Urmas Paet – quiet among quippers, drawn towards Brussels (interview)

Photo: Liis Treimann

According to Foreign Minister Urmas Paet, the atmosphere at border talks with Russia has been open with domestic policy of both parties being discussed frankly and pointedly, helping each realise the compromises available. 

The Estonian-Russian border talks text is now agreed, the priority now being approval by both governments. Can there still be surprises whether, in the coalition or parliament?

By now, the border treaty has been in the making for 21 years. As the proposal to restore consultations with Russia was forwarded in October, all parliamentary fractions joined in. The last seven months of consultations have, historically, been one of the most open foreign treaty processes. The entire time, we have been in cooperation with Riigikogu [Parliament] and all [political] parties. Should anybody desire further discussions, it’s absolutely possible.

Two sentences have been added to the 2005 treaty text. First, that the treaty concerns, without exceptions, only the border, and secondly that the absence of territorial claims is confirmed. We hear that the old Pro Patria folks are hard to be reconciled in regard to the latter.

There are always people in whose opinion there should be no border treaty with Russia on conditions like these. As both Estonia and Russia are currently interested in a definite settlement of the border issue, then from our point of view, this is an investment in a more secure future – in security policy terms. It is prudent to go the whole way.

What’s important is, that during the past seven months, we – and I believe, Russia as well – have been as open as possible, describing the domestic political situation in both countries. Both parties have realised each other’s red lines and the possibilities for textual compromises.

Could the treaty enter into force before local elections?

No. In Estonia, putting the treaty into effect will require a government decision. Thereafter the treaty needs to be signed, and this will launch the parliamentary ratification process. How long will it take us or the Russian Duma? Impossible to predict. As it stands, it is not realistic for the treaty to enter into force in October.

These past couple of months, there has been an extraordinary emphasis on refugees, our fears, the need to extend a helping hand. All because the Afghani interpreter Omar was denied asylum in Estonia. Will this be the rule?

We can’t claim that. Decisions of this sort are taken based on the persons in question. However, it can’t be expected, a priori, that should someone desire to enter Estonia from a crisis region, it will therefore happen.

In Omar’s case it was acknowledged that we would not be able to fully check his background. As the culture and religion are so different, we dare not let anybody in from there?

It is never possible to check to the full. I cannot go into all the details behind the decision, but in this case the information was sufficient for the decision.

What did Omar ask for? And when?

He sent us an e-mail at the beginning of March, desiring to relocate to Estonia.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs then sent him a questionnaire, the last question being would he come alone or with family. Omar promised to come alone. Still, the government’s Security Committee ruled “no”, based on the family coming over. Why?

I repeat clearly: I cannot reveal the details of this case. But international practice with asylum applications has evolved into also considering the family reunion principle, meaning that should the person granted asylum afterwards apply for the family to follow, it is as good as impossible to deny him. The overall humane principle, as it is, would favour reunion.

This week I talked to many people about Omar, and I hear a funny sentence: “Paet, dammit, is so popular, avoids decision making and unpopular topics! All he does is bring back hostages and shines at the border treaty.” They said you are a poor example to the younger generation, as all desire to be like you; but in politics, one has to get his hands dirty as well.

I don’t know if this is a compliment or not, but I have tried to limit myself to the [Foreign] Ministry’s business. It’s not right if everybody starts blurting out, shooting from the hip, whatever the topic. There has to be distribution of competency, even more of it.

People also need to realise that international matters are not always related only to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Asylum applications also have relevance to the Ministry of the Interior. I really apologise, but the Foreign Ministry has never had any dealings with that person. However, the defence forces and Ministry of Defence have, and they had to give an assessment in regard to the content of the  application, [to Omar’s] cooperation with the interpreter, [and to] various risks.

On Saturday, next week, the Reform Party holds its general assembly, with Andrus Ansip elected as chairman. You will be elected to the board, probably as vice-chairman. What is the significance of the assembly for the Reform Party? The Party has had a hard time, loss of popularity causing tensions, an altogether new situation.

It has indeed been hard, no denying. For sure, it is important who gets elected to the board and who will run.

Kaja Kallas, one of the most colourful and stronger Reform party members, long hesitated whether to run for the board…

... well, we all did.

... finally being persuaded by the old Reform Party liberals. This week, Ms Kallas expressed hopes that the Reform Party will become more open and respectful, both internally and towards the nation. Agree?

I have always been against too harsh generalisations. The Reform Party has over 10,000 people in it, that’s too sweeping a generalisation. I definitely agree that everything may be improved – have better communication, explain and prepare essential decisions better. I agree to that, but to thus generalise a party with 10,000 members – that’s too much.

If anybody has come across as haughty or with insufficient explanations, that’s a matter of individual personalities. I believe that the Reform Party is still the party most respectful of people’s liberties and choices in Estonia, despite the turbulence of this past year.

But then – we always have to prove ourselves, over and over again, both personally and as a party. We are no longer a niche party, rather a people’s party. Our principles are consistent and these need to be maintained; however, both supporter and membership numbers have expanded and new nuances added. I say that the Reform Party is liberal not only externally in its world-view, but in its inner workings as well.

No putting down of dissidents?

What dissidents? At board meetings, there’s quite a noise at times! We have all kinds of quippers there, cracking the occasional joke, and people have differing tolerance limits. It’s not a matter of attitude, but rather of people’s temperament and sense of humour. I have detected no ill will, as such.

But, speaking about the Party’s leaders, where is your own tolerance limit? A month ago, many were upset by Andrus Ansip saying the issue of “one lady” need not hinder development of Ukraine-EU relations, referring to Julia Tymoshenko. Clumsily said, rather improper. And you avoided giving an evaluation.

In this case, I have said that a Foreign Minister cannot be expected to evaluate a Prime Minister’s words based on another country’s press release. Looking deeper – very many agree that Ukraine has problems with corruption, rule of law and court cases, Ms Tymoshenko’s included; however, it is also true that the only way of influencing Ukraine is to link Ukraine with the European Union. If we totally close the door, this leverage is lost.

What matters is whether or not, in the fall, association and free trade agreement will be entered with Ukraine. That is the question. Yes, let it be, I say, in order that we may also deal with other Ukraine-related topics. I have heard and read myself, that my talk is so boring, that it’s cool if people say colourful stuff. What should I have said? Not knowing what they said, over there.

Well, once back in Estonia Mr Ansip did stick to his words. After the colourfully speaking leaders, why not some cooling-off time? When will the new leader be elected, after Mr Ansip?

Not decided. Political logic would dictate that before or after the general elections. Or both. It’s a little premature to talk about that, the general assembly is still ahead of us all. The new board, I think, will start discussing that.

For eight years running, you have been Foreign Minister. Preceded by two years as Minister of Culture. Thus, ten years as a minister. As sincerely as you are able to answer: would you be interested to chair the party?

(Long pause.) I have not thought about that too deeply. The current Prime Minister will, if possible, continue for two more years, so I have not had reasons enough to consider it. There are two years to go to the next parliamentary elections, and that’s a long time. With many elections in the pipeline prior to that.

In addition to the local ones, there’ll be the European Parliament elections. Looking towards Brussels, rather?

I’m interested in international politics. At the moment, I’m interested in working in the Foreign Ministry and in foreign policy. But there are, indeed, other bodies where one can do these things, other than the Ministry.