Jāzeps Rancāns, and their position and campaign for Latvia is the official position of the state of Latvia and the office of its president.
Let us remember all of the heroes of our national resistance movement!
Let us be strong in our faith in Latvia!
Let us be united in our support for Ukraine!
[1]Letter No. 212 of 1 October 2019 of the President of Latvia and Statement No. 5 of 5 May 2021 On the Day of the National Resistance Movement and State Language Day.
[2]17 March 1944 Memorandum of the Latvian Central Council.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid: “We consider that at this stage of World War II events our nation’s existence is being imperilled; for Latvians this is a fatal time – to be or not to be. No one, according to all the laws of nature and humanity, could question the right for self defence, especially when the life of a nation is being threatened. Based on the above mentioned we hereby declare the will and readiness of the Latvian nation to defend Latvia’s borders against an assaulting enemy with all our potential and resources.
On behalf of the Latvian nation the below signatories of this memorandum proclaim the following unified will:
- Immediate renewal de facto independence of the Republic of Latvia.
- Formation of a Latvian coalition government with our nation’s full representation based on the existing Constitution (Satversme) of 1922 of the Republic of Latvia.
- The Latvian government's immediate main tasks should be: renewal of state apparatus and Latvian Army, defence of Latvia against the imminent invasion of the Soviet Union’s armed forces and, as far as it is feasible during times of war, establishing diplomatic relations with foreign states, primarily with those who might recognize this will of our nation and would support our military task – defence of Latvia.
We believe that establishment of a close union with Estonia and Lithuania should be promoted and that such a union, with approval from the above mentioned states, should be transformed into a Baltic States’ Confederation.”
[5]Declaration of the People of Latvia to the Allied Nations issued by the Latvian Central Council in August 1943 and the political platform of the Latvian Central Council adopted in February 1943.
[6] See for example: Bastjānis V. Neaizmirstami brīži. Published in: Tautai un brīvībai. Rakstu krājums Dr. Paula Kalniņa piemiņai. Stockholm: Dr. Paula Kalniņa piemiņas fonda izdevums, 1952, p. 109. Additionally see: Gore I., Stranga A. Latvija: neatkarības mijkrēslis. Okupācija. 1939.gada septembris – 1940.gada jūnijs. Riga: Izglītība, 1992, p. 143-147.
[7] https://www.president.lv/lv/jaunums/latvijas-valstiskuma-nepartrauktibas-apliecinajumam-75-gadi
[8]Statement of 26 April 1947 by the Latvian Central Council on the functions of bishop Jāzeps Rancāns.
[9] https://www.president.lv/lv/jaunums/valsts-prezidenta-egila-levita-runa-saeima-amata-stajoties
[10] https://www.president.lv/lv/jaunums/valsts-prezidents-starptautiskas-krimas-platformas-atklasana-uzsver-latvijas-nelokamo-atbalstu-ukrainas-teritorialajai-integritatei
[11] https://ru.usembassy.gov/statement-by-secretary-pompeo-crimea-declaration/