Estonia, 1994

I should like to congratulate

Mr. Essy on his election as President of this, the forty-

ninth, session of the General Assembly. The Estonian

people wish him all the best in this post.

Today is a day of national mourning in my country.

Late last night, amid stormy autumn winds, the passenger

and car ferry Estonia, sailing from Tallinn to Stockholm,

sank at high sea. Nearly 100 people have been saved, and

rescue efforts are continuing. But most of the over 850

people who were aboard the Estonia are presumed to be

dead. I should like to thank the President and all those who

have expressed their sorrow and sent condolences.

In this painful loss, we can draw some solace from

the global teamwork we have seen in the rescue efforts.

Last night demonstrated beyond a doubt that the Baltic

Sea is a sea of cooperation. Swedish, Finnish, Danish

and Estonian rescue units worked together, and we had

offers of help from Russia, the North Atlantic Treaty

Organization (NATO) and countless others. On behalf of

my Government, I thank all of those who helped us with

the rescue effort. The spirit of international cooperation

sets a fine example for all of us here today.

Today my country comes before this forum for the

first time in half a century unfettered by the problem of

the presence of foreign troops on our soil. The role the

United Nations played in helping to remove the last

vestiges of the Second World War was not small. It is

therefore a special privilege for me to speak here today.

It is also not insignificant that this new era in the

history of Estonia, Latvia and Germany coincides with the

upcoming fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the

United Nations. These two events would seem to call for

solemn reflection on the past or at least a joyous

celebration of the moment. But most of all, this new era

requires new approaches. Post-war security - be the war

hot or cold - still hangs in a delicate balance. Because it

is up to all of us, collectively, to decide which way the

scales tip, I wish to focus on the future, on how we in

Estonia are approaching this new era, and on some of the

ideas enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations that

we believe deserve special attention in the next few years.

On 31 August, we marked the withdrawal of troops.

The celebrations and commemorations of this event

symbolized the end of one era and the beginning of

another. The withdrawal of the troops has had a

tremendous effect in bringing us closer to normalization

of relations with the Russian Federation, and we sincerely

hope that the problem of officers who were demobilized

on our territory against the spirit and the letter of the

troop-withdrawal treaty will be solved. The troop

withdrawal was also a major step towards achieving

security in the Baltic region. But the problem of Baltic

security has not yet been solved - far from it.

One dimension of moving towards bona fide security

undoubtedly lies in trying to improve relations with the

Russian Federation. The potential for good will is in the

air, and it is our duty, on both sides of the 1920 Tartu

Peace Treaty, to seize the moment and make that peace

again. We might call this policy towards Russia one of

positive engagement. This would involve, among other

24

qualities, mutual respect for sovereignty, mutual respect for

national security interests, mutual refraining from verbal

and other confrontation, and mutual respect for international

norms of behaviour, particularly in the area of human

rights.

We are willing to expend considerable energy to repair

a relationship that has been historically so complex. To do

so is not only in our own interest and in that of Russia, but

in the interest of regional, European and therefore global

security as well. I would emphasize, however, that in order

for this policy to be successful, it must be mutual. If, on

the other hand, our efforts are not reciprocated, then we

must be prepared to expend our energy in different ways.

Lately, we have noted with great concern talk of

creating new spheres of influence. We hear continuing use

of the phrase "the near abroad". We observe similar

attitudes in discussions about the enlargement of the North

Atlantic Treaty Organization and the European Union. We

are already well past the initial stages of building a

European security structure. A viable framework, based on

shared values, that includes Central and East European

States is nearly in place. It is not only late but unacceptable

to ponder the plans of architects who speak of spheres of

influence and to consult contractors who wish to build on

sand or, worse, on a slippery slope.

There are some specific ways in which the United

Nations can take advantage of the historic opportunity it

faces to encourage principled behaviour. One of them is to

render peace-keeping more effective by strengthening

peace-keeping mechanisms, including the dissemination of

better and more timely information to all Member States in

order to garner the support necessary for any collective

action. Rather than abdicating responsibility, whether due

to benign neglect, expediency or funding problems, and

allowing large States to act unilaterally, it means holding all

States in all regions to the same standards. It goes without

saying that in lending its name to any peacekeeping

operations, the United Nations must stand by the

fundamental principles of neutrality and multilateralism.

The United Nations should never become a mask behind

which one country tries to assert dominance over another

by means of peace-keeping.

Let me add that Estonia is actively developing its own

peace-keeping force, to be put, perhaps next year, at the

disposal of the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Another area in which more effective mechanisms and

more stringent standards are needed is that of human rights,

as reflected in the Vienna Declaration and plan of action

of last year. I would stress the importance of the newly

established Office of the High Commissioner for Human

Rights taking on this task. We wish High Commissioner

Ayala Lasso success in this most important and

challenging endeavour.

We believe the High Commissioner can be

instrumental not only in improving the effectiveness of

the United Nations human rights mechanisms, but also in

holding this body to strict standards. We believe that all

States should be measured according to the same human

rights standards. I could not agree more with the

observation made by Russian Federation President Boris

Yeltsin two days ago in this forum that

"neither a selective approach nor double standards

are permissible." (Official Records of the General

Assembly, Forty-ninth Session, Plenary Meetings,

5th meeting, p. 2)

Indeed, exceptions cannot be made on the basis of the

size of a nation, its cultural heritage or the political

delicacy of the situation. The standards that are applied

to one country must be valid for all others - in other

words, there should be no elastic rulers.

In this regard, allow me to remind the Assembly of

an open letter - an appeal, really, to morality in foreign

policy - which was signed by a host of political

luminaries and published in September of last year in The

Wall Street Journal. I quote from the letter, entitled

"What the West Must Do In Bosnia":

"Even if, like Kuwait in August 1990, all

Bosnia (and not just Sarajevo) were seized, it would

be essential for the democracies to make clear, as

they did in the case of Kuwait, that violent border

changes and ethnic cleansing will not stand. If the

West does not make that clear, it will have nothing

persuasive to say ...".

Sadly, the message in that letter remains applicable

today. If the world’s democracies, led by the United

Nations, do not speak out for morality in the area of

human rights, we will lose our ability to influence the

course of events. Democracies must be willing to stand

by the principles upon which our States and societies are

based. It is our sincere hope that non-selective

application of human rights standards will become the

rule, not the exception.

25

A third way the United Nations can take advantage of

this moment is to consider the global changes that have

taken place since 1945. Then, in the immediate post-war

period, the composition of the Security Council was

established by drawing a sharp distinction between the

victors and the vanquished. Times have changed. We

must now take into account the positive role that some

States in particular play in the international arena. And I

have in mind here Germany and Japan, States that have

more than demonstrated their commitment to democracy

during the last 50 years. Estonia strongly supports granting

Germany and Japan permanent-member status in the

Security Council as a recognition of their accomplishments

and an acknowledgement of their stabilizing role in world

affairs.

I would turn now briefly to Estonia’s vision of its

future role in the United Nations. Now that the issues

which had hitherto demanded our intense attention have

been more or less solved, we are freer to devote more

energy to wider issues that affect all of us. I am speaking

here of global phenomena such as terrorism, organized

crime, drug trafficking and smuggling of radioactive

materials as well as health and social issues and

environmental problems. These are issues that know no

borders, and dealing with them requires a collective effort

on our part.

On this, the eve of the fiftieth anniversary of the

United Nations, we face an enormous challenge. The war

- I mean the Second World War - is finally over. But the

real battle - to safeguard human and civil rights for all

persons, to strengthen security for all States, to preserve a

continent undivided - this battle has only just begun. With

intelligence, perseverance, goodwill, and a little luck, the

nations gathered here can unite in the battle to make the

next 50 years more constructive than the last.