Formas de manejo en la comunidad La Ceiba, su relación con los aspectos sociales,

The discourse of Humble Estonia is based on the realist perception of the world that small countries have limited possibilities in the world anarchy. On the basis of Wendt's classification (see Section 3.1), the Other is an enemy who tries to destroy us. In the current study, a realist perception is combined with

the superiority of the EU over Estonia (on the basis of Europeanisation).

Therefore, instead of destruction, this discourse deals with issues like a threat to Estonia’s independence, sovereignty and/or security (for example Jakniunaite 2009, 119 and Feldman 2001, 15).

Also in the academic texts the same logic is communicated and various scholars point out the threats a small country is seen to face in the international arena: threat to disappear (Berg and Oras 2002, 27), to remain invisible and have no influence in the international arena due to its size (Berg and Oras 2002, 27; Kirch and Kirch 2001, 140). For example, it has been claimed that Estonia is not an equal partner to Russia, Germany or the Scandinavian countries (Made 2003, 190-191). Therefore, quite logically, maximizing its security can be seen as the country’s main goal.

Estonia’s location between East and West (Berg and Oras 2002, 47) is not seen in this discourse as an option as in the discourse of Independent Estonia.

Rather it is connected to the unstable position on the border between two civilizations (Kuus 2002a, 97) or a periphery in both a geographical and a historical sense (Vetik 2003, 267 and Pettai 2005, 58-60). The latter refers to the importance of recognition, since in relation to periphery the acceptance and opinion of the center is seen to be important (Kivikuru 1996b, 13; see also Vetik 2003, 267).

In Humble Estonia, the center is represented by West or Western Europe (more concretely known by the civic society/military duo, EU/NATO).

Scholars write that Estonia is not really recognized as Western by the West (see also Section 3.1). For example Berg and Oras (2002, 48) point to the suspicious attitude of the West towards Estonia, since Estonia is located on the border and is not a pure West. Furthermore, Estonia is seen to lag behind Western Europe due to its history. As Vahur Made (2003, 190-191) writes, being fifty years behind the Iron Curtain, under the Soviet regime, has influenced both economic and social development. As Lauristin and Vihalemm conclude:

After the jubilation of the initial years, the West did not sincerely recognize Eastern Europe, including Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, as a part of the common past. The border between East and West was culturally constructed deep in European history, and breaking through this border seemed even more difficult than breaking with the Soviet Union.

Lauristin and Vihalemm 2002, 57-58

Even though the focus of my empirical data is on constructing national identity in relation to the EU, the dangerous Other of Estonia referred to in the academic texts, is Russia. Estonia’s location is mapped from the perspective of Russia’s neighborhood (for example Berg and Oras 2002, 46 and Veemaa 2002, 173-174). Estonia is seen as a ‘grey’ area which is vulnerable to an economic or political crisis in Russia, if the country stayed outside the EU and

NATO (Kirch and Kirch 2001, 135, 140; see also Berg and Oras 2002, 49;

Lauristin and Vihalemm 1997a, 118 and Kuus 2002b, 394). Apart from Russia the threat is sometimes depicted in relation to the ‘Russian agents’ inside Estonia, who, like Merje Kuus writes are due to their background seen as part of the civilizational conflict, since Russian speakers are treated as bearers of Western culture. Therefore the recommendations to integrate non-Estonians can also be seen as a pressure to compromise Estonia's Western identity (Kuus, 2002a, 98-99, 102).

At the same time, however, the EU is scrutinized critically, both in the academic texts as well as in Postimees. According to Kuus, the EU is sometimes seen to undermine the undivided authority of the Estonia’s nation-state over its territory and especially in the matters of citizenship and minority rights can be construed as a source of threat (Kuus 2002b, 394). Also in the articles of Postimees, the EU as well as the world in general is perceived on the basis of the hostile logic of the world. Even though the EU can still be seen as unavoidable from Estonia’s perspective, the calculation is not based on the high expectations but on the vision of the even worse future outside the EU.

Similar to the discourse of European Estonia, the EU is seen as superior to Estonia in this discourse. However, in European Estonia the EU is admired whereas here the EU is seen as either a specific authoritarian actor in relation to Estonia or just part of the wider authoritarian world. More concretely this means that instead of cooperation and mutual understanding, decisions are made by the EU, and Estonia has no choice but to accept. At the same time

‘authoritarian’ cannot be equated to ‘hostile’, since the EU’s attitude towards Estonia is often depicted as indifferent.

The major difference, between this discourse and the first two, is the reflective tone. While in the case of the first two discourses, becoming is stated as a goal, something that the country is supposed to reach by improving itself or changing its behavior, in this discourse, Estonia is seen as passive and not in a position to set these goals. Therefore, Becoming humble is neither a purpose nor a progressive goal to work towards, but part of the essential development, a threat that cannot necessarily be avoided by Estonia, since it is caused by the action of great forces. The only thing that Estonia is capable of changing is its attitude/perception of the world as a basis for drawing conclusions. The contradiction between being and becoming is thus not based on the current action and its improvement but on criticizing and changing Estonia’s former attitude towards the EU or towards general reality. Estonia can make comments either by understanding and accepting or by expressing dissatisfaction and criticism. Still, neither of these leads to changes in practice.

Structurally, the discourse of Humble Estonia contains sub-discourses that are based on the same relations as the first two discourses. In connection with being, the discourse contains two sub-discourses. Accept reality as own practice grounds on practice and focuses on internal relations. Realize EU authority focuses on the discourse/rhetoric and is based on the interaction

between Estonia and the EU as an agency. Since in connection with being no change is indicated, no separate recognition is given either.

Similarly to the other two discourses, in the level of becoming, both sub-discourses contain four parts based on the internal relations/interaction, rhetoric (discourse)/practice and identification/recognition axes. While Should accept reality as own practice focuses on internal relations, Should realize EU authority is based on interaction and EU agency. The axis of rhetoric contains of Should realize EU authority as identification but also failure to do that as recognition. Practice gives a basis to Should accept reality as own practice (identification) and failure to do that (recognition).

Conclusively, the division of sub-discourses is capsulized in Table 5.3 and the hierarchy of the discourse is clarified in Figure 5.3. In the following part, Being and Becoming humble (as representation) are dealt with whereas Being and Becoming realist (as relations and identities) are analyzed in Chapter 6.

Table 5.3. Sub-discourses of Being and Becoming humble.

Being humble Becoming humble (in/due to the

EU)

Accept reality as own practice Should accept reality as own practice Failure to accept reality as own practice

Realize EU authority Should realize EU authority

Failure to realize EU authority

Figure 5.3. Sub-discourses of Humble Estonia.

BEING HUMBLE

Being humble consists of two sub-discourses: Accept reality as own practice and Realize EU authority. In the former ‘reality’ as a main factor in Estonia’s development is understood and accepted whereas EU’s agency is not paid attention to. A Cultural Elite article writes about country’s EU membership:

“Taking into account the more general polito-economic processes of the world Estonia is in front of historical (and not only securital) inevitability.”⁹⁶ (PM, 15.07.1998).

In the latter sub-discourse the EU is dealt with as an authoritarian agency from Estonia’s perspective. The relationship between the parties is based on a lack of influence on Estonia’s side and the ability of the EU to decide upon things. The EU’s impact and Estonia’s lack of influence is in the world context depicted in a Readers article: “Estonia’s participation in NATO and the EU depends largely on the meeting of these organizations in April and May.

Referring to American proverb: NATO and EU are now ‘a new ball game’.”⁹⁷ (PM, 29.12.1998a).

96 Võttes arvesse maailma üldisemaid majandus-poliitilisi protsesse on Eesti ajaloolise (ja mitte ainult julgeolekualase) paratamatuse ees.

97 Eesti osalus NATOs ja ELis oleneb suurel määral nende organisatsioonide kokkutulemisest aprillis ja mais. Ameerika kõnekäänuga - NATO ja EL on nüüd ”uus pallimäng”.

Accept reality as own practice

This sub-discourse contains two parts, accept reality and know own limits, both based on internal relations. Since as a starting point, (EU as) reality is accepted and own limits are recognized the risk of being disappointed at any point is rather small. Therefore, in the part of becoming one is urged to ‘take life as it is’ (to accept issues).

In accept reality, reality is seen to exist independently of Estonia as well as any other actors. This also means that the responsible actors are either completely missing from the examples or the responsibility is blurred and the actors are mentioned at a very abstract level, like, the rules of the game and power that guide the human world (Cultural Elite article, PM, 15.10.2002b).

Especially in the case of missing actors, the articles emphasize the impossibility to change the prevailing conditions. A Journalist article writes that in the current situation, acceptance of Estonia to the international organizations is regrettably coinciding with several important changes of the power balance (jõujoon) (PM, 23.08.2002). The words ‘regrettably’ and

‘coincide’ make the whole situation sound like a destiny that cannot be changed. Also ‘acceptance of Estonia’ refers to the case when membership just happens and no particular actor is responsible for that.

In a similar example, a Readers article writes that the accession of 2004 is inevitable just like the accession⁹⁸ that took place in 1940: it is also inevitable that Estonia’s own constitution turns into a secondary file and it is hardly considered rational to print it out after the accession (PM, 17.06.2002b; see also Cultural Elite article, PM, 11.06.2002b). Similarly, a Cultural Elite articles claim that world's general international development excludes the possibility of Estonia to exist independently between East and West (PM, 12.07.1997a;

see also PM, 15.07.1998) and the accession is inevitable, since it is programmed to the century’s development (PM, 06.03.1998b).

In the case the EU (and NATO) are mentioned as actors, they are seen as subordinate to the bigger forces. A Readers article writes that those who followed more attentively the distribution of NATO-invitations to Estonia and the other Eastern European countries that took place soon after the countries were invited into the EU, could, on the basis of the general rather bitter atmosphere, assume a running competition between the USA and the EU (PM, 05.03.2003b). Even though both EU and NATO are mentioned in this example, also they are guided by the ‘general atmosphere’, a major force that decides among other things upon Estonia’s fate.

The same logic is followed in the Cultural Elite articles which see EU membership as incapable of preventing things that are determined to happen.

One article writes that soon Estonians will smoothly become voluntary users of the English language - long time before the referendum and hardly even a big No to the EU would result in any remarkable change to this communicative adoption (PM, 28.06.2003; see also PM, 13.09.1997 and PM, 24.12.1997c).

98 Author uses the word ”accession” (liitumine) instead of ”occupation” (okupatsioon).

Another similar article claims that in the current situation a No-decision would be quite a threat to independence since even if we did not change the constitution it will no more maintain our independence (PM, 10.09.2003b).

An article also writes that not joining the EU does not prevent the immigration (PM, 02.09.2003a; see also Political Elite article, PM, 07.02.1998a). All examples are based on determinism: certain things happen since they are deemed to happen and no actors are capable of changing them (Cultural Elite article, PM, 26.11.1997).

As another option, the examples of blurred responsibility are dated to the beginning of the accession process and deal with the uncertainty of the countries that are called to the accession negotiations. Even though officially Estonia’s goal was to be part of the ‘first group’, here the country is depicted as a pawn without any influence. At the same time, the EU’s responsibility is rather unclear. For example a Political Elite article writes about “Estonia’s possible involvement in the first round of the European Union enlargement…”⁹⁹(PM, 16.01.1997). Similarly, a Journalist article writes how it was planned to give the candidate countries a clear message, as to which of them are suitable for the accession negotiations, but the plan was postponed since no consensus prevailed inside the EU (PM, 27.11.1997). Even though the EU is present in these examples, the process is seen as accidental and uncontrolled. Instead of EU agency and clear decision making process, unclear agency is expected to decide Estonia’s fate.

In the examples of accepting reality depicted above, one focuses on things that just happen to Estonia whereas know own limits concentrates on the specific features of the country as limits of Estonia. On the basis of the examples, one deals either with fixed, and stable, or flexible features and characteristics.

In the case of fixed and stable features, geographical size but also history and location of the country as well as interrelations between these are emphasized (Cultural Elite article, PM, 06.09.2003b). The division of big and small countries is crucial here, since certain rules and regulations are considered to be valid for the small but not for the big countries. As Cultural Elite article claims, in the region where Estonia is located, the No of a small border state to ones inevitably means Yes to the others (PM, 28.06.2003).

Similarly, a Political Elite article writes that Estonia’s integration into Europe derives from its history and geographical location (PM, 29.11.1997b; see also Cultural Elite articles, PM, 15.09.2003; PM, 15.08.2003; PM, 28.06.2003 and PM, 12.07.1997a).

For showing the importance of Estonia’s smallness, Estonia is portrayed as a “midget state” (kääbusriik) (Cultural Elite article, PM, 10.11.1997). A Political Elite article writes that we balance continuously on the border where, by leaning to one direction we could become isolated from the European and world structures, but to the other we can give up dangerously lot of our

99 Eesti võimalik sattumine Euroopa Liidu laienemise esimesse ringi…

being (PM, 10.02.1997). Balancing on the border is characterized here as a circus trick that includes the real danger of falling: only those who have gained virtuous skills by continuous practicing are capable of balancing on the wire, and even for them, accidents can easily happen.

Another example, a Political Elite article writes that for Estonia as a small state, there is nothing worse than to remain between two mill-stones (PM, 14.08.2002b; see also Readers article, PM, 22.07.1997 and Cultural Elite article, PM, 12.08.1997b). Since the function of mill-stones is to smash everything by raw force, this analogy makes the options of Estonia rather clear.

Similarly, a Journalist article quotes the speech of Ene Ergma, (Estonia’s Speaker of Parliament at the time), who suggested looking at Estonia’s situation from outer space: since Estonia is between two big entities – the European Union and the Russian Federation – of which the former can be imagined as green and the second as blue, Estonia is inevitably only a small white spot between them. Thus, the article continues with Ergma’s conclusions that while looked from the outer space, this white spot is not visible and does not exist (PM, 26.06.2003). Ene Ergma, whose analysis the article uses for legitimizing its arguments is an astrophysicist and a member of the Estonian Academy of Science. She can, thus, perform as an expert who bases her arguments on the rules of natural science being an unquestionable truth. This way Estonia’s accession to the EU becomes part of an astrophysicist process, not a question of political choice.

Apart from the stable and fixed features, more flexible factors like the economy are referred to as Estonia’s limits (Cultural Elite articles, PM, 12.08.1997b and PM, 25.09.1998). For instance, a Political Elite article writes about a stable EU and the unsettled stock market of Estonia (PM, 09.07.1998).

Similarly, Readers articles reveal the weaknesses of Estonia’s economy in comparison with Norway. One article writes that in Estonia it is of course more difficult to find arguments against EU membership than it was for Norway, since Estonia neither has a strong economy nor its own gas reserves (PM, 15.07.1997a). Another Readers article claims that we are not yet that rich that European Union could take instead of giving as in the case of Norway (PM, 22.07.1997).

In addition to the certain characteristics or spheres of life, some articles emphasize Estonia’s action as rather meaningless and without much influence.

In these cases, on the basis of action, conclusions about the limits are drawn and vice versa. A Cultural Elite article writes that Estonia’s possibilities to choose are often limited or nonexistent in many important sectors (PM, 14.02.2002). At a more concrete level, a Political Elite article refers to Estonia’s restricted possibilities in building an extensive network of foreign embassies (PM, 26.08.2003b; see also Cultural Elite article, PM, 14.03.1998).

In sum, reference to reality as an argument that cannot be ignored is made both in the beginning as well as towards the end of the accession process.

Those articles most present during the whole accession process are Cultural

Elite articles whereas the other three categories of articles are rather equally but not very strongly represented.

Since reality forms the main (f)actor of this sub-discourse, it also makes the role of all the other actors insignificant. In the first part of the sub-discourse, the EU is seen as part of the reality, and in the second part reality determines the limitations of Estonia. In different cases, reality is based on a variety of indicators: facts, natural laws, historical logic etc. Accordingly, on the basis of these indicators final conclusions about ‘how things really are’ are drawn in the articles.

Realize EU authority

The sub-discourse Realize EU authority can be divided into two parts, have only hope and let the EU form practice. In the first part, Estonia’s (not too optimistic) expectations in relation to the EU are emphasized, in the second part the focus is the EU’s impact. Both parts are based on the idea that Estonia, unlike the EU, is not in a position to define reality or influence developments.

At the same time, unlike in the previous accept reality as Estonia’s practice, here dissatisfaction is expressed about the situation.

Have only hope is based on an assumption that since Estonia is capable of neither managing alone in the world anarchy nor changing the situation, the best it can do is to hope. The hopes and expectations are targeted towards the EU, which is an actor implicitly or explicitly present in the examples. In the

Have only hope is based on an assumption that since Estonia is capable of neither managing alone in the world anarchy nor changing the situation, the best it can do is to hope. The hopes and expectations are targeted towards the EU, which is an actor implicitly or explicitly present in the examples. In the