The New Round of the European Union Enlargement


Dear Mr. Prime Minister,
dear Mr. Commissioner Barnier,
dear Europe Ministers,
ladies and gentlemen,

I am glad to be in the Hanseatic City of Wismar. Because the name Hanseatic denotes the connection between us, between Germany and Estonia. It is certainly no news to you that already in the 13th -14th century, the Hanseatic League of cities also included the Estonian cities Tallinn/Reval, Tartu/Dorpat, Pärnu/Pernau and Viljandi/Fellin. Following the pattern of Germany, also the Estonian cities were governed through magistrates and guilds. Our legislation has been similar to that of Germany ever since 1248, the first mentioning of the fact that the law of Lübeck was in force in Tallinn. Our traditions, our songs, and even our patterns of thought are the direct result of 800 years spent in the German cultural space - and owing to this, also to the cultural space of Central Europe.
Ladies and gentlemen,

My presentation today is not going to address the European Commission report from yesterday. The report was good; but that is what we expected it to be. As before, Estonia is one of the first among the candidate countries. I will rather speak of the European Union from Estonia's viewpoint.

First: the ideology of enlargement.
Second: the internal reforms of the European Union.
Third: Accession negotiations as such.

Ladies and gentlemen,

I called my speech ''The New Round of the European Union Enlargement'', as I believe that we all often tend to forget that actually, the entire - comparatively brief - history of the European Union can be viewed as a history of enlargement. The European Union has had a stable and successful development, and economic wealth prevails in Europe today. The enlargement has always been an indivisible component o both, and is so also today. This time, the enlargement will significantly enhance the economic power of the European Union, both from the viewpoint of the economic potential and power of consumption. This is vitally important for all member states to guarantee their development capability in today's global world.

If we tend to forget this, we also create the myth of an unique event that would have unpredictable consequences for the development and future of the European Union. When we describe the current enlargement in historical context, we can also destroy part of the false myth that has been entwined around this development.

At the same time it is true that the current enlargement is something much more than just an increase of the number of member states and EU-s economic power. This is a historic political, social, and economic renewal process in Europe, and its importance for all the nations of Europe can not be overestimated. This is a process of qualitative renewal, where not only a certain number of countries accede to the union created by the countries of Western Europe, but where the post-cold-war-Europe is reunited after ten years of mutual adaptation and transition, in order to create a new Europe that would answer the requirements and challenges of modern times.

All processes ongoing in Europe today are inevitable, caused by the progress of time itself; they create new opportunities of development for all the peoples of Europe. Yet we can see/encounter quite a lot of scepticism concerning this development, also in the candidate countries, but mostly in the present member countries. And not just on the grassroots level, but also among politicians, among statesmen. What is the matter? The problem is that the challenge presented by time, and Europe's answer - the strategic enlargement and closer consolidation between the countries and peoples of Europe - presents new challenges to all of us. No one gets the chance to take a ''time off'' and rest on laurels. Neither on the economic, nor on the political, security, social, or environmental, etc. plane. The renewal of Europe is not a ding an sich, it is Europe's answer to the challenges presented by global developments. Our alternatives are either to accept the challenge and go along with the development, or to stay hopelessly behind and thus lose also the advantages we are enjoying today. There is no third alternative.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Both the member states and the candidate countries are besides the accession negotiations also doing their homework that is necessary for guaranteeing Europe's development capability, not for the day after tomorrow, but for tomorrow. This is my second subject. The European Union observes and constantly analyses the progress of the candidates' homework, as this is not only a criterion of accepting new member states, but also a guarantee of the EU-s development tomorrow. The candidates are closely following and analysing the progress of the negotiations on institutional reforms of the European Union, as this is not just a precondition for accepting new members, but the future living environment of the candidate countries.

By launching the negotiations, both sides have assumed the responsibility for thorough reforms on their side. The candidate states have undertaken, within a short period, to conduct legal, administrative and above all, economic reforms to guarantee the fulfilment of requirements presented to a European Union member state. The EU member states have undertaken within a short period to accomplish the institutional reform of the European Union, in order to guarantee the efficient functioning of the European Union with nearly twice as great number of members, to guarantee the capability for making interstate decisions necessary for further development.

Your were just discussing the progress of the Intergovernmental Conference with Commissioner Barnier. Estonia is as yet not sitting at the table of the European Council as a member state, and therefore I am not going to analyse the details of this process at length. Still, let me say a couple of words on Estonia's hopes and expectations.

Estonia wants a strong European Union. We want a strong and efficient Europe that would be able to face the challenges of the new century. We want a strong and efficient Europe that would be ready to face the challenges of the new century. My vision of Europe is an Europe of 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. We have struggled too hard for our nation state to lose it now. And in relations between states on the EU level, 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, or consult them only for formality. It is a complicated task, but I am convinced that we will be - that you will be able to face it with dignity, and that the Nice Summit will be a success.

Third, the accession negotiations.

Ladies and gentlemen, Estonia's primary task today is to ensure her own readiness for accession. We have set ourselves the goal to be ready for accession to the European Union on December 31, 2002. This is a realistic timetable. The economy reform is almost complete; the European Commission writes that Estonia has a functioning market economy. As for foreign investments per capita, we are the second or the third in Central Europe; last year, only the Czech Republic outstripped us. Also our economic ties with the European Union have been constantly growing. On the first half of 2000, our trade with the European Union constituted 73% of our total foreign trade.

Yet economic growth and profit must not be and are not a goal in itself. They are is just means to guarantee the welfare of society. Here we still have a lot to do, just like the other candidate countries; but I am still proud to point out that Estonia is the only Central European country who has closed the social and labour policy chapter on the EU accession negotiations. Also on the recent conference of the European Metal Workers Union in Lisbon, the functioning social dialogue in Estonia was recognised. This is a very important part of the social culture of Europe, and I believe you agree with my opinion that the social aspect is very important in the context of the EU enlargement. For instance, better social guarantees prevent people from wishing to seek better life abroad. A recent research on this subject convincingly demonstrated that the inhabitants of Estonia have strong ties with their country. Only about 15,000 people (1.5% of the population) would be prepared to consider working abroad.

On the accession negotiations, Estonia has been successful. We have closed 14, or nearly a half of the negotiation chapters. Substantial discussions are still to be held on several voluminous chapters such as agriculture and the environment. At the same time we have, in the course of negotiations, managed to minimise the number of transition periods, all of which are mostly of technical nature. Estonia's applications for transition periods are not related to the functioning of the European Common Market, as we wish to accede to the European Union as soon and as universally as possible. We do not, for instance, wish to restrict the freedom of the EU citizens to procure land in Estonia, and therefore we are the first and so far the only candidate country who has managed to close the chapter on the free movement of capital. We have, in fact, requested a longer period for full adaptation to the environmental requirements of the EU, as they call for major investments that can only be planned to the state budget during a longer period of time. This problem is common to most post-socialist countries, and in Estonia, environment protection has long Nordic traditions. In our nature there are numerous species that are long extinct elsewhere in Europe. For instance, in the forests of Estonia, one hundred elks, bears, and wolves are shot annually to keep their numbers balanced. Neither do we have nuclear energy plants, although we do have pollution from the Soviet period.

Ladies and gentlemen,

In the context of the current enlargement, the historic opportunity means that we should not lose time on useless arguments about the term of enlargement. The term of enlargement has already been fixed as a result of political decisions and all the political activities so far. The term is the year 2003. This term means that the accepting of new EU members will begin at the end of the year 2002. For this, two preconditions will have to be fulfilled. By the end of this year, the EU must, according to the obligations assumed in Helsinki, agree on the questions of institutional reforms, and, for next summer at the latest, evaluate the readiness of the candidate countries to assume the responsibilities of a member state from 2003. Thus, the negotiations must be concluded and the procedures for accepting new members guaranteed. Also Commissioner Verheugen supported these options yesterday. We do not know how many candidate countries will be acceding in the year 2003. And this is not important. It is important for us to know that by the end of 2002, the EU will be ready to accept new members, and that from then on, the door would be open to the 12 candidate countries, whose time of accession will only depend on their own ability to fulfil the responsibilities of membership. This development will guarantee the two basic principles that the EU has prescribed for this enlargement. First, the political principle of inclusiveness, and second, individual treatment of applicants by their own merits, which means the implementation of the political decision in accordance with the provided accession criteria.

It is important to remember at this stage that the accepting of some candidates to the EU before others does not mean that in some countries, the political-socioeconomic process of renewal is faster than in others. This must be accepted and everybody's efforts must be recognised. The candidates need not present the same results within the same period of time, and even less may the results of one country be evaluated by the general scale. Estonia knows from first-hand experience that it is not easy to implement transition reforms or to achieve successful development. First, there was no example to follow, to say nothing of theoretical basis. Second, reforms have been a very painful process for the society, which can often cause setbacks in domestic policy. Third, there is always a choice between a more radical and risky approach and a more moderate, more gradual way to reforms. It is never possible to say in advance which of the two would be the right choice, in many respects, this depends on the domestic situation and the mentality of each country, as well as on external factors.

So this is not a race between countries, but each nation's internal struggle, where the specific domestic circumstances and development potential must be taken into consideration. Yet it is important that the countries which have carried out radical reforms should see that their resolve is appreciated by the present EU member states.

And finally, Mr. Prime Minister,
Mr. Commissioner,
ladies and gentlemen,

Returning to the theme of public opinion, it is not surprising that such changes are not accepted with similar enthusiasm by everybody. This means also the candidate countries, but above all the present member states of the European Union. At the time, the prospective accession of Portugal or Spain was not welcomed with cheers either; instead, there were apprehensions of mass migrations, devastating costs, weakening of the European Union, etc. These apprehensions, or should we say fears, proved to be groundless then, and this will be the case also with the current enlargement.

For human and understandable reasons, it is often hoped that new efforts might be avoided, that the requirements of new times could be ignored, or at least, that inevitable decision might be postponed. Unfortunately, this is self-deception. It is first of all the task for politicians as the real vanguard of public opinion, and political leaders who must use all the means at their disposal, to explain this persistently but patiently. We can and must understand the citizens, their doubts and difficulties in orientating themselves in the more and more complex world, but we must not allow any signs of weakness in politicians who are expressing their opinion on clearly progressive processes.

Enlargement is good for Europe, it is the future of Europe, and this is the way we must present it.

Thank you for your attention.

back | archive of speeches | main page