RSSA balancing act
Nov 04
History, National Minorities, Parliament, Politics, The Dombrovskis government 13 Comments
Count Monte Kristo, Latvia's new foreign minister
RIGA – A presumably old foreign Latvian wished I had never been born.
“Too bad his mother did not abort him, nor Arajs plant him as a fertilizer for weeds,” said the anonymous poster, who goes under the name of Mr. L. L. on a website for the Latvian diaspora. The site’s admin deleted this portion of the post, which I didn’t really find offensive. I prefer not to take idiots seriously.
So unlike our new foreign minister, the leader of the Unity bloc, Ģirts Valdis Kristovskis. In search of glory and public appeasement he is willing to publicly communicate even with the radical wing of his own party. Last October, he had received a letter from a Latvian American doctor, complaining about the presence of many Russian-speakers in his native Latvia.
“Latvia is the only country in the world – including Russia – where Russians are marching forward,” Aivars Slucis said in an email published on a Latvian news web site this week. Slucis noted that as a doctor, he cannot return to Latvia because “I wouldn’t be able to treat Russians and Latvians equally in Latvia, which is not allowed. This is why I’m waiting.”
Kristovskis wrote a complete answer, filled with polite agreements. The letter began with words “I agree with your vision and evaluation” of the situation. The correspondence was made public yesterday after the parliament voted on a new government, effectively appointing Kristovskis a new foreign minister. Today, the opposition for calling for his dismissal. The opposition has called him a xenophobe who would not be a good candidate to represent Latvia internationally. When he arrived to the parliament this morning, he seemed nervous. Maybe it was because he was running; maybe for some other reason, but his hands were shaking as he read out loud passages from the email exchange. His political ambitions and sheer sloppiness got the best of him. He seemingly desires to be liked by everyone, including the members of his party so much so that he is unwilling to ignore anyone, including the most radical people in his party – the Civic Union.
For the Civic Union, the politics is a balancing act between the somber silent reasonable minority and the loud controversial majority. The current government would be wise to watch every step, double-check every move as it enjoys a mere slim majority in the 100-member parliament. It doesn’t bode well for Latvia’s political stability.
Update: The Mayo Clinic in the United States has launched an investigation into Dr. Slucis’ letter to Krisotvskis, written from Slucis’ work e-mail account.
Erik
Nov 05, 2010 @ 12:56:01
I can’t help wondering if the author of this article has bothered to check any of the facts firsthand or, as seems the case, has taken this without question or journalistic responsibility from Russian news services?
What purports to be (part of) ongoing correspondence between at least three persons, including Kristovskis and Dr. Sulics has been posted on the web at http://www.pietiek.com/foto/05112010/kristovskis_piekrit_slucim_ka_arsts_es_nevaretu_arstet_krievus_vienlidzigi_latviesiem/doc. Dr. Sulics’ comments are directed as comments to issues raised (unseen) by a third party to the exchange of mails, a mystery man “Ingvars”. He expresses concern (as he later further explains) that his lack of Russian language skills would make it difficult to ensure that he is giving equal service to Russian patients.
This is just one sentence in a much larger fragment of the correspondence which deals with amny other issues. Rather than expressing any Russophobic views, Dr Sulics seems to suggest that nationaist concerns over the large part of the population which is Rusian is exagerated.
Shoddy, shody journalism! Shame!
Aleks
Nov 05, 2010 @ 13:30:39
Erik:
It appears there are more than three people involved in the conversation since the email was also cc’ed to all Civic Union members – among whom there could be someone named Ingvars. Why Mr. Kristovskis chose to respond to this particular email is for him to explain. So far, he has done a very choppy job doing it.
In the link that you posted nowhere did Dr. Slucis (not Sulics) say he wouldn’t be able to perform his duties because of his lack of Russian. He did say that he couldn’t treat Russians and Latvians equally, but he didn’t explain himself any further. That comment also needs to be placed in the context of the paragraph above (where the number of Russians is only rising in Latvia) and below (where the Latvia’s doom is connected to that issue). Therefore, it sounds very russophobic to me.
GLiz
Nov 05, 2010 @ 14:50:00
I think if this stupid doctor think he is right then russia should never had give latvia back independance,,,,russia governmenrt where nice enought to give back this country,,,Just think for one moment if latvia will be part of america (united states), america will never never give the independence back to latvia.
so what is wrong with this stupid doctor, He spend to much time in america and is brainwash now and should stay there as he seem to be more americain than latvian, he has no respect at all for people so he doesn does not deserve to have any respect from anyone includind myself Canadian man from canada.
Baron Tornakalns
Nov 05, 2010 @ 17:05:03
If anyone has doubts about Slucis’ views, I would recommend reading this interview with him, where he leaves very little room for uncertainty: http://www.nacionalisti.lv/raksts/276/blogs/intervija-ar-aivaru-sluci/
Andrejs
Nov 05, 2010 @ 20:29:04
Other than the fact that Kristovskis was stupid for responding I don’t see what other real inferences can be drawn here.
S. Anna
Nov 11, 2010 @ 20:33:05
Americans are a fair people. And the workers at Mayo are the epitome of fairness, kindness, and high professional competence. As a repeated (foreign-born) patient at Mayo, I have NEVER witnesses preferential treatment or discrimination, be the patient of Mayflower descent, a Filipino, an Arab, a Somali, or a Russian fresh off the boat. It just doesn’t happen. Dr. Slucis has worked for a Mayo-affiliated hospital for years, and there have been no complaints against him. What I think is happening here is an example of super dirty politics. I think that one political faction in Latvia is trying to unseat a pro-west leaning foreign minister by using an e-mail exchange between the minister and Dr. Slucis and markedly inflating its implications. They are attempting to smear Dr. Slucis as a racist and to put the label of racist on the minister, as well, by dint of association. What does worry me, though, is that people of the caliber that run and work at Mayo, who, themselves are individuals of the highest integrity, may not understand just how low political mudslinging can get and believe these accusations! I think they are too smart to do so. I hope so. S. Anna
Aleks
Nov 11, 2010 @ 23:39:34
First things first. It’s not about Americans. It’s not about the Mayo Clinic. It is about seeming hypocrisy of Dr. Slucis who finds it ok to treat patients of all kinds in the United States, but finds it difficult to have an opportunity to treat different patients in Latvia. Why is that – is the question for him. Is it the fact that he is legally binded to perform those tasks? I don’t know. I’d like to find out. Apparently, he is facing some kind of action though we don’t know what it is.
Is there local politics involved? Absolutely. But that does excuse Dr. Slucis for his comments? Absolutely not.
S. Anna
Nov 12, 2010 @ 00:38:02
Well, Dr. Slucis practices in the USA, NOT in Latvia, and there has been NO evidence that his practice is colored by racism. Your point is hypothetical – IF Dr. Slucis practiced in Latvia, he might discriminate against Russian patients. Maybe. Maybe not. My point is that one cannot penalize people for what they MIGHT do, only for what they have done. And you definitely cannot penalize people who happen to have e-mail correspondence with other people who just MIGHT discriminate, should they ever practice in Latvia! I definitely think Dr. Slucis inadvertently became the whipping boy in profoundly nasty Latvian politics, in which certain political factions would dearly love to get Mr. Kristovskis booted out of his current position as foreign minister and substitute a person more pliant to their factional wishes. I have no doubt about that.
Aleks
Nov 12, 2010 @ 00:45:44
Your point is hypothetical – IF Dr. Slucis practiced in Latvia, he might discriminate against Russian patients. Maybe. Maybe not.
Actually, he says he would do so himself. No one here or at the clinic challenged the authenticity of the email exchange that was made public. Not even the new foreign minister.
If it were just one e-mail is one thing. But there is an interview with Dr. Slucis published on a uber-nationalist Web site, where he expresses similar views towards the Russians, thus he furthermore provides evidence how he would treat patients if he is to return live here.
Also, note that Dr. Slucis is a sponsor of both the foreign minister’s party and the ultra-nationalists, who often times are guilty of things like homophobia.
Asehpe
Nov 13, 2010 @ 21:34:35
Well, reading Dr. Slucis’ interview in the nationalisti.lv website, it is indeed difficult not to conclude that he harbors discriminatory opinions. So I see your point Aleks.
Still… he has done nothing, he didn’t come to Latvia. The idea that people cannot be held accountable for things they might have done if they ever came to Latvia is also, well, true. Dr Slucis didn’t do anything. (Which is not to say that, if he ever were to come to Latvia, I’d want him to treat any of my Russian in-laws. Hm, I’d probably tell them to look for another doctor.)
So what’s up with Mr Kristovskis? I agree he has some explaining to do. As you said, Aleks, why answer this e-mail among others? And why in these terms? Let him tell people that. But I don’t think this implies racism. For all I know, he may have ‘agreed’ in the same way that those who cheer for one team may agree in ‘despising’ the other team — not a belief in the inherent superiority of some people, but just anger at seeing your (sports) enemy win a match. Even if this ‘enemy’ includes people you like or are related to.
In other words, this may be something superficial — just like the commenter above who claims ‘Russian government was good to let Latvia become independent:’ I don’t assume because of this that the commenter is a Russian supremacist or nationalist, only that s/he apparently doesn’t have a good understanding of the reasons for Russian and Latvian actions in the early 1990′s.