Urmas Paet: Main Guidelines of Estonia's Foreign Policy
Address by Mr. Urmas Paet, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Estonia to the Riigikogu on behalf of the Government of Estonia
13 December 2005
Honourable Ms. Chairman,
Respected Members of the Riigikogu,
Dear guests!
To begin my address concerning the main guidelines of Estonia’s foreign policy, I would like to repeat a simple truism -- the goal of every state’s foreign policy is to ensure the nation’s security and to promote the development of its welfare. Estonia’s foreign policy has been dedicated to the achieving of this very goal throughout the period following the regaining of independence. Concrete foreign policy objectives have been formed on this basis, among them such major and pivotally significant steps as accession to the European Union and NATO. The general goal of our foreign policy has, during all these years, been constant, but now we function from a reinforced international position, being able to also make use of the new opportunities that the EU and NATO have given us.
Very clear-cut and concrete major objectives have been achieved, so that the question has been raised -- what next? What does Estonia need to do now? But these questions are actually of a more rhetorical nature. I would like to reiterate once more -- our goal is the increasing of Estonia’s security and welfare and an ever more democratic and wealthier world. All our endeavours are directed towards this, and we keep this in mind when we intensify EU integration, we keep this in mind when we make our manpower contribution in Iraq, we keep this in mind when we open an Internet access point in Moldova.
Estonia’s interests are best served, in a quickly changing world, by a strong and dynamic European Union and NATO, based upon the principles of mutual solidarity. We support the further strengthening of the EU and NATO. NATO and the European Union are no longer "they", but "we". When we criticise so-called "Brussels bureaucracy" we should -- especially in the case of a politician or government official -- realize, that Estonia has also been able to influence the birth of those papers, that we also have a role to play in the creation of those regulations.
Respected Riigikogu,
Today’s first main topic deals with developments within and around the European Union.
To meet its present challenges, the EU should be stronger and more dynamic. For a whole year now, we have been holding serious talks, trying to solve the matter of the Union’s 2007 – 2013 budget -- to find a solution, which would, simultaneously, reflect the ambitions and commitments of the Union as a whole and also the needs of its individual members. We still hope to find a solution, which would satisfy everyone, a solution, which would seem to be fair for all of us. The day after tomorrow we will go and have another try at it. I hope, very much, that this time the result will be positive.
We consider it necessary that the new budgetary framework should direct greater resources, than previously, to the enhancing of competitiveness, including research and development as well as innovativeness, and also to the EU’s external relations. Our priority is to also provide adequate funding for the Cohesion Policy, so as to ensure the speedy elimination of the differences in economic development between Member States. Sufficient amounts must be earmarked for the contemporary development of rural life, as well as for the fishing industry and the environment. Being located on the external border of the EU, we are also very concerned with border control as well as the adequate funding of the EU Neighbourhood Policy. Within the latter framework we can help to promote the continuity and intensification of democratic development primarily in Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova.
And now, let us take a look at the European Constitutional Treaty, which, at the moment, is in a reflection and consideration phase. Politicians are, of course, often asked if the Treaty, in its present form, will ever become effective. At the same time, I’m surprised by the tone with which, in many parts of Europe, often also in Estonia, this matter is dealt with: there is talk only of the various articles of the Treaty; there is talk of the technical impossibility of, or the possibilities for, the Treaty to become effective, as well as the legalistic possibilities for dealing with one chapter or another. True, this all needs to be done. But there is surprisingly little discussion concerning the political decisions contained in the Constitutional Treaty, about the objectives for the attaining of which the Treaty was actually drawn up. Let us not forget, that the ECT would, for instance, make the functioning of the EU more democratic and transparent, and would increase our possibilities for playing a more forceful role in its external relations. The Treaty’s rejection by the voters of two Member States brings with it somewhat of a slowdown in the EU’s institutional development, but does definitely not mean that it will cease. Setbacks like this in the EU’s development have also occurred in the past, so that there is no sense in over-dramatising the momentary situation. The ECT contains a whole series of positive reforms, the adoption of which, into the EU’s acquis and norms are worth considering even if the Treaty does not become effective in its entirety -- for instance, the proposal, for the sake of increasing democracy and transparency, to make the Council sessions public, when legislative decision-making is involved, as well as the more efficient encompassing of national parliaments into this, the creation of a common European External Action Service and so on.
I believe, that a thorough debate of the European Constitutional Treaty in the Riigikogu’s Committees, and a more general public discussion, are very necessary. And all this with the objective that I briefly talked about just a moment ago -- to discuss Estonia’s positions concerning the questions and themes encompassed by the Treaty. So that we would all comprehend the problems that the ECT was drawn up to solve. So that we would all better comprehend the today as well as the tomorrow of the European Union. And as foreign minister I dare to state -- I believe, that the Riigikogu, after thorough debate, should eventually ratify the Treaty. Thus, Estonia would state its position concerning the challenges facing the EU. Thus, Estonia would state -- We must proceed! And with this step we would, of course, also be expressing our support for the 13 states, our good partners, who have already ratified the Treaty.
Honourable Riigikogu,
October’s opinion poll showed, that the approval rating in Estonia for European Union membership is as high as 66%. Membership has promoted the growth of economic and political stability, as well as increased our people’s sense of security. All this confirms a simple fact, which we occasionally tend to overlook. Namely, that most of the gains that the Member States, including Estonia, get from the European Union, do not come from Brussels’s coffers. Actually, most of the gains associated with membership come from participating in a common market. From having common regulations governing competition. From free trade. From a lack of customs duties between Member States. And more generally, from the stability and welfare zone formed by the European Union and the region around it.
So as to dispel any possible fears, it should, once more, be recalled, that for years to come we will be receiving, from the EU’s budget, noticeably more money than we have to pay into it. In the year 2005, for instance, we, generally speaking, had to pay a billion and a half (1.6) kroons, but should be receiving nearly 6 billion in return.
Estonia supports the further deepening of European Union integration in several spheres. This is determined, in addition to our general conviction that together we can achieve more, also by several concrete factors. For instance, by our location and the level of our revenues. As a European Union border state we have a special interest in enhancing border security, as well as in the enhancing of the fight against narcotics and human trafficking. Generally speaking, most cooperation in the realm of justice and home affairs, as well as its intensification, is in Estonia's interests.
The increasing of the EU’s competitiveness continues to be important for us. It is obvious, that if our products and services cannot succeed in the realm of increasing international competition, then we will not be able to accumulate resources for maintaining a social model that would ensure a sustainable society. For Estonia, it is essential, that the EU would be a strong participant in the ongoing world trade negotiations, and be oriented to the global opening up of the markets for goods and services. Let us hope, that at the World Trade Organisation’s Ministers’ Conference, which started today in Hong Kong, decisions will be adopted that will help to further liberalise world trade, and to promote the progress of developing countries.
But to enhance competitiveness, it is also necessary to utilise all of the EU’s internal market opportunities. For us it is essential that within the EU, in addition to the free movement of goods and capital, there also be the fully free movement of people and services.
For us, it is of significance, that there be greater transparency concerning European Union matters. Among other things, people expect, that the movement of common funds be as public as possible, also in the case of the utilisation of resources within each Member State. Estonia supports recent proposals for increasing European Union transparency, but would like to see even greater efforts in this sphere.
Estonia is also continuing to make preparations for the adoption of the euro. Let us, as before, hope, that despite the speeding up of inflation caused by increasing energy costs, it will be possible to switch over to the euro at the beginning of the year 2007, just as planned.
Honoured members of the Riigikogu,
As you know, on May 1st of next year, the two-year transition phase concerning the free movement of labour for the European Union’s new Member States will end. We are presently making intensive efforts so that as many Member States as possible will refrain from further use of limitations. The states that have not adopted transition periods -- United Kingdom, Ireland, Sweden -- are generally satisfied with having made that decision. Finland, which adopted limitations, is very seriously considering dropping them. We are encouraging our northern neighbours, and, of course, other Member States as well, to do so. The free movement of people is one of Europe’s four basic freedoms. If any of them are not implemented, freedom is not complete.
I am glad to be able to note that the readiness of Estonian society to help developing and transition countries is increasing. The Government has set as its goal, for the year 2010, to devote at least 0.1% of the gross national income to development cooperation. The amount devoted to development cooperation in the Foreign Ministry’s budget next year has almost doubled. Most of the development assistance extended by Estonia, which, last year, for instance, was 72.4 million kroons, comes from Estonia’s European Union budget payment for financing the European Commission’s development cooperation and humanitarian aid. Beginning in 2008, Estonia’s payment to the European Development Fund will be added to this.
A long-term future perspective, to determine how and where Estonia should concretely contribute, is also being formulated. Our draft development cooperation strategy for the years 2006 to 2009 is just now up on the Ministry’s website for everyone to comment and express their opinions. The Foreign Ministry proposes to focus upon four states: Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova, and Afghanistan. In the first three, we support, with our development cooperation, the chosen route of these states to intensify cooperation with NATO and the EU. In Afghanistan, with both military and future civilian cooperation we promote that state’s ability to one day fend for itself.
First of all, we carry out development cooperation projects on our own. Secondly, we support international organisations, mainly various UN organisations. And thirdly, we work together with other states -- we, for instance, cooperate with Finland’s Ministry of Internal Affairs and with the UN’s Observer Mission to help Georgia establish a contemporary and democratic law enforcement system.
Respected Riigikogu,
We support a stronger EU Common Foreign and Security Policy, and do so for several reasons.
First of all, because what 25 European nations are able to agree upon is, at any rate, based upon our shared values. These are listed in the Basic Treaties: democracy, personal freedoms, a free market economy, solidarity. All EU policies, including foreign policy, must at all times take into consideration common values. Would Estonia today be a member of NATO, if NATO’s decisions were not based upon the common values of its Member States? Would our own Defence Forces, our contribution to NATO operations in any part of the world be worthy of the commitment to defend Estonia militarily? They might well justify it, and we will of course do everything possible to contribute the best we have to offer. But we can be sure, that we were invited to accede with the Alliance since we are just the same as the other NATO states. Since we share the same values. We believe, that these values are good and right, and that observing and spreading them in the world is a just case. Therefore, Estonia promotes the increasing of both NATO and the EU activities in the world.
This provides the second reason why we support a stronger EU Common Foreign and Security Policy. Estonia would like to see that there be more policies in the world based upon EU values. We wish that the world’s economic superpower, which the European Union, with its nearly 460 million inhabitants and a GDP in the same category as that of the U.S., today is, would also be a great power politically.
The third reason why we want a stronger Common Foreign and Security Policy is Estonia’s smallness. Just as the EU is as strong as its Member States, each Member State is exactly as strong as the EU as a whole. And this strength serves Estonia’s interests well, being for us a privilege. We can rest assured, that Estonia’s citizens will be extended consular assistance even in those far away countries where we do not have an embassy of our own. We, who do not have extensive experiences dealing, for instance, with African or Latin American nations, can learn from our partner states, that have these experiences and skills.
But every privilege in the world is accompanied by a commitment. Just as we cannot regard the EU as just a means for improving life in Estonia, its Common Foreign and Security Policy cannot just be a process in which Estonia just enjoys its achievements, without contributing to the formulation and carrying out of the policy. Likewise, we cannot assume, that we can actively participate just in matters pertaining directly to us, and let others deal with the remaining issues. Therefore, we must be, and we are, much more active than before in matters and regions, which are not directly in our traditional areas of interest.
Take, for instance, immigration. It is true, that Estonia is an EU border state. But the greatest pressure of illegal immigration upon Europe is presently, and will most likely be for the following decades, in the Mediterranean region, upon the southern border. And therefore, we must understand the problems of, and therefore, we must support our good partners Spain, Italy, Greece, and, of course, Africa’s closest EU state, Malta, which is even smaller than Estonia. We must state, and we actually do so, that the whole European Union must actively contribute to the preventing of Africans from storming over barbed wire barriers, thus injuring themselves, to get to Ceuta and Melilla. We must all endeavour to see to it that barges, full of desperate people, do not wander around the Mediterranean searching for a beach onto which to discard their human cargo. The situation in the Mediterranean region is made even more multi-faceted by the fact that a great many of the illegal immigrants who arrive, let us say, in the harbours of Southern France, are not originally from the Maghreb states of Morocco, Algeria, Libya, and other direct neighbours of the EU. No, they come from much further south, from states beyond the Sahara. The Maghreb states are for them just transit countries.
I brought forth this example so that you would comprehend how difficult, complicated, and multi-faceted are the problems that the European Union, and thus, we, have to deal with on a daily basis. That is also why Estonian politicians and diplomats cannot look at the problems of more distant states indifferently. Firstly, because they also affect us, and secondly, but not less importantly -- how can we demand the attention, devotion, and contributions of others to the problems of Estonia, the Baltic states, and our region, if we are not correspondingly understanding towards our partners?
This takes us to Estonia’s direct neighbouring region. Yes, our membership in the ranks of the European Union’s Member States means, among other things, that relations with third states, including Russia, are now dealt with in the context of the European Union. Having said this, I would immediately like to talk about two dimensions, which we, in our debates, sometimes tend to forget.
First of all -- when we say, that the EU needs a more coherent Russia policy, then we sometimes actually mean, that the EU should adopt Estonia’s Russia policy. But, in real life, this cannot be so. Why? Because the European Union’s joint policy is formulated as the cooperative effort of 25 Member States. An agreement made by 25 is always a compromise, and we, in the Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, of course, do everything possible, that this compromise would reflect, as adequately as possible, our positions. But if, despite all efforts, this is not always quite so, then it is useful for us to remember the fact, that for us, a diluted agreement is preferable to a full-bodied dispute. It is precisely we who can gain a lot, especially when it comes to relations with Russia, from a united EU stand.
We have already seen the direct positive effect of a Common Foreign and Security Policy -- let us take, for example, the elimination of so-called double tariffs, or the agreements, between the EU and Russia, on visa facilitation and the readmission of illegal immigrants. Is the agreement with which Russia committed to taking back not only Russian citizens who have arrived here illegally, but also the citizens of third countries who have arrived here via Russian territory, not useful for Estonia? Is it sensible to claim, that Estonia should have, due to Russia’s behaviour in connection with our Border Treaty, prevented the concluding of the agreement concerning a simplified visa system? Knowing, that if this agreement had not been concluded it would probably have meant that EU Member States would have concluded bilateral agreements with Russia, these being agreements over the content of which Estonia would not have had any influence? Especially considering, that the agreement under discussion is reciprocal, meaning, that for EU citizens, and thereby for Estonian citizens, the procedure of applying for visas will become simpler.
And now, I will talk about another phenomenon, which tends to colour our and the EU’s relations with Russia. Namely, sometimes one gets the impression in Estonia, by hearing or reading some points of view, that our Russia policy is successful if Estonia and Estonia’s partner states are especially critical of Russia. Only, if we constantly use the same tone towards Russia, that they often use. I cannot really agree with such a way of thinking. No relations can, of course, be developed if the other side lacks any interest in doing so. But Estonia’s objective is, in cooperation with the other Member States, to develop and reinforce EU-Russian strategic relations, which would be based upon common values, and would naturally take into consideration Estonia’s national interests. It is in our interests to have a legally binding framework for EU-Russian relations, it is in our interests to have smoothly functioning cooperation in our neighbouring regions within the framework of the Northern Dimension.
At the same time, we must also keep in mind, that European Union-Russian relations do not cover all aspects of Estonian-Russian relations, and that, naturally, our own activity and initiative are of primary significance. It is in our long-term interest to have good neighbourly relations with a democratic Russia, and, concerning this aspect, Estonia’s approach is based upon the principle of constructive partnership, which is characterised by willingness for cooperation, pragmatic flexibility, and constructive criticism. And we would like to continue to carry on with a political dialogue, which takes into consideration the interests of both parties.
Respected Riigikogu,
Estonia’s position is, that the EU must be more open in its external relations. And we are, of course, deeply convinced, that EU enlargement must continue. Who else but we, yesterday’s acceding states, should comprehend this, and clearly promote this everywhere? Remember, that in the course of our own accession process, we were often frustrated, when all we heard from Brussels or the Member States were demands for the fulfilling of one or another accession criterion. When, instead of “welcome”, we heard: now, one more this and that, and maybe then. You’ll make it sooner-or-later. You’ll make it somehow. We, who remember all this so clearly, must now have more foresight. The enlargement of the European Union -- and when I say EU enlargement, then I am talking about the enlargement of the stability and welfare zone, about the promotion of our vital interests -- is good and just, and it must be furthered by all necessary means.
By setting ourselves up as an example, we can explain how the sole hope of becoming an EU member, the hope of belonging to a union based upon democratic values spurred Estonia on to carry out steady-handed reforms. By using ourselves as an example, we can explain how the European Union made us, our region, and thereby all of Europe a better place even before we actually became members. The same will definitely also take place in the case of those states, with which the EU holds accession negotiations today or tomorrow.
Enlargement, of course, requires that the candidate states be capable and willing to adopt European values and the EU’s procedural principles, and to implement them at all levels, but also, that the EU be capable of accepting new members. As far as Turkey’s concrete accession perspectives are concerned, many pro and con arguments have been presented. I find, that Turkey has taken sufficient steps to warrant being given the chance and stimulus for further positive development, to which, the prospect of future EU membership can give a strong additional impulse. But the main question here is, just as in, for instance, Ukraine’s case, that if a nation, a society, has decided to be European, to share European values, and has proven this with its actions, then we, in the EU, must be especially careful, and consider all possibilities especially thoroughly, before responding negatively to these endeavours. First of all, because such an historical decision concerning a concrete society, a concrete nationality, the matter of Europeanism, and the making of European choices can actually be made only by the nation involved. And secondly, if we say that no, this or that state cannot get into Europe, then we must consider the consequences and, at least partially, accept responsibility if the state makes other choices. And these might not be as European as they would have been.
It is probably superfluous to add, that Estonia, in every way, also greets the launching of accession negotiations with Croatia, and the giving of clearer membership perspectives to other Western Balkan states.
With the enlargement of the European Union there is a strengthening of its common foreign policy, and thus an increased need for Estonia to represent itself in the world. Our first choice has become Bulgaria, as a soon-to-be EU state, and Georgia, which, as I have already stated, is orienting itself towards the West. Further on, we will, in the interests of growing tourism and trade, have to also consider establishing ambassadorial representations in South Asia and Africa, where we have settled upon India and Egypt as being the suitable and necessary states. In this process, we are guided by the diplomatic representation development plan that was accepted by the Government in October.
And, being an active EU and NATO member, Estonia must also be active in international organisations. As you know, we have, among other things, set, as a long term objective, temporary membership in the UN’s Security Council in 2020, which must, of course, be preceded by our active participation in UN organisations. We are committed to this as a EU member, by our increasing welfare, and our growing concern about what is taking place in the world at large.
Honourable Ms. Chairman,
Respected members of the Riigikogu!
This is a suitable point for dealing with my second main topic – our national security policy.
Throughout the period following the restoration of independence, Estonia’s national security policy has been based upon the priority given to trans-Atlantic relations. We cherish that, which has always held NATO together -- common values, common policy, and common planning. On the basis of this, we have supported the discussions concerning the maintaining of common values -- democracy, human rights, and freedom -- within the framework of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council. We have to admit, that several Partnership for Peace Member States do not adhere to them, although they committed to do so by signing the Partnership Treaty. It would be enough to refer to Uzbekistan and Byelorussia, although some other states also have problems in this sphere.
During the last few years, an essential role has been given, within NATO activities, to operations both in and outside of Europe. NATO is continuing its successful operations in the Balkans, including Kosovo, as well as in Afghanistan. The success of these operations has made it possible to launch discussions concerning the future of Kosovo, and a new phase in the development of Afghanistan (the beginning of the so-called post-Bonn process). Estonia is continuing to participate in NATO operations in Kosovo, which has major significance for the ensuring of peace in all of Europe. The maintaining of stability in Kosovo provides a general basis for starting to solve the problems there in a European manner. NATO activity in Afghanistan, which is essential for ensuring a broader concept of security on a worldwide scale, has created prerequisites for the further fulfilling of commitments by NATO in connection with peacekeeping, as well as in the fight against narcotics production in Afghanistan. In this connection it is natural, that Estonia will increase its participation in that state.
When discussing Estonian participation, or non-participation, in NATO operations, we must remember, that the air space of the Baltic states is guarded by our allies’ planes, presently by U.S. fighters. This is an expression of the Alliance’s internal solidarity, to which we are able to respond by demonstrating our solidarity where needed. The security of our air space must be maintained, just as Estonia must be active in NATO operations.
The continuity of the Estonian unit in Iraq shows, that we are consistent in our decisions and activities, and that we place great value on our relations with our allies. Therefore, I am very glad, that the Riigikogu approved the proposal to extend the Estonian unit’s mission in Iraq till 1 January 2007. This, our expression of solidarity, which is based upon the Iraqi Government’s request and the UN’s mandate, also serves our own security interests.
The ensuring of Estonia’s security also requires constant involvement with challenges deriving from globalisation, often referred to as “new” security threats. The spectrum of such threats is extensive -- some, quite literally, threaten everyone, as could happen in the case of a global flu pandemic. Others -- political terrorism, for instance -- are directed against our lifestyle and democratic structure of government. And still others -- as in the case of AIDS/HIV -- undermine society almost without being noticed, till the process may prove to be irreversible.
When dealing with the matter of national security, we cannot bypass Estonia’s contribution to the development of the European Union’s military and civilian capabilities. One essential activity is participation in the Nordic Battle Group, another is activity in the European Union’s Common Foreign and Security Policy, including the EU’s international operations -- both military and civilian. In this connection, Estonia is noticeably increasing its participation in the EU’s military operation in Bosnia. A greater chore awaits us in connection with participating in the civilian missions. This field of activity is much more extensive, and actually encompasses all of Estonia’s government agencies. We are already participating in the EU’s civilian activities in Bosnia, Kosovo, Georgia, and Moldova, and we are planning to also do so in the Middle East. By means of all this, we are increasing both the European Union’s as well as our own foreign policy influence and security.
NATO and the EU must cooperate extensively. In problem areas it is best to make use of the organisation that can, in that particular region, ensure the best results. There is no point to the duplication of capabilities.
Participation in international operations and international development cooperation is a direct, and the most productive, way of contributing to the actual carrying out of our own as well as our allies’ and partners’ foreign and security policy objectives. Therefore, I would like to use this hallowed rostrum to thank all military personnel who participate in international operations. I would like to thank our team, which saved people’s lives after the Pakistani earthquake. I would like to thank our military personnel, Defence League personnel, and police officers in the Balkans, to thank our border guards, who represent us by doing their duty. And, of course, a thousand thanks to the families of all those just mentioned. Thank you all. You have done this for Estonia, and Estonia is proud of you.
Honored Riigikogu,
According to the Estonian Constitution, the Riigikogu has the right and the duty to render strategic decisions and to contribute to the formulation of foreign policy. You have been presented the Estonian Government’s main guidelines concerning foreign policy. I thank you for your attention and expect the report by the Foreign Committee and the following discussion to provide strategic foresight and food for thought. And all for the same purpose -- the development of Estonia’s security and welfare as well as a more democratic and affluent world.
Thank you.
13 December 2005
Honourable Ms. Chairman,
Respected Members of the Riigikogu,
Dear guests!
To begin my address concerning the main guidelines of Estonia’s foreign policy, I would like to repeat a simple truism -- the goal of every state’s foreign policy is to ensure the nation’s security and to promote the development of its welfare. Estonia’s foreign policy has been dedicated to the achieving of this very goal throughout the period following the regaining of independence. Concrete foreign policy objectives have been formed on this basis, among them such major and pivotally significant steps as accession to the European Union and NATO. The general goal of our foreign policy has, during all these years, been constant, but now we function from a reinforced international position, being able to also make use of the new opportunities that the EU and NATO have given us.
Very clear-cut and concrete major objectives have been achieved, so that the question has been raised -- what next? What does Estonia need to do now? But these questions are actually of a more rhetorical nature. I would like to reiterate once more -- our goal is the increasing of Estonia’s security and welfare and an ever more democratic and wealthier world. All our endeavours are directed towards this, and we keep this in mind when we intensify EU integration, we keep this in mind when we make our manpower contribution in Iraq, we keep this in mind when we open an Internet access point in Moldova.
Estonia’s interests are best served, in a quickly changing world, by a strong and dynamic European Union and NATO, based upon the principles of mutual solidarity. We support the further strengthening of the EU and NATO. NATO and the European Union are no longer "they", but "we". When we criticise so-called "Brussels bureaucracy" we should -- especially in the case of a politician or government official -- realize, that Estonia has also been able to influence the birth of those papers, that we also have a role to play in the creation of those regulations.
Respected Riigikogu,
Today’s first main topic deals with developments within and around the European Union.
To meet its present challenges, the EU should be stronger and more dynamic. For a whole year now, we have been holding serious talks, trying to solve the matter of the Union’s 2007 – 2013 budget -- to find a solution, which would, simultaneously, reflect the ambitions and commitments of the Union as a whole and also the needs of its individual members. We still hope to find a solution, which would satisfy everyone, a solution, which would seem to be fair for all of us. The day after tomorrow we will go and have another try at it. I hope, very much, that this time the result will be positive.
We consider it necessary that the new budgetary framework should direct greater resources, than previously, to the enhancing of competitiveness, including research and development as well as innovativeness, and also to the EU’s external relations. Our priority is to also provide adequate funding for the Cohesion Policy, so as to ensure the speedy elimination of the differences in economic development between Member States. Sufficient amounts must be earmarked for the contemporary development of rural life, as well as for the fishing industry and the environment. Being located on the external border of the EU, we are also very concerned with border control as well as the adequate funding of the EU Neighbourhood Policy. Within the latter framework we can help to promote the continuity and intensification of democratic development primarily in Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova.
And now, let us take a look at the European Constitutional Treaty, which, at the moment, is in a reflection and consideration phase. Politicians are, of course, often asked if the Treaty, in its present form, will ever become effective. At the same time, I’m surprised by the tone with which, in many parts of Europe, often also in Estonia, this matter is dealt with: there is talk only of the various articles of the Treaty; there is talk of the technical impossibility of, or the possibilities for, the Treaty to become effective, as well as the legalistic possibilities for dealing with one chapter or another. True, this all needs to be done. But there is surprisingly little discussion concerning the political decisions contained in the Constitutional Treaty, about the objectives for the attaining of which the Treaty was actually drawn up. Let us not forget, that the ECT would, for instance, make the functioning of the EU more democratic and transparent, and would increase our possibilities for playing a more forceful role in its external relations. The Treaty’s rejection by the voters of two Member States brings with it somewhat of a slowdown in the EU’s institutional development, but does definitely not mean that it will cease. Setbacks like this in the EU’s development have also occurred in the past, so that there is no sense in over-dramatising the momentary situation. The ECT contains a whole series of positive reforms, the adoption of which, into the EU’s acquis and norms are worth considering even if the Treaty does not become effective in its entirety -- for instance, the proposal, for the sake of increasing democracy and transparency, to make the Council sessions public, when legislative decision-making is involved, as well as the more efficient encompassing of national parliaments into this, the creation of a common European External Action Service and so on.
I believe, that a thorough debate of the European Constitutional Treaty in the Riigikogu’s Committees, and a more general public discussion, are very necessary. And all this with the objective that I briefly talked about just a moment ago -- to discuss Estonia’s positions concerning the questions and themes encompassed by the Treaty. So that we would all comprehend the problems that the ECT was drawn up to solve. So that we would all better comprehend the today as well as the tomorrow of the European Union. And as foreign minister I dare to state -- I believe, that the Riigikogu, after thorough debate, should eventually ratify the Treaty. Thus, Estonia would state its position concerning the challenges facing the EU. Thus, Estonia would state -- We must proceed! And with this step we would, of course, also be expressing our support for the 13 states, our good partners, who have already ratified the Treaty.
Honourable Riigikogu,
October’s opinion poll showed, that the approval rating in Estonia for European Union membership is as high as 66%. Membership has promoted the growth of economic and political stability, as well as increased our people’s sense of security. All this confirms a simple fact, which we occasionally tend to overlook. Namely, that most of the gains that the Member States, including Estonia, get from the European Union, do not come from Brussels’s coffers. Actually, most of the gains associated with membership come from participating in a common market. From having common regulations governing competition. From free trade. From a lack of customs duties between Member States. And more generally, from the stability and welfare zone formed by the European Union and the region around it.
So as to dispel any possible fears, it should, once more, be recalled, that for years to come we will be receiving, from the EU’s budget, noticeably more money than we have to pay into it. In the year 2005, for instance, we, generally speaking, had to pay a billion and a half (1.6) kroons, but should be receiving nearly 6 billion in return.
Estonia supports the further deepening of European Union integration in several spheres. This is determined, in addition to our general conviction that together we can achieve more, also by several concrete factors. For instance, by our location and the level of our revenues. As a European Union border state we have a special interest in enhancing border security, as well as in the enhancing of the fight against narcotics and human trafficking. Generally speaking, most cooperation in the realm of justice and home affairs, as well as its intensification, is in Estonia's interests.
The increasing of the EU’s competitiveness continues to be important for us. It is obvious, that if our products and services cannot succeed in the realm of increasing international competition, then we will not be able to accumulate resources for maintaining a social model that would ensure a sustainable society. For Estonia, it is essential, that the EU would be a strong participant in the ongoing world trade negotiations, and be oriented to the global opening up of the markets for goods and services. Let us hope, that at the World Trade Organisation’s Ministers’ Conference, which started today in Hong Kong, decisions will be adopted that will help to further liberalise world trade, and to promote the progress of developing countries.
But to enhance competitiveness, it is also necessary to utilise all of the EU’s internal market opportunities. For us it is essential that within the EU, in addition to the free movement of goods and capital, there also be the fully free movement of people and services.
For us, it is of significance, that there be greater transparency concerning European Union matters. Among other things, people expect, that the movement of common funds be as public as possible, also in the case of the utilisation of resources within each Member State. Estonia supports recent proposals for increasing European Union transparency, but would like to see even greater efforts in this sphere.
Estonia is also continuing to make preparations for the adoption of the euro. Let us, as before, hope, that despite the speeding up of inflation caused by increasing energy costs, it will be possible to switch over to the euro at the beginning of the year 2007, just as planned.
Honoured members of the Riigikogu,
As you know, on May 1st of next year, the two-year transition phase concerning the free movement of labour for the European Union’s new Member States will end. We are presently making intensive efforts so that as many Member States as possible will refrain from further use of limitations. The states that have not adopted transition periods -- United Kingdom, Ireland, Sweden -- are generally satisfied with having made that decision. Finland, which adopted limitations, is very seriously considering dropping them. We are encouraging our northern neighbours, and, of course, other Member States as well, to do so. The free movement of people is one of Europe’s four basic freedoms. If any of them are not implemented, freedom is not complete.
I am glad to be able to note that the readiness of Estonian society to help developing and transition countries is increasing. The Government has set as its goal, for the year 2010, to devote at least 0.1% of the gross national income to development cooperation. The amount devoted to development cooperation in the Foreign Ministry’s budget next year has almost doubled. Most of the development assistance extended by Estonia, which, last year, for instance, was 72.4 million kroons, comes from Estonia’s European Union budget payment for financing the European Commission’s development cooperation and humanitarian aid. Beginning in 2008, Estonia’s payment to the European Development Fund will be added to this.
A long-term future perspective, to determine how and where Estonia should concretely contribute, is also being formulated. Our draft development cooperation strategy for the years 2006 to 2009 is just now up on the Ministry’s website for everyone to comment and express their opinions. The Foreign Ministry proposes to focus upon four states: Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova, and Afghanistan. In the first three, we support, with our development cooperation, the chosen route of these states to intensify cooperation with NATO and the EU. In Afghanistan, with both military and future civilian cooperation we promote that state’s ability to one day fend for itself.
First of all, we carry out development cooperation projects on our own. Secondly, we support international organisations, mainly various UN organisations. And thirdly, we work together with other states -- we, for instance, cooperate with Finland’s Ministry of Internal Affairs and with the UN’s Observer Mission to help Georgia establish a contemporary and democratic law enforcement system.
Respected Riigikogu,
We support a stronger EU Common Foreign and Security Policy, and do so for several reasons.
First of all, because what 25 European nations are able to agree upon is, at any rate, based upon our shared values. These are listed in the Basic Treaties: democracy, personal freedoms, a free market economy, solidarity. All EU policies, including foreign policy, must at all times take into consideration common values. Would Estonia today be a member of NATO, if NATO’s decisions were not based upon the common values of its Member States? Would our own Defence Forces, our contribution to NATO operations in any part of the world be worthy of the commitment to defend Estonia militarily? They might well justify it, and we will of course do everything possible to contribute the best we have to offer. But we can be sure, that we were invited to accede with the Alliance since we are just the same as the other NATO states. Since we share the same values. We believe, that these values are good and right, and that observing and spreading them in the world is a just case. Therefore, Estonia promotes the increasing of both NATO and the EU activities in the world.
This provides the second reason why we support a stronger EU Common Foreign and Security Policy. Estonia would like to see that there be more policies in the world based upon EU values. We wish that the world’s economic superpower, which the European Union, with its nearly 460 million inhabitants and a GDP in the same category as that of the U.S., today is, would also be a great power politically.
The third reason why we want a stronger Common Foreign and Security Policy is Estonia’s smallness. Just as the EU is as strong as its Member States, each Member State is exactly as strong as the EU as a whole. And this strength serves Estonia’s interests well, being for us a privilege. We can rest assured, that Estonia’s citizens will be extended consular assistance even in those far away countries where we do not have an embassy of our own. We, who do not have extensive experiences dealing, for instance, with African or Latin American nations, can learn from our partner states, that have these experiences and skills.
But every privilege in the world is accompanied by a commitment. Just as we cannot regard the EU as just a means for improving life in Estonia, its Common Foreign and Security Policy cannot just be a process in which Estonia just enjoys its achievements, without contributing to the formulation and carrying out of the policy. Likewise, we cannot assume, that we can actively participate just in matters pertaining directly to us, and let others deal with the remaining issues. Therefore, we must be, and we are, much more active than before in matters and regions, which are not directly in our traditional areas of interest.
Take, for instance, immigration. It is true, that Estonia is an EU border state. But the greatest pressure of illegal immigration upon Europe is presently, and will most likely be for the following decades, in the Mediterranean region, upon the southern border. And therefore, we must understand the problems of, and therefore, we must support our good partners Spain, Italy, Greece, and, of course, Africa’s closest EU state, Malta, which is even smaller than Estonia. We must state, and we actually do so, that the whole European Union must actively contribute to the preventing of Africans from storming over barbed wire barriers, thus injuring themselves, to get to Ceuta and Melilla. We must all endeavour to see to it that barges, full of desperate people, do not wander around the Mediterranean searching for a beach onto which to discard their human cargo. The situation in the Mediterranean region is made even more multi-faceted by the fact that a great many of the illegal immigrants who arrive, let us say, in the harbours of Southern France, are not originally from the Maghreb states of Morocco, Algeria, Libya, and other direct neighbours of the EU. No, they come from much further south, from states beyond the Sahara. The Maghreb states are for them just transit countries.
I brought forth this example so that you would comprehend how difficult, complicated, and multi-faceted are the problems that the European Union, and thus, we, have to deal with on a daily basis. That is also why Estonian politicians and diplomats cannot look at the problems of more distant states indifferently. Firstly, because they also affect us, and secondly, but not less importantly -- how can we demand the attention, devotion, and contributions of others to the problems of Estonia, the Baltic states, and our region, if we are not correspondingly understanding towards our partners?
This takes us to Estonia’s direct neighbouring region. Yes, our membership in the ranks of the European Union’s Member States means, among other things, that relations with third states, including Russia, are now dealt with in the context of the European Union. Having said this, I would immediately like to talk about two dimensions, which we, in our debates, sometimes tend to forget.
First of all -- when we say, that the EU needs a more coherent Russia policy, then we sometimes actually mean, that the EU should adopt Estonia’s Russia policy. But, in real life, this cannot be so. Why? Because the European Union’s joint policy is formulated as the cooperative effort of 25 Member States. An agreement made by 25 is always a compromise, and we, in the Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, of course, do everything possible, that this compromise would reflect, as adequately as possible, our positions. But if, despite all efforts, this is not always quite so, then it is useful for us to remember the fact, that for us, a diluted agreement is preferable to a full-bodied dispute. It is precisely we who can gain a lot, especially when it comes to relations with Russia, from a united EU stand.
We have already seen the direct positive effect of a Common Foreign and Security Policy -- let us take, for example, the elimination of so-called double tariffs, or the agreements, between the EU and Russia, on visa facilitation and the readmission of illegal immigrants. Is the agreement with which Russia committed to taking back not only Russian citizens who have arrived here illegally, but also the citizens of third countries who have arrived here via Russian territory, not useful for Estonia? Is it sensible to claim, that Estonia should have, due to Russia’s behaviour in connection with our Border Treaty, prevented the concluding of the agreement concerning a simplified visa system? Knowing, that if this agreement had not been concluded it would probably have meant that EU Member States would have concluded bilateral agreements with Russia, these being agreements over the content of which Estonia would not have had any influence? Especially considering, that the agreement under discussion is reciprocal, meaning, that for EU citizens, and thereby for Estonian citizens, the procedure of applying for visas will become simpler.
And now, I will talk about another phenomenon, which tends to colour our and the EU’s relations with Russia. Namely, sometimes one gets the impression in Estonia, by hearing or reading some points of view, that our Russia policy is successful if Estonia and Estonia’s partner states are especially critical of Russia. Only, if we constantly use the same tone towards Russia, that they often use. I cannot really agree with such a way of thinking. No relations can, of course, be developed if the other side lacks any interest in doing so. But Estonia’s objective is, in cooperation with the other Member States, to develop and reinforce EU-Russian strategic relations, which would be based upon common values, and would naturally take into consideration Estonia’s national interests. It is in our interests to have a legally binding framework for EU-Russian relations, it is in our interests to have smoothly functioning cooperation in our neighbouring regions within the framework of the Northern Dimension.
At the same time, we must also keep in mind, that European Union-Russian relations do not cover all aspects of Estonian-Russian relations, and that, naturally, our own activity and initiative are of primary significance. It is in our long-term interest to have good neighbourly relations with a democratic Russia, and, concerning this aspect, Estonia’s approach is based upon the principle of constructive partnership, which is characterised by willingness for cooperation, pragmatic flexibility, and constructive criticism. And we would like to continue to carry on with a political dialogue, which takes into consideration the interests of both parties.
Respected Riigikogu,
Estonia’s position is, that the EU must be more open in its external relations. And we are, of course, deeply convinced, that EU enlargement must continue. Who else but we, yesterday’s acceding states, should comprehend this, and clearly promote this everywhere? Remember, that in the course of our own accession process, we were often frustrated, when all we heard from Brussels or the Member States were demands for the fulfilling of one or another accession criterion. When, instead of “welcome”, we heard: now, one more this and that, and maybe then. You’ll make it sooner-or-later. You’ll make it somehow. We, who remember all this so clearly, must now have more foresight. The enlargement of the European Union -- and when I say EU enlargement, then I am talking about the enlargement of the stability and welfare zone, about the promotion of our vital interests -- is good and just, and it must be furthered by all necessary means.
By setting ourselves up as an example, we can explain how the sole hope of becoming an EU member, the hope of belonging to a union based upon democratic values spurred Estonia on to carry out steady-handed reforms. By using ourselves as an example, we can explain how the European Union made us, our region, and thereby all of Europe a better place even before we actually became members. The same will definitely also take place in the case of those states, with which the EU holds accession negotiations today or tomorrow.
Enlargement, of course, requires that the candidate states be capable and willing to adopt European values and the EU’s procedural principles, and to implement them at all levels, but also, that the EU be capable of accepting new members. As far as Turkey’s concrete accession perspectives are concerned, many pro and con arguments have been presented. I find, that Turkey has taken sufficient steps to warrant being given the chance and stimulus for further positive development, to which, the prospect of future EU membership can give a strong additional impulse. But the main question here is, just as in, for instance, Ukraine’s case, that if a nation, a society, has decided to be European, to share European values, and has proven this with its actions, then we, in the EU, must be especially careful, and consider all possibilities especially thoroughly, before responding negatively to these endeavours. First of all, because such an historical decision concerning a concrete society, a concrete nationality, the matter of Europeanism, and the making of European choices can actually be made only by the nation involved. And secondly, if we say that no, this or that state cannot get into Europe, then we must consider the consequences and, at least partially, accept responsibility if the state makes other choices. And these might not be as European as they would have been.
It is probably superfluous to add, that Estonia, in every way, also greets the launching of accession negotiations with Croatia, and the giving of clearer membership perspectives to other Western Balkan states.
With the enlargement of the European Union there is a strengthening of its common foreign policy, and thus an increased need for Estonia to represent itself in the world. Our first choice has become Bulgaria, as a soon-to-be EU state, and Georgia, which, as I have already stated, is orienting itself towards the West. Further on, we will, in the interests of growing tourism and trade, have to also consider establishing ambassadorial representations in South Asia and Africa, where we have settled upon India and Egypt as being the suitable and necessary states. In this process, we are guided by the diplomatic representation development plan that was accepted by the Government in October.
And, being an active EU and NATO member, Estonia must also be active in international organisations. As you know, we have, among other things, set, as a long term objective, temporary membership in the UN’s Security Council in 2020, which must, of course, be preceded by our active participation in UN organisations. We are committed to this as a EU member, by our increasing welfare, and our growing concern about what is taking place in the world at large.
Honourable Ms. Chairman,
Respected members of the Riigikogu!
This is a suitable point for dealing with my second main topic – our national security policy.
Throughout the period following the restoration of independence, Estonia’s national security policy has been based upon the priority given to trans-Atlantic relations. We cherish that, which has always held NATO together -- common values, common policy, and common planning. On the basis of this, we have supported the discussions concerning the maintaining of common values -- democracy, human rights, and freedom -- within the framework of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council. We have to admit, that several Partnership for Peace Member States do not adhere to them, although they committed to do so by signing the Partnership Treaty. It would be enough to refer to Uzbekistan and Byelorussia, although some other states also have problems in this sphere.
During the last few years, an essential role has been given, within NATO activities, to operations both in and outside of Europe. NATO is continuing its successful operations in the Balkans, including Kosovo, as well as in Afghanistan. The success of these operations has made it possible to launch discussions concerning the future of Kosovo, and a new phase in the development of Afghanistan (the beginning of the so-called post-Bonn process). Estonia is continuing to participate in NATO operations in Kosovo, which has major significance for the ensuring of peace in all of Europe. The maintaining of stability in Kosovo provides a general basis for starting to solve the problems there in a European manner. NATO activity in Afghanistan, which is essential for ensuring a broader concept of security on a worldwide scale, has created prerequisites for the further fulfilling of commitments by NATO in connection with peacekeeping, as well as in the fight against narcotics production in Afghanistan. In this connection it is natural, that Estonia will increase its participation in that state.
When discussing Estonian participation, or non-participation, in NATO operations, we must remember, that the air space of the Baltic states is guarded by our allies’ planes, presently by U.S. fighters. This is an expression of the Alliance’s internal solidarity, to which we are able to respond by demonstrating our solidarity where needed. The security of our air space must be maintained, just as Estonia must be active in NATO operations.
The continuity of the Estonian unit in Iraq shows, that we are consistent in our decisions and activities, and that we place great value on our relations with our allies. Therefore, I am very glad, that the Riigikogu approved the proposal to extend the Estonian unit’s mission in Iraq till 1 January 2007. This, our expression of solidarity, which is based upon the Iraqi Government’s request and the UN’s mandate, also serves our own security interests.
The ensuring of Estonia’s security also requires constant involvement with challenges deriving from globalisation, often referred to as “new” security threats. The spectrum of such threats is extensive -- some, quite literally, threaten everyone, as could happen in the case of a global flu pandemic. Others -- political terrorism, for instance -- are directed against our lifestyle and democratic structure of government. And still others -- as in the case of AIDS/HIV -- undermine society almost without being noticed, till the process may prove to be irreversible.
When dealing with the matter of national security, we cannot bypass Estonia’s contribution to the development of the European Union’s military and civilian capabilities. One essential activity is participation in the Nordic Battle Group, another is activity in the European Union’s Common Foreign and Security Policy, including the EU’s international operations -- both military and civilian. In this connection, Estonia is noticeably increasing its participation in the EU’s military operation in Bosnia. A greater chore awaits us in connection with participating in the civilian missions. This field of activity is much more extensive, and actually encompasses all of Estonia’s government agencies. We are already participating in the EU’s civilian activities in Bosnia, Kosovo, Georgia, and Moldova, and we are planning to also do so in the Middle East. By means of all this, we are increasing both the European Union’s as well as our own foreign policy influence and security.
NATO and the EU must cooperate extensively. In problem areas it is best to make use of the organisation that can, in that particular region, ensure the best results. There is no point to the duplication of capabilities.
Participation in international operations and international development cooperation is a direct, and the most productive, way of contributing to the actual carrying out of our own as well as our allies’ and partners’ foreign and security policy objectives. Therefore, I would like to use this hallowed rostrum to thank all military personnel who participate in international operations. I would like to thank our team, which saved people’s lives after the Pakistani earthquake. I would like to thank our military personnel, Defence League personnel, and police officers in the Balkans, to thank our border guards, who represent us by doing their duty. And, of course, a thousand thanks to the families of all those just mentioned. Thank you all. You have done this for Estonia, and Estonia is proud of you.
Honored Riigikogu,
According to the Estonian Constitution, the Riigikogu has the right and the duty to render strategic decisions and to contribute to the formulation of foreign policy. You have been presented the Estonian Government’s main guidelines concerning foreign policy. I thank you for your attention and expect the report by the Foreign Committee and the following discussion to provide strategic foresight and food for thought. And all for the same purpose -- the development of Estonia’s security and welfare as well as a more democratic and affluent world.
Thank you.
© Estonian Foreign Ministry
- Islandi väljak 1
- 15049 Tallinn
- TEL (+372) 6 377 000
- General Info: vminfo@vm.ee
- Documents: post@vm.ee
- For consular and visa-related information:: konsul@vm.ee
