President of the Republic at the Human Rights Conference: we must refrain from a pretextual approach to security

Ladies and gentlemen,

I would like to say a few words on the subject of "No security without human rights". But allow me to get there with a few twists and turns.

A week ago, the Estonian Book Year began. So - happy book year to us all! Moreover, the programme for this year's conference also takes a book as its leitmotif, and brings George Orwell's novel '1984' into the contemporary age with a slightly sombre sentiment. It's a thought experiment of a situation, where war is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is power.

This year marks the half-century anniversary of the Helsinki Accords. 

Let us recall that 1975 was the year of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, at which the Western and Eastern countries and the Third World agreed on the principles of security and international interaction. 

As we know, these agreements also included a commitment to respect human rights. In fact, after much debate, the prevailing position remained that there can be no international security without respect for human rights. 

Let us also consider the threat that Estonians saw at the time: the fear that the great powers would conclude a treaty recognising the Soviet Union's right to the occupied territories, including Estonia. 

It was in the interests of the Soviet Union to argue that if its de facto borders were not recognised, there would be no security. We hear something similar from Russia today. It is a pretextual notion of security in order to perpetuate its power in the occupied territories. I am certain, however, that justice and security cannot be separated, at least not in the long term. 

But there is another reason why it is worth recalling the 1975 agreements. 

As we know, the foundational human rights' documents had already been born: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights dates from 1948, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was adopted in 1966, and so on. The Soviet Union had also signed these documents. However, this was not reflected in practice, the signature remained just a signature. 

Coming back to the theme of this year's Annual Conference on Human Rights, one might ask what is more dystopian - a state honestly stating that human rights do not apply to it, or creating the impression that they do, but in reality, these rights cannot be invoked? The latter is perhaps even worse, because human rights abuses are more hidden. 

After 1975, pressure groups emerged demanding that the Soviet Union honour its own commitments. There were brave people in Estonia, too, who protested against the violation of the Helsinki Accords, and as a result were subjected to repression and imprisonment. The fight for human rights was part of our fight for freedom.

It would be naive to think that now that we are independent, we no longer need to fight this fight. Estonia is a democracy that takes its responsibilities seriously. But good will is not always enough. We need people like you to watch and warn. 

The problem of human rights and security has not disappeared. It is often understood as human rights on one side of the scale, security on the other. And when the international situation becomes more tense, we have to make concessions in the name of security - rights and freedoms have to be restricted more. 

However, I would venture to say that the old truth still holds true today: there is no security without respect for human rights. If we force human rights to give way, then security will in fact give way.

Similarly, we must refrain from a pretextual approach to security. It is also dangerous to start creating restrictions simply to feel more secure. 

Or even just thinking that maybe now we can feel more secure. With every restriction, we must ask what it actually achieves, and what verifies that anything is achieved at all. 

Nowadays, defending human rights means, perhaps even foremost, careful reflection and avoiding mistakes. 

It also means public scrutiny of power. You cannot have a wise people without freedom, and without a wise people you cannot have good government. The more global tensions, the less foolishness we can afford. 

But now – I wish you wise discussions.

Thank you.