SDE MEP: My biggest achievement was changing EP social democrats' Russia stance

The June European Parliament elections frontrunner for the Social Democratic Party (SDE), MEP Marina Kaljurand said during ERR's "Otse uudistemajast" webcast Friday that she considers as her greatest achievement, and that of fellow SDE MEP Sven Mikser, convincing the European Parliament's social democrats to adopt a much more critical stance on Russia.
Let us start with what this series is about. This is the fourth time two candidates from a party running in the European Parliament elections are here in the studio. One the frontrunner and the other bringing up the rear of the list of candidates. European elections are different from Riigikogu elections in that the candidate who gets the most votes will end up going to Europe, irrespective of their position on the list. These elections are, therefore, personal elections above all, and differences between candidates matter more. In Marina Kaljurand and Jevgeni Ossinovski people have the choice between two striking politicians. Based on what should they decide which to support?
We'll start with Jevgeni Ossinovski. Why are you running in the first place?
Ossinovski: First of all, I'm running to support the Social Democrats' strong list of candidates, including its frontrunner Marina Kaljurand. But the process of putting together our list of candidates ended on March 16 when I was still head of the Riigikogu group. Because of my role change since, I will do anything I can to support the party.
Let's be blunt then – you're not running to became a European Parliament member but to support your party?
Ossinovski: Yes, I'll be transparent in admitting that I have no plan to go to Brussels a month and a half after becoming Tallinn mayor.
Should Marina Kaljurand get 65,000 votes again to give SDE at least two mandates, and should you come in second, instead of Katri Raik, for example, will you give up your mandate?
Ossinovski: Yes.
I see. Marina Kaljurand, in what do you stand out compared to other SDE candidates, Katri Raik, for instance?
Kaljurand: We really tried to end up with a strong list of candidates. We wanted to have people with different backgrounds, work experience and from different regions. So looking at our nine candidates, I'd say we're all different and strong in certain areas.
I'm sure you're not suggesting the voter should pick Jevgeni Ossinovski over you?
Kaljurand: As Jevgeni said, things looked different when the list was put together on March 16. I was among those who asked Jevgeni to lend his strength to the list. The strengths he brings cover the environment and local, regional development.
I can list differences between Katri and myself. My strength lies in having served in the European Parliament, in foreign policy and other topics. Katri's strengths are clearly education, research and security. Our list is solid because we have people who should appeal to all kinds of voters.
Who do you plan to vote for, Jevgeni Ossinovski?
Ossinovski: I haven't decided yet, but I would, of course, urge SDE voters to back Social Democrat Party candidates.
You can only pick one person!
Ossinovski: Yes, of course. And we are working toward landing two seats, as the good host pointed out. The voter will have to decide whether to back our very strong frontrunner or another good candidate. Voters really are spoiled for choice with us.
Marina Kaljurand, the polls give you 16-17 percent of the vote, which is huge. You have more potential supporters individually than many parties' candidates have between them. If memory serves, you got around 65,000 votes last time, and without pursuing much in the way of a campaign. Have you somehow rationalized or made sense of this massive popularity?
Kaljurand: This question should rather be put to the people who support me, but I have given the matter thought. I believe that my life and work so far serve as my campaign. I perhaps first surfaced on people's radars in Moscow in 2007. Next came Washington in 2014 when U.S. troops first came to Estonia, following the occupation of Crimea and during the presidential elections campaign. But also my last five years in the European Parliament.
I believe I have been sufficiently visible. People have seen what I do and how I do it. They know they can trust me and that I won't bring them shame or let them down. It all comes together.
Jevgeni Ossinovski, asked to evaluate Marina Kaljurand's work in the European Parliament 2019-2024, could you point out a few of her achievements?
Ossinovski: I believe Marina has a long and storied career serving the Estonian state in different foreign and security policy roles. She's been very active in the European Parliament over the last five years. Whether we're talking about Georgia and the Caucasus or Ukraine. It has not gone unnoticed. I'd describe Marina as a trustworthy and honest person.

What about achievements, concrete things? If a voter walks up to you and asks what has Marina Kaljurand been doing in the European Parliament for the last five years.
Ossinovski: Representing Estonia, is the short answer.
But more specifically?
Ossinovski: As it tends to be with large organizations, and especially international ones, people want to know the specifics. What I believe, and this is inevitably subjective, to be the most important thing that Marina and her fellow MEP Sven Mikser have achieved is convincing one of the European Parliament's most influential groups to take a clear stance on Russia's aggression.
We know that different countries' delegations have sported rather peculiar positions historically in that group. What Marina and Sven Mikser have achieved is that they've made sure major EP groups share the same idea of what is happening in Ukraine and how we should react – it has taken a lot of effort. I cannot single out a specific declaration or decision, while I'm sure Marina could. But I hold that to be her greatest European-level achievement.
Marina Kaljurand, if you had to pick two specific achievements over those five years, what would they be?
Kaljurand: There is no single answer to that question.
Two things!
Kaljurand: There is no simple answer.
On the one hand, it is what our group has done to support Ukraine. There was a fierce debate before we voted on whether to declare Russia a state sponsor of terrorism. The group was reluctant to support it going into the faction meeting. After Sven and I had addressed the group for an hour and a half, others left convinced we'd support it.
And did you?
Kaljurand: And we did! Not all 145 delegates, of course. But we did in this matter, and a few dozen others I could point out. But if you ask me for two things I did – I have no answer to that.
I also explain to voters that the range of topics... I've been involved with digital topics, migration, violence against women, while I couldn't single out any of these things. It also took months of work to have the European Parliament ratify the Istanbul Convention.
Your colleague Sven Mikser seems to have enough free time in the European Parliament to have written a novel.
Ossinovski: Sven Mikser is a capable person. I don't see how it's a bad thing when he finds time to write books.
Again, I know from personal experience from the Estonian parliament that people want to ask about concrete achievements. But unlike the executive branch, parliaments are collegial organs and achieve a lot by shifting the views of certain people over longer periods of time, so to speak. I believe it is very important work.

I think you're right. I looked at SDE's 2019 elections program and did not find a single unfulfilled promise to call you out on. Not because you delivered on everything you promised, but because the platform was so vague. Was that a conscious choice? How many chances did you get to pursue the things that were planned in 2019? Because a lot has changed since then. We've had the coronavirus crisis, the war etc. Thinking back to your 2019 program, what were some of the things you managed to get done?
Kaljurand: Here you go again with naming a single thing. I couldn't tell you.
But the topics have included justice, rule of law, minorities, the economy, agriculture – all these chapters...
The EU economy is nothing to write home about, but we'll circle back to that later.
Ossinovski: I would say that one topic where the Social Democrats have had foresight is environmental policy. And a lot of progress has been made in environmental policy during the recent European Parliament mandate. Those topics were quite prominent in our program. And in terms of what we believed Europe should do, the EU managed more than we dared hope for.
Mostly thanks to the EPP group though...
Ossinovski: The other groups did go along with it, that much is true.
Now, do you agree that the foreign policy dimension is among the most important in the European Parliament?
Kaljurand: Security and defense policy is and will remain a priority for some time.
This inevitably raises another difficult question for the voter. With the possible exception of Jana Toom (Center), no Estonian MEP stands out for being less than fully committed to helping Ukraine, Estonia's and EU security. What distinguishes you from Urmas Paet, who also has a very strong foreign policy profile, from Jaak Madison (EKRE), who has collected considerable foreign policy capital and holds views that sometimes even clash with those of his party? What sets Estonian MEPs apart in terms of security policy? You're basically all doing the same thing.
Kaljurand: I believe we are.
This is indeed one area where we share the same convictions, except for Jana Toom and protecting Russian citizens. But as concerns aggression and war, I dare say we do see eye to eye and there is little contrast.
We have differences in other areas. Security is a thread that runs through all topics today, but there are so many. Take the environment, minorities, rule of law, women's rights, abortion etc. and you'll see us disagree. That is where the voter has a choice. We have security policy in common, while our positions are very different elsewhere.
Let's stay on foreign policy. I wanted to compliment SDE for being probably the first Estonian party to put together an European Parliament elections program using simple language. ERR also carries simple language news for example. But you've put together a simple language version of your program, which usually tend to be long and complicated documents full of legalese, and I would say that it is much clearer than your full program so to speak. Allow me a quote: "The Social Democrats stand with Israel in its dispute with Palestine." I have long wanted to see an Estonian party speak its position clearly on what is such a complicated and longstanding foreign policy issue. Is it really as simple as the Social Democrats being on the side of Israel?
Kaljurand: I believe the reading should not stop there.
But there's nothing else!
Kaljurand: In that case, that must be the level of simplification used in the simple language version: we side with Israel.
But for those with the capacity to read slightly more complex texts, other facets come into it. Israel must comply with international law, must comply with human rights, and humanitarian aid makes for a very painful topic in Palestine today.
It has become something of a domestic policy topic. Even though Estonia is far removed from the Israel-Palestine issue and has little historical contact with it, the dispute has come here through European Parliament elections and other aspects of security policy. For example, it is believed that Estonia's recent decision to vote differently from Latvia, Lithuania, Finland and Sweden in the matter of Palestine's future recognition amounts to Prime Minister Kaja Kallas (Reform) looking to align Estonia more closely with France and Spain in this matter. Where should Estonia position itself? Were you foreign minister or prime minister today, would you also have voted this way? Estonia broke with the practice of abstaining whenever the U.S. was opposed.
Kaljurand: I was not present when the matter was being discussed but I will answer your question. I don't know the argumentation for and against, while I don't see it as a major problem right now.
Estonia's foreign policy has indeed been to side with the EU, and if the EU is split, to follow the U.S. Now, a slight shift has taken place.
It is quite a shift if we're being honest!
Kaljurand: I don't see it as problematic. It would be a major shift had we joined the three countries about to recognize the Palestinian state. That would have been a major shift, but this...
While I would probably advise sticking with our recent policy, I see no disaster here.
Could Estonia also vote the other way, with Czechia, for example? Your program clearly states that Estonia sides with Israel. We should have voted with the Czechs then!
Kaljurand: Again, simple language is very useful and necessary. But I would expect a foreign policy expert such as yourself to have read the full program.
I did, but the voter will read the simple language program, walk up to you at the Türi Flower Fair five years from now and ask why we failed to support Israel.
Kaljurand: And I can explain to them that you cannot include all the details in the simple language program...
No, no, don't answer this question. Please answer whether we should have voted with the U.S. instead?
Kaljurand: No, I believe we voted the right way.
Ossinovski: There is a wider problem with this whole debate. It has been turned into this binary thing where siding with Israel automatically means being against Palestine. It's not black and white. In terms of a terrorist organization...
You mean Hamas?
Ossinovski: ... Yes, attacking civilians, it is clear which side we pick.
But that does not mean the situation in Palestine is normal today. Second, long-term peace in the region requires concessions from Israel too.
Kaljurand: We should also look at what the social democrats have done in the European Parliament, and how Sven and I have voted. And we've always voted for...
While you and Sven have probably voted one way, your group has often voted differently.
Kaljurand: No! The social democrats have rather contrasted to the right in this matter and supported a ceasefire, humanitarian law. We have tried for months to add it to the resolutions, and it hasn't worked because of EPP, the conservatives (Kaljurand likely means the ECR – ed.) and ID.

I'll wrap up the Israel line of questioning soon, but as it is an important value topic today, also for your voters... How do you comment on the ICC calling for the leaders of Hamas and Israel to stand trial?
Kaljurand: It is not right.
What should Estonia do?
Kaljurand: Estonia is a member of the ICC, and we need to perform our obligations. And should Netanyahu come to Estonia, and I hope this will never happen, then for as long as this warrant is active, we would have to uphold our obligation or leave the ICC.
And I don't see us leaving.
It was an extremely unfortunate decision to put Hamas and Israel on an equal footing. Should Israel be held accountable if they have violated international law? Yes! But putting them on par with Hamas in terms of international justice. I believe it was the wrong move!
Ossinovski: The question in the end is what purpose does it serve? We need to achieve long-term peace in the region, and such decisions are not helping.
How should this long-term peace come about?
Ossinovski: As it has not come about in the last 70 years, I believe it won't in the seven minutes we have left.
But it ties into the issue that while we side with Israel, that doesn't mean they can just keep settling the West Bank...
Allow another brief question on the topic. Has Israel exceeded the bounds of what's proportional in its response either of self-defense or waging war – I'll leave the last part up to you?
Ossinovski: Self-defense is of course justified, but looking at the scope of the humanitarian disaster in Gaza...
Have or have they not exceeded what could be deemed proportional?
Ossinovski: I find their response has been disproportional.
Kaljurand: It is clear for everyone to see.
You agree?
Kaljurand: I agree, because look at the suffering, look at the hospitals, civilians, famine, lack of medical care! Yes, Israel must defend itself, but the humanitarian line has clearly been crossed.
Ossinovski: And what we cannot see from here is how there are heated debates about this also inside Israel, between the Jewish people. The decisions of Israel's current government, which we hold to be legitimate, are not universally popular.
Let us move on to the economy, which is another important topic for Estonia. The Estonian economy is not doing well after nine straight quarters of recession. The EU is not doing brilliantly either. Looking at the GDP of Europe and USA, both have grown. But if we start in 2010, growth has been much faster in America. People from no matter which European country will soon feel poor upon traveling to USA. Marina mostly, what has the EU done or failed to do to allow the gap to widen this much? This difference was not such 30 years ago.
Kaljurand: The main mistakes have had to do with cheap labor in China, cheap energy from Russia, dependance on energy sources and labor which has robbed us of our competitiveness.
While we remain competitive, we have not been able to produce as much as we need.
And the common market is not working. While there's talk of a common market, there is widespread protectionism, states protecting themselves from others. There is protectionism in the EU, and we're not playing by the rules either. We agree on state aid rules only to be very selective and discriminative about how to comply. Large countries can afford a lot more than smaller ones. There are several components.
I have a follow-up remark before we let Jevgeni Ossinovski answer. Broadly speaking, the European green transition has rested on cheap Chinese labor and cheap Russian gas.
Kaljurand: But it has also led to the slump you're referring to.
I would say that the Western European policy of having closer economic links with Russia, buying Russian gas and other energy in hopes that it would tie Russia more closely to Europe and turn it into a normal country... It was a misguided policy and has failed.
Ossinovski: I would also add a broader perspective. Unlike the U.S. which exited the crisis quite quickly in 2009, in Europe, an in-house debt crisis ensued and lasted for a long time. That is the first thing that held back our development. The other is war in Europe, which has not affected the Americans economically. The only thing have to decide is how much to contribute.
The divergence started long before the war did!
Ossinovski: Yes, but as I said, we developed debt crisis problems in Europe, which led to certain decisions. But lately, countries that have had closer ties to Russia have been hit harder, and USA is not among them.
Another important thing to note, and which has made its way into our program, is the question of so-called strategic autonomy. In some sectors, the EU has rather followed American liberalism and the triumph of WTO free trade in the 1990s and has not developed independent capacity in strategic sectors. The Americans have been far more aggressive in their relevant efforts, also at the expense of Europeans.

Some forecasts suggest the new European Parliament and Commission will start to soften or even reverse the von der Leyen Commission's green transition. Where do you stand, Marina Kaljurand?
Kaljurand: It would be very difficult to reverse as the climate target exists, remains mandatory and no one has revoked it as things stand. Most laws necessary for executing it have been passed. We're in the phase of implementation and relevant checks.
Is it possible to execute slowly and by raising obstacles? Yes, and it will become a major point of contention not just in the European Parliament, but already when appointing von der Leyen.
The social democrats at least want to see the green transition continue. We also do not agree to this proposed policy of first solving the war, then security and then other matters. The EU must tackle different policies simultaneously.
Should the internal combustion engine ban of 2035 come up for a vote again, would you vote for or against today?
Kaljurand: I still support the ban.
We have talked to manufacturers and they're ready. The market is being flooded with Chinese cars, and if we don't want to develop our automotive industry to focus on EVs and environmentally friendly transport and want to keep losing to China... It may come up.
How likely is it that Kaja Kallas will land the position of high representative or some other key commissioner post in the new European Commission?
Kaljurand: She may become commissioner, while I doubt she'll become the high representative.
Ossinovski: I cannot say.

--
Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!
Editor: Marcus Turovski, Mait Ots