Estonian diplomat Alar Streimann: 'EU accession of big countries is more difficult'

Ukraine has started negotiations to join the European Union. This process is complex and has many pitfalls. To become a member of the EU, Ukraine needs to reform most areas of public life. The experience of countries that have joined the EU before may be helpful in this regard.

In June, Estonia's ambassador to Ukraine, Annely Kolk, mentioned in a conversation with RBC-Ukraine that her country would send a consultant – former chief negotiator Alar Streimann – to Kyiv. By the end of July, he had arrived in Ukraine.

Alar Streimann speaks cautiously about what Estonia did during those years, noting that each country has its specifics, economic features, and national interests. "But we can give advice and perhaps explain the background of some issues, there are always things you can use in solving the problems," says the Estonian diplomat.

— From your experience, comparing Estonian and Ukrainian integration, what is similar, common, and what is different?

— Well, I think if we start with similarities, we have been going through exactly the same thing, the same process. It hasn't changed so much.

The accession negotiations, if you look at the technical process, are more or less the same because the foundation was laid already when we started our negotiation in 1998 as the Luxembourg Group (Hungary, Poland, Estonia, Czechia, Slovenia, and Cyprus - Ed).

On the other hand, the EU itself has changed quite a lot. So, I think that there's been a lot of new legislation, especially in the past 5-10 years, if you take all the climate issues, the climate crisis issues, and the Green Deal, that didn't exist when we had our negotiations process. So, there are quite many new things, but it doesn't come as a surprise.

I think we are all part of Europe in one way or another, so we are part of the global development. So, I think it doesn't come as a surprise for Ukraine either. So, Europe, the European Union has changed, but I think the concept, the main things remain the same.

April 16, 2003, the President of Estonia, Arnold Rüütel, and his Minister of Foreign Affairs, Kristiina Ojuland, signed the Treaty of Accession of Estonia to the European Union in Athens (Photo: European Community)

The difference is, perhaps, that we had much less time to prepare ourselves.

If you think about the mid-90s, we had only a few years ago become rid of the former Soviet Union.

And Estonia was very poor, we didn't have many resources, we were a very small country, with very few people, and of course, we had language problems - English capabilities, and we knew practically nothing about how the EU operates.

So, we had only a couple of months to learn it and to put the system up for the negotiations and have it running. And we did it, perhaps in half a year. It was a total wonder, I would say, in retrospect.

The difference with Ukraine is that Ukraine has been step-by-step preparing for a long, long time. People here already know what the European Union is, and how the legislation works. On the other hand, of course, Ukraine is a big country, it is in a war.

Well, accession of big countries is always more difficult for the member states, because, probably a lot of finances have to be redirected, the EU has to reform itself in certain sectors, and there will be a lot of debates about voting rights. These are all technicalities, they are manageable, but they will take time. You have to remain patient, and calm and do all your homework.

— In your point of view, what is the main challenge for Ukraine in EU integration, except the war?

— Well, if I compare with us, then we had problems in almost every sector. Because, I mean, having been a former Soviet country, you had to totally change everything.

I think that it will be easier for Ukraine in some sectors, but then on the other hand, in some other sectors, as a rule of law, Ukraine definitely has room for improvement. We should be frank about that. Estonia, before its accession, didn't have such corruption and rule of law problems as Ukraine has today. And it was in the beginning of the 1990s.

So, it's a food for thought. But, obviously, all the problems you can deal with. And I see this willingness in Ukraine is very, very big, so it can be dealt with, this problem.

I'm very cautious, and always was when speaking to other countries, saying that you should do the same things as Estonia did, or other countries because countries are different. Everybody has to find their own way of doing things. But whenever we can give advice and perhaps explain the background of some issues, there are always some ways and things you can use in solving the problems.

I had nobody to ask for advice when we started the negotiation. I think Ukraine is in a totally different position. There are a lot of people who want to advise you on various issues. I think you are in a problem of making a good selection because you have to keep your own positions as well.

You cannot always do what the others tell you. But there is a lot of wisdom, I think, a huge amount of goodwill among the European countries, especially in the Baltic and Scandinavian area, just to support this effort of Ukraine.

— Talking about differences in Estonia, there was a united political elite regarding your integration. How did influence the path of Estonia to the EU?

— Well, let's put it this way. The accession will happen when member states are convinced that Ukraine can act like any other member state. Take, for example, the environmental requirements. There are hundreds of requirements in the EU as you know. Take for example the drinking water directive. Unless you don't have renovated and clean pipelines in all the municipalities and villages, you cannot implement the EU water directive.

It's a huge amount of work. It's a huge amount of money you need for that. Because we had this problem. I hope Ukraine does it better, but I'm afraid it's a big challenge. So, unless you can't do it, it's immediately and automatically an issue for negotiation. And there are many, many other things.

So, this implementation side is always connected to political decision-making. Do you have the money for that? Because that money has to be taken away from perhaps some other sectors, which is, especially during the war, extremely difficult. But it's always a political choice, and it is difficult. So, you have to coordinate it at home very well. We had also our setbacks, especially in agriculture. It's always very sensitive.

Some of the farmers want one thing, food industry wants something else. Then you have to distinguish. Small farmers have their own interests. The big farmers want to grow bigger.

So, there are a lot of conflicting interests in this accession phase. But you have to somehow find your own way how to compromise this. In our case, I think, in retrospect, it went quite smoothly. The government was driving and coordinating the process very well.

Much of this was left up to the line ministries. They were told: “That's your responsibility. Please find a solution. If you need some money, come back to us”. Because the EU is financing quite a lot of the pre-accession preparations. It's just necessary to bring the money into a proper place. So, I would say, perhaps, it's nice to speak about the negotiation.

But all in all, it's a process management. You have to focus and drive it to the target. And then you will be supported by the member states and the Commission. The Commission is always very supportive. The Commission is not an enemy of the candidate countries. Because, well, that's in the pay. They're paid for that. They're working for that.

Perhaps, in retrospect, it looks easier for me than it was at these days. Because I was sometimes very desperate. I must be very frank. But in the end, it worked.

— What is your experience when you had to deal with countries that ideologically support your EU integration, but when it comes to specific things, like farming, or agrarian export, they are against it? How did you resolve this kind of dispute?

— We tried to send as many experts abroad to these individual countries as possible. We did very many study visits. Because, as I told you in the beginning, our people knew nothing in many areas. What is the EU? How does it operate? How have the member states solved some practical issues before? In mining issues, for example, environmental issues.

So I had special money for that. And I sent quite a lot of delegations and experts from different authorities abroad. To learn and to speak to the local people. So we tried to establish from the very beginning kind of a friendly atmosphere, being very frank about our problems. And then trying to speak to the partners and listen to their advice and opinions.

And sometimes, of course, it became an issue for the negotiations. But we could often avoid bringing it up to the negotiating table. It could be solved in a preparation phase. And traveling around Europe with experts was really useful.

Of course, we had to target specifically where we could get the best know-how and best experience. So, for example, when it came to oil shale mining, which is very special in Estonia because it's important for our energy, we went to see how Germany had been doing and reforming its lignite mining sector. So there were many other examples like that.

— The last question – about human rights. In Estonia, there are non-resident Russian speakers. In Ukraine, we also have a Hungarian minority in Transcarpathia, the interests of which are speculated by Hungary.

— The minority issues never came up in the negotiations. They were not an issue. Yes, perhaps today, because the Charter of Human Rights (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Ed.) has been made a part of the establishing treaties, which was not the case when Estonia acceded.

But on the other hand, we were a member of the Council of Europe and the OSCE. We had a lot of assessments done on minority and language rights. So we felt quite confident. I mean, the fact is that the EU never raised these issues. And we always had some kind of small disputes with Russia because of that. Well, that was more or less a kind of political quarreling. But it was not an issue.