Bush opposes unlawful annexation and decades of occupation

I have long believed that the Baltic states—Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia—are similar to Hawaii from a strictly legal and historical standpoint, in terms of being "restored states" that regained their independence with a continuity of identity after prolonged foreign military occupation. While there are of course major differences, and the situations there are complex, Hawaii's legal status is much more like the Baltic states were than it is like various colonial countries, or like Palestine or newly independent states, or certainly like native American and native Alaskan nations. And I think there is much to be learned from the Baltic states, both from successes and from mistakes they may have made, in terms of the processes they went through to regain their independence, including defining citizenship, and making their governments effective again. I am definitely far from an expert on this, and actually know quite little about the countries, but I think that all of us seeking to end the occupation of Hawaii would do well to look to the Baltic states for insights, precedents and lessons, both for the internal processes and the international legal aspects.

So anyway, having said that, I found this article in the NY Times today rather intriguing, on the 60th anniversary of the Allies' victory over Nazi Germany in World War II, and a little spat that has arisen between Bush and Putin over the proper historical view of the Baltics. Insert Hawaii in here, and for those of us who know the true history, I think it is strikingly familiar. And Bush is on our side! While the Russians don't want to call it occupation even after their independence has been restored.

The now independent Baltic nations see the anniversary as the resumption of their unlawful annexation by the Soviet Union, and on Friday Latvia stepped up demands that Russia apologize for decades of occupation.
[...]
The Russians have furiously responded that the three Baltic countries were allies and that the Russian military was invited to march in.

"One cannot use the term 'occupation' to describe those historical events," Sergei Yastrzhembsky, the Russian envoy to the European Union, said at a news conference in Moscow on Thursday. "At that time, the troop deployment took place on an agreed basis and with the clearly expressed agreement of the existing authorities in the Baltic republics."

Ms. Vike-Freiberga, asked in an interview with ABC News on Friday if the Russians were lying about the wartime history in the Baltics, responded, "Through their teeth."
[...]
The White House first publicly inserted itself into the quarrel when Mr. Bush sent a letter ahead of his trip to the Baltic leaders that noted that he was coming to celebrate the defeat of Hitler, but that the end of World War II "also marked the Soviet occupation and annexation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania..."

Posted: Sat - May 7, 2005 at 06:36 AM

getBlogName(); > getCategoryName("C1769281028"); >

Bush opposes unlawful annexation and decades of occupation

> >