Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
ABSTRACT
The concept of ‘societal security’ has been formulated to account for
the phenomenon of societal identity as a source of instability. This
article discusses the concept as articulated by Buzan et al. and applies
it to the post-Soviet experience of the Baltic States. It examines the
process of Sovietization and the way in which migration and horizon-
tal and vertical competition created tensions and stresses between
societies in the Baltic States which then carried over into and shaped
the first decade of restored independence. The reasons for and nature
of the state-building policies in the three states, particularly the for-
mulation of citizenship policies and the emergence of classic societal
security dilemmas, are analysed. Within an empirically based section,
the authors then explore the way in which the prospect of European
Union membership has impacted on the societal security sectors in
Estonia and Latvia. It argues that the normative power of the EU has
prompted Estonia and Latvia to resolve their societal security dilem-
mas in a manner acceptable to the EU, but that the ‘magnetic attrac-
tion’ of EU membership increasingly has the power to repel within an
emerging post-sovereign security order.
Keywords: citizenship; identity; migration; sovereignty
Introduction
The Baltic States have all sought to ‘return to Europe’ in the post-
Soviet period, a project which has been variously conceptualized by
the different political elites of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. For some,
it has been considered a logical reassertion or restoration of their nat-
ural and rightful position within a ‘common European home’.
President Vaira Vike-Freiberga of Latvia explicitly underscored this
perception when, following the European Union Helsinki Summit’s
decision in December 1999 to open up negotiations with Latvia, she
stated that Latvia had turned its back to and walked away from the
cooperation and conflict Copyright © 2001 NISA. SAGE Publications
(London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi), vol. 36(3): 273–296. ISBN:
0010–8367 [200109]36:3; 273–296; 019653
019653.doc 3/8/1 4:07 pm Page 274
With the end of the Cold War, scholars analysed the ‘structural trans-
formation in European security’ (Wæver et al., 1993: viii), as the state-
centric, military-dominated security thinking of Cold War superpower
rivalry became obsolete. Security agendas characterized by new
threats and actors began to dominate and ‘societal security’ emerged
as a discrete, although contested, area of study (McSweeney, 1996;
Buzan and Wæver, 1997). Leading scholars analysing this ‘novelty in
the field of security studies’ (Wæver et al., 1993: 27) at first perceived
societal security as a sector of state security — the state was the core
referent object and society merely one of the five sectors through
which it could be threatened. Wæver et al. (1993: 24–5) argued that this
019653.doc 3/8/1 4:07 pm Page 275
TABLE 1
Titular/Native Population in the Baltic States (%)
In the late 1980s, as Baltic nationalists began to believe that the ‘end of
occupation’ was near, they embarked on debates about how to define
the political community in their soon-to-be-independent states. By
1991 and beyond, when citizenship rights and naturalization proced-
ures were in the process of being established, the dominant political
orientation was ‘restorationist’, and this applied especially to citizen-
ship (Park, 1994). Estonia and Latvia established citizenship on the
basis of constitutions elaborated during the First (‘inter-war’)
Republics, with some exceptions — for example, those applying under
special Congress of Estonia rules (Öst, 1994). This proved highly
019653.doc 3/8/1 4:07 pm Page 280
From the outset, then, there was an elite consensus about the nature
of the security environment that characterized the Baltic region in the
early 1990s. This had a defining impact upon the way in which EU inte-
gration strategies were to be developed and upon the way in which the
EU would enhance stability in the region. Membership/non-
membership was sharply polarized and perceived in terms of
increased/decreased stability and security of Baltic sovereignty and
territorial integrity. For this reason, there was little public or elite
debate on whether or not to join; arguments in the domestic political
arena between government and opposition parties only revolved
around which policies to pursue in order to gain rapid integration
(Ozolina, 1998: 115–16). Indeed, in the early 1990s the opposite was
true: ‘Emphasising the Europeanness of Baltic cultures serves to
heighten what many see as a clear cultural contrast with Russian,
“Eastern” culture. “Rejoining the European family” is seen by many as
a way to bolster national identity, rather than threaten it’ (Löfgren,
1996: 47). In the early and mid-1990s nationalists embraced the notion
of EU integration as an opportunity to fulfil and further national state
interests; the ‘integration dilemma’ — the inherent tension between
integration gains and sovereignty losses — appeared to be largely
lacking in the Baltic region. Each of the three Baltic States expressed
its sovereignty most strongly, paradoxically, in its commitment to inte-
grate with the EU: ‘International integration is seen in Estonia not
only as a manifestation or outcome of the practice of state sovereignty
but also as a prerequisite of sovereignty’ (Feldman, 2001).
petitive pressure and market forces within the Union. (European Council in
Copenhagen, 1993: 11)
Seeing the different interests of social groups, let us seek to compromise and
search for common national aspirations. But let us not instigate war between
the countryside and the cities, between civil servants and business people.
We must seek civic solidarity, which is the indispensable foundation of the
state. (Lithuanian Television, Vilnius, 16 March 2001)
reproduce their culture because the majority uses the state to structure edu-
cational, media and other systems to favour the majority culture. (1998: 122)
In Latvia and Lithuania, the issue of transit fees for Russians travel-
ling in transit trains to Kaliningrad is set to focus attention on the soci-
etal sector once more. In 2001 the Latvian Foreign Minister, Indulis
Berzins, abrogated a 1993 agreement with Russia under which
Russians in transit could travel without a visa, because ‘we are obliged
to comply with the rules that operate in EU countries’ (ITAR-TASS,
Moscow, 27 March 2001). Under the Latvian plan for negotiating
accession to the EU in accordance with Schengen visa rules, a rule will
be in effect before 30 June 2002 by which all passengers on trains in
transit will need visas as they are in effect crossing what will constitute
the EU’s external border.
What does the study by Buzan et al. (1998) tell us of the role of migra-
tion, horizontal and vertical competition in constructing a societal
security sector? Clearly all three of the factors identified by Buzan et
al. have played a role in shaping the societal security debates within
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in the post-Cold War period. Estonia
and Latvia responded to the perceived threat in a similar manner,
while Lithuania adopted the zero option on citizenship and so avoided
the emergence of a classic societal security dilemma. In the Estonian
and Latvian state-building projects the issue of societal security arose
in part as ethnic minorities grew to mistrust the state as a neutral
arbiter of interests. The radical national policies in the initial inde-
pendence period appeared to confirm that the state existed much
more to protect ethnic Estonians and Latvians than all residents in
the territory. The lack of perceived state protection was viewed by
some minorities in Estonia and Latvia as akin to a state threat to their
existence, a feeling reinforced by Russian concerns voiced at the inter-
national level. An important challenge for these Estonian and Latvian
elites was their ability to demonstrate how a large alien population
does not necessarily imply societal instability or conflict and that their
states had the capacity to absorb new residents.
In an explicit attempt to ‘return to Europe’ and an implicit desire to
protect the state against potential horizontal and vertical threats to the
019653.doc 3/8/1 4:07 pm Page 292
Acknowledgement
References
Chinn, J. and Kaiser, R. (1996) Russians as the New Minority. Oxford: Westview.
Cichock, M. (1999) ‘Interdependence and Manipulation in the Russian–Baltic
Relationship: 1993–1997’, Journal of Baltic Studies 30(2): 89–117.
European Council in Copenhagen (1993) European Council in Copenhagen
21–22/06/1993, Conclusions of the Presidency, p. 11.
European Integration Bureau (EIB) (1999) Information 1999, Riga, Latvia: ‘Latest
Public Opinion Poll Shows Stable Support for Latvia’s Integration into the
European Union, 10 December 1999’, internet version, http://www.eib.lv
Feldman, M. (2001) ‘Sovereignty for Security? The Discourse of Sovereignty in
Estonia’, paper presented at the International Studies Association annual con-
ference, Chicago, 20–24 February.
Herd, Graeme P. (1999) ‘Russia’s Baltic Policy after the Meltdown’, Security
Dialogue 30(2): 197–212.
Jubulis, M. (1996) ‘The External Dimension of Democratization in Latvia: The
Impact of European Institutions’, International Relations 13(3): 59–73.
Karklins, R. (1994) Ethnopolitics and Transition to Democracy. The Collapse of the
USSR and Latvia. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press.
Lahelma, T. (1994) ‘The Role of the CSCE Missions in Preventive Diplomacy —
the Case of Estonia (Aug. 1993–June 1994)’, in The Challenge of Preventive
Diplomacy: the experience of the CSCE. Stockholm: Ministry for Foreign
Affairs.
Löfgren, Joan (1996) ‘A Different Kind of Union’, Transitions 4(6): 46–52.
McSweeny, B. (1996) ‘Identity and Security: Buzan and the Copenhagen School’,
Review of International Studies 22: 81–93.
Moshes, A. (1999) Overcoming Unfriendly Stability. Russian–Latvian Relations at
the End of the 1990s. Programme of the Northern Dimension of the CFSP.
Helsinki: Finnish Institute of International Affairs.
Ozolina, Z, (1998), ‘Latvia, the EU and Baltic Sea Co-operation’ in S. Arnswald
and M. Jopp (eds) The European Union and The Baltic States. Visions, Interests
and Strategies for the Baltic Sea Region, pp. 113–44. Programme on the Northern
Dimension of the CFSP. Helsinki: Finnish Institute of International Affairs.
Park, Andrus (1994) ‘Ethnicity and Independence: the Case of Estonia in
Comparative Perspective’, Europe–Asia Studies 46(1): 69–87.
Raik, Kristi (1999) Towards Substantive Democracy? The Role of the European
Union in the Democratisation of Estonia and the other Eastern Member Candi-
dates. Tampere: TAPRI, Tampere Peace Research Report No. 84, pp. 1–116.
Roberts, G. and Edwards, A. (1991) A New Dictionary of Political Analysis
London: Edward Arnold.
Roe, P. (1999) ‘The Intrastate Security Dilemma: Ethnic Conflict as “Tragedy’’ ’,
Journal of Peace Research 36(2): 183–202.
Sipaviciene, Andra (1996) International Migration and the Baltic States: New
Patterns and Policy. Helsinki: Report prepared for Baltic Assembly/Nordic
Council Seminar on Migration Issues Relevant to the Baltic Sea Area.
019653.doc 3/8/1 4:07 pm Page 295
Smith, G. (1996) ‘Latvia and the Latvians’, in G. Smith (ed.) The Nationalities
Question in the Post-Soviet States, pp. 147–69. Harlow: Longman.
Smith, G., Aasland, A. and Mole R. (1994) ‘Statehood, Ethnic Relations and
Citizenship’, in G. Smith (ed.) The Baltic States. National Self-Determination in
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, pp. 181–205. London: Macmillan.
The Statistical Yearbook of Estonia 1996. Tallinn: The Statistical Office of Estonia.
The Statistical Yearbook of Estonia 2000. Tallinn: The Statistical Office of Estonia.
Viksne, I. (1995) ‘Latvia and Europe’s Security Structures’, in P. Van Ham (ed.)
The Baltic States Security and Defence after Independence. Chaillot Paper No.
19. Paris: Institute for Security Studies of Western European Union.
Wæver, O. (1995) ‘Securitization and Desecuritization’, in R. D. Lipschutz (ed.) On
Security, pp. 46–86. New York: Columbia University Press.
Wæver, O. (1996) ‘European Security Identities’, Journal of Common Market
Studies, 24(1): 103–28.
Wæver, O. (2000) ‘The EU as a Security Actor’, in M. Kelstrup and M. C. Williams
(eds) International Relations Theory and the Politics of European Integration,
pp. 250–94. London: Routledge.
Wæver, O., Buzan, B., Kelstrup, M. and Lemaitre, P. (1993) Identity, Migration and
the New Security Order in Europe. London: Pinter.
Öst, Anna-Carin (1994) ‘Who is a Citizen in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania?’, in
Taina Dahlgren (ed.) Human Rights in the Baltic States. Helsinki: Advisory
Board for International Human Rights Affairs, Publication No. 6, Finnish
Helsinki Committee.