Opinion article
The Latvian government’s position on keeping Latvian citizen and billionaire Pjotrs Avens on the European Union’s sanctions list is becoming increasingly difficult to understand. Despite the decision of the General Court of the European Union to remove him from the list of sanctioned persons, and contrary to the opinion of many European countries and calls from a number of former high-ranking Latvian officials for reasonable action, the Latvian Ministry of Foreign Affairs continues to make significant efforts to keep Avens on the sanctions list. The question arises: why is that?
Avens himself publicly stated in interviews that Latvian Minister of Foreign Affairs Baiba Braže is trying to “cement” his status as a sanctioned person, using political influence and diplomatic channels to affect the decisions of other EU countries. From the outside, it appears that Latvia’s foreign policy on this issue is guided not by objective and legal criteria, or at least by criteria beneficial for the state, but by the Minister’s domestic political ambitions.
This is not a question of Avens having to “justify himself” in the court of public opinion – he has already done so through legal channels. He is a Latvian citizen and one of the few individuals subject to sanctions who has fulfilled all EU requirements for removal from the sanctions list. His position is openly supported by former Prime Minister and long-time Minister of Foreign Affairs Valdis Birkavs, former Presidents Andris Bērziņš and Valdis Zatlers, and former Minister of Foreign Affairs Aivis Ronis. Zatlers pointed out that sooner or later the question will have to be answered: “What is our attitude towards Pēteris (Pjotrs) Avens, a Latvian citizen who is subject to sanctions?”
However, the Latvian public is rarely reminded of the fact that Avens also played an important role in the country’s development processes. Aivis Ronis, who once headed the Latvian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, recalls that Avens is one of the few people who maintained close ties with Latvia for decades and repeatedly provided practical assistance to the country, including facilitating the dialogue between Latvia and the West, including contacts with Germany and the United Kingdom.
These are not empty words –
these are episodes that many Latvian diplomats remember well, but that are often kept quiet in public.
Why would that be?
The truth is that Avens is not the real victim in this story. The side that actually loses most is probably Latvia itself. Not only is the potential development of entrepreneurship and investment, which could very well become the largest in the country’s history, being hampered, but so are philanthropic projects that could become a significant contribution to the development of society. The state is not receiving taxes, jobs, or reputation points – only short-term political rhetoric.
In this whole story, Latvia’s position looks particularly strange against the general backdrop of the EU. Latvia did not object to the removal of the Russian Sports Minister from the sanctions list – a man directly linked to Putin’s regime and its propaganda machine. At the same time, Latvia lobbied particularly hard to keep on the sanctions list its own citizen, a man with no proven links to financing the war or supporting the regime. It is difficult to understand this logic, or who made this decision on behalf of Latvia and how.
Another important question: why is Latvia’s legal community silent? Where are the opinions of lawyers and legal scholars on the legal aspects of this situation? Why is no one asking the government or the Minister of Foreign Affairs to explain why Latvia is challenging an EU court ruling that was already unfavourable to Latvia’s position?
When such a dissonance arises between the rule of law and politics, between state interests and personal ambitions,
this begs the question: who benefits from this?
Why has this particular case become a symbolic battleground on which Latvia is prepared to sacrifice both its reputation and its opportunities? At present, it seems that instead of being a fair, transparent state with logical arguments, Latvia prefers to present itself as a state that persecutes its citizens and ignores court decisions, hiding those who actually make the decisions behind diplomatic phrases.
Latvia has every opportunity to be a democratic, responsible, and fair country. However, this case demonstrates the opposite – that the country’s interests are subordinated to personal ambitions and fears. This is a dangerous trend.
Read also: The arbitrary nature of EU sanctions: when the rule of law falls victim to political expediency