President of the Republic of Estonia since 1992


Mr. President, Estonia has made the choice for Europe. Is this not a difficult choice, considering the Russian pressure to your borders?

Our European identity is so obvious that I always listen with dismay when it is said that Estonia has decided to ''belong'' to Europe. We are not an aimlessly floating islet that is trying to hook on to something. We have been part of Europe ever since the Roman Empire. Actually, we are the witnesses of Europe's return to the regions from where Europe retreated after and during World War II. This new Europe turns her back on the Munich Agreement, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and the division in Yalta.
This is the truth!
I will come to your question now. The pressure to the borders of Estonia, but also Latvia and Lithuania, was considerable in 1990, when several Lithuania border guards were killed under suspicious circumstances. But the past and the present are like night and day. The French readers have perhaps not observed the fact that the former President Boris Yeltsin officially erected a stake on the Estonian Russian border. The modern border facilities on both Estonian and Russian side, which enable fast border-crossing both for goods and people, and the experience of border guards of the two countries of efficient and even friendly co-operation in the struggle against illegal border-crossing, smuggling and trade of weapons on the one hand, and in humanitarian operations on the other hand are an even more significant symbol. Your question brings to mind a recent incident, which I recall reluctantly, because it is self-evident for Estonia: the Russian sailors who had an accident in the Gulf of Finland were rescued by the Estonian border guard at the request of the Russian border guard.

Your border agreement with Russia has been initialled, but not yet signed. Does this delay trouble you?
We have repeatedly said that the most beautiful present we could give Russia would be a secure Western border with the European Union. Considering all the troubles on Russia's southern border today and in the foreseeable future, I believe it would do them good.

Would that not rather be a present from the Russian government? After all they are the ones delaying the signing of the agreement

Our functioning border is even better than the agreement - it is more modern than that of any EU member country's, just as modern as the border between Finland and Russia. But I agree with you: states do not give presents to each other. They seek for balance in their national interests, including the interests of national security.

But yet it is your wish that Russia would make the border official -

It already is official! Estonia has managed to build a secure and efficient border. We have never been spoilt children. Everything that we have accomplished so far is a result of our hard work.
We are more interested in reality than in words. And the reality shows that unfortunately, last year's agreements in the end proved to be nothing but pieces of paper. What was the use of the 1939 agreement between France and Germany? As for us, we had sixteen agreements with the Soviet Union before World War II! As you see, it was not enough to guarantee our independence-

According to the ''joint security agreement'', that Russia offered to you in May 1997, Russia prohibits you de facto to become a member of NATO. Moscow ''barks'' each time when you so much as look like acceding to the Atlantic structures-

To some extent, I understand why Russia has to such extent resorted to anti-NATO rhetoric. The roots of this fifty-year old attitude date back to the times of Stalin, and it takes at least one generation to get rid of. But it is a fact that in the field of security, we assume no importance to political rhetoric. NATO-s functions today are not exactly the same as they were when the organisation was founded. Today, we are talking about a defence and co-operation alliance. Even Russia has wished to be part of some of its structures. You may be inclined to doubt this. And yet the alliance has a new role to play in the world where no one would like to resort to the term ''cold war'' once again. yet I cannot agree to your phrase that Estonia ''looks like acceding to the Atlantic structures''. Estonia has, both to the West and to the East, clearly and unequivocally declared that every independent state has the unalienable right to choose the national security mechanism that it considers to be the most suitable to its needs.

Your integration to NATO is made more difficult by Article 5 of the Atlantic Charter that determines the conditions for implementing collective security, and upon which Russia does not look with a benevolent eye. Do you really need such defence to guarantee your security?

There is no need for oversimplifications. NATO is an organisation that can be trusted, and that has, during the last fifty years, done very good work. There has been not a single conflict between its member states, not a single one! This lengthy period of peace does not derive from Article 5 as taken separately, but from NATO as a transatlantic structure. NATO enlargement is not directed against anyone. NATO knows well that stability bears XXX more stability. Having said this, I must add that a certain number of the European countries belonging to NATO, for instance Germany and France, have considered it preferable to solve themselves the local conflicts, in which it would be pointless to engage our friends from the United States or Canada each time Europe has difficulties. This is the reason why the Europeans have decided to establish their own defence system, in order to guarantee their own security and solve political and military conflicts limited with the continent. Estonia, just like your country, needs this European defence force and is, within her limits, prepared to fulfil the role that is expected of her. By the way, we have already participated in some international missions in Bosnia and Lebanon.

Would your accession to that European force enable you to manage without NATO?

No. This is not margarine that can be spread on the sandwich when there is no butter. The European defence force and NATO are no substitutes. The European defence identity gives Europe first and foremost the opportunity to fulfil her political and military obligations more efficiently, just like it does in world economy thanks to the Euro. This is one way to strengthen the bipolarisation of the world.

Partnership for Peace (2) did not give you anything much -

You are mistaken. Partnership for Peace was an extremely useful tool, meant for helping the partner states to build up their armed forces and hasten the process of bringing the equipment and line of command to accordance with the standards of NATO. This is our first step towards accession.

This does not change the fact that your accession to NATO makes neither Russia nor the U. S. Congress any happier - the latter's reluctance to the United States' growing commitment to the world is universally known. It was more agreeable to the integration of Poland. It is true also that the Polish lobby did everything in their might.

We believe that Estonia's integration must take place on the basis of the consensus of NATO members. When the time is right, also the consensus will be there. As for the claim that Poland acceded to NATO because there are many Polish immigrants in The USA, and that this would not be the case with Estonia, as there are too few Estonian immigrants, this is quite pointless. NATO is not a golf club! It is an international organisation that is conscious of the fact that security is indivisible. This is one of the reasons why NATO took actively part in solving the Kosovo crisis which threatened neither Canada nor the USA, but which posed a threat to the European stability. Unstable Europe would have meant global danger, especially for the balance of transatlantic relations.

When do you hope to accede to the alliance?

I can only say that it will happen earlier than it is expected. Our armed forces are working indefatigably to be ready for the year 2002. Then, NATO will state its position.

Are you sure?

Absolutely.

Do you exclude the possibility of any conflict with Russia?It can be felt that the Estonian people inwardly still fear invasion from Russia-

I clearly believe more strongly than you do in Russia's ability to become a democratic country. In your opinion, Estonia is doing a heroic deed just by living and acting on the borders of Russia. For us, there is nothing heroic: Northern Europe is our home, and we have no return ticket to Paris.
In case of aggression, we are prepared for a long-lasting guerilla resistance in the forests. Moscow knows that, and it is their choice: imperialist policy or good-neighbourly co-operation with the Baltic States. I am convinced that Russia has understood what suits her interests better.
I know there are some leading political figures in Russia nurturing thoughts of expansion and speaking without hesitation about restoring the borders of the Warsaw pact times. But these extremists can not be taken seriously.

Yet the threat of instability is graver in Russia than in France or Germany.

Of course. Even for Estonia, with our ancient European traditions, the transition has been painful. Thus it is normal that for a country like Russia, who has no experience whatsoever of parliamentary democracy, it must be even harder.
In Russia's case most of the European politicians tend to forget the time factor. The Americans - and the French - believed in 1989-1990 that the almighty power of the Bolshevist party had been undone, and that the USSR had overnight, just like in a fairy tale, become a stable democratic regime. This will take a little more time! In Estonia, we were still struggling to restore our pre-war state in 1991(comment). Our relations with Russia were very strained, and many public servants in Europe could not understand this.
Estonia knows the Russian history much better than an average European. We have no doubt that some day, Russia will be a democracy. It is only a question of time. We have never thought that the change would be quick. And the actual developments have proved us right from the beginning. In some sense, we are more realistic than you are, and this realistic attitude gives us more certainty.

Is Russia not against Estonia's accession to the European Union?

It is not always easy to understand what the Russian government thinks. Presuming that we really know who is authorised to speak for Russia. I do not always know that. At the moment, it is Prime Minister Putin. And yet everything by one side or the other must be seen in the context of the presidential elections campaign in Russia.

What are your preferences as to the dialogue partners in the Russian Government? You are independent, but..

Do not say ''you are independent, but..''. It is as if I said of France - ''She is a sovereign state, but..'', because she has delegated some of her sovereignty to the European Union. Your question is awkward in any case. No one exactly knew the situation of ex-President Yeltsin. Let us wait and see the results of the elections. After which - I hope - a long politically and economically stable period will start in Russia.

Does the opening of the economy not help to strengthen the process of democratisation?

Do not forget that Russia is very rich in natural resources. Despite the current political instability and immense financial problems, the enterprises of Europe and America wish to continue the economic co-operation. Even now, the economic sector has a considerable role in the foreign policies of the Kremlin. And this tendency is becoming more prominent. Once, the financial world will start forging the policies of Russia, which in itself is a new phenomenon for that country. Remember the weight of the Political Bureau and the Central Committee, this was not so long ago. At the present stage, Russia can not allow regression, isolation behind a new iron curtain. It is in her own interests to remain an open country.

Will this be a fast development?

The reorientation of the Russian economy is not a problem to be solved with a scratch of pen on a sheet of paper. Its first precondition is that the Russian leaders change their pattern of thinking. Yet such a change in human brains will take time. You can speed up a tank, but not the invisible movement of a state who is on the way to meet its destiny.
Considering the immense difficulties facing Russia today, most of Europeans today are torn between disappointment and failing courage. But my opinion is the contrary: it is precisely because Russia is facing these extremely difficult problems that she will be able to survive the breakthrough. The economic logic will overcome the guerilla ideology.

So you have faith in Russia?

In the Russian people, just as I have faith in the Estonian people.

Proceeding from your faith, you refused to participate in the OSCE Summit in Istanbul, as a protest against Boris Yeltsin's policy in Chechnya. Were you not afraid to offend your powerful neighbour?

You know the saying: ''It is never a policy to offend a big country''. Estonia's attitude is not only far from an insult, but also congruous with the national interests of Russia.

And yet Estonia was the only OSCE member to go that far

For me, it was one way of telling the Kremlin leaders that their policy in Chechnya was doomed to failure. Lately, I read in the press that Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is drawing parallels between the war in Chechnya and the situation in Northern Ireland. I leave this comparison to the discretion of your readers.

When acceding the EU, Estonia is in danger to become dissolved in this huge structure. The latest polls indicate that 38% of the Estonians are in favour of the accession, 22% are against and 40% is unable to make up their minds. For the people who have experienced 190 years of Russian tutelage, the prospect of a new protector need not look too delightful. But does Estonia have a choice? Can she afford to stand alone?

You have just recalled the 190 years of the Romanoff tutelage, but forgot that the last century consisted of two parts - before and after World War II. Our people restored the Republic of Estonia on the basis of international law, as I said, and this is why history, culture, and principles, especially the principles of international law have more significance in Estonia than they have in France. Do not get angry with me: in the whole world, small countries adhere to the principles of law more strictly than the big ones, who are in turn attracted by realpolitik, the welfare of the state. The world is not perfect, and we know this from our own experience, know it better than France. But the principles are enduring and manage to stand up also after the tanks and iron curtains, and are even more enduring today than they were ten of fifty years ago. This also pertains to the EU matters. The goals and the ideals prevail, but the specific direction of the Union has become obscure and thus it is striving for transparency.
In a very small country as we are with our very small language and very small culture, the thought of drowning in the ocean of big languages is of course awkward. But when facing the great powers, small countries always ensure their identity through culture. Why and how did Europe, a peninsula so small and so poor of natural resources, manage to become the main motive force of the modern civilisation. The answer is bound in two words: cultural diversity. Diversity is the guarantee of harmonious development.
All this was just meant to explain that we are not afraid to drown in the united Europe. It is obvious that Estonia needs the Estonian culture. But for the first time in history we know that there is someone else who needs Estonia, part of our identity, and needs it for the sole reason that it is different.

Let us return to more prosaic considerations. When acceding to the European Union, do you also have the intention to establish closer relations with other Baltic Sea countries, to restore the Hanseatic League that brought you prosperity between the XIII and XV centuries?

The Hanseatic League is not an end in itself, it is the means.

How great a solidarity do you feel with the other Baltic Sea countries?

We are part of a system based on concentric circles. First, there is the Baltoscandic circle. Right after this there is the circle covering the northern part of Germany and France, Belgium, Luxembourg, etc. And so on. As to France, her struggle for the preservation of the French language in the world is very close to our hearts. Here, our worries are very similar to yours.

On the Helsinki Summit, the principle that the institutions of the EU should be reformed before new members can be admitted, was emphasised once again. Do you not fear that Brussels is using these reforms as a pretext for postponing the enlargement, whereas Estonia is making considerable efforts to bring herself to accordance with the accession criteria?

Institutional reforms are under way and the negotiations are proceeding according to the plan, parallel with the enlargement process. It is obvious that the process is complicated and that accession of new countries will mean numerous structural problems. We understand that these must be solved before it will be possible to proceed. As to our efforts, I am certain that European Union will measure them justly. Brussels has no reason to experiment with humans. Estonia has done excellent work to restore its economy. Our citizens feel that it is not in the interests of the EU to delay our accession. When both parties are ready, also the accession will become a reality.

And when will that be?

All I can say is that we will be ready for the year 2003.

At first, only Estonia was considered worthy of accession to the EU. Did this different treatment surprise you? What could be the consequences for the relations between the three Baltic countries?

The accession is not a sports contest, where the fact that Estonia got the invitation first and would mean that the second one in finish has lost. This is naļve. The difference in treatment that you mentioned can be reduced a single simple truth - who is ready, is ready. And yet it is not only in our interests, but also our duty to help Latvia and Lithuania to attain the EU membership as quickly as possible.

In what respect did the Helsinki summit meet your expectations?

We were glad to see Latvia and Lithuania included to the candidate countries.

The seeming lack of solidarity between the three Baltic countries is surprising. Do you not belong to the same family?

You have a distorted idea of reality, which is not surprising. For Brazilians, for instance, it is hard to differentiate between the Baltic Countries and the Balkans. Thus, it is understandable that as seen from France, the three Baltic countries seem to form an integral whole. And yet there are as many relations between the Baltic Countries as there are between France, England and Germany. We have three different cultures with three different languages, and quite different traditions and ways of life, also religions are different. These nuances are part of our everyday lives. We are able to differentiate between a Latvian and a Lithuanian, as we live here. When viewing at a certain distance, of course, contrasts do seem milder.

And yet the three Baltic Countries are connected by their common fate-

Certainly. We have a common history behind us, especially due to MR. Stalin and Mr. Hitler, and we know that we are looking forward to a common future. But as to this moment, the differences between us are real. Thank God that this moment only lasts for a second!


(1) The German influence in Estonia has been very strong since the 13th century
(2) NATO programme for the non-member countries
(3) Comment concerning pre-war Estonia
(4) Comment on the Hanseatic League



Franēoise Pons

back | archive of interviews | main page