Despite my human rights activities, I am not a conventional human rights advocate since I do not focus principally on individual rights, in part since such an approach ignores historical context. For example, even though Latvia violates its OSCE and UN obligations by not giving Russians automatic citizenship or allow them to work for the government, its behavior is both understandable and defensible.

It is not unreasonable for the Latvian government to require the Russians to pass a Latvian language exam, after all most ethnic Russians presently in the country are descendants of Soviet occupiers. In fact, the Latvian government is acting in a fairly restrained manner by not simply expelling all the Russians not willing to assimilate into Latvian society.

Both the Czechs and the Poles immediately after WWII kicked all the Germans out of their countries to prevent the possibility of an irrendentia problem from arising in the future. By comparison, Latvian policy has been a model of constraint.

Now let's say you are a Latvian or Estonian and Soviet troops at the end of WWII killed your parents and seized your home, but you and your sibling managed to escape. Over 45+ years, the political situation changes. You and your sibling return to your former home to reclaim your home only to find the children of the soldiers living in your house. You want it back -- after all it is a well-established principle of law that a thief cannot convey good title since the purchaser is not a holder-in-due course.

It doesn't matter what documents the Soviet documents may have given the house's occupants. While the sins of the father do not pass to the son, this is not what is happening. You and your sibling are not seeking to kill the occupants of your house, you just want them to leave in peace. Perhaps, they are entitled to a month or two to move, but they have no moral claim to the property. Of course, there is always the issue from what point in time should a particular situation be evaluated.

I also can say without fear that Chechnya is not legally part of the Russian Federation as it did not ratify the Federation Treaty or approve the 1993 (fraudulent) referendum on the Russian Constitution. I will condemn terrorism in all forms and don't want innocent Chechens or Russians to die. Yet it is necessary to recognize, as Zbigniew Brzezinski and others do that Chechnya is to Moscow what Algeria was to Paris .

Unfortunately, Russia lacks a DeGaulle. Putin either does not understand the damage the conflict in Chechnya is causing Russia or he is too weak to oppose those who want to prolong the current situation. If Russian television were not state-controlled, perhaps the Russian public opinion would understand the consequences of existing Russian policy towards Chechnya better.

Certainly Russian mothers don't want their kids in the Russian army. The Russian authorities committed a huge blunder in permitting the killing of Chechen President Aslan Maskhadov. Corrupt Russian officials stole the money that was intended to permit him to consolidate his power and rebuild Chechnya -- that is they deprived him of the resources to establish a viable government that could control terrorists like Basiyev. In so doing, it reduced the chances of a peaceful solution of the conflict to almost zero.

Ironically, I am a Russophile in a sense. I would love a Russia with a constitution that was observed, where there was the rule of law, and respect for the dignity of human beings. I think I want what most Russian people want -- decent housing, safe streets. accessible quality medical care, rewarding work and a better life for their children in a peaceful world.

LR: That's the same sense in which LR is a Russophile!