Speech of the Prime Minister M. Topolánek: Estonia and the Czech Republic – natural partners in 21st-century Europe 6. 5. 2008

The title of my lecture may sound rather clichéd. In fact, it encapsulates the situation exactly. The Czech Republic and Estonia have so many common interests and points of contact that a whole series of lectures could be built on them. I will limit myself to a brief rundown, but even so I am afraid my address will hardly be one of the shortest.

Let’s start with a little history. Jindřich Matyáš Thurn, the commander of the army of the Bohemian Estates during the uprising against the Habsburgs in 1618-1620, lived out his days in Estonia. He died in 1641 and is buried in Tallinn. From the 19th century, Estonian nationalists were inspired by the Czech National Awakening and, subsequently, by the First Republic. During the Communist era, Czech culture was extremely popular in Estonia; the Good Soldier Schweik seems to be even more popular here than in his home country. Today, conversely, we find inspiration in Estonian liberal reforms and e-government. And there are many other reasons why we should take an interest in each other. We are compatible in so many respects that it would be a grave error not to exploit such a palpable advantage.

European Union

I will start with our cooperation within the EU. After all, my trip to Estonia is part of a tour des capitals as the prime minister of a country about to assume the EU Presidency. On the one hand, the Union has its own inertia, its own trajectory, and there is no way we can make so bold as to steer it in a completely different direction in the space of six months. But that is no reason for resignation. On the contrary, we must strive to find allies with the same views and interests who will help us kick-start changes for the good and promote a basic liberalization programme. Estonia is unquestionably one such ally. Like the Czech Republic, it has a vital interest in an open, flexible EU. Like the Czech Republic, Estonia opposes the rigid unification and bureaucratization of the Union. Like the Czech Republic, Estonia wants a globally competitive and free Europe. We view Estonia as a natural ally in Europe. We were invited to the EU at the same time, and we acceded to the EU together. We have had the same negative historical experience of communism and a central command dictatorship, and there is no way we would exchange Brussels for Moscow. We have the same interest in eradicating the discrimination of new Member States, pushing for the completion of the internal market’s liberalization, and seeking the full application of the Union’s four fundamental freedoms: free movement of persons, goods, capital and services. And both our countries are sceptical about the functioning of numerous EU common policies. Our positions within the European Union are so alike that we are experiencing exactly the same basic dilemmas, we have the same fundamental reasons to be both optimistic and sceptical. EU membership has brought us an economic boom thanks to our involvement in the large common market. Yet we find the unnecessary red tape, the sheer number of restrictive regulations and orders from a central point to be damaging. The decision by the Czech Republic and Estonia to join the EU was not motivated by idealism, but by the pragmatic consideration that the pluses outweigh the cons, something which still holds true today. Both our countries are economically dependent on our trade, financial and economic links with EU countries. In our case, our large neighbour Germany is particularly important. Overall, 85% of our external trade takes place within the Union. Estonia, for its part, has links to the Swedish and Finnish economies. That is why we are quick to appreciate the virtues of the common market; it is also why we readily criticize everything that distorts this market, that weakens our position in relation to the old Member States. In particular, I would mention the costly common agricultural policy, which is tipped in favour of Western farmers. The fact that the percentage of farmers in our countries is negligible does not alter in any way this injustice. Accordingly, Estonia and the Czech Republic protested against such persistent discrimination at the March EU Council. It is logical that the European debate in both countries is much the same too. There are fears that economic momentum will be lost because of bureaucratic obstructions and business restrictions. There is criticism of forcible unification efforts and the potential split of the Union into a ‘centre’ and ‘peripheries’ as a result. We and you are addressing the issue of how a small country can assert itself in the presence of more powerful members, especially following the expansion of voting by a qualified majority. And both Estonia and the Czech Republic give precedence to the further enlargement of the EU over deeper integration; we are both driving for nation states to play a greater role and we both reject federalization. Both our countries back the admission of Croatia and accession talks with Turkey. EU enlargement, encompassing the Western Balkans and, in time, Turkey, also entails an expansion in the zone of stability, security, peace and prosperity. The same can be said of the neighbourhood policy, where we also agree on the promotion of relations with Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova. Another point on which we concur is our position on the European Commission’s climate and energy package. The Czech and Estonian governments take the view that it is necessary to proceed sensitively, with consideration for local conditions, and not to place businesses at a disadvantage compared to their non-European competitors. In particular, this applies to emission allowances and the share of renewable sources in electricity production.

Czech Presidency of the EU

In the wake of what I have mentioned, I genuinely believe that the motto of our upcoming Presidency - ‘Europe without Barriers’ – will find considerable support in Estonia. Although we cannot transform the EU in half a year, we are keen at least to draw attention to the values on which the EU is built. Over half a century, these values have brought prosperity and security, and they remain instrumental in addressing the problems faced by the EU now and in the future. The fundamental European value is freedom first, with solidarity playing only a secondary role. We want to try to shift current European thinking towards greater liberalization. In this respect, I am optimistic, because this change in the current distribution of power is already under way. The basic ‘Europe without Barriers’ motto is enlarged upon by five slogans that cover the most important areas of further development:

- A Competitive and Open Europe
- Sustainable and Secure Energy
- A Budget for Europe’s Future
- Europe as a Global Partner
- A Secure and Free Europe

As is the custom, we will announce our specific priorities just before the start of our Presidency. They will be based in part on the results of this tour, where we are looking for allies and identifying which themes have the greatest chance of success. In any case, I find it inspiring that in 2009 we will mark the twentieth anniversary of the fall of the Iron Curtain and the fifth anniversary of the biggest ever enlargement of the Union. These anniversaries are another argument in favour of our pursuit of the dismantling of remaining European barriers, especially in relation to the free market. I regard the removal of barriers inside and outside the EU as a key mission not just for the Czech Republic, but also for all other new Member States. In this respect, we are more sensitive than those who have never experienced communism first hand. We spent too long in a command economy, and that is why we appreciate the free market so much. We value our admission to the EU, we are mindful of the way it has benefited us and the original members, and therefore we refuse to hamper further enlargement. Efforts to halt enlargement are motivated by irrational fears of the loss of social achievements. During the Czech Presidency, we are very keen to draw attention to the persistent restrictions on the free movement of workers and services. I applaud the fact that Estonian MPs, along with their Czech counterparts, supported a resolution criticizing the insufficiency of the liberalization directive. Not only is continuing discrimination unfair to the citizens of the new Member States, but ultimately it also limits the prosperity of us all.
Other themes include the problematic functioning of the internal market in energy, the excessive financing of traditional policies (especially the common agricultural policy, as I have mentioned) and unnecessary regulation. We need to bring an end to the practice where a patently bad decision to regulate something or other is immediately followed by even more stringent regulation with the argument that bureaucrats need ‘better’ instruments. We do not want better regulation, we want less regulation. We also want national feedback, because the repercussions of Brussels’ directives affect our businesses and entrepreneurs, whose interests we are compelled to defend. During the Czech Presidency, the measurement of the administrative burdens placed on businesses by EU legislation will be evaluated. The aim is to start reducing those burdens. On 14 May, in liaison with the United Kingdom we will be holding a meeting in Prague for ministers responsible for regulatory reform from those EU Member States that have made progress in improving and streamlining the regulatory environment (besides the United Kingdom and the Czech Republic, this group includes Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, Slovenia and Estonia). This meeting should culminate in the signing of a joint ‘Prague Declaration’ targeting the restriction of regulation and the elimination of administrative duties for enterprises. I hope that Estonia, which has not yet confirmed its participation, will attend. As for the external dimension of the EU, we consider the main barriers to be the restricted level of trade with third countries, the Union’s inadequate energy policy, the slower pace of EU enlargement, and the obstacles existing to transatlantic economic cooperation. We need to press ahead with the creation of a common EU migration and asylum policy following the dismantling of barriers hindering the mobility of people between the Union’s Member States, and in general we need to achieve greater external openness.

Security

Our very similar historical experience has resulted in identical positions on security cooperation too. The touchstone of this cooperation is the transatlantic link. We, and most likely you too, never again want to be part of that ‘strange expanse between Germany and Russia’, as the Duke of Wellington once said. The Czech Republic always supported the admission of the Baltic countries, including Estonia, to NATO; we also provided periodic security consultations. It is good that this has come to pass and that fears of a reaction from Moscow have not been confirmed. In any case, the expansion of the Alliance poses no threat to Russia; on the contrary, it shifts the zone of security and stability closer to its borders. The Alliance is a community for defence, not attack, and has calmed the situation in the vicinity of Russia to an extent never seen before. And I am sure we agree that NATO membership provides both the Czech Republic and Estonia with security guarantees at the highest level, including – at the very least – a level playing field with Russia. The Czech government takes the view that NATO’s most valuable asset is the joint will to defend. Accordingly we applauded the fact that the Alliance took over the missile defence concept as its own, and that elements of the US system to be located in the Czech Republic and Poland will become part of the NATO structures. We must assume responsibility for the defence of our allies. We do not regard the radar as either American or Czech, but as ‘our’ Alliance facility because it reinforces the joint defence of everyone. For us, missile defence is another contribution to joint security, standing alongside the Joint CBRN Defence Centre of Excellence in Vyškov. By the same token, Estonia wants to increase the efficiency of collective defence by setting up a cybernetic defence centre. The building of these Alliance centres of excellence suggests that we have successfully met the challenge of transforming and professionalizing our armed forces, and that we are no longer merely passive beneficiaries of security guarantees, but stand ready to make an active contribution to the defence of the community. Air policing of the Baltic countries and Slovenia provides a practical demonstration of joint and indivisible defence within NATO. The Czech Republic is preparing intensively for the accomplishment of this task, which will take place in the context of a NATO mission in 2009 between May and August. Our cooperation in the field of military training has also been vindicated. For example, members of the Army of the Czech Republic regularly study at the Baltic Defence College. We are also allies on international missions. I welcome the fact that Estonia is an active member of the ISAF mission in Afghanistan. And that the Estonian parliament decided to extend the mission despite your casualties here. Although we have also suffered casualties, last week we decided to deploy another unit to Afghanistan, bringing the number of troops to almost 500. Energy security is another security and geopolitical issue. We fully share your concerns of Russia’s increasing efforts to use energy policy as a tool in its superpower aspirations. We support Estonia’s integration into the European transmission system. Like you, we have noted the threat posed by the planned construction of a gas pipeline from Russia to Germany along the bottom of the Baltic Sea, i.e. the North Stream project, which circumvents both Estonian and Czech territory. With the construction of South Stream and North Stream, there is a risk that Central and Eastern Europe will be by-passed, thus increasing our already high dependence on Russian raw-material policy. We believe the only solution is for all EU Member States to adopt a united front and stop acting solo. These principles should be incorporated into the Energy Charter, which is to be part of a broader agreement between the European Union and Russia.

E-Government

An area where Estonia is a role model for us is its progress in e-Government. We, too, are introducing the opportunity for citizens to comment on bills electronically and communicate with authorities from a single point without the use of paper. Nevertheless, I recognize that Estonia is well ahead of us. The practical development of e-Government did not start in the Czech Republic until my government came to power. One of the priorities of the Czech Presidency will be to make headway in the promotion of e-Justice; I am sure this will be well received in Estonia. Besides e-Justice on a national scale, we would like to make progress, for example, in interlinking insolvency and crime registers. We are also interested in advancing with the e-Health project, the pan-European Internet medical records.

Economy

I have left the economy until the end. I am compelled to say that I admire the courage with which Estonians have made their economic reforms, the high degree of liberalization, budgets which are consistently balanced and, if anything, return a surplus, and the sensible management of public funds. I am thus a little riled by the mocking voices claiming that radical reforms are only good for poor countries. Compared to the Egyptian empire, Rome was a weak republic, but eventually triumphed thanks to the economic power it gained through its more liberal approach to trade. Europe was a poor, insignificant power compared to China before it started exploiting its virtues – freedom and individual initiative – a thousand years ago. The United States was transformed from a land of immigrants and trappers into a leading power thanks to the strength of its economic freedom. Estonians are exploring the same avenue. And I would consider it an honour to progress along that avenue with you. As I have said, we are natural allies in Europe. Europe today is a rich and developed continent, but sometimes forgets where all this well-being came from. In the 21st century, we need to return to our roots. The core European value and our greatest asset, which has always brought success and prosperity, is not solidarity, but freedom. The huge post-war boom of European communities can be attributed to improved competition, not regulation. It is the free market, not protectionism, that guarantees our economic and social certainties. Small open economies, such as the Czech and Estonian economies, are more dependent on the free market and liberal trade than large economies. But that does not imply that the EU’s large countries can overlook our interests. When the small fry in the stream start dying, the big fish will soon follow suit, because poisoned water is bad for everyone. So we are faced with a major common task: to promote our interests in the Union with as much force as possible, rigorously, and together. Our increased sensitivity enables us to see the future risks earlier and more sharply than others. We know we are right. As the Czech religious reformer Jan Hus said ‘Truth is only that which is good for all’. And our truth is freedom.