[18] Harmony Centre & Its Geopolitical Uses (6)

Part 1.

The current dream of Latvian nationalist coalition parties to control Riga is based on the fact that Riga has been the capital city of Latvia since the foundation of Latvia in 1918.

Though Riga remained the capital of Soviet Latvia during the Soviet occupation, “occupied” Riga underwent significant changes. For one, the Latvian population, which had replaced a largely German population at the beginning of the 20^th century and constituted a majority of the Riga population by 1940, decreased as Riga became the domicile of many Russians in the fifty year period under the occupation of the  USSR.

Today the seats in the Latvian Saeima are roughly proportional to the ethnic divide http://www.economist.com/node/21530161 in Latvia, even as Riga, with roughly 42% of Latvian Russians http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russians_in_Latvia , remains a major centre of Latvian Russians.  

From a point of view of tactical manuverability and  geopolitical advantage, the Latvian nationalist dream and the consequences of the attempt to realize it, have proven as unrealistic as disastrous (currently fait accompli) to the interests of Latvians. There are two reasons for this:

a)     The Latvian Latvians who were forced to leave the countryside due to neo-capitalist agricultural policy of the EU (largely favored by Latvian nationalists) did not result in an increase of Latvian population in Riga. This is because of the corruption in the Latvian Latvian government (which uses ethnic jingoism to bamboozle the rest of Latvians into a deadlock http://deadlocked.askdefine.com/ vote) and misguided economic policies. In real-life, most Latvians bypass Riga to this day for Ireland, England, and other countries offering competitively better job opportunities.

b)    The corruption of Latvian Latvian politicos resulted in straight-jacketed Latvian economic policies that led to a take-over of Latvia by foreign (largely Swedish) banking operations. The infiltration of Latvian interests by the “West” (a term used to avoid using the terms “Swedish”, NATO, or Brussels) has turned Latvian economic policies into a Ouija board like http://www.skepdic.com/ouija.html  exercise. The Latvian Ouija board actually works, because the forces that guide the pointer remain largely unknown to most Latvians and turns them into easily duped believers in magic.

The deadlock vote, the result of a never-ending stoking of jingoism (encouraged by the “West” of course), has allowed the nationalists to create a dogma of sufficiently long duration to engineer an inter-Latvian geopolitical advantage for Riga. This is to say, a reapportionment of the territories of the earlier four regions of Latvia (formerly a mythic three) into five, created the Region of Riga.

The Region of Riga expanded Riga’s territorial influence at the expense of the three regions surrounding it, re Vidzeme, Zemgale, and Kurzeme.

With the exception of Kurzeme, all the other regions were deprived of access to the sea.

In effect, the three landlocked Latvian regions (formerly only the region of Latgale had suffered from this disadvantage) have been forced to become economically dependent on Riga http://mapsof.net/map/latvia-regions-map.

No wonder that Riga could so readily misspend 130 million to build a totally useless (I call it ‘broken wing’) glass frame for its library. [I have my ideas about its used, but that at another time.]

Were it not for the self-induced ineptness of the Latvian Russian controlled Harmony Centre Party [its ineptness clearly a result of knee-jerk jingoist reaction to the Latvian Latvian coalition (thus failing to unite all Latvians], Riga might have fought off the penetration of Latvia by foreign banks and the weakening of its sovereignity.

Part 2 follows. The original at http://rigacapital.blogspot.com/

[18] Harmony Centre & Its Geopolitical Uses (6)

Part 2.

My geopolitical offer of Riga to the highest bidder, if using the Latvian Latvian or Latvian hypernationalist created map of Latvian territory would be a disaster to the other regions of Latvia.

If the reapportionment of Latvia’s regions is not deconstructed and Riga is not forced back into less expansive pretentions (for example, a 30 km radius from the flagpole on the tower of the President’s castle), my plan is not to the advantage of Latvians. It falls into the trap favored by the Unity Party (Vienotība) and Latvian geopoliticos advised by a Oija board controled by the “West”.

Although the Riga region is not the creation of the after- or post-‘fired’ government currently in office, it was created by the same forces. At the time, the President of Latvia, Andris Berzins http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andris_B%C4%93rzi%C5%86%C5%A1_(Latvian_President) was still only the President of the Swedish afiliate in Latvia, Unibanka http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEB_Unibanka . He had not yet ascended to become a Swedish poke in Latvian ribs from the offices of Latvia’s president. The latter, therefore, deserves to recuse http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Recuse  himself from the office even late after ascending to it.

[Parenthethetically, the reconstruction of the Riga region could begin by returning the formerly administratively unified region of “The Northern Vidzeme Biosphere”  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Vidzeme_Biosphere_Reserve its unity and give it more generous legal powers to enforce a true biosphere, i.e., one protected from human predators cutting down its forests and killing off http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tx2EuC2sxLY&feature=related the wild pigs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeXqrHMSYNU .

A map of the biosphere: http://www.baltcica.org/casestudies/latvia.html  

In other words, in the process of deconstructing the Riga region to size, it should be kept in mind that it is a sweet. It has the potential of being rented to business under limited, yet more or less sovereign authority of its own–for an agreed to period of time. Latvians want investors to come to Riga and feel free to begin working at their business, but only by staying within boundaries drawn with the consent of the Latvian people. Those boundaries include limitations as to Riga’s extent on land and respect for the rights of the inhabitants of the rest of Latvia, not least Latvian “forest green” heritage.]

This is a good time for the Harmony Party to speak not only for Latvian Russians (the party’s majority membership), but to speak up on behalf of Latvian Latvian interests that have not been so well served by Latvian Latvian nationalist self-destructiveness.

It takes too long to state all the reasons why a 3-way split of interests in Latvia and Riga serves all three parties concerned, but one can readily percieve that the language issue now so troubling to the unity of the Latvian citizens is replaced with English as the language of everyday social intercourse in Riga, while Latvian and Russian remains a subjective issue among the speakers when home.

In Jelgava, the next Latvian capital city, Latvian will of course prevail.

Latvian will also prevail in the rest of Latvia where “forest green” rather than the chainsaw or plow rules. As for the latter, it is misleading as an ad on television loudly claims, that for the last seven hundred years the Latvians have been a peasant (zemnieku) people.

For much more than half the above mentioned 700 years, Latvians were forest dwellers, who cultivated a patch of land to enhance their forest diet with turnip and beet. The words brotherhood of the forest (Mezha brahlyi) was a popular term until even after the end of World War 2. The sense of freedom for a Latvian used to come from the forest and not from plowing the land for the barons.

It is only after, say, 1933 (the arrival of the so-called Ulmanis regime, that Latvians officially become descendants of peasants. They stay locked into that perception to this day.