Speeches
Search in Speeches:
 
printer friendly document

President of the Republic of Estonia At the Centre for Strategic and International Studies June 15, 2000, Washington, D.C.
16.06.2000

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is a pleasure to be here at CSIS, an institution that has been most generous with its time and space during my visits to Washington. I value this forum in particular because it tends to attract the kind of informed, thoughtful and influential listenership that one does not encounter everywhere.

The purpose of my visit this time is to mark an important anniversary in US-Baltic relations. Sixty years ago next month, despite its efforts to avoid taking sides in the war brewing in Europe, the United States did the right thing: Washington announced its refusal to recognise the Soviet occupation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

This idea had remarkable staying power throughout the long, dark days of the Cold War for one simple reason. It enjoyed broad bipartisan support.

From 1940 on, taking a principled stand on Baltic independence became a matter of pride for both major US political parties. US acting Secretary of State Sumner Welles launched the policy on behalf of the Roosevelt Administration, and Truman stayed the course. But so did Eisenhower, and presidents that would follow from both parties. Congress also took up the cause.

There were many critics of the non-recognition policy. According to their argument, it cost the Administration and Congress nothing to reiterate at regular intervals that Baltic independence was important. The policy, critics maintained, was impossibly starry-eyed, but because it was just declaratory, it did no harm.

Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians knew better. We saw the programme in action in a number of practical ways. The strongest impact of the non-recognition policy, however, came fifty years later. Spurred on by internal changes in the USSR under Gorbachev, the Baltic nations, along with Russian democrats, chiselled away until the empire finally crumbled.

Our primary intellectual tool in this struggle was the non-recognition policy. The policy, in turn, formed the basis for the United States policies that allowed you to support us as we re-established our independence.

This is the historical backdrop to my visit here this week. But rather than dwell in the past, we Estonians prefer to look to the future. Most astute observers of the region agree that membership in the alliance is key to securing our place in the sun. We seek to contribute to the security environment in which we live. History has shown time and again that the most able organisations by which to do so are the EU and NATO. It is no wonder that Estonia aspires to both. And there is every indication that the US will build on the proud tradition of support for Baltic independence - symbolised in the past by the non-recognition policy - by continuing to lead the effort for our inclusion in NATO.

The most recent sign that bipartisan US support holds strong came last month in Lithuania's capital city. In Vilnius, leaders from nine East Central European states, including Estonia gathered to talk about NATO. The Vilnius Nine, as they have come to be called, called on the Alliance to invite all them to join NATO at its next summit in 2002.

Both Governor George W. Bush, whose father I know well, as well as my old friend Vice President Al Gore sent the Vilnius gathering greetings and statements of support for the continued enlargement of NATO.

The Vilnius meeting was also important because it marked the first time that all candidate states publicly agreed on a common vision on how the next enlargement of NATO might take place.

I am referring here to an idea known as the ''Big Bang'' approach. We have heard several metaphors for enlargement, including concentric circles and waves. The Big Bang, however, foresees that NATO would invite all candidate states to join at the next summit.

The Big Bang is an idea whose time has come. Let me tell you why.

First, inviting all would-be members at once would be good for NATO. Another in a series of incremental enlargements would be extremely time and labour intensive. Issuing invitations all at once, however, would minimise disruption and maximise the possibility to move on and get down to real work.

We have heard concerns that the Big Bang approach ignores NATO's performance criteria. In short, there is a fear in some circles that not all candidates can meet the necessary standards by 2002. Although I speak for Estonia, I believe it is also safe to say that all candidates agree on one thing: it is in no country's interest to join a weakened Alliance. We do not want any discounts in achieving membership. That is why I believe that all should be invited in 2002. It is up to every applicant state to make sure it is ready for accession.

The Big Bang is also good for NATO because the region in question brings to the table an enormous potential and real capability for enhancing security. The last decade, especially the sad experience in the Balkans, has demonstrated beyond a doubt that security is indivisible-

This is why all candidates have made concerted efforts to become security producers by promoting stability and goodneighbourly relations in the region as well as by most active participation of all of the region's countries' in the UN and NATO led operations. Or let me give you another example. Estonia takes very seriously the need to beef up the peacekeeping potential of various international organisations. This is why we announced last month that we increase fivefold our contribution and commit to pay 100% of our assigned share of UN peacekeeping assessments. Up to now, we have been covering 20% of assessments, as is generally asked of states in our particular category.

Estonia, however, regards peacekeeping as such an important item that we have now volunteered to forgo the discount in payments. One cannot produce or consume security at sale prices and also hope to be taken seriously as an applicant to NATO.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Besides being good for NATO, the Big Bang approach to enlargement is also good for Russia. For a number of reasons.

One is the same as for NATO - to get what for Russia might be a painful process over with quickly. I would liken this to swimming in cold climates. The Baltic Sea is a fairly chilly body of water. In the bay near my home, water temperature at this time of year in the mid-50s, Fahrenheit. I find it much easier to jump in all at once, rather than wading in gradually. In the end, the water feels fine, anyway - I just prefer to make the transition a quick one.

We often speak of NATO as embracing a zone of security and stability. We practically take for granted that enlargement will broaden that zone in a way that is good for everyone. An invitation to all nine Vilnius Statement signatories will also set a good example as well as promote conditions for Russia in terms of political and economic reform.

I would point out that of the nine states highlighted as NATO candidates at last year's summit in Washington, those same nine represented in Vilnius, seven are also future members of the EU. Some, like Estonia, may close to joining the EU by or soon after the next NATO summit. It seems clear that the two enlargement processes are organically linked, and even in the context of timing seem to seem to be just different sides of the same coin. The juncture the two is this zone of stability and prosperity that would, after a Big Bang enlargement, cover the new, unified and completed Europe.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

United States policy towards the Baltic States, as towards European security in general, has been defined by a remarkable sense of vision. Successive administrations have initiated and pursued principled policies that have safeguarded security and prosperity in Europe. The non-recognition policy was one example, as was the creation of NATO. Today, when we discuss the enlargement of the alliance, we should always remind ourselves that this is not a beauty contest. It is about a centuries old dream of the completion of Europe, it is about core values of democracy and freedom, stability and collective security. As Dean Acheson said at the Harvard Alumni association five decades ago ''[the North Atlantic Treaty] has advanced international co-operation to maintain the peace, to advance human rights, to raise standards of living, and to promote respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples''. This is what I believe NATO enlargement is all about.

Thank you.

 

back | archive of speeches | main page

© 2001 Office of the President of the Republic
Phone: +372 631 6202 | Fax: +372 631 6250 | sekretar@vpk.ee
Reden Kõned Speeches Statements Interviews