In interview to Postimees, President Toomas Hendrik Ilves (61) said it’s better for Estonia, in the world today, for the next head of state elected in 2016 to be fluent in foreign and security policy. Also, he hopes the tradition will be to get presidents elected in Riigikogu.
Less than two weeks to go till Riigikogu elections. How do you feel, is Estonia’s democracy better off with four parties in the parliament, or with more?
Democracy is not related to the number of parties – provided, of course, that’ there are more than one. In the USA, they have had democracy for almost 240 years and have mainly had two parties.
I’d personally prefer for us to have more than two parties. If, after the elections, we will have one or two parties added, this in itself will not strengthen or worsen the democracy. I would not make too much of it. It may happen, though, that then the coalitions will not be as strong.
The number of parties is up to the election system. If it is majoritarian like in the US, Canada, the Anglo-Saxon world, there will usually be two large parties. To only have two parties is not good in the sense that once power changes, the change is total.
The multi-mandate election system like in Estonia will surely mean more parties than one, which introduces the need to form a coalition. This provided for more stability in the long run, as not everything changes from one election to the next.
But with too many parties it’ll be as with Italy some ten years ago, with dozens of parties. Governments kept falling all the time.
We have had much talk about the four parties forming a cartel, as they also decide regarding the election system.
Political-scientifically speaking, this is weighty rhetoric, but there’s no proof behind it. If one does not like any party, one may of course talk about a cartel in the making. But beholding how the parties act during elections, I do not see anything about a cartel. Rather the opposite: there’s a lot of nagging at each other.
When it comes to the pre-elections debate, do you detect parties seriously seeking solutions to Estonia’s problems, or just trying to hit at the others?
As the blows begin, I’m thinking why will one listen to that and hope there’d someday be something prudent come out of that. From this tone and manners, I draw my own conclusions of course.
In my eyes, no one is greater just because he scored a point against somebody else. Rather, I’m saddened that there’s too much of that, and relatively little of serious debate. The only way to dig deep is look at the programmes of the parties – provided, of course, that the parties will also go by these.
In Estonia, it is assumed as tradition that, after parliamentary elections, the President will hand the winning party’s prime minister candidate the first option to create a government. Will you follow the tradition?
Yes. The party that gets most votes will get the first chance. Let’s see who wins, I make the proposal. Then, the issue will be: will he be able to form the government.
Secondly, there is no such tradition in Estonia. Look at the earlier elections, it’s not there. This, speaking also more generally, is the multiple-party system’s peculiarity that first place at elections may not mean the party will be able to create a government.
In the campaigns this time, there are no parties who have made a firm pact to enter into a coalition, like it has occasionally been earlier.
Not this time, yes.
Thus, there will be no other option for you than to favour the party who wins the elections?
This is the natural criterion – who gets the most votes, gets the proposal. It is up to the party’s to see how they get their votes together.
Let’s remember the constitutional procedures. If the first one fails, I will make the next proposal. If it fails again, the third.
I am 99.9 percent sure that, at third try, a coalition will be born. Otherwise, we’d have to have new elections. For that, no one has the money and the energy.
The next presidential elections are only in 2016, but they are still in the atmosphere as the new Riigikogu will be participating in making that choice.
If presidential elections topic is introduced now, something for the summer of 2016, it strikes me as something not too serious. If this is being talked about, it is rather for the moment of campaigning.
Have you been thinking about the qualities the next president ought to possess?
I have relatively little to say about that. But beholding the current situation and assuming there will be no great peace descending upon our world in the next year and a half, the person ought to feel quite adequate in foreign and security policy issues. Good for Estonia if the next head of state is able to talk on these subjects.
Would it be good for the next president to possess certain personal characteristics? Perhaps, for instance, he should be resilient?
I’d definitely not suggest some training programme for him. In some ways, it will be easier for him, even. He will have a residence and he will not have to live at work.
I hope that getting presidents elected at the parliament will rather be the tradition, as this is the way preferred by the constitution.
It would also be very good for the president to be cross-party not a pocket president of some parties. Once, a Reform Party member approached me after my Anniversary of the Republic address: «Again a soc dem speech!» A bit later a soc dem fellow showed up: «Very Reform Partyish, this year!»
True story. But both were perhaps a bit tipsy too, already.
As compared to the last Anniversary of the Republic, probably, is the increased NATO presence. We have rotating US units, we have visiting Dutch armoured vehicles, the Ämari Air Base has increased in weight. How easily or how hard it all happened?
It didn’t come easy. The events did develop very rapidly. On February 27th 2014, Russian GRU and special forces entered Crimea. People did not understand what was happening, it was total confusion. For March 2nd, I called extraordinary national defence council. As soon as March 1st, President Putin had already secured Russian federal council’s licence to use force on entire Ukrainian territory.
On March 4th, I spoke over the phone with US vice president Mr Biden, on March 8th all three heads of Baltics spoke on the phone with President Obama. On March 18th, I met Mr Biden in Warsaw.
On April 28th i.e. two months after Russia entered Crimea, the first US «boots» were at Ämari.
Looking back, this was a very intense time. Beholding the way things were before February 27th last year – no allied troops in Estonia, and Baltic air policing from Lithuania only. Ämari was not even included.
We have undergone a huge change. This has involved foreign ministry, defence ministry, Defence Forces, and the Office of the President – each has its role. For their input, some people from defence and foreign ministry will also be appreciated on February 23rd.
As then defence minister Urmas Reinsalu, a bit before that, went to USA and talked about US tanks in Europe, he was rather ridiculed in Estonia.
These are things rather not ridiculed in Estonia. Perhaps, by today it has hit home, to a larger degree, that our independence cannot be taken for granted, and that the freedom that we enjoy has a price.
With Independence Day parade now coming in Narva with allied forces involved, does this spell an answer to the headlines repeatedly seen in Western media like «Who’d Die for Narva?»?
To hold the parade in Narva was decided long ago, the city had its initial February 24th parade in 2009. The place rotates. Actually, Narva has the parade this year as the Anniversary reception is in Jõhvi and the St Peter’s Plaza in Narva is the closest spot fit for the parade. But the reception is in Jõhvi as it is their year of jubilee. Ida-Virumaa is worth all that.
What to expect from the new Ukrainian ceasefire agreed in Minsk?
I hope it starts to hold at some point in time. At the moment, I’m reading of continued shootings. Hearing the news of battles in Debaltseve, this means the ceasefire isn’t working. As soon as on Saturday we heard it was not supposed to concern Debaltseve. Not good.
You think the Minsk ceasefire agreement has failed?
Europe is wait-and-see at the moment. No one wants such commentators to be right who say it’s going to come to nothing anyway. Neither do I want to be among these. Meanwhile, let’s not assume we have entered an Immanuel Kantish everlasting peace.
At the Munich security conference, you asked Angela Merkel how far can the line agreed in Minsk in September be moved yet. You referred to Ukrainian troops fighting with arms from 1960ies, 1970ies and 1980ies while faced with contemporary weapons. Satisfied with the answer?
I asked because, with even all Estonian parties saying don’t give weapons, what then is the solution? If this thing continues, what is the West’s plan B?
At that moment, Minsk-2 had not been agreed yet either. But if it does not work and military operations continue, at some point we in EU and NATO are forced to face the facts where something needs to be done – or otherwise we will just wait until it all reaches our borders.
The arming of Ukraine issue is still up...
It’s not even so much about arming Ukraine. It’s the issue of what to do if the current agreement will not work. We need to offer something, be it armament of not.
I personally think we would first of all need to help with defence technology, like radars and drones.
A recent report by Strobe Talbott (US political scientist and former diplomat – edit) and his sympathisers does talk about lethal means as well.
The thing is, at the moment we are doing nothing. The other side has top level weapons systems which, among other things, require long-term training. These are not manned by Donetsk mafiosi.
We know that they have these weapons there, that they have Russian troops there. Perhaps the NATO European commander General Breedlove says the same, but we, the European Union side, still keep saying «we are gravely concerned» and «Russian-backed forces».
We are unwilling to admit what we know. We have no answer what we will do, but we need to answer. (After the interview, EU did admit at long last that Russian troops are in Ukraine – edit.)
An option in the current situation is that this is none of business, we will do nothing, and it is our business to stick with our borders. I don’t think the result would be too good.
Then, there’s other options. But while we have no common line in EU, this may end up being our de facto reply.
In this situation, does a common Estonian need to fear for war?
No need to fear for war in Estonia or Baltics. Meanwhile, good to pay more attention to events in Europe than before.
What to do as to avoid successive «storms in tea cups» in Estonia-Russia relations as the Finnish foreign minister Mr Tuomioja put it in response to feedback to his Hufvudstadsbladet interview?
The only storm that I detected was when over here a totally normal diplomatic activity was interpreted like «Finnish ambassador summonsed» etc.
Halloo, this is the job of an ambassador, to represent his country, to go and to explain issues. That’s why we have embassies abroad and others have embassies here.
On Monday, for instance, Expressen had this story about air force exercises. I assume, also, that several embassies asked for information from Swedish foreign ministry: what’s up.
Why don’t Swedish and Finnish planes want to land at Ämari, Estonia, during joint exercises with USA?
As I have been told, Swedish planes landing in Ämari was not in the plans. This is a US, Finnish, Swedish and Estonian joint air force exercise where the Americans use Ämari airfield, the use of which is guaranteed by Estonia.
The Finnish and Swedish planes, however, start and land at home bases. What we need to appreciate is their participation, as Estonia’s good partners, in our exercises dealing with the security of the region.
What about Greece now?
Let’s not speculate yet. EU history is filled with last minute agreements in hopeless-like situations.
Clearly, the new Greek government needs to honour obligations assumed by predecessors. Clearly, also, European nations Estonia included have shown remarkable solidarity regarding Greece. A €240bn helps programme, advice on reforms needed, several state agencies build up from scratch etc.
To maintain the solidarity, Greece must try hard, as we are talking about taxpayer money from partners. There are a few days left for the negotiations – but not longer than that.
Could you explain what happened with you at Sky News?
I was told I was going to have an interview with Sky News. That they’d record it and afterwards air it. Then, the one interviewing me begun by – «president Hendrick!» I said let’s start again with the right name.
Then, turned out, without letting me know the interview had become a live one. But I kept waiting and waiting and they were saying «we’ll be recording you in a minute!».
So that’s what happened. Funny afterwards, of course. The interview did take place, of course, viewable also at the president’s website.