JAAN MIHKEL UUSTALU ⟩ Estonia must withdraw its signature from the border agreement with Russia

Foreign Minister of Estonia Urmas Paet signed border agreement in Moscow on 18th February 2014. Photo: Välisministeerium

• The Estonian-Russian border agreement does not provide additional security guarantees.
• The border agreement must not be ratified and the signature given by Urmas Paet must be withdrawn.
• The new border agreement must recognize the Tartu Peace Treaty.

The issue of the border agreement between Estonia and Russia must be raised again, because Russia has refused to recognize the cornerstone of the independence of the Republic of Estonia, the Tartu Peace Treaty, as a legal document, Jaan Mihkel Uustalu (Right-wingers) writes.

The border between Estonia and Russia and related agreements are a long story. If we limit ourselves to the Republic of Estonia and various Russian state structures, the story begins on Candlemas in 1920, when, with the Tartu Peace Treaty, the border was determined, which, according to international law, is still valid to this day, at least from Estonia's point of view. After the restoration of Estonia's independence, the control line between the Republic of Estonia and the Russian Federation is where it was pushed after 1944-45 by the dictates of Moscow.

In the current international situation, the issue of the border agreement must be raised once again. Noting right away that we have no interest in getting back even part of the Estonian areas that are located between the control line and the border set with the Tartu Peace Treaty. Thus agreeing with the position expressed by Andres Tarand's Christmas peace government, that the new border can be where the control line is now.

Several attempts have been made to legalize the Estonian-Russian border. A new border agreement was signed for the first time in 2005. The Russian Federation withdrew its signature from it due to a reference to the Tartu Peace Treaty made in the Riigikogu's explanatory memorandum.

Another attempt to conclude a border agreement was made when the agreement received the signatures of Paet and Lavrov in 2014. In this agreement, the issue of the Tartu Peace Treaty is bypassed with the declaration that the agreement deals only with the border issue, leaving at least Estonia with the understanding that the Tartu Peace Treaty remains valid in other issues. Unfortunately, the Russian Federation has a different point of view.

The premise of the new negotiations with the Russian Federation is that the border of the Tartu Peace Treaty is recognized and the border is changed.

A bilateral agreement that does not recognize the basis for the existence of the states is meaningless. The signed border agreement has not been ratified by the Russian Duma and is therefore invalid.

In the new heightened security situation, there is reason to discuss the border agreement again, because the 2005 and 2014 agreements are very rigidly drawn up and leave many questions unsettled. The main issue is that the Russian Federation has completely refused to recognize the Tartu Peace Treaty as a legal document.

The opportunity to normalize the matter may arise quickly, depending on what happens in Ukraine. It is our duty to respond to the emerging situation.

However, in order to start the discussion, Estonia should withdraw its signature from the 2014 border agreement.

The premise of the new negotiations with the Russian Federation is that the border of the Tartu Peace Treaty is recognized and the border is changed. It cannot be a new border with a new neighboring country.

The current situation is one where most countries of the world recognize that the Republic of Estonia was proclaimed on February 24, 106 years ago. However, our neighboring superpower has a different opinion. This situation is not satisfactory and is seriously damaging to Estonia's security.

The signed agreement and its impact on security have also been mystified in Estonia. If no one else, Estonia should have realized that our eastern neighbor has a relatively dynamic attitude towards agreements. This is shown by history, where Soviet Russia and its successors have managed to break all the major agreements they have signed themselves. The only agreement it has adhered to until the very end is the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, but only because the other side was able to break it after two years before it occurred to Stalin himself.

Consequently, it must be understood that the Estonian-Russian border agreement holds significance only in a situation where both sides agree not only on where the border is, but also have a common understanding of why the border is where it is. If there is no minimum common understanding of history, then it is not possible to imagine a common and secure future for both sides.

After withdrawing the signature of the agreement on the table, new negotiations must be started, which can also deal with topics such as the assets of the University of Tartu in Voronezh and the old sign of office of our president, but the most important thing is the Tartu Peace Treaty and its role in the communication between the countries.