Mr Prime Minister,
Honorable Commissioners,
Respected Editorial Board,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

I listened with great interest and attention to the previous speakers. I am grateful to the editorial board of ''Helsingin Sanomat'' that they have provided a Head of State the rare opportunity to hear out the whole seminar, devoted on the enlargement of the European Union, instead of just reading the trivial words of a greeting and thereafter whisking myself away leaving the rest to be taken care of by officials. After all, people in the European Union sound like being much worried by the implication that too much has been left to the officials.
This problem, however, like a number of other problems pestering the European Union is inherent not only to the Union - it is endemic in all democratic countries, in the whole of Europe. Although I might be expected to feel here like rara avis (a total stranger), - all the rest being members of the club, my candidacy yet under consideration -, I am far from feeling like that.
We are concerned about the same things, our interests being common. We have gathered here at the time when the Amsterdam treaty has already been signed, however not ratified yet, or even undergone a popular vote. The current existential turning point in the European Union, in the whole of Europe is so evident that even the candidate countries are referred to for help, by the question: ''What sort of European Union do you wish?'' Like I have been invitated today to speak about the Estonian perspective and expectations on the European Union. True, at the same time one is strongly reminded that in the first place one will have to meet all conditions of the old European Union and that the so-called ''old'' European Union is no constant value, but a moving target. However, the question about our expectations is still relevant, as it is hopefully not the matter of jumping on the moving train - we have at hand a vehicle where one can also turn the steering wheel. Therefore I would like to divide my today's speech in two parts, looking at the European Union in short and long perspectives - presenting the position of Estonia as a candidate country, with respect to the enlargement negotiations, however also deliberating a little as a future member. It is clear that Estonia's position can not differ much from the position on Sept. 3, when I spoke here in Helsinki to Paasikivi Seura. I hope that those already acquainted with this, will pardon me for repeating myself. Thus, ladies and gentlemen, what are the standpoints of Estonia in the fall of 1997, after the important summits in Amsterdam and Madrid? To start with, I must state that Estonia supports and welcomes the decision of the European Commission to start the accession negotiations with Estonia, Cyprus, Poland, Slovenia, the Czech Republic and Hungary. Estonia has always stressed the need to consider Copenhagen criteria in compiling the avis and in drawing conclusions by the Commission. Having deeply analysed Agenda 2000, Estonia is of the firm opinion that the Commission's avis is a complete, professional and objective assessment of each applicant nation's political and economic performance. After the downfall of the Communist empire hundreds of analyses have been made on the states of Central and Eastern Europe. There is hardly an area of life that has been neglected - starting with reforms in banking and ending with environmental protection. However, none of those analyses possess the scope and weight of the opinion by Commission. Having mapped the major achievements and problems from Tallinn to Ljubljana, Commission has embraced half of the European continent and drawn the most circumspect and comprehensive analysis about the states of Central and Eastern Europe after the Cold War. In the life of a scientist such a summary of the work done would merit the first scientific degree. The Commission has earned congratulations, to say the least. The second step is drawing conclusions, the third - their implementation. This is to be done already together with the candidate countries, in unison. Estonia and the people of Estonia perceive the recommendation of the Commission to start accession negotiations with Estonia as a recognition of the reforms that we have carried out since 1991, in the name of integration with Europe; this gives us impetus to carry on with those reforms. However, we are inspired and encouraged also by the reading matter on those one hundred pages, preceding the recommendation. To our opinion those pages provide a precise and professionally compiled overview of the situation in Estonia. We believe that the content and conclusions of the avis can serve as a reliable basis to all the EU member states, when making the final decision on the opening of accession negotiations at the summit in Luxembourg in December. As a candidate country, we are of course keenly following the debates on enlargement currently underway. How the process actually starts has a direct bearing on us, as it is. It seems clear to everybody that in a certain stage of the negotiations the differentiation is unavoidable. However, it is far from easy to measure, whether and how much the candidate countries currently differ from one another. The opinions of the Commission nevertheless display the understanding that all candidate states have not chosen the same path of reforms, nor have they performed the reforms at the same speed. They prove that the path each applicant has chosen is individual, not collective or automatic for the whole of the Central and Eastern Europe. Nor have the accession negotiations of the European Union ever been collective or automatic. To the point here is Chancellor Kohl's apt remark: the member status of the European Union is to fit like a suit made to order, not like a manufactured piece from the assembly line. Individual approach is indispensable in the enlargement process. Of no less importance is the continuity of the process. As it is, the opinions of the Commission are not the end point but essentially the starting line of integration process. Within this context, Estonia strongly supports the efforts that are currently being made to work out a credible review mechanism whereby applicants are subject to yearly review by the Commission. Estonia also supports the strengthening of the existing pre- accession strategy. Surely enough, we perceive also the advantages of the so-called common start, because understandably the decision of the Commission created some frustration. Unfortunately the implication of the common start for the candidate countries has not become reasonably clear, in the time elapsed after the decision of the Commission; neither has its concrete mechanism been elucidated. On the other hand, the frustration, resulting from confused and dragging accession negotiations, among both the candidate and member states would defy measurement. Therefore we also see the dangers that the imposition of the common start, contrary to the logic of the decision of the Commission, is liable to entail. At the same time, it is also clear that for Estonia the rapid involvement of other Baltic states in the process of negotiations is directly in our interests, just like Hungary is probably concerned about Roumania. When the criteria are met, all candidate states must be able to join the negotiations without any undue delay. Hence the importance to us of the review mechanism and its guarantees. Impending is the political decision of the member states. The Luxembourg summit is expected to take a clear-cut stance about how the enlargement process will proceed in the coming years. It means that the conclusions must be formulated, foreseeing the consequences. In scientific research this would merit the doctor's degree. Estonia treats the Commission's opinion as a whole. We do not think that it is possible to acknowledge the objectivity of the contents of the opinion and the methodology of the Commission, seeking at the same time arguments for disagreeing with the 5+1 conclusion by the Commission. I also want to emphasize that the Estonian Government regards the avis as a working task. We have studiously perused those one hundred pages, on the basis whereof the Commission reached it's final recommendation, taking a hint and retaining quite a few pieces of advice. One could surely substitute some new facts for the outdated ones, or some updated and higher figures for the old ones. However it is more important to word the imminent tasks. The Agenda 2000 has been thoroughly analyzed; one has started to elaborate a detailed plan to improve the domains of specific concern in order to prepare for accession. Each and every Estonian ministry uses the opinion of the Agenda 2000 as the basis to assign the priorities and establish the further steps (as well as their succession). To guide our work, the Estonian Government has prepared an introduction to our activities in the integration process. This document provides an overview on those practical measures that are currently being effected for meeting the conditions of full membership in the European Union, and drafts the tasks for the imminent future. The more thorough and detailed National Work Plan in the field of integration will follow later this year. This plan will serve as the basis of the Estonian individual programme of action for alignment with the acquis and its implementation as required by the accession partnership stipulated by Agenda 2000. Both the Government and the Parliament are well aware of the need to boost the rate of harmonization of legislation; for this reason, the Parliament convened a special session this summer. We are extremely interested that EU directives passed and adapted would have real regulatory power; here we share the concern with the Brussels. Another concern of the Estonian Government, and fully independent of our EU aspirations, is the rate of naturalization of non-nationals. I am pleased to say that the High Commissioner of Human Rights Mr Max van der Stoel is a frequent guest in Estonia; we have always taken his recommendations into due consideration, nearly all of them off his long list have been met. As to the most recent steps, I would mention here the simplification of the citizenship test, and the legalization of issuance of permanent residence permits to aliens. In our opinion, the recommendation of the Commission and the prospect of accession to the European Union will increase the interest of non-nationals towards naturalization and integration into Estonian society and Europe. In the likely manner, this prospect has recently been the basis of development of our relations with Russia, our next-door neighbor. Cooperation with Russia is one of the priorities of the European Union. This pertains also to Estonia, quite understandably. Estonia is not seeking refuge, with its syndrome of the past aggrievedness, behind the back of European Union - it is boldly and without apprehension extending its hand to Russia, European Union being behind Estonia's back. I had recently in Vilnius a friendly meeting with Prime Minister of Russia Victor Cernomyrdin; we reiterated the desire of both parties to set up governmental commissions. The first task of this joint commission would be the mapping of needs for cooperation of both countries. In the matters of cooperation, Estonia proceeds from three basic principles; although they are actually self-evident, I would like to repeat them here. First: the cooperation must be based upon mutual benefit. Second: the cooperation must be based on international law. Third: the cooperation must rest on long-term prospects. It is not, however easy to achieve that, because the shadow of mistrust stemming from the past is to be evidenced both in Estonia and Russia. Nevertheless I am convinced that we can filter the turbid mud of political rhetoric until clear spring water is obtained, particularly given the promise of success to both parties. I have no doubts that the actual reality in Estonia has won and will continue to win to our side also the grim heritage of the Second World War, the Russian minority, and that the future role of Estonia in Europe and the world is to become a model in warranting the human and civil rights. This is the profile of Estonia, for which Estonia will be recognized in the European Union. Because the Estonian politicians must have the aptitude to think in time and space. When we think back - one has been known to possess that aptitude on the Baltic rim. The historic Hanseatic League knew how to structure the time and space, and until this very day Hansa has remained the most efficient and the longest effective European structure, being in many respects the well forgotten precursor of the European Union. Since I already digressed to speculations on historical matters, I would abstract myself to what the future European Union would be like. The basis of that vision can only be a larger question: what sort of Europe do we want to evidence in the next century? Pray the description of technological wonders remain the domain of science fiction writers, however some contours of new challenges to face are already taking shape. Industrial society is becoming an information society, with the key words being: environment and sustainable development; nation states substitute empires and witnes the rise and strengthening of regions; the quality of life is improving while the population is ageing, etc. This is the basis for all institutional, economic and social questions of Europe and the whole world. While the earlier enlargements of the European Union used to be more of an internal matter of Europe, the forthcoming enlargement is the first one to be perceived against the global background. The currently pivotal question in the European Union - the transition to the common currency, which also Estonia regards essential - is also first and foremost linked with global challenges. Against this background the arguments that enlargement is too costly become very questionable. True, the enlargement costs themselves are still subject to debates. On the one hand, it seems possible to calculate, how much the GNP in all member states will rise; on the other hand it is not clear whether the costs of enlargement will erode this growth, or whether there will be some benefit left over. The accession costs of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania look like being so small that the recent study of the London-based Centre for Economic Policy Research did not so much as care to calculate them. Concerning the enlargement costs of other candidate countries this solid institution comes to the conclusion that, on one side, the task is insolvable, on the other side, it is clear that the cost is low and the benefit large. However, haven't the enlargement costs acquired the dimensions proportionately out of size in the enlargement debate? Looking once more back at the 20th century - Europe is to produce, as the first priority, the peace and stability. The whole of Central Europe, all candidate states need, in the first place, a long-term stability accompanied with social-economical development - those two sides are inextricably linked, inconceivable as being isolated. It is in this sense that the European Union can turn out to be the most useful instrument in the future Europe. Naturally, the European Union can perform this role only when it is strong and functions normally. In Amsterdam one tackled in all earnest the decision-making procedures within the Union. However, the enlargement calls for further reforms. Regarding those reforms there must be some clarity prior to the stage when new members are admitted. After all, no one has more interest in ensuring that institutional questions are solved than the acceding countries. When the enlargement process, involving all candidates culminates, sometimes in the future, Estonia will find itself among the smallest ones. However all enlargements of the European Union have transported to the Union some small or medium-sized countries. It is not so much a question of size; it is a matter of specific interests. The European Union does not operate on the principle: large vs small - it operates on the basis of common interests. The coalitions can promptly realign round the table of the European Union Council, subject to the item on the agenda - as for Estonia, the acquis of wine production is not likely to create problems but the acquis of transit might. Therefore it is more important to locate allies with common interests, than to increase the number of vote in the Council (which does not mean that Estonia will not fight for its place under the euroSun). Amsterdam failed to solve every institutional question, the time not being ripe yet. Nevertheless the Amsterdam summit made the necessary step in the right direction, discussing the option for flexible integration (with reliable safety measures). Flexibility may well become the key word of the enlarged and more variegated European Union, just like subsidiarity used to be quite recently. We can not keep pace with the last one in the line, neither can we rush at the expense of the last ones. Estonia believes that the future economical and political strength of the European Union will depend upon the successfulness of common agricultural policy and reforms of structural funds. We follow with keen interest the proposals made in that area. However, all member states of the European Union have declared that the European Union is much more than just free movement of goods and a common agricultural policy. It is the enlargement to Eastern Europe that best helps keep that in mind.

back | archive of speeches | main page