"Russische weigering om verdrag met Estland te ondertekenen is gemiste kans" (en)

EUOBSERVER / COMMENT (by Georgy Kunadze) - On 18 May, after several years of negotiations, Russia and Estonia signed new treaties on their land and sea borders.

On 20 June, the Estonian parliament ratified the treaties. But a week later the Russian ministry of foreign affairs (MFA) basically annulled the agreements in an unexpected end to the story.

Russian newspapers insist that the entire fault lies with the Estonians, who added unacceptable statements to the documents post factum.

But that is not true - the Estonians did not rewrite the treaties.

They merely adopted the ratification law in wording, which, according to [Russian] diplomats, distorts the meaning of both documents almost unrecognizably.

But is this actually the case?

The Estonians consider their state to be the successor of the Estonian Republic proclaimed in 1918 and regard the Tartu peace treaty, signed in 1920, as valid.

At that time Estonia gained territories which at present belong to Russia.

The Russian MFA insists that the reference to the Tartu treaty in the ratification law of the border agreements allows Estonia to claim territory from Russia.

That is not true.

Article one of the border agreement text of 18 May reads "the sides _ confirm that with coming into force of _ the Agreement they regard the above mentioned issues [the new border] as regulated".

The ratification law reads, "[this] Treaty _ partially amends the state border line established by _ [the] Tartu Peace Treaty".

This confirms the primacy of the present border treaties over the Tartu agreement and means that Estonia cannot claim anything from Russia on the basis of the old peace treaty.

Estonia incorporated into Soviet Union

Russia was also unhappy about Estonia's reference to a declaration by the Estonian parliament dating back to 7 October 1992 and entitled "On the Restoration of Constitutional Power".

The declaration states that in 1940 Estonia fell victim to the "aggression perpetrated by the Soviet Union" and was "illegally" incorporated into the Soviet empire.

That is the truth, albeit bitter and insulting [to Russia], but indisputable.

The Soviet Union annexed the three Baltic states in collusion with Nazi Germany.

Yes, Estonians could have shown more tact and not mentioned the declaration, which calls unpleasant historical facts by their true names, but they chose not to.

Let it be a minor moral compensation for the humiliation that their fathers and grandfathers had to endure in 1940 - the new border agreements would not have been any the less valid because of this.

The agreements' coming into force was in the interest of Russia - it would allow Moscow to close the chapter on Estonian territorial claims, juxtapose "tolerant" Estonia to "uncompromising" Latvia, and, with God's help, gain the trust of the Estonian people.

The ratification law adopted by Estonians did not create any obstacles to this, although it touched the not-so-secret-any-longer power ambitions and revenge fantasies in the hearts of some of our compatriots.

Russia could have ratified the border agreements with Estonia in a business-like manner or it could have let some Zhirinovsky-type figure write its own ratification law, giving Estonians their own lesson in good manners.

But Russia decided to cancel the treaties instead.

Excuse me, but this is not politics or even political intrigue. It is the whim of an upset child. As Talleyrand put it - a mistake is worse than a crime.

Estonia could claim back Russian territories

What are the possible consequences?

The border stays where it is and the absence of the treaties will most probably not create any obstacle to Estonian membership in EU and NATO.

In the future, Estonia could, with the support of these organisations, try to claim back Russian territories which were under Estonian rule on the basis of the Tartu treaty.

For the time being, we cannot exclude the deterioration of bilateral relations.

Unlike Latvia, Estonia behaved in a fairly proper manner during recent years - it granted Russian-speaking "non-citizens" the right to vote in municipal elections and has been avoiding sharp statements.

From now on, it probably won't avoid them any longer. But that is not the point

Yes, Russia bears no responsibility for the mistakes and crimes of a Stalinist policy. But only if we all have enough courage to silently accept them, whereas in fact the memory of the not-so-good pages of our past makes us so angry and leads to such absurd mistakes that things are really rather bad.

We must therefore be prepared for some people to look at Russia today and just smirk, others to avert their eyes, and others still to reflect upon the potential restoration of an "Empire of Evil" and invent new ways to try and deter this.

The author, Georgy Kunadze, is a former high-ranking Russian diplomat and ambassador. He has worked as a deputy foreign minister, deputy to the human rights commissioner of the Russian Federation and Russian ambassador to Korea