| |
 | Speeches | | |
President of the Republic at the History Conference Dedicated to the 85th Anniversary of the Republic of Estonia on 21 November 200321.11.2003
Ladies and Gentlemen,
In the year drawing to a close, 85 years passed from the foundation of the Republic of Estonia as well as of many government agencies. The anniversary has given both government agencies and each member of our people a good reason for reminiscing about the past, but also for raising awareness of the significance of the present day and of our future aspirations. And that's the main topic of this conference beginning today as well.
When we rise above personal everyday concerns and controversies of day-to day politics, we can feel safe in our country. We are standing on the threshold of the European Union and NATO, and politicians assure that Estonia for the next ten years wouldn't be endangered by any external threats. I suppose that they, in doing so, understand the gravity of their own decisions and deeds, but also of each word spoken.
The fact that our country and people are small increases our responsibility. A small one is more vulnerable than a big and strong one. Small countries are frequently distressed by security concerns, inferiority complex and fear of extinction. These concerns and fears are nothing new to us either, but knowing one's own historical experience might help to overcome them. Therefore, let me take a look back at the history so instructive for the present day.
As late as a hundred years ago the Baltic countries due to their history as well as to the predominance of Baltic-German culture here belonged to Europe as the so-called German provinces of the Russian empire. However, it didn't mean that the Estonians had been known well in Europe. Neither did this people before their National Awakening regard themselves as Europeans.
The fate of small nations is mostly determined by great powers. In the Baltic case, these powers were Russia and Germany. The stability in the area between these two great powers was dependant on the balance of power in Europe. Any disturbance of this balance led to international crises and wars, and caused for the local peoples living here catastrophic consequences bordering on the threat of their physical extinction. At the beginning of the 20th century, the tensions grew dramatically again and it became obvious that the shaky balance of powers was not able to prevent war. It does credit to Estonian politicians that they assessed the international situation rather realistically and attempted to use it in the interests of their people.
Estonian patriots hoped the global confrontation between great powers to benefit Estonia. They expected Germany's and its allies' defeat to bring advantages to Estonia's future and envisaged a further decline of German influence in the Baltic countries. Patriots considered the Tsarist Russia compared with Germany to be the lesser of the two evils and the threat of Russification smaller than that of Germanization. Jaan Tõnisson held that the Slavic character in suppressing small peoples did not have consistency needed to reach this goal and, therefore, these peoples time after time were able to take a break and prepare themselves for absorbing new blows.
Until February 1917, i.e. the collapse of the Tsarist Russia, no-one of Estonian known politicians publicly questioned Estonia's political union with Russia. Nobody believed that it were possible to break away from this vast country or that a small country like Estonia could exist independently. This is quite a remarkable fact in view of our more recent history too.
In November 1917, the legitimate state power broke down in Russia and Estonia was threatened by German occupation. A situation like this demanded and at the same time enabled action. And thus the Estonian politicians on 24 February 1918 took the unique chance given and proclaimed Estonian independence.
The following War of Independence was of deciding importance to the fate of the very young state. This war not only brought military glory to the Estonians but also strengthened their faith in the possibility of an independent Estonia. The Peace of Tartu gave the states of the world the legal basis to recognize the new state.
The emergence of the new independent democratic republic on the international stage and its recognition by other countries were not easy. Estonian diplomats during and after the War of Independence had to convince the Western Allies that the cultural level in the Baltic border-states was higher than that in Great Russia and, therefore, these peoples were able to uphold democratic systems of government independently.
Sure, the Allied Powers had supported Estonia in the War of Independence but they did not hurry to recognize its independence. It was made dependent on the situation in Russia. If in Russia, a bourgeoise or monarchist order would have been restored the Baltic countries would have retained merely certain autonomy in the field of culture and local government.
In early 1920s, the West did not attach any great importance to the independence of the Baltic States. From 1925 on, due to the conclusion of the Locarno Treaties, the Baltic countries were even regarded as a barrier between East and West. The attempted communist coup on 1 December 1924 and Russia's following economic boycott against Estonia strengthened these attitudes.
Yet, after the War of Independence, our nation-state founded on European values started with admirable energy to build a European-style society. Inspired by an extraordinarily bold and radical land reform, which remedied the injustice for centuries dominating land ownership, thousands of new peasant holdings were created in Estonia. Within some twenty years, the countryside where nearly 80% of the Estonian people used to live changed beyond recognition. The Estonian having become master in his own house, proved that he was capable of being master indeed. The Estonians became a nation of modern times both in political and cultural sense. The Baltic States within two decades integrated into Europe and global economy.
It is worth mentioning separately that the Estonians founded their independent nation-state considerably later than the majority of European larger peoples. But they formed their distinctive national identity and relatively stable system of government. There was nothing, even not a defeat in a world war that could have endangered the existence of larger peoples. The situation of small peoples including the Estonians was totally different. The threat to fall victim to ambitions of great powers had not vanished at all.
Historic experience has confirmed that the existence of small nations for the larger ones was not a value worth defending. Therefore, the Republic of Estonia had reasonable doubts about alliances and mutual assistance pacts offered by great powers. On the other hand, concerns about the preservation of statehood made Estonia to support the idea of collective security.
To the political subconsciousness of Estonians obviously belongs a conception that safeguarding of small nations' independence is possible only within a bigger democratic structure. Therefore, Estonia between the two world wars was ready, even to a larger degree than Europe itself, to take part in creating a united Europe. Because Europe in those days was politically far too fragmented and economic crises fuelled anarchy and merciless struggle for survival.
In order to get support Estonia looked towards the Northern countries. It is true that the latter were willing to cooperate with the Baltic States in cultural, but not in military-political terms. Sweden's approach to Estonia was passive and its faith in Estonia's chances to remain independent more modest than that of Finland. The Estonians remembered with gratitude, and they still do, Finland's support to Estonia during the War of Independence. It is meaningful that an idea of political union between Estonia and Finland was born simultaneously with the idea of an Estonian state. It was envisaged either as a Finnish-Estonian union, confederacy (federation) or a political union. In the years 1918-1919, the majority of Estonian politicians instancing the Austro-Hungarian personal union favoured the idea of a confederation, particularly enthusiastically Konstantin Päts.
In Finland, however, it was deemed that the position of the Baltic States was insecure and a union with them would threaten Finland's security. Furthermore, it was thought that Finland in the case of war with a great power would not be able to defend Estonia anyway. In 1922, our northern neighbour gave up the so-called policy of border-states, i.e. pursuing allied relations with the Baltic States and Poland. Instead of that, Finland began to pursue alliance with the Scandinavian countries, in the first place with Sweden.
In 1921, Estonia hoping to get effective political and military security guarantees joined the League of Nations. Estonia believed this organisation to be governed by the principle of equality between large and small nations. Many in those days hoped that all nations had learned a lesson from the World War and the League of Nations was able to guarantee world peace and security of small countries. Some even saw in the League of Nations a step towards the United States of Europe.
But with the United States non-aligned to, Germany, Japan and Italy left and the Soviet Union expelled from the League of Nations, the hoped-for collective security system did not become operational. Estonia in this extremely complicated international situation, in 1938, proclaimed neutrality and, at the same time, together with the other Baltic States withdrew from the collective security system of the League of Nations that had failed to restrain aggressive policy of great powers and to ensure peace in the world.
Nazi Germany's rise to militarily predominant great power in Europe fundamentally changed the correlation of forces. Developments in Germany influenced the domestic and foreign policy of Estonia as well as of other East European countries. Estonia's political and military leadership increasingly saw in Germany a counter-weight to Soviet ambitions in the Baltic countries. But the possibility that the Baltic States could be sacrificed to the Soviet-German trial of strength already then frustrated Estonian politicians. And as everybody knows, that's what happened with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact signed on 23 August 1939.
The Great Depression that began in the late 1920s taking its toll on the whole world didn't save Estonia either. Like in many other countries, economic troubles were accompanied by a political crisis here too. That was a time when populist extremist movements emerged on the stage of political struggle and authoritarian tendencies strengthened. In Estonia, the parliamentary democracy suffered the heaviest losses. It was replaced by authoritarianism, which government ideologues termed balanced system of government and guided democracy. The era was characterized by state of emergency, censorship, ban on activities of political parties, as well as by several other restrictions.
There are two different answers to the question if the crisis could have been overcome with less damage to democracy. Some politicians as well as historians blame the then leaders of the Republic of Estonia, Konstantin Päts and General Johan Laidoner, for lust for power and money, and even for having sold out Estonia.
In my view, nobody can claim the role of judge of history. Each historical period together with factors having affected it and motives of decisions made under concrete circumstances should be regarded as an entity. Also choices made at times when Estonia was not independent and the prospect of regaining independence was not supported by development trends of world politics should be appraised considering the same principles.
The years 1940-1991, likewise, should be appraised in the context of the relevant era. It is a legitimate question to ask what was during those years in the interests of the Estonian people, or where ends pursuit of existential compromise with foreign powers inevitable under conditions of long-lasting occupation and begins betrayal of nation. In a longer time and development frame, only historians can give honest answers to these questions. Just they have the special responsibility for creating a true picture of history.
These residents of Estonia who due to their inner conviction ruled out any compromise with foreign powers, who perished rather than surrendered, have an important place in this complete picture. These individuals have earned the respect of their fellow citizens. Those who fell for the Republic of Estonia both in the War of Independence and during the occupation regimes must never be forgotten.
It's a fact that in the autumn of 1939 the arrival of Soviet armed forces on the territory of Estonia could not be prevented by foreign policy means. It was just a phenomenon that can certainly be termed force majeure.
Due to the outset of a great war in Europe, control of the mouth of the Gulf of Finland and the eastern coast of the Baltic Sea for strategic reasons was crucial to Moscow. In the then world, there was no power, which had been able or wished to prevent Moscow. And so, the Estonian government had the choice: either to give in to the Soviet ultimatum or to go to a war, which probably would turn into a hopeless self-destruction. As we all know, the Estonian leadership opted for the first possibility, although they understood that the matter in all probability would not be closed with the bases treaty.
In violation of all agreements, the Soviet Union in June 1940 occupied the Republic of Estonia and annexed it in the status of a union republic. Those who allege as if the existence of the Republic of Estonia in 1940 ended due to internal conflicts rather than external reasons are wrong. If Estonia in June 1940 had not been occupied, law and order as well as the Estonian independence along with the system of government established by the Constitution of 1938 would have remained in place. The state authority in Estonia was strong enough to cope with destructive activities of both leftist and rightist extremist groups. It had proven that more than once.
There were states, which recognized the disappearance of the Baltic States from the political map of Europe. Yet some other states regarded the occurrences as acts of violence and crude distortion of the people's will. At this point, I would like to highlight in particular the principled position of the United States of America that manifested itself in the declaration of the State Department of July 23, 1940. It declared that the USA would not recognize the violent incorporation of the Baltic States by the Soviet Union. Washington's principled approach influenced also many other nations, both big and small, who did not recognize de jure the disappearance of the independent Baltic States and their incorporation into the Soviet Union. The United States remained firm on their position, which was invaluable assistance in restoring our independence.
The United States' attitude also created conditions for several diplomatic missions of the Baltic States to carry on their activities. The expatriate community in the USA, Canada, Sweden, Australia and elsewhere did a remarkable work too. The pressure put by the expatriates on the governments of countries of their residence, as well as the Baltic question raised at many major international forums, didn't let the world forget our situation.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
As yet, there is no indisputable answer to the question what were the reasons that led to the rebirth of democracy and restoration of independence in the incorporated countries as well as in the East European countries tied to the Soviet Union as satellites.
An attempt to democratise the totalitarian system that was in a deep crisis, undertaken in the mid-1980s by the political leadership of the Soviet Union, turned into a political prerequisite for the process of regaining independence. The reason for this was an exhaustion of inner development resources of the system and its inability deriving from that to respond to the technological triumph of the West. By the same token, we should bear in mind that the process of democratisation was just designed to alter the system's outer faēade only, as indicated by its name - perestroika (reconstruction).
And so, with amendments to the Constitution of the USSR in 1988 and the tour de force of 1991, attempts were undertaken to divert the developments into the 70-year old channel. But by that, the then Soviet leaders made a miscalculation: they had not understood that a system of government based on violence wouldn't match with the development of democracy.
Yet the Estonians had had a certain experience in the field of democracy and the then Supreme Council began to utilize this very experience backed by the will of the people. At this point it is important to stress that the people in Estonia took actively part in the restoration of independence, doing it in a wide variety of forms: Popular Front, Citizens' Committees, Creative Associations, Heritage Society and other associations.
This movement also called the Second National Awakening brought the people in real terms to the exercise of state power. In 1988, the Estonian public made a firm stand against the amendments to the Constitution of the Soviet Union, which were directed towards establishing government's control over the process of democratisation and, in its essence, ruling out the possibility that union republics could leave the Soviet Union. The Estonian people took actively part also in the discussions on our drafted language law and other important bills and, in the referendum of 1999, gave their strong support to the reestablishment of independence.
On the other hand, to express the will of the people in an appropriate legal form in the then political situation was exclusively within the competence of the Supreme Soviet who, therefore, did assume the responsibility for doing that. The Supreme Soviet giving due consideration to each step and observing the principle of legal continuity began to create a legal basis for restoring Estonia's independence in a parliamentary way. That meant both dealing with the two periods of national independence separated by time as one whole and developing the legal system effective those days.
The idea of legal continuity manifested itself in all legal acts framing the restoration of independent statehood from the Declaration of Sovereignty on 16 November 1988 and the amendments to the Constitution of the Estonian SSR to the adoption of the Constitution of the Republic of Estonia. Those acts, today called pre-constitutional acts, had several functions.
First, they backed in legal terms the stages of regaining the Estonian independence, and shaped the legal bases of the statehood being restored. In parallel, they undermined the Soviet constitutional order because also other incorporated states followed Estonia's example. In addition, the processes having started in the Baltic States gave a significant boost to the Central and East European countries belonging to the Socialist Camp to free themselves from their political, military and economic bonds. It is also worth mentioning that 16 November 1988 was one of those rare moments when the world's attention undoubtedly focused on what was happening in Estonia.
With the pre-constitutional acts, also a legal appraisal of the history was given. I would like to highlight at this place the Supreme Soviet's resolution of 12 November 1989 "On Historical and Legal Appraisal of the Events that Occurred in Estonia in the Year 1940". By this resolution, the foreign policy and military actions of the Soviet leadership in 1940 against the Republic of Estonia were qualified as an aggression, military occupation and annexation of the Republic of Estonia. In the aforementioned resolution, Estonia confirmed its desire to restore independence in a peaceful and parliamentary way.
The pre-constitutional acts endeavoured to undo the injustice done by the foreign power. So, already in 1989 the extrajudicial mass repressions of the years 1940-1950 were fully and unconditionally condemned and qualified as crimes against humanity. By the same resolution, all innocent victims were rehabilitated and, based on that, it was endeavoured to compensate them at least partly for the material damage suffered.
The pre-constitutional acts were important also in terms of determining Estonia's choices and future. In this connection, I would mention our decisions to carry out ownership, land and administrative reforms, to establish the Bank of Estonia as well as to introduce our own currency. And this enumeration could be continued.
In addition, the pre-constitutional acts served to protect the liberties gained in the process of restoring independence. Already the amendments to the Constitution of the Estonian SSR passed on 16 November 1988 established that the laws and secondary legislation of the Soviet Union would take effect in the territory of the Estonian SSR only after their registration by the Presidium of our Supreme Council. This unprecedented step was of paramount importance to our relationship with the Soviet Union as well as to the following creation of a new legal system.
Thus, integrating the recent past into the complete picture of the Estonian history we can understand how a people who had suffered terrible losses from annexation, war and repressions could restore their independence and build so quickly a democratic society. Our experience shows that a people who fall back on their historic heritage and have preserved their national spirit and identity can do that. It also helps us understand and recreate democratic values.
Why not recall here that we already in the conditions of occupation proclaimed cornflower and barn swallow our national symbols. We reinstated the status of the colour combination blue, black and white as our national colours at a time when the restoration of independence was just a daydream. And our language being under threat received the status of official language in the same period.
Already in 1988 we could see in Estonia some of the most essential elements of civil society. The international background of those days, too, facilitated our process of regaining independence: Estonia had the backing of both the peoples of the world and the democratic movements of the Soviet Union. All these factors combined acted as a catalyst for democratic processes.
For now, only 13 years have passed since the restoration of Estonia's independent statehood. During this time, we have with a remarkable speed overcome the backlog in economy and in many other areas caused by occupation. The Estonian people, the supreme power of state being vested in them, on 14 September decided to resume its rightful place in Europe and to have an equal say in shaping the future of the continent. European nations are willing to admit us into their community. Our cooperation in the European Union will be based on the knowledge that mutual support and respect for common values are important guarantees of a stable social order.
Although we this year marked the 85th anniversary of the Republic of Estonia, we should not forget that we have been really independent for a third of a century only. Our state is young, democratic traditions rather weak, and our political culture as to settling disagreements still in its infancy. Today, just like between the two world wars, the existential questions - are we capable of being and surviving as an independent nation, and how to secure our nation, remain relevant.
The first life period of the Republic of Estonia was not easy, however, our state then was founded upon national ideals and lived in a Europe where nation states were strengthening. Today's Estonia is a part of an integrating Europe and globalizing world, in which politicians have a dual responsibility because, apart from ensuring balanced development of their own country, they have to lead an efficient process of integration into the European Union. And in performing these tasks, all activities ensuring the survival of the Estonian state, language and culture are important.
Thank you for your attention.
|
| |
|
vpk.ee
