Estonia, 1993

Before commencing my address, I

would like to express, on behalf of my nation and myself,

my sincere sympathy with the people of India on this day of

great tragedy.

Let me convey to you, Mr. President, my

congratulations on your election to the presidency of the

United Nations General Assembly at its forty-eighth session.

Your election is a fitting tribute to your personal and

professional qualities, and also to your country, the Republic

of Guyana. As an Estonian, I have a special empathy with

your homeland: much like Estonia, your

country was liberated from colonial dependence and became

a Member State of the United Nations. Like Estonia, your

country remembers that independence is the decisive factor

which permits small countries to share with great Powers

equal responsibility for creating a better world, towards

which all of us, seated here in this Hall, are striving.

To your predecessor, His Excellency Mr. Stoyan Ganev,

I express my recognition for his proficiency in chairing the

forty-seventh session. We also express our deep gratitude to

Mr. Ganev for visiting Estonia and her sister States Latvia

and Lithuania, and for his efforts to apply the moral

authority of the United Nations towards removing the

remaining vestiges of colonialism from the Baltic States.

To our neighbour in the General Assembly, the State of

Eritrea, I express my sincerest welcome and congratulations

on its finally joining the family of nations.

I would, however, like to take this opportunity to

extend especially warm thanks to the Secretary-General, His

Excellency Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, who has given the

United Nations and the whole world new hope through his

strong moral conviction that we need not passively wait for

conflicts to arise, but that conflicts should be prevented from

arising; that the United Nations is, in the first place, an

architect, whose building must not be allowed to be engulfed

in flames; that the Organization is only secondarily a fire-

fighter who rushes to extinguish fires still burning from the

past. This is so even and perhaps especially when,

metaphorically speaking, it happens that only a poor man’s

cowshed has caught fire - for after all, that was enough to

burn down all of Chicago.

Let me express my appreciation and gratitude for

Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali’s radiant moral sense of

responsibility and for the steadfastness with which he has

defended the principle of preventive diplomacy. As a small

State, Estonia well understands and desires to support the

Secretary-General fully in his defence of the purposes and

principles of the United Nations and in the implementation

of preventive diplomacy.

Three years ago, in 1990, I visited the New York

meeting of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in

Europe as a foreign minister whose entry into the conference

room was strictly prohibited. I was interviewed by

television journalists in front of United Nations

Headquarters, as chance had it. I stated then that the next

time I would be here it would be for the raising of the

Estonian flag. The journalists did not even attempt to hide

their polite sympathy nor their desire to bring the interview

quickly to an end. Did they even attempt to present such an

"unrealistic" interview on their television programme?

One year later, in September 1991, I watched the

raising of the Estonian flag on a United Nations flagpole and

concluded that my mission had been completed. Today I am

here to tell the Assembly, and perhaps also those

sympathetic journalists, that my work as the first

democratically elected post-war Estonian President has only

just begun.

Today my words are infused with self-confidence and

hope. Estonia has been and is once again a State; Estonia

has re-established its place under the sun. In this sense we

share common attributes, experiences and goals with the vast

majority of States represented here today. The majority of

the States Members of the Assembly are only slightly larger

or slightly smaller than Estonia, with its 47,000 square

kilometres and 1.5 million inhabitants living on the shores of

the Baltic Sea. Estonia was robbed of its independence and

forced to be the colonial subject of an imperial Power, as

was the case with the majority of the Members here today.

Just as they did, so have we restored our independence at the

cost of untold suffering. For Estonia, as for most of the

Members here, this work is still incomplete. The United

Nations General Assembly is the best place for uniting our

forces, so that we can work together.

This however requires that the Second World War

finally end for Estonia. For the Second World War is still

continuing in Estonia in a rather peculiar way, because the

foreign armed forces which occupied Estonia in 1940 still

remain on our territory, regardless of General Assembly

resolution 47/21. Estonia has for two years patiently

conducted negotiations on the withdrawal of these forces, but

without positive results. Of course, we were aware that

behind this rigid position stood the Soviet nomenklatura and

the Russian so-called parliament, which acted on the basis of

the Brezhnevite Soviet so-called constitution and whose goal

was to restore the Soviet Union in a modernized form.

President Yeltsin was a prisoner of this imperialistically

minded parliament.

For this reason, we consider the present moment

especially opportune for President Yeltsin to strengthen the

world’s confidence in democracy by withdrawing the

remaining armed forces from Estonia and Latvia and by

signing international agreements to this effect. This would

guarantee stability and security for the Baltic region, which

is an inseparable part of Europe’s Nordic region - and that

region, in turn, is an inseparable part of Europe.

In my correspondence with President Yeltsin I have

emphasized my readiness to meet him in the nearest future.

I would be grateful to the General Assembly, to the Security

Council and to Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali if,

with all their collective moral authority, they would help us

rapidly to cut this Gordian knot. This is, after all, not only

a problem for Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania: with this effort

they would also be supporting the democratization of Russia.

With the implementation of preventive diplomacy, they

would be removing a potential source of conflict and would

thereby strengthen the prestige of the United Nations itself.

And last, but not least, by implementing international law

equally in the interests of great Powers and of small States

they would give back to all of us the hope that, even in

terms of realpolitik, justice is singular and indivisible.

The United Nations could mandate such a mission, to

be led by an authoritative European politician, one in whom

both Russia and the Baltic States could feel equally

confident. The time is ripe for action. The rapid preparation

of an international agreement is in the interests of both sides.

When two years of negotiations conducted between a great

Power and a small State remain unproductive, it is a sign of

danger. Preventive diplomacy consists in the ability to

recognize danger signals at an early stage and resolve them

in a lightning-rod fashion. This is our first problem and our

primary task.

At different stages, two different arguments were used

in stalling and detouring the negotiations. First, the Russian

side claimed it would be unable to find housing for forces

withdrawn from the Baltic States. From a legal standpoint,

this argument lacks any content whatsoever. The stationing

of foreign forces on the territory of a sovereign State against

the express will of that State and its people is in

contradiction with international law and cannot be an item

Forty-eighth session - 30 September l993 3

for negotiation. At the same time, I would like to repeat

again that Estonia is ready, together with its Nordic

neighbours and other partners, and to the extent that its

resources permit, to assist in the solution of this essentially

humanitarian problem. We are grateful to our friends, who

have promised housing construction aid in excess of

$200 million, and we are prepared, with the help of these

partners, to mobilize our construction industry towards this

end. We have on several occasions publicly repeated and

confirmed this readiness to our Russian partner.

The second argument for the maintenance of foreign

armed forces and their installation on the territory of the

Baltic States is in a curious way linked to human rights.

According to this line of thinking, which has been

promulgated primarily in the Western media, the continued

presence of ex-Soviet armed forces in the Baltic States is

required for the defence of the human rights of the Russians

residing there. However, the Russian residents of Estonia

have never supported this argument, since they have not

wished to become pawns in a political game.

In this connection, I should like to take the opportunity

to thank you, Mr. President, and you, Mr. Secretary-

General, for the assistance of the United Nations. The

Republic of Estonia had already enunciated, during the time

of the League of Nations, and now it does so even more

clearly, the basic principle that human rights are not the

"internal affair" of any State. For this reason, on the

question of human rights in Estonia we turned for expert

opinions and advice not only to the United Nations, but also

to the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe,

the Council of Europe and the Nordic Council. Thus, I can

confirm that not one of the 15 missions invited by Estonia

to inspect the situation firsthand has found human rights

violations in Estonia. This has also been emphasized by

many speakers during this General Assembly session. It was

also, I am happy to note, emphasized by President Clinton

in our recent meeting.

I am disappointed that the idea of human rights -

which, for Estonia, is self-evident and sacrosanct, and for the

lack of which Estonians themselves, during five decades of

Communist totalitarianism, had to pay with the loss of their

pride, their freedom and their blood in Soviet and Nazi

concentration camps - has been cynically

exploited. The Republic of Estonia was the first State in the

world to guarantee Jews and other minorities, as early as

1925, the right to cultural autonomy. Estonia will never

stand idly by while anyone tries to manipulate human rights.

For this reason, Estonia supports the creation of the post of

a United Nations high commissioner for human rights and

the expansion of the United Nations budget earmarked for

the defence of human rights.

We wish to work to defend the human rights of all

indigenous peoples. We defended the rights of some

Siberian peoples during the decades of Soviet totalitarianism,

although we had to do it alone and quietly. Now we intend

to join forces and to do it, with the help of the United

Nations, publicly.

I like to speak of the future in optimistic terms on the

assumption that we are capable of finding resolutions to our

pessimistic present, or to be more precise, that we are

capable of applying these resolutions, since they are already

outlined in Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali’s report "An Agenda

for Peace" (A/47/277). Allow me, Mr. Secretary- General,

to thank you wholeheartedly for the clear analysis and sober

recommendations on the implementation of such key

concepts as preventive diplomacy, peacemaking and

peace-keeping. The tragedy in Yugoslavia has reconfirmed

the fact that fire-fighting is much more difficult than

fire-prevention. This lesson, which is written in the Torah,

the Bible and the Koran, is, thanks to the Secretary- General,

now slowly penetrating the consciousness of international

organizations. Preventive diplomacy, peacemaking and

peace-keeping can be a real hope for the United Nations on

the condition that we learn to recognize danger, where and

when it becomes manifest.

However, in a potential zone of conflict, peace-keeping

must be strictly neutral. We must remember the proverb

that "You should not let a fox mind the henhouse", that

peace-keeping in a particular area cannot be turned over to

those parties that have an obvious interest in the outcome of

a conflict. Estonia supports the principles of democracy, the

inviolability of borders and non-interference in the internal

affairs of other countries, principles enshrined in the United

Nations Charter and in other international agreements.

Consequently, we were disturbed - as, I am sure, many

representatives were - by the suggestion of one national

representative that the troops of one country should be

allowed to intervene up to the borders of a State that no

longer exists. I do not have in mind the former

Austro-Hungarian Empire.

4 General Assembly - Forty-eighth session

Estonia can only support a position whereby the choice

of peace-keeping forces by the Security Council meets the

approval of broad international opinion. On this condition,

Estonia also feels a moral responsibility to participate in

international peace-keeping according to its capabilities, as

well as in other related activities.

This brings me to the consolidation of democracy and

the free market economy in Estonia after 50 years of an

absurd colonial command economy. Estonia has already

been successful, but, together with other Members of the

Organization, we could be even more successful.

Democracy and the free market economy are interconnected,

because they presuppose the right and the responsibility to

freely choose. The former Soviet Union spent more money

on repressing free thought than it ever did on the creation of

a nuclear arsenal. The murder of freedom and the birth of

aggression are two sides of the same coin. The first enemy

of every totalitarian regime is the domestic enemy, and its

first object of attack is free thought. Everyone present

knows Adam Michnik’s wonderful metaphor about how easy

it is to make fish soup from an aquarium, but how difficult

it is to make an aquarium from fish soup.

The main resource from which we have drawn the

energy for the transformation of Estonia’s economy has been

the idealism of the Estonian people. This is a large

resource, but it is not endless. I want to prevent exhaustion

from setting in, exhaustion which could be followed by

political apathy and thereby by a desire to be free both of

rights and obligations. The replacement of a command

economy by a market economy is a disintegrative process

both at the State and individual level as long as the market

has not started working. Once the market is working, it

works for economic and political integration. Therefore,

Estonia is more interested in trade, not aid, and therefore we

work actively to keep and expand our free trade agreements

through negotiations with Brussels.

My aim has been to suggest that the international

community has gained new members - the countries in

transition. Here the question arises whether the United

Nations has realized our special possibilities and our special

needs. Estonia does not belong in either the first, second or

third world. Do we really need a fourth world, or do we

need the ability to react more sensitively to a world which

is in constant dynamic change?

I offer as an example an issue that is as unpleasant to

the Assembly as it is to me: the division by 15 of the

financial commitments of the former Soviet Union, including

its United Nations assessment. Estonia has stated repeatedly,

and I do not hesitate to state here again, that we cannot and

we will not accept this, as we were never legally part of the

Soviet Union. Times have changed; our world community

must realize this.

We also feel a responsibility to assist others as we have

been assisted during the past few years. While Estonia is

still reeling from the disastrous consequences of a 50-year

occupation, we do have well-educated specialists who could

be of service to the United Nations in parts of the world

where their skills would be welcome. And I should like to

offer the experience we have gained in starting up a country

and in creating a new, stable currency.

Allow me to close with some very personal comments.

The United Nations is approaching its fiftieth anniversary.

The post-war world is approaching its fiftieth anniversary.

The United Nations is acting on the basis of an unaltered

Charter. But, as I mentioned above, the world has been

altered totally. This ever-increasing contrast is most strongly

felt by some of the most sensitive United Nations Members,

the majority, the small States. I believe that small States

have the obligation to redefine the international order. The

large nations have the larger obligations, the small States the

larger possibilities. This is not a contradiction, but a

balance. After all, an Inuit kayak can change its course

immediately, while a supertanker needs perilously much time

and space to do so.

The best place to redefine the world order is the

General Assembly of the United Nations. I am deeply

grateful to Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali who,

sensing this need, has entrusted into our hands his vision of

a stable world, entitled "An Agenda for Peace". As a

representative of one of Europe’s smallest countries and

oldest nations, I should like to suggest that the prevalent

tendency of the past century, and especially the past decades,

has been an increase in the numbers of small countries and

a reduction in the number of large ones. The issue of

increasing the number of permanent members of the Security

Council has been introduced into the agenda, and Estonia

supports this as a step towards accepting today’s new

realities. Personally, I should like to put to you, members

of the General Assembly, the following question: should the

Security Council not also include as a member with veto

power a representative of the world’s majority, the small

nations?

I do not have an answer to this question and neither do

you. This is not tragic. The opposite would be tragic.

Seeking for answers is the United Nations future and our

common hope. Today we speak of the fatal differences

Forty-eighth session - 30 September l993 5

between cultures. Thereby the inevitability of conflicts is

suggested.

Conflicts are not fatal only because someone believes

in Buddha, another in Jehovah, another in Christ or Allah or

the shamans of Siberia. Cultures have to be different to

allow man, with his rights and duties, to look like man, to

look like hope. The day before coming here I read a book

by the famous Finnish philosopher Matti Kuusi on what

hope means to man. The Mexican says that you cannot fill

your stomach with hope, but it will keep the soul in your

mouth; a Kanuri African will say that hope is the pillar; the

Filipino says that daring is the fruit of hope and the Maltese

says that he who gives up hope dies.

This diversity is the unity of mankind. And to make it

easier for you to keep the unity of man and the world, I will

add for salt, pepper and enjoyment a proverb from my

shores, the shores of the Baltic: do not lose your

hopelessness. Hopelessness is the inevitable shadow of

hope, and the ever-persevering United Nations is the

collective hope of mankind.

I thank you for your hopeful patience.