Were you aware, as interior minister, that such a [police] operation was being conducted near Tallinn?

Yes, the police notified us of their intent, based on the law Estonia passed after full-scale war boke out in Ukraine – as concerns the use of occupation-related symbols in public spaces and a relevant ban.

Was there a political level to the discussion or where you simply notified? Was the prime minister in the loop?

Yes, the prime minister was also given the information.

The police always notify of important things, but the decision was taken by the PPA based on current legislation. The matter was not up to politicians.

You do realize that the decision will send support for the [far-right] Conservative People's Party (EKRE) soaring again, looking at it from a political point of view?

The actions of the police in the Republic of Estonia must not be based on the possible effect they might have on the ratings of different political parties. The police do not have the power of discretion to consider political developments and the right to interpret legislation accordingly. /.../ And I hope there is no bearing on whichever political party.

Thinking back, the then-government made the same decision regarding the same monument 20 years ago, which is when Isamaa's predecessor, also a conservative party, was in power.

If we also consider that the Lääneranna Municipality Council decided a few years ago that such a monument would not be appropriate... The police must also take into account these aspects.

Besides, it is not the only object removed for displaying occupation and war-related symbols. We have previously removed the tank in Narva, as well as various other monuments and things.

What will become of the monument?

I cannot tell you, as it is not a government-level decision where to put the monument, what will become of it or the legal side of this thing. It will become clear in due process.

As a politician, where do you stand regarding the Blue Hills meeting traditionally held in late July, which has also sparked controversial international reactions? Should the Ministry of Defense really sponsor the event? The people involved are largely the same as with the Lihula monument.

It is not about people or their memories. It is about displaying occupation symbols in public space. I would also not take such a narrow view.

We must all understand that no matter how fond different people are of particular time periods, there are objective, subjective and historical reasons involved. We must also realize that different symbols may cause tensions in society, that conflicts can be fostered around those symbols, and that such conflicts can be used against Estonia.

When the Riigikogu passed the amendment, and by quite a comfortable majority if memory serves, that was part of the idea – to try and avoid such conflicts and keep Estonia clear of various occupying powers' symbolism.

Were the organizers told in advance that the statue is in violation of the law? That it clashes with section 151 of the Penal Code and is considered to be incitement of hatred?

I couldn't tell you, as the matter has been handled by the police.

All I can tell you is that the police have briefed me, as well as other members of the government, and that is all the contact the government has with this issue.

Western embassies in Estonia backed the removal of the symbol 20 years ago. Have there been signals from embassies this time?

I do not believe any embassy has broached the subject. At least, it has not reached me, and I doubt they would go to the police.

Diplomatic channels tend to contact politicians. But because no one in the government has been involved with this matter, because it is purely a case of the police monitoring compliance with the law, and not a political initiative, I believe there have been no such contacts.

Will calls for the removal of Soviet symbols, such as those adorning the Russian Cultural Center [in Tallinn], grow louder now? Are we once again getting bogged down in symbols in the middle of an economic crisis?

I do believe the topic may crop up again.

As concerns symbols on other objects, I do not handle these matters as interior minister. We had a government committee made up of experts, historians and heritage conservationists. They have made their proposals, and mostly Soviet symbols have been removed in Estonia based on those recommendations. Should experts make other proposals, I believe we should listen to what they have to say.

In hindsight, could this matter have been handled differently, so we would not find ourselves precisely where we were 20 years ago? Could it have been possible to talk to the organizers, explain matters, issue warnings and so on? Pulling over a van near Tallinn is reminiscent of what happened 20 years ago?

I'm quite certain they have been approached in the past. I recall even reading in the media about it. The debate has been semi-public.

I also think that the police made the better call here in deciding to enforce the law. It would have been worse had the monument been set up only for a crane to show up to remove it, which would have been exactly like last time.

Perhaps prevention was the more sensible option, and I would indeed describe it as prevention of conflict and problems. The fate of the monument stone will become clear in proceedings. The monument could eventually be set up elsewhere.

The matter at hand is not setting it up in a public place – just as the law prescribes in order to prevent social conflict, which we know is precisely what Russia wants. It is an opportunity for them to fan the flames of conflict from a different angle.

Analyzing the whole monuments saga, do the people involved include those who, for some reason, find the Nazi ideology attractive?

I couldn't tell you who those people are. I have not met any of them, I haven't read a single memo on the subject, nor have I been involved in any other way. They can give you a better answer in terms of why they are pursuing this.

Based on what I've gathered, these symbols might not represent this ideology for everyone, and it is rather a matter of differing views of history. People see history differently, which is not something we can condemn at the end of the day. People growing up in different environments and surrounded by different influences is how life works.

But do you believe we managed to prevent a nasty international scandal?

The police acted in accordance with the law. I cannot tell you what would have become of it, even though we know that it did merit international attention when the government ordered the [original] monument's removal. But the context was different back then. There is war in Europe today, and Russia's interest in taking advantage of such situations has grown considerably.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!