Estonia as the touchstone of european integration?


Dear Mr. Bunz,
dear Mr. Dr. Stabreit,
dear Mr. Dr. Zumpfort,
Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

At the beginning of 1993, when I had just begun my first term in the office of the President of the Republic of Estonia, I held a speech with a similar heading in Stuttgart. Then, the heading was ''The Baltic Countries - Touchstone of the European Union''. At the time, Estonia and her Baltic neighbours were the touchstone for proving whether a relationship based on new principles could be established between Russia and Europe. We were the touchstone for the capability of Europe and the USA to assert common values in all Europe. Then, it was a success. Now, when a little less than eleven months has been left of my second and also the last term of office, it seems suitable to close the circle and to return to this subject once more.

Today, ladies and gentlemen, we are facing a new challenge. Now we are no longer talking about Russia's relations with Europe, but Europe's relations with Europe. The question is whether the countries of Europe are capable and willing to adopt firm decisions and to face new challenges. It is a question of Germany's ability to guide these processes. Therefore, my presentation today will cover three subjects:

First, the internal reforms of the European Union from Estonia's viewpoint
Second, how is the enlargement process going to proceed?
And third, the enlargement of NATO.

Estonia wants a strong European Union. Why else would we want to accede at all? If we only wanted free trade, our relations could also stay on the current level - we are exporting more than 70% to the EU countries already today. We want a strong and efficient Europe that would be ready to face the challenges of the new century. My vision of Europe is Europe consisting of separate states, where the Commission has a strong role. The European Commission is the Guardian of the Treaty, it is the engine that has supported and promoted the development of the Common Market. It is a balancing force between the big and the small member states. It is the institution that ensures that the European Union, where there are countries like Luxembourg, and soon countries like Estonia, but also countries like Germany, would function so that also small countries could feel that their interests are taken into consideration. Therefore, Estonia has openly declared her wish that in the future, we would like to have an Estonian among the European Commissioners.

At the same time, the European Union is and remains to be a union between states. The Estonians do not want their nation state to disappear; we want to have our own government, our traditions, our language. We have struggled too hard for them to lose them now. And in relations between states, we have to come to terms with the fact that there is Germany and there is Estonia, that we are not equal in size. And thus, we also have to agree with Germany's justified wish to reform the intergovernmental voting mechanism, so that proportionality would acquire a more important role. This is a complicated task: on the one hand, the big countries are right in their wish to have their fair share of influence, on the other hand, this must not be done on the account of small countries. We must avoid creating a chamber of big countries that would make its decision without consulting other, smaller countries. It is a complicated task, but I am convinced that we will be able to solve it in time.

The EU candidate countries participate in this discussion - I am now coming to my second subject.

The enlargement is not more important than internal developments; internal developments also include the enlargement. And yet, the enlargement has slowed down. I can already see clouded faces in the audience, so let me add at once: I do by no means want to say that the EU enlargement has come to a standstill, but just that its progress is no longer as self-evident as it used to be a couple of years ago. Today, we can too often hear the words: ''Yes, but ...''. If a couple of years ago it was claimed with assurance that the enlargement would be taking place, then today we hear of several things that have to be taken care of, before the first new members can be accepted. Some people have suddenly discovered that it is actually not a very good idea to accept new members one by one or in smaller groups according to their readiness, but that it would be better to let the first ones stand waiting and then accept a great number of candidates at once.

Ladies and gentlemen, this discussion reminds me of a story about the guardian of the city of Tallinn, Old Thomas, who even today watches over the City of Tallinn from the top of the tower of our Town Hall, and the spirit of Lake Ülemiste (the old man of Lake Ülemiste). Lake Ülemiste - just to explain to those who do not know - is a lake situated near but above Tallinn, a lake from which Tallinn has drawn its drinking water for centuries. The story goes as follows: once a year, the old man comes out of Lake Ülemiste, knocks on the gates of Tallinn and asks whether Tallinn is ready. Old Thomas, who is opening the gate, must answer that no, Tallinn is far from being ready and won't be ready anytime soon, after which the old man sullenly returns to his lake. Because if Thomas answered that Tallinn was ready, the old man of Ülemiste would open the floodgates and wash our beautiful capital to the sea.

All this discussion concerning the enlargement of the European Union reminds me of this story precisely because in Europe, just like in the city of Tallinn, we can always find something that is not yet ready. And this is the way it will always be. Because Europe is developing, it is not static. If it were static, or became stagnant one day, we should all fear the old man of Lake Ülemiste. It is good that Europe is developing and that it is not static, this is also the reason why we wish to join the European Union. But the fact that it is developing and the fact that there are always new ideas emerging - whereas some of the old ideas get thrown away - can not serve as an argument for delaying the enlargement. Europe is developing under the influence of constant dynamic forces. Just as we need the accession to the European Union, the European Union needs the fresh air and the fresh blood that the enlargement will bring.

Estonia is the touchstone for Europe and Germany in this question precisely because Estonia is one of the countries most often mentioned in the context of ''yes, but''. ''Yes, you are one of the most successful countries in Central and Eastern Europe, but...''. I am convinced that this approach is wrong. It is not only wrong from our viewpoint after all these years of effort to be ready to join the European Union. Those were the rules of the game when they were first set down. But this approach is also wrong for the present member states of the European Union, because it is in their interests that the acceding countries would be prepared to harmonise and apply the acquis communautaire, so as to be ready to act as EU member states. The idea of enlargement in big groups sometime in the future ignores this principle. This approach makes today's frontrunners like Estonia ask whether they really should have paid the political price they have paid, spending large sums and mental resources to invest so much and so early in the harmonisation with the EU laws and regulations. The Estonian government has politically invested in preparing Estonia for accession to the European Union on January 1, 2003. This date has been mentioned also by the leaders of the European Union itself as the day when the EU must be ready to accept new members.

In the report published today, the European Commission has once more admitted that Estonia is one of the frontrunners among the countries wishing to join the EU. The Commission has also clarified its vision on how the enlargement process should proceed. Estonia in turn intends to be ready to accede on January 1, 2003. I do hope that by then, the countries of the European Union will also be ready to open the doors.

My third subject, ladies and gentlemen, concerns the enlargement of NATO. For Estonia, NATO is no less important than our wish to accede to the EU; we are working parallel in two directions. For us, both of them are part of the full membership of European unity.

We are already discussing technical details with both the EU and NATO - with EU in the course of negotiations, with NATO, in the framework of the Membership Action Plan. Still, I suppose that several people in this hall must be thinking that unlike the European Union, NATO has not decided to invite us to join. I am not mistaken, am I?

And yet I believe it is you who are mistaken. Because actually, NATO has already done a lot more than many have noticed. In fact, NATO's enlargement process has this time lasted for almost ten years, starting from 1992, when the then Secretary General and my good friend Manfred Wörner said that the countries of the former Eastern bloc could accede to the Alliance. In 1995, NATO started the Study on Enlargement, which invited all countries interested in accession to participate in the enlargement process. The Madrid Summit of 1997 decided to invite Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic to accede to the Alliance, whereas recognising the aspirations of several other countries, including Estonia, emphasising that their success would be evaluated regardless of their geographical position. Last year's Washington Summit already characterised Estonia officially as a NATO candidate. And I have already mentioned the MAP, or the Membership Action Plan, that was adopted in Washington and will help us to prepare for membership. You see, ladies and gentlemen, that the enlargement of the Alliance is a long-term process, which has been developing for many years and taken Estonia from the position of a partner state to the position of a recognised candidate country.

What does this mean? This means, first of all, that NATO member states have made a promise. On the one hand, they have made a promise that the Alliance would continue to enlarge, that ''the door is open''; on the other hand, they have said that Estonia is part of this process. We have taken it seriously and decided to work hard so as to be prepared when NATO, on the next Summit, will issue new invitations for accession. Our defence expenditure is increasing. This year, it was 1.6% of our gross national product; next year, it will be 1.8%, so that by the year 2002 we would reach 2%. We have created and are still creating new infrastructure and improving the training so as to be able to join NATO organically. We have participated and will participate in the peace operations on the Balkans and elsewhere. Estonia has made her political decision, proceeding from the political messages of NATO member states.

As we all know, there are those who do not consider it right for Estonia or the other Baltic countries to join NATO - neither today, nor tomorrow, nor the day after tomorrow. My counter-argument to all these hesitations is that we all have long ago left behind the moment when NATO membership was just a big ambition of a small North-European country. Today, the realisation of this goal has become a touchstone for Europe: will Europe fulfil its promises, will Europe be as good as its words that security is indivisible and that every country is free in the choice of its alliances? Once again, Estonia is the touchstone.

The political credibility of Europe is our common interest as Europeans, as future partners in the European Union. It is also our common interest that there should be no question marks on Europe. If Estonia were accepted to the European Union, but left waiting at the door to NATO, what would this mean? Ladies and gentlemen, I dare say that even Moscow has gradually started to accept the fact that the Baltic states will soon join NATO. The Russian observers who assert this, also claim that Russia should accept the circumstances and get on with the task of building a working relationship with the Alliance. The thought may seem radical to you, but I assure you that non-inclusion of the Baltic countries in the next round of enlargement would raise more questions in Moscow than our accession to NATO.

In any case, questions would arise where there ought to be none, namely in the point of the European Union - NATO readiness to be the guarantee of stability in Europe. There would be a temptation to test this readiness. And this, ladies and gentlemen, is something we cannot afford. Europe cannot afford it. Inviting of Estonia on the NATO Summit in 2002 is the touchstone of European security.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Together, we have looked at the past, the present, and also a little at the future. Indeed, there have been many changes since 1993; Europe has developed, Estonia has developed a lot. The challenges are new, but none the less important. But the challenges themselves are not a problem, the problem is how we can answer them. In 1989, when the wall fell here in Berlin, and when 300,000 people came together to sing the song of freedom in Estonia; and in 1990, when two million Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians joined hands in the Baltic Chain, which extended from Tallinn to Vilnius, and when the people of Germany decided to become reunited, we were able to see beyond all routine problems.

I am sure that Estonia and Germany together, as Europeans, will be able to tackle the existing challenges, just like we tackled the ones of the past. So that we would be ready to face the new challenges in the future. But this is a subject for another presentation.

Thank you.

back | archive of speeches | main page