Remarks to Äripäev Business Conference
by Ambassador Joseph M. DeThomas

Borders

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Thank you for inviting me to participate in such an interesting and timely event. I am honored to share the stage with a distinguished group of Estonians and an American who has done much for the United States and for this country during his distinguished public service. I will be brief, but I welcome your questions at the end of my remarks.

I have been thinking a lot about borders lately. Borders were the keys to understanding the last century. Borders between nations and alliances were hard grim facts for my generation of Americans. Borders of concrete and steel divided continents, nations and systems. My generation of Americans dedicated their careers and lives to defending freedom at those borders. You, my Estonian counterparts, were -- unwillingly -- on the other side of the walls and fences. Indeed, one of the defining facts of this sad period of history was that goods, ideas and people could not pass through these borders. This destroyed the very system that kept them from passing. The role of borders may neither have been good or healthy in those days, but it was certainly defining and clear.

Since the walls and fences have fallen, borders seem to have been devalued. One of the defining features of the post-Cold War world is the emergence of a global economy and society. Money, information and ideas move across the globe now at the speed of light. Goods and the means to produce them are not quite as quick but almost as mobile. Money moves to those nations willing to sustain this global environment. Jobs and people follow the money. Success in the post Cold War world requires an environment that fosters the free flow of goods, capital, ideas and people. From this perspective, borders just get in the way of progress. Those who maintain the strongest constraints against this trend have to accept severe consequences. It is no coincidence that the Taliban's Afghanistan and North Korea were two of the states most hostile to these global trends and were also the states totally dependent on international charity simply to feed their people.

Perhaps if I were giving this talk a year ago I would be tempted to stop at this point, but things have not turned out as we might have expected. As Thomas Friedman has detailed in his books and columns, the global society has helped engender global villains. Groups hostile to democratic values have also gone global. Al Qaida is the equivalent of a terrorist multinational corporation with branches in more than 30 countries. Sitting in Afghanistan, Usama bin Laden had operatives in Germany design an attack on the United States using operatives who were hosted and trained in the U.S. itself. He had previously managed to initiate attacks against us in the Middle East, and Africa. That is global reach.

Borders look a lot more important to me after September 11. Terrorism has managed to go global, but our means of defense are still largely national. The U.S. is fundamentally reforming its own border controls and helping others do the same since the 9-11 attacks. We are redirecting and upgrading our law enforcement and homeland defense. Our initial effort at doing this produced huge backups at our borders with Mexico and Canada. Even the United States is not immune from the iron laws of the global economy. We are making adjustments. We will have smart borders with Canada and Mexico that allow our friends to move back and forth without endangering them or us. But, the tension between the economic and social realities of the 21st Century and the need to defend ourselves from a pitiless enemy who takes advantage of our openness is worthy of note.

Let me also say a few words about borders in this country. Borders mean something a little different to a country that has had them wiped out by larger powers. Borders do not just protect; they define a nation in a real way. Now this is a border. Some have argued that the border between Russia and Estonia is a border between civilizations. I would be prepared to argue against this hypothesis. But, I would not argue that this is a defining border and has been for centuries. Borders, one psychologist wrote some time ago, are "places of great energy and of danger." I believe the Estonian border fits this definition.

Many would put their emphasis in this regard on the danger. The current border between Estonia and Russia has been the scene of many battles between Russia and European powers over eight centuries. Others would talk about the current problems of cross border crime and drugs. Still others note that Estonia will be one of the EU's external border countries. Since the Schengen agreement has come into force, this has implied a tightening and strengthening of border controls on the periphery of the EU. Finally, if things go positively for Estonia at the Prague NATO summit, Estonia will be one of NATO's borders with Russia as well. All this would argue for the more traditional approach to thinking about the border between Russia and Estonia. Put simply, the border -- while not hostile -- would be a barrier, a fence that separates.

This would be an understandable approach, but today I would like to argue the contrary. I would argue that in the context of Estonia's possible entry into the EU and NATO the border should be seen as a door. Yes, the door needs to restrict undesirable activities, but its primary function is to open. In saying that, I recognize historical experience with opening the border to Estonia's east has not always been very positive. But, Estonia is now inextricably part of the West. As such, it can and should take part in what I believe is going to be the single most important political and economic challenge we will face in Europe. That challenge is to make real the Russian leadership's stated desire to integrate into Europe and the West.

There is a moment of opportunity here. The Russian leadership claims it has made a major strategic and economic shift of direction. It claims its future is in full membership and cooperation with free market, democratic nations. There are clearly historical reasons for caution, but I live in a country that believes one can respect history without being captured by it. If a moment comes when we can bring Russia fully back into Europe, the U.S., NATO, EU and countries here in the eastern part of Europe should seize that moment.

Estonia has wisely spent the last ten years reorienting its economy to the West. This process will reach its culmination with entry into the Common Market -- and rather quickly I believe -- into the Euro. Estonia will be part of the world's largest market. This will make it a more attractive partner for U.S. business. The combination of prospective Estonian EU membership, its sound economic policy environment, its relatively transparent, predictable and honest business practices, and its location next to the vast potential of the Russian market are powerfully attractive.

I believe there are facts on the ground that would argue for Estonia and Russia finding means to profit from all these developments. The economic potential of these developments simply has not been tapped. Although atrophied over the past decade, there remains economic infrastructure to link Russia to the West through Estonia. And, above all there is that border. As American companies have learned in our economic cooperation with Mexico, a border can create powerful synergies allowing investors to take profit from the comparative advantages of their host country and of its neighbor. In our case, this has created increased prosperity on both sides of the border. There are already American companies ready to position themselves here to take advantage of this. In short, Estonia's successful journey to the West has given it the security to open its doors to the East. I hope it will prompt a similar approach in Russia

I conclude, ladies and gentlemen by saying borders are not what they used to be but we are not yet ready to retire them. We will be challenged by the tension between the economy's need for free movement and our security requirements. But, we are in a new age, one in which the old American adage, "good fences make good neighbors," may require an amendment.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen. I look forward to your questions.