Mark Evans (Office of Nordic and Baltic
Affairs, US Department of State)
The US-North European Partnership: Advancing Democracy beyond the Baltics
I want to begin by thanking you for this opportunity to join you on the occasion of announcing a new lecturer position in the Latvian language, and recognize the presence of Latvian Minister Latkovskis. I am honored to join you here on this occasion and in this company.
On May 8, President Bush made a historic visit to Riga, Latvia before continuing to Moscow at the invitation of President Putin for celebrations recognizing the end of World War II in Europe. During his visit, President Bush recognized that the end of World War II did not mean the end of dark days for much of Europe. While recognizing that fact, however, he urged all nations of Europe, including the Baltics, to put that painful past behind them and look to the future.
So, that is what I would like to do today; look to the future of Europe and specifically, the role the Nordic and Baltic countries, in partnership with the United States, have to play now and in coming years in transforming Europe by bringing greater democracy and freedom to its neighbors. But before delving into that in detail, I would still like to peek into the past somewhat in order to understand, at least to some degree, how we have come to where we are.
With all the troubles and concerns in our world, sometimes we need to stop and consider the success stories. The Baltic states are one of those bright successes. From the dark days of Soviet oppression, to newfound hope leading to regained freedom in 1991, and then to the Baltic states’ joining NATO and the EU last year, it is a story of dramatic and impressive transformation. And it continues today.
Just fifteen years ago the notion of a free Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia acting as full partners in Europe and in NATO would have seemed beyond belief by many. But not all. The United States remained committed to the Baltics through the dark days and after. In the 1940s, we could have accepted Soviet incorporation of the Baltics. We did not. In 1991, when the Baltic states regained their independence, we could have turned our attention elsewhere. We did not. And when, having come through the dark days, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia achieved their goal of full re-integration into the "western community of nations" last year, they could have decided to rest on their laurels. They did not.
In my time in the Office of Nordic and Baltic Affairs, what I have come to discover and to particularly admire about the people of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia is that they are imbued with a seemingly boundless energy and commitment to ideals. They are guided by the conviction that they have both the ability and the responsibility to help spread peace, democracy, and freedom throughout the world. Our new Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has talked about the need for "transformational diplomacy," stating that our goal is to transform the world, not merely deal with it as it is. The people of the U.S. and the Baltics share this conviction.
To step back a minute and look at how we got to where we are, I’d like to talk about the Northern Europe Initiative (or NEI) which the Department of State launched in September 1997 to help the Baltic States complete their transitions. The Northern Europe Initiative was first described by then-Assistant Secretary of State Marc Grossman at a meeting with Foreign Ministers of the Nordic and Baltic nations assembled in Bergen, Norway. He laid out three priorities for the U.S. First, we pledged to help Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia become the best possible candidates for membership in NATO and the European Union. Second, we undertook to promote cooperation and integration between Northwest Russia and its Baltic Sea neighbors. Finally, we pledged to work with the Nordic States, Germany, Russia, Poland and the EU to reach these goals.
We implemented NEI in various ways. The U.S. became an observer at the Council of Baltic Sea States and the Barents Euro-Arctic Council. We signed the Baltic Charter, a pledge of support to Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia that remains valid to this day. We also implemented assistance programs totaling over 30 million dollars designed to benefit the Baltic States, and the whole region.
That $30 million in Support for Eastern Europe Democracy funds – also known as SEED funding – was used in various ways, such as helping the Baltic States integrate their Russian-speaking minorities, address the legacy of the Holocaust, create modern banking and taxation systems, combat corruption, and come to grips with global challenges such as HIV/AIDs and trafficking in persons.
Some of these programs were small in cost, but large in impact.
For example, an Estonian NGO used $11,000 to conduct a unique project called "Theater in Education: Promoting Behaviors that Reduce the Spread of HIV/AIDs." They produced an interactive theater performance that reached an impressive audience and garnered critical acclaim.
In Latvia, we have supported the work of the Tuberculosis Control Center of Excellence, whose efforts has led to a quantifiable drop in the TB infection rate. The Center of Excellence is now exporting its expertise, providing training to health professionals from other states in the region.
In Lithuania, we arranged for members of the National Financial Crime Investigative Unit to visit the U.S. to see how we combat money laundering. The result was the passage by the Parliament of two amendments to the legal code that defined illegal financial transactions and added new measures to target terrorist financing.
There have been activities that made a big splash. The Helsinki Women Business Leaders Summit of 2002 was the brainchild of Ambassador McElveen-Hunter (our former ambassador to Finland).
We brought together 50 American women CEO’s with an equal number of businesswomen from the Baltic States, Finland and Northwest Russia. They met with officials from the Department of State, Department of Commerce, the Small Business Administration, and the White House. Presidents Halonen of Finland and Vaira Vike-Freiberga of Latvia, among many others, spoke to the women. Most importantly, they spoke with one another, swapping business ideas and business cards. They shared best practices on accessing capital, secrets for success, surviving failure, and being a good corporate citizen.
These efforts and many others like them made a real contribution to the aspirations of the Baltic States in realizing their twin goals of NATO and EU membership. The U.S. is pleased to have contributed to these successes through NEI and other means, but we realize we are only one of many people, organizations, and countries that supported the Baltics. And of course the bulk of the credit for the Baltics’ progress goes to the people of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia who had the vision and did the hard work that was required.
When Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were set to join NATO and the EU, it presented the U.S. with a pleasant dilemma—NEI and the host of assistance programs that accompanied it were no longer needed. We knew we needed a new policy approach to the Nordic and Baltic region.
As we considered what the U.S. should do we sensed some uneasiness on the part of our Nordic and Baltic friends who worried we might seek a diminished role in the region. This would not be the case. Our overriding conclusion was that the United States and the States of the Baltic Sea Region shared common interests we could advance together. We knew that this region is deeply important to the U.S. and a valuable motor for the transatlantic partnership. Why? Because:
-- First of all, it’s a genuine region, with deep geographical,
historical and cultural linkages, and
-- Second, because it’s a region with which the U.S. enjoys a
particularly strong community of values and interests.
We wanted to remain part of the multilateral network of cooperation that was developed in the Nordic/Baltic region over the past decade. We wanted to deepen our dialogue on ways to address remaining challenges within the region. And, we wanted to work with our friends in the Nordic and Baltic region to extend success to the states beyond the new borders of NATO and the EU.
This led to the development of our Enhanced Partnership in Northern Europe, including all the Nordic and Baltic countries, and commonly referred to as "e-PINE." Notably, the three Baltic nations came to us during e-PINE’s creation and repeatedly emphasized one point – unlike the Northern Europe Initiative; they did not want e-PINE to be about them.
Having come to the Office of Nordic and Baltic Affairs after e-PINE’s creation, I must say that I think the selection of the name was an inspired choice. In Copenhagen in October 2004, former Danish Foreign Minister Uffe Ellemann-Jensen, now chairman of the Baltic Development Fund, noted that the pine tree was the perfect motif because it’s a tree common to the U.S. and the Nordic-Baltic Region, because it is evergreen like the Nordic-Baltic-U.S. relationship, and finally because it spreads its seeds to neighboring areas.
The goal of e-PINE, simply put, is to work together to advance shared objectives in three broad areas:
-- Political security
-- Healthy societies and healthy neighbors, and
-- Vibrant economies
e-PINE does not have a budget. The three Baltic countries have graduated from assistance funding. We heard and respected Baltic concerns that e-PINE should not "be about them." (As one Baltic Ambassador said to us, the Baltic nations have transitioned from being the "object" to becoming a "subject.")
As a result, e-PINE is first and foremost a forum for policy coordination. The principal mechanism for this coordination is semi-annual 8+1 Political Directors Meetings -- that is, meetings of the political directors from the foreign ministries of the eight Nordic and Baltic countries and the U.S.
Since e-PINE was founded in the fall of 2003, we’ve held four 8+1 meetings: One in N.Y., one in Vilnius, one in Washington, and one in Copenhagen. At the first meeting in N.Y., in September 2003, we agreed that a particular concern for e-PINE would be the advancement of democracy and market reform to the east of Nordic/Baltic region, in Belarus and Ukraine and further on into the Caucuses.
The Baltic States, in particular, for reasons of geography and history, and the lessons of their own transitions, can and are eager to share their experiences with their neighbors.
Our e-PINE coordination has included:
-- Support for a robust election monitoring presence in Ukraine during
the recent elections;
-- Coordinated approaches on the issue of resolving the so-called
"frozen conflict" in Transnistria;
-- And both Latvia and Lithuania have held some useful conferences
on promoting democracy beyond the Baltics, with a special
emphasis on Belarus.
We are also pursuing talks on ways we can better harmonize our assistance efforts in this region. And we’ve made creative use of some remaining Support for Eastern European Democracy funds and Freedom Support Act Funds (FSA) to undertake some joint projects.
For example, together with the Latvian and Lithuanian governments, we’ve funded projects being implemented by Baltic NGOs to promote civil society and independent media in Belarus. We’ve also supported an Estonian initiative to support the use of information technology in the Georgian government.
Finally, under the "vibrant economies" pillar of e-PINE, we recently sponsored a follow-up to the Helsinki Women Business Leaders Summit with the Riga Women Business Leaders Summit—a similar conference held in Riga, Latvia and Washington, D.C. This conference again matched 50 American women CEOs with 50 European counterparts—coming this time from the U.S., Finland, the three Baltic countries, Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus. The goal of this enterprise, like the first Women Business Summit in Helsinki and Washington, is to promote transatlantic business linkages and support the active participation of women in business and civic affairs.
Some would pose the question "so what" at this point. Can all of these programs really have any effect in advancing democracy in the region? I would assert that the answer is an unequivocal yes, and that in fact these types of efforts are the very essence of what transformational diplomacy is all about. The results are apparent already in the Rose Revolution in Georgia and the Orange Revolution in Ukraine. When the moment came for people at large and people in key institutions in Georgia and Ukraine to decide whether to support democracy or not, they threw their support behind democracy. In Ukraine, the very judges who bravely asserted that the original elections last Fall were not free and fair had attended judicial seminars sponsored by the United States and other European nations.
Revolutions like the Orange Revolution and the Rose Revolution are only first steps. The road to full democracy is often a bumpy one. When democracy first blooms, the support for civil society and democratic institutions must continue until all countries in Europe, and elsewhere, follow the example of the Baltics in achieving full democracy and economic freedom.
We need only look to our own history to see that democracy and freedom are values that each country must choose for itself, but all of us at times can use some help. The United States fought for its independence with help from France and other friends in Europe. We benefited not just from military and economic support, but from the force of ideas about liberty that people on both sides of the Atlantic had been working on and sharing for many years. And the best way, the only way, to repay that debt is to do all we can to help others achieve their own independence. The United States understands that this is not something that we can achieve through our efforts alone, but only in partnership with other nations in Europe that share our values.
Along those lines, I can’t finish without mentioning the Nordic and Baltic contributions to promoting democracy and reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Every nation in Northern Europe has made significant contributions in these countries, whether through putting troops on the ground or pledging significant funds and resources to their reconstruction. Once again, it just demonstrates that the countries in the Nordic/Baltic region understand that today’s global challenges demand multilateral, collaborative responses.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice underscored this message in a recent speech she gave in Paris. Secretary Rice said: "our transatlantic partnership will not just endure, it will flourish. Our ties are unbreakable. We deeply care about each other. We respect each other. We are strong, yes; but we are strongest when we put our values to work for those whose aspirations for freedom have yet to be met."
President Bush underscored this same vision when he recently said: "To help young democracies succeed and build these institutions of liberty, we must enlist the help of many individuals and institutions: Non-governmental organizations, the United States government, and the world’s free nations all have important roles to play."
So, in the view of U.S. policymakers, this is the mission we have before us. The U.S.-Nordic-Baltic partnership has a key role to play in this endeavor, and we could not be any prouder of our friendship and alliance with the countries of Northern Europe.
Thank you.