Part I of my essay explored my impressions of the people and
history of the Baltic region. Part II will discuss the importance of the Baltics
within the context of recent foreign affairs.
I must begin with our mode of
transportation through the Baltics. Cruise
ships are perhaps the most diverse ecosystems in the world. A captain from Italy, wait staff from every
third world country and our cabin porter from tiny French Guiana in South
America. The passengers are no less diverse, just older and better off
economically. I enjoyed watching conservative Republicans from the United
States sharing tables with families from Hong Kong, Egypt and Nigeria. Like
Dorothy, they knew they were not in Kansas anymore. Multiculturalism is alive
and well on the high seas.
I seemed to be among the few who felt comfortable raising
political issues with fellow passengers within this confined environment. But
what better opportunity to take the world’s temperature on Trump, Brexit, Paris
yellow jackets, Putin and the demonstrations in Hong Kong?
On our last excursion in Denmark, a family from Hong Kong
was afraid they would not be able to fly home because of the airport
demonstrations. A couple from Paris described Prime Minister Macron as a robot,
with no emotional affect. The English we spoke with all viewed Prime Minister
Boris Johnson as the ticket to economic and political ruin. Everyone wanted to hear our impressions of
President Trump and what the future holds for America.
We learned that every country in the Baltics has adopted
some degree of cradle to grave benefits for its citizens, with high taxes to
pay for these programs. Free health
care, education, pensions and elder care are universal. From the many
conversations I had with our excursion guides and with local citizens,
democratic socialism is imbedded deep in the DNA of the Baltics as a model that
guarantees the basic needs of all citizens. I heard many complaints concerning
political leadership, but none concerning the democratic socialism economic
model.
Next, we learned that favoring social programs for all
citizens does not translate into favoring open borders or mass immigration.
Almost everyone I spoke to in every Baltic country we visited wanted some form
of limited/controlled immigration. It was not difficult to translate this
widely held view into the rise of populist political leaders throughout the
Baltic region.
The Baltics has
its own unique history of multinational trade versus national interests that I
found fascinating. The Hanseatic League
was a powerful commercial and defensive confederation of merchant guilds and
market towns, first formed in the late 1100s. The League came to dominate
Baltic maritime trade for many centuries. Hanseatic cities had their own legal system
and operated their own armies for mutual protection and aid.
On many of our
excursions, we heard stories of local medieval citizens forced to choose
between following orders from their King or from the transnational Hanseatic League. Making the wrong choice resulted in mass
slaughter. Whole communities were burned
to the ground. The power and influence
of the Hanseatic League based solely on economic interest, with little
religious or national affiliation was greater than any multinational
corporation or international trade pact that exists today.
Champions of
the European Union have pointed to the Hanseatic League as a kind of prototype
version of economic unification. All of
the Baltic countries we visited belong to the EU. Unlike Great Britain, no one
we spoke to seemed eager to exit the EU.
The ease of travel and free trade with EU partners throughout Europe has
served the Baltic region well.
On the other
hand, it is difficult to imagine that these countries would agree to expand the
EU into a political alliance and to give up their ability to govern as independent
nations. Patriotism is high in tiny
Latvia with its two million citizens; Denmark with its 6 million; and Russia
with a population of over 144 million. Each country has its own creation myths,
national heroes and milestones that are honored with great pride.
One of the
challenges across the Baltic and indeed throughout Europe is to recognize the
importance of celebrating unique national identity, without permitting
patriotism to morph into nativist, racist views. To illustrate this point, I will focus on
tiny Estonia, population 1.3 million people.
As the fortunes
of Estonia changed over the years of the modern era, one of its major streets
was chronologically renamed: Lenin Street, Hitler Street, Stalin Street and
now, Freedom Street. Young, urban Estonians
are fiercely independent and want no further intervention into their
affairs. But Estonia’s remarkable
economic growth has remained in its capital, Tallinn, and poverty remains high
in rural areas.
In July of 2019
the Conservative People’s Party won enough seats in the parliament to be
included in the new government. The party’s leaders rally against migrants,
same sex partnerships and the mainstream media.
They claim to be the champions of rural Estonians and are often aligned
with Russian policy positions.
Progressive
Estonians have formed a coalition against the far right with a new movement:
“Yes to Freedom, No to Lies.” They advocate not attacking the far right head on,
but rather talking directly to citizens about “Estonian democratic
values.” As in the United States and in
all western democracies, the struggle to maintain liberal democratic principles
is a real crisis. But for Estonians an
illiberal outcome comes with immediate consequences. If democracy losses and
Russia again dominates society, a major street in Tallinn will be renamed Putin
Street.
For centuries, the Baltic region has been the buffer between
Western Europe and Russia. Nothing has
changed this reality. Under Putin, the
Russian bear is again on the prowl, seeking to increase its sphere of influence
and to tamp down domestic dissent. Americans should pay close attention to tiny
Estonia, the canary in the coal mine.
