Rector Magnificus,
Vice President,
Dean,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am greatly honoured by this award you have bestowed on me. Coming as it does from one of the oldest universities in Europe makes it a special treasure for me.

Thank you.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Visions of the future are topics of our time. We are witnessing a lively discussion about the future of our continent and specifically about the future of the European Union, but also of NATO. Today, here at the distinguished Charles University, a symbol of the unity of Europe, I would like to add to this discussion, focusing on the future of Europe as a whole. In doing so I will give you an Estonian viewpoint, but this Estonian view will be guided by the experiences and spirit of Mitteleuropa, the unique assembly of nations and historical experiences stretching from Tallinn and Helsinki to Prague and beyond. In doing this I will strive to provide an answer why we are parts of the Europe of tomorrow and why we must be part - indeed already are part - of its building process.

I will focus on the two important pillars of the European edifice, the European Union and NATO; but I will also take a look back to look at where we have come from and how much we have achieved so far.


First, the retrospective. Let us recollect that it was only ten years ago that we threw off the shackles of communism. Our trade then was oriented to the east; our economic systems were inefficient; in fact they were simply unworkable. In only ten years we have re-established a free-market economy that has as its major trading partner the European Union. Ten years ago this was not self-evident at all. While some may be saying today that the development has not been rapid enough and that the transformation process has taken longer than expected I still claim that you here and we in Estonia have moved much more quickly much further than many would have expected.

Some may then say that we should be content with our achievements. That we have come far enough, that there is much work still to be done, and that we should not push things too far, too fast - that we should not ''rock the boat''. And yet our very experience has proven the opposite: namely that time counts. Small countries have a different time-scale from big ones. We cannot afford to stand still.

To stand still has for us meant going backwards, and that is why we hurry towards EU and NATO membership. After all, you have to run faster than the tram to catch it. The momentum we have created is able to push forward not only our countries, but indeed the continent as a whole. But we have to keep the time factor in mind.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

This brings me to my second point, the need to drive forward the process of European Union enlargement.

One may ask ''why?''. Indeed some may claim that the negotiations have been proceeding quite speedily. And indeed they have. The negotiations of Estonia, as one of the six countries invited to start accession negotiations at the European Council in Luxembourg, have so far been proceeding with considerable speed. Only last week - together with the other ''Luxembourg countries'' we opened new and difficult chapters of the acquis. I am confident that Estonia, if we are only allowed to do so, can conclude our talks in time to allow us to become members of the European Union by the beginning of 2003. Thus you may ask why I am raising this issue here.

But I did say if we are allowed to do so.

Because, Ladies and Gentlemen, it is no longer correct to say - if it was ever true - that the speed of enlargement is only for the candidates to decide. Indeed I think that many of you here would agree with me that lately too many disconcerting signals have been coming out of Brussels and the capitals of the member states. Now there is talk of enlargement being possible only in 2005, 2006. There is talk of grouping countries together, of even taking all ten or twelve applicants in one swoop, albeit then at an even later date. There is, in short, talk of ignoring the time factor, of throwing aside the very thing which has made Europe the dynamic place it has been during the past ten years.

These are strange signals. They are not only not in the interest of us who wish to join the European Union as early as possible, but they are also contrary to the interests of the present member states and the EU as a whole, because they don't utilise the momentum that has been created. They discredit the idea that accession has to take place on the basis of individual merit. For the candidates such speculation leads to the conclusion that it is after all not so important to make a strong effort in reforming domestic structures - because the final decision on enlargement will be based on political, not factual, criteria. For the present members and for the EU as a whole it is a bad idea because such a process, where new members are admitted on the basis of geopolitical considerations, will inevitably lead to a weakening of the Union with countries joining that are not ready for membership. The idea that the European Union would pick and choose between countries who qualify for membership - or even worse, reject some, while accepting others who may even not be ready - this idea runs counter to the very essence of the ideals espoused by Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman. Theirs was a vision of an inclusive Europe which had put the divisions of the past behind it. This vision must be our guiding light also today.

The only way of ensuring that the European Union - and thereby Europe - is strengthened, not weakened, by enlargement is to utilise the momentum of change and to promote it by sticking to objective criteria. Who is ready, is ready - and is admitted.

The time-factor is equally important in the deliberations on and in the Intergovernmental Conference. It must be concluded within the foreseen timeframe. The European Union has always worked best under pressure and for this pressure to be preserved the timetable that has been agreed for the IGC must be adhered to.

Let me be clear: Estonia wants to join a strong and effective union. While I cannot pretend to speak for the other candidates I believe we all share this desire. Why else would we willingly submit ourselves to the excruciating process of adopting the acquis communautaire? We want an effective union, but we don't want it at the expense of enlargement. Enlargement is a contributor, and the new members will be contributors, to the Union's effectiveness. These two aims are mutually compatible and indeed mutually reinforcing, if we only want them to be.

The most important thing for the European Union, indeed for Europe as a whole, is to have a genuine and visionary sense of direction. The elements are all there; the question is whether we can gather them all up to build a coherent whole.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Here I will venture somewhat off the traditional path of a ''European'' speech and focus on my third point, the other pillar of the European architecture, that is the transatlantic link and especially NATO.

I do this because I think that it is not possible to draw a distinct line between NATO and EU membership; these two organisations are but two sides of the same coin called a secure Europe. There is, after all, no philosophical or practical difference between the enlargement of either organisation. Both were created in the wake of World War II to guarantee the stable development of our continent and both are voluntary associations of sovereign states. Their functions may indeed be different; if their functions were identical they would hardly have been able to coexist for these past fifty years. But their essential, underlying philosophy is still the same. Therefore I find it hard to comprehend those arguments that claim that whereas EU enlargement may be suitable and indeed proper - even if it may take some, perhaps too much, time - NATO enlargement is something almost dirty, something one has to do underhandedly and almost subversively. As if those who oppose NATO enlargement were right, as if NATO indeed were a threatening organisation. Worst of all, such arguments are coming up again now, almost ten years after the NATO countries first decided to formally invite new members.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

This time factor alone presents an essential, even crucial, element in the discussion on the enlargement of the Alliance. Arguments in favour of slowing down, or even stopping the process do not take into account the reality that NATO and its member states have to the outside world committed themselves to enlargement. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to explain that after ten years of discussions with countries wishing to join this process would now in any way be interrupted. A sudden refusal to accept those countries officially recognised as NATO candidates in the Alliance's own documents would raise far more questions than it would dispel. After ten years of discussions on enlargement the only defensible - and responsible - option is to continue this process.

This does not mean that a decision to invite new members at the next NATO summit in 2002 will be a simple one. Enlarging an alliance or a union of states is never an easy one; it can be made easier through careful preparation, but all potential sticking points can never be foreseen. In the end however it is a question of a political choice: whether to enlarge or not. And after ten years of preparation NATO owes it to itself, to the countries that have committed themselves to be candidates for membership, and above all to the stability and security of the European continent to continue the enlargement process in 2002.

An important event in this context took place in Vilnius a few weeks ago. The Vilnius declaration, signed by all nine recognised NATO applicants, mirrors in spirit the actions of the Vishegrad countries before the last NATO summit. It shows that these nine countries, from Estonia in the North to Bulgaria in the South, are not competitors, but partners. We all wish to join the Alliance, because we all are committed to its ideals, its purpose and to preserving its effectiveness. This is our commitment. The commitment of the present members has been to recognise our aspirations and to invite us to apply for admission - thus starting a process which must necessarily lead to membership.

Any other decision - whether it would be to postpone consideration of applicants or to halt enlargement all together - would be perceived as a drastic change of NATO policy. It would be a way of saying that we don't want these - applicant - countries. This the Alliance - and Europe - cannot afford.

The enlargement of NATO cannot be clinically separated from that of the European Union. Not because they are mechanically linked; indeed they are not. But rather because positive - or negative - signals coming from the NATO enlargement process will inevitably have an impact on the overall European security situation. And thereby on the European Union and its member states.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It may sound like a cliché to say that the Europe of tomorrow will be built on the basis of decisions made today. Indeed it is a cliché. And yet it is true. Because Europe cannot afford a long period of uncertainty, indeed it cannot afford any uncertainty at all. To leave questions unanswered and boxes unchecked invites others to answer these questions and to check these boxes. This Europe cannot afford.

We must harness the momentum of change that has been sweeping our continent and to have the courage to take the big steps and to make the right decisions to ensure a safe, secure and prosperous Europe. The elements to a secure and prosperous Europe are there. The enlargement process, both in the EU or in NATO is still ongoing. But it is essential that we - all of the members of an enlarged European Union - grasp the opportunities that have been offered us.

To remind Europe of this is our task; the task of us in Central Europe who still remember that there are other possibilities, that the apparent finalité offered by the European Union is not an inevitable fact. That indeed there is a constant need to move forward, to change, to evolve, because standing still means to stagnate.

This is something we can, must, and indeed already are providing. The impending enlargement has certainly contributed to a speeding up of internal EU reforms. Likewise, it has helped focus minds on the need to change financing patterns in European Union policies and helped push the member states to make Union better prepared to face the challenges of the new century. The future members have, by their very presence outside the doors of the Union, transferred a sense of urgency into the negotiating rooms in Brussels. This is all for the good. The challenge now, for us, but above all for the present EU and NATO members, is to make use of this positive energy. Change is a positive factor and it must be seen as such. Neither a change in decision-making and financing policies, nor an enlargement of the Union is something to be feared and to be pushed into the future, but an opportunity to be grasped and to be made use of today.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

This is our mission, the mission of the Central European countries, the mission of Mitteleuropa. We bring with us an idealism and a historic experience which are important, indeed essential, for Europe. We know the value of time. We know that now is not the time to slow down, but to speed up. That it what we bring to Europe and that is why Europe needs us.

Thank you.

back | archive of speeches | main page