Dear fellow countrymen and your elected Riigikogu,
dear Chairman of the Riigikogu,
dear Government of the Republic!

The situation in the state is good, the situation in administration - could be better. Estonia is facing major tasks both at home and abroad. Some of them may be outside our grasp or sphere of influence, but most of them have become acute for the reasons we know but prefer not to mention. I mean the need to deepen the Estonian citizens' awareness of the importance of their state: the people's shared wish to lead a wealthy and safe life can only be fulfilled through close ties between the state and the individual. The state and the people must have a constant dialogue. I mean the state, not just one or two politicians who have been blessed with eloquence and assume the right to speak in the name of the state. First and foremost, they should speak in the name of their party, their newspaper, their academic institution, ministry or government - and not withhold their criticism if it is justified.

Let me bring you an example from the letter that the writer Jaan Kross addressed to me this year - by the courtesy of the author, of course. Jaan Kross wrote: I was shocked to read in the papers the article of a Doctor of Pedagogy, Professor of the European University: "Why do I not love my state?"
If this scandalous piece of writing would bear the signature of Anonyma, and have some balancing article by its side yesterday, today, or tomorrow, it could still be bearable. But written by a pronounced representative of certain important professions, offering themselves as social criteria, such text indicates that something must be astray. The author says: "If we had double standards at the Soviet time, then in the present time we live by the cruel standards of predators: murder, deceive, steal, and break!
So, which of the two ethical situations is obviously worse?
This one, of course! Because then we lived in the frustration of double standards, but today in the vortex of murder, deceit, theft and breaking (of bones)."

Luckily, the professor hoists her building with her own petard - the final sentence. But obviously without any such intention. She writes: "If the laws permit to cultivate injustice and lawlessness, the laws should be changed. A heart full of pain and estrangement from the state do not solve the problem."

And here, we can say that the Professor steps to the ground of responsible Estonians. Otherwise, she would be like the exile lady from Switzerland who, in reply to my question when she would come to see her home country, said - at the beginning of the Nineties - that "For this you have not achieved the necessary tidiness!"

Dear Riigikogu,

A decade or two ago we were struggling to survive as a nation - a nation that has its own language and culture, its own simple but priceless values. It was seldom, and then usually in a general, abstract way, that we spoke of the state. When we had restored our independence, many of us believed that with the new officials and new labels on the office doors, we had also restored the Estonian State. We tried to overlook the fact that the restoration of the rule of law was - and still is - very difficult, that it forces us to tackle so many problems that we somehow fear to face.

Therefore, let me today start with a conclusion: many troubles have their source in our lack of real statehood, lack of the genuine state-consciousness. Today, dear Riigikogu, you are starting another busy year of creating the legislation of the Republic of Estonia as a state abiding the rule of law. In this context, I would like to draw your attention to three questions.

First, how efficient are the constitutional institutions of our state? How efficiently can Estonia apply her legislation? Are the laws so balanced and pertinent as to be enacted with full force in the state? How independent are our judges?

Secondly: why is the Estonian citizen's trust in his state half-hearted? After such a long time of great expectations?

And thirdly: what should we do about this situation? Should we really sit back and wait history to pull the state cart for us? Won't we, can't we give a hand?

Behind these three simple questions, the question of questions is visible: Can Estonia prevail as an efficiently functioning state, or can she survive without an efficiently functioning state, and not valuing this state for which tens of thousands before us have been prepared to give up their lives?

Dear Riigikogu,

I do not know all the answers to all the questions, and presumably you don't either - I say this with due respect to the Riigikogu. But we must, in concord - but for God's sake, not unanimously - start the dialogue around this central problem, and let ourselves not be deceived by the illusion that we are living in a simple world of simple problems.

Therefore, I ask both the coalition and the opposition to see behind our differences, to see our common responsibility to our people, to our state. Likewise, I expect the Estonian citizen to speak to the Riigikogu, to speak his or her mind, speak for or against, and always about a specific bill, not about the Riigikogu as legislative power. The Riigikogu is the place where the delegates elected by the people come to a political agreement. Democracy is indeed the place and the art of agreements, not disagreement.

The Republic of Estonia expects the Riigikogu session starting today to give clear answers to several questions, of which I would like to point out three.

First, the administration reform that I mentioned above. The reform aiming to build an efficient state, the state worthy of not only our trust, but also our love. The state that reaches every citizen just when he needs it, and reaches him through the state official, whom the citizen trusts as much as his state. I leave it for the public and for you to discuss the means to achieve this. Myself, I will ask the Academic Council to approach the problem, and hope that the government will make use of the preparatory steps made by previous governments.

The administrative reform is naturally connected to the approaching local government elections. In this context, I would like to admonish the members of the Riigikogu to keep the election campaign outside these walls. Resist the temptation to bring it here - for the sake of the Riigikogu's good repute.

My second problem is the young Estonian family. Estonia's future depends on our youth. On the number of children born, on the living conditions of young families with children. All our political forces have admitted the existence of this problem with homes for young families. During this spring and summer I have consulted the bankers, the County Governors, architects, and first and foremost, the Government. A house of one's own, a home of one's own is part of the sense of homeland, the sense of secure future. We have discussed several options and possibilities, consulted the experts both home and abroad. Next year, the first step will be taken - the state-supported young family loan project is going to be launched. I have asked Professor Vello Asi, an architect whose work I have known for many decades and whom I absolutely trust, to answer the question: what, how, and where should we build so that the result would be within the young family's means and inspire affection, interest, and love, and at the same time be in accordance with the Estonian regional policy. We have thought of Narva, Sillamäe, Paldiski, Tartu, and one more region of Virumaa. I am grateful to the government that next year's budget includes resources for the young family project. I ask and hope the Riigikogu to have an understanding attitude and provide the necessary legislative support for the young family project. This is a question of our common future.

Thirdly, about the foreign policy. Our foreign policy priorities have been determined by the previous Riigikogus. There are no changes. Accession to the World Trade Organisation will take Estonia to a regulated economic space and provide security both for the Estonian export and for the foreign investor. This is a necessary precondition for our accession to the European Union.

I highly appreciate the steps taken by the present government to accelerate Estonia's accession to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Even a small country is not a mere consumer of security, a dependant, as it was put in the past, but also a producer of stability. We must not set unrealistic goals to ourselves, but the goals we have set must be reached.

The Russian Federation's dissatisfaction with Estonia's chosen path is a background factor not to be overlooked. Yet I am sure that our quiet persistence is in itself a token of stability, and that our quiet self-reliance could give a positive turn to our relations with Russia, and help Russia to overcome the mistrust of Estonia's foreign policy.

Ladies and gentlemen!
Mr. Chairman!

As a very personal touch, I would like to add that the other day, the second Yalta Conference took place in Yalta - the first one, of course, was the Yalta 1945 conference, where Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania did not participate. I must confess, that when I and my colleagues from Latvia and Lithuania sat down at the historic table where the great powers of the world once had been seated, there was a feeling that besides injustice, history does indeed know justice. Maybe only symbolically, I wish to bring this moment to you, because without this feeling, the world's future would look bleak, Europe's future would look bleak, and also Estonia's future would look bleak. But the fact that in Yalta we made our own decisions after having been swept aside for decades - this is the present day, and will be our future. Estonia will never again let decisions be made behind her back, which in one way or another could affect our fate. Through the Estonian people, Estonia's fate has been placed in your hands. Take care of it, and for this, my dear Riigikogu, I wish you in the plain Estonian manner - more power to your elbow!

Thank you!

back | archive of speeches | main page