Better to be Churchills than Chamberlains

Alljärgnev on minu tänane kõne Praha julgeolekukonverentsil. Tegemist oli väga esindusliku ettevõtmisega (esinejad alates NATO peasekretärist ja peaminister Topolanekist kuni USA kongresmenideni), mille kaudu siinsed võimud püüdsid kasvatada rahva toetust ja arusaamist raketikaitsesüsteemide (antud juhul radarijaama) vajalikkusest.

Tänase päeva seisuga on vähemalt 60 protsenti avalikkusest radarijaama vastu. Peaminister Topolanek (kes on homme Eestis) andis mõista, et valitsusel on tahet küsimus lahendada. Tõenäoliselt kirjutatakse lepetele USAga alla veel juunis.

Aga siin see kõne:

"I am honoured to address this very distinguished audience and talk briefly about our common threats and risks from the Estonian point of view. As an MP I allow myself to be a bit more open and maybe even provocative. This is my little privilege.

Previous speakers have done a good job outlining the various threats and risks our alliance faces in 21st century. These vary from conventional and asymmetric to totally new threats or challenges, like climate change and food or fresh water security.

I would like to argue that the Wider Western World is facing more complex challenges and real threats than ever before. It might sound a little pessimistic but at the same time we should not create too many illusions.

Those challenges are multilayered and could therefore be described in diverse ways. There are no black and white constructions. This makes it sometimes very difficult to recognise the threats and to push for truly common and shared activities among the Western allies.

The Western allies are today involved directly or indirectly in a number of conflicts or security issues which are clearly threatening the integrity of the Western world as a whole. Sometimes we hear critics say that we have let others pull ourselves into long lasting conflicts. Or even worse – that we have launched them. But let’s be frank here – the dream about the End of History lasted but a while, and the real world hit it hard.

More philosophically speaking – democratic world is under growing pressure from various non-democratic power-centres and actors. Not only are they interested in limiting the spread of democratic values, but they also actively fight against it. There are a number of forces who dream of disintegrating the West, or even destroying us.

Core values of democratic world are challenged today by those authoritarian rulers who are hoping to become world leaders and are pursuing aggressive politics, safe in the knowledge that their country possesses vital energy resources.

In this matter, energy security will be one of the most important questions we have to deal with. Especially Europe, and particularly Eastern Europe, is very vulnerable in terms of energy security. If today Europe imports around 50% of hydrocarbons like oil and gas, then by 2030 this dependency will grow to 90%.

There is a growing awareness of this problem among the western allies but much more should be done in the near future to solve the problem. Let me give just one example. The three Baltic States as NATO allies still form an energy island in Europe. With the exception of a small electricity link between Finland and Estonia, the three Baltic States are still cut off from the European energy network.

In our understanding, energy security should be more clearly addressed also in NATO framework. The Bucharest Summit gave the first hint in this direction, which is certainly very positive.

Exactly one year ago, my country – Estonia – suffered under severe cyber attacks. As we are an electronically advanced and highly computerised country, these attacks were perceived as a real threat to our national security.

Our cyber defence units in cooperation with our partners were able to quickly and effectively respond to these attacks. Those who planned to cause major problems to our national network failed. But the situation made us as well as our allies aware of a new security threat we have to seriously deal with.

NATO has decided to establish a centre of excellence on cyber defence which is to be officially opened in a few months time in Estonia.

Ladies and gentlemen,

The latest survey shows that democracies around the globe are gradually assuming defensive positions. As I said, The End of History did not really mean the End. Or, from another perspective – there are forces who would like to see the End of Our History, the End of dominance of universal democratic values and the free world.

From religious extremism to pragmatic goals of certain authoritarian power centres use different methods and tactics against our common interests and security. These include well known international terrorist tactics to disrupt western infrastructures, and use of our free and open societies to shake up our everyday lives and security.

There are also signs that certain countries or leaders are firmly denying incontestable facts from our past. As we know, history is a cornerstone of our identity. Denying Holocoust or crimes of Communism could also be perceived as a threat to our basic universal values.

But one of our common and growing threats comes from regimes who have, or would like to have in the near future, the ability to attack us conventionally – with missiles. If the risk of MAD (mutually assured destruction) balanced the two sides during the first Cold War, today it might not work.

If long range missiles with possible nuclear warheads are actually in the hands of religiously motivated leaders, then reasonable arguments might not work. This means that our task is to shape our common defence in order to defend ourselves against this possible and very serious threat.

In the issue of missile defence, we have to be clear: the question is not IF, but HOW. I would like to underline that missile defence is not important for only certain NATO member states – it is important for all of us. We should not forget that Article 5 plays an integral part in this debate and should therefore be automatically taken into account when building the missile defence architecture of our alliance.

The Bucharest Summit made it clear that ballistic missile proliferation poses an increasing threat to Allies’ forces, territory and population. Missile defence forms part of a broader response to counter this threat and is therefore an important strategy for all the NATO allies.

It is also necessary to mention at this point that NATO-Russia cooperation on missile defence must be strengthened. All the actions of the allies in this matter should be sufficiently transparent. But we should also remember that no one besides ourselves could veto our strategies.

This is the way for dealing with the missile defence issue now and in the future. We hope that during the next NATO summit in 2009, missile defence architecture will be discussed already in details. But we must also clearly understand that we don’t have time for lengthy political discussions. Decisions are sometimes our best friends.

Ladies and gentlemen,

In conclusion, let me argue that one of the biggest threats to our security comes not from afar but from inside. What do I mean? After the collapse of Soviet empire, it seems that some Western politicians still dream about the End of History and the imminent „common happiness“.

Only five years ago, the European Union compiled its first ever security strategy. Hopefully we will see an updated version in the near future. Perhaps during the French presidency. This document is a good premise for further discussions among the European allies, but it should give us more detailed guidelines for countering the commonly recognised challenges.

European common foreign and security policy will certainly gain new impetus after the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. We hope that this time the member states will not let the opportunity slip by and that we can engage in more integrated foreign activities already next year. As an Estonian MP, I can confirm that our parliament will ratify the Treaty during this month.

This is the good side of our common activities and prospects. At the same time, we have to make clear that there are a number of problems which stop our common policies from working as well as we would like.

We all see how difficult it is to get NATO allies to act together in crucial missions like in Afghanistan. I can reconfirm that Estonia is actively contributing to common strategies and missions of allies, including participation of our troops in stabilisation activities in Afghanistan’s southern Helmand Province.

I have heard during my visits to third countries that the Western unity and solidarity is more fiction than reality. We are believed to be easily dividable. Lines are different. There is a divide between Europe’s East and West, Europe and America.

I would like to argue – until we, the Wider Western World, are easy to divide and until we do not act commonly in order to counter serious security challenges, until our security is not fully ensured. So my appeal to you is to be more united and more aware of those threats which could at some stage bring along truly dramatic consequences for all of us. And like Prime Minister Topolanek put it: let’s be Churchills, not Chamberlains."