I initiated an open letter in the European Parliament to the EU health ministers relating to the participation of Taiwan in the World Health Assembly taking place on 18-19 May 2020. 

Over 100 MEPs and MPs from different countries and political groups decided to co-sign this letter.

You’ll find the letter together with all the signatories below.

OPEN AND URGENT LETTER TO EUROPEAN UNION HEALTH MINISTERS 

This is an open letter to all European Union Health Ministers relating to the participation of Taiwan in the World Health Assembly, 18-19 May 2020.

To the Ministers of Health of the Member States of the European Union,

The Corona Crisis will dominate the World Health Assembly to be held on 18-19 May, in Geneva, through a ministerial video conference. As the virus knows no borders, nationalities and ideologies, the world needs to share all available information and expertise that can be helpful to combat the pandemic.

That is why we, the undersigned members of the European and national Parliaments, urge you to insist that the World Health Organisation (WHO) returns to the pragmatic protocol – practiced from 2009 to 2016 – of inviting Taiwan as an observer to this meeting format. The Taiwanese government has successfully managed to curb the spread of the virus in spite of Taiwan’s geographic proximity to the virus origin.

The United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have officially taken the position to return to the 2009 – 2016 format. 

We therefore request that Taiwan’s Minister of Health and Welfare, Chen Shih Chung, be invited to attend this year’s virtual WHA videoconference, as an observer, to share with us Taiwan’s successful experience in handling the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, we request that the WHO facilitate appropriate and feasible arrangements for Taiwan to participate in all WHO meetings, mechanisms and activities.

In the interests of a pragmatic, science-based approach to global health, we look forward to receiving a positive response from you.

Thank you and best wishes, 

Urmas Paet

Michael Gahler

Katalin Cseh

Bernard Guetta

Karin Karlsbro

Aušra Maldeikienė

Riho Terras

Frédérique Ries 

Michaela Šojdrová

Sophie in ’t Veld

Klemen Grošelj

Tudor Ciuhodaru

Juan Fernando López Aguilar 

Engin Eroglu

José Ramón Bauzá Díaz 

Nicolaus Fest

Andrus Ansip

Gilles Lebreton

Tomáš Zdechovský

David Lega

Klára Dobrev

Csaba Molnár 

Attila Ara-Kovács 

Sándor Rónai

Brando Benifei 

Michal Šimečka

Jan-Christoph Oetjen

Abir Al-Sahlani

Fredrick Federley 

Pascal Durand

Alexandr Vondra

Kosma Zlotowski

Ivan Štefanec

Hermann Tertsch

Veronika Vrecionová

Dragoş Tudorache

Moritz Körner

Salima Yenbou 

Margrete Auken

Kira Peter-Hansen

Charlie Weimers 

Leopoldo López Gil

Svenja Hahn

Niklas Nienass

Rasa Juknevičienė

Reinhard Bütikofer

Eugen Jurzyca

Javier Nart

Witold Waszczykowski 

Thomas Waitz 

Nathalie Loiseau 

Beata Mazurek

Malik Azmani

Jan Huitema

Caroline Nagtegaal

Liesje Schreinemacher

Bart Groothuis

Margarita de la Pisa Carrión

Margarete Bause 

Carles Puigdemont

Antoni Comín 

Clara Ponsatí 

Viola von Cramon-Taubadel

Raphaël Glucksmann

Ďuriš Nicholsonová

Katrin Langensiepen

Marco Campomenosi

Milan Zver

Liudas Mažylis

Johan Van Overtveldt

Anna Donáth

Assita Kanko

Geert Bourgeois

Jutta Paulus

Jürgen Trittin

Barry Andrews

François Alfonsi

Benoît Biteau

Damien Carême

David Cormand

Gendoline Delbos-Corfield

Karima Delli

Claude Gruffat

Yannick Jadot

Michèle Rivasi

Caroline Roose

Mounir Satouri

Marie Toussaint

Olivier Chastel

Anna Fotyga

Inese Vaidere

Diana Riba i Giner

Hannah Neumann

Henrike Hahn

Dorien Rookmaker

Andrey Kovatchev

Katrin Göring-Eckardt

Gianna Gancia

Petra de Sutter

Juozas Olekas

Dominique Riquet

Andreas Glück 

Miriam Lexmann 

Alviina Alametsä

Omid Nouripour

Fabio Massimo Castaldo

Helmut Geuking

Manuel Pizarro

Tom Vandendriessche

Andrius Kubilius

Mikuláš Peksa

Annalena Baerbock

Robert Habeck

The post Over 100 MEPs and MPs co-sign an open letter in support of Taiwan’s participation at the World Health Assembly appeared first on Urmas Paet.

Taiwan is currently excluded from the World Health Organization (WHO) mechanism. This is very unfortunate as Taiwan has the will and skills to fight the COVID-19 epidemic and to assist other likeminded countries as well. I’ve communicated this to the President of the European Council Charles Michel, to High Representative/Vice-President Josep Borrell and to Commissioner Stella Kyriakides and suggested that the EU together with the Member States should raise this issue with the WHO. See my letter below.

Dear President Charles Michel,

Dear High Representative/Vice-President Josep Borrell,

Dear Commissioner Stella Kyriakides,

As the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) continues to spread across the world, there is an urgent need for international solidarity, cooperation and political will to stop the further spread of the virus. No country can end the crisis alone. 

Keeping this in mind, it has come to my attention that Taiwan has been very successful and effective in coping with the COVID-19 crisis by taking more than 100 concrete measures. Given its proximity to China and frequent person-to-person contact between both sides, Taiwan was initially assessed to have the second-highest number of COVID-19 cases. This, however, has not turned out to be the case. As of 23 March 2020, Taiwan has had 195 confirmed cases, while many of whom were infected abroad. To date, there are no community transmission or mass infections in Taiwan. 

Furthermore, the Academia Sinica in Taiwan announced on March 9 that a group of researchers have successfully developed a new test kit for the COVID-19, which can detect coronavirus just like a rapid influenza test within 20 minutes rather than 4 hours. This scientific breakthrough has quickly drawn wide attention through international media reports. As a consequence, some countries have expressed their interest in working with Taiwan on this medical achievement. In response, Taiwanese government has explicitly shown its willingness and stands ready to contribute to the international community in collaborating with likeminded countries to fight the COVID-19. 

However, these efforts have been met with obstacles due to the fact that Taiwan is excluded from the WHO mechanism, meetings and activities. This is extremely counter-productive in the global fight against COVID-19. An example of this counter-productivity is that Taiwan’s early warnings of the seriousness of this unknown virus were met with disregard. In fact, Taiwan alerted the WHO at the end of December 2019 about the risk of human-to-human transmission of the new virus, but its concerns were not seriously taken by the WHO, nor passed on to other countries, reported by Financial Times. This led to a delay in WHO’s announcement of the human-to-human transmission. Due to this mismanagement, a golden opportunity was lost to raise the alert level both in China and in the world. Furthermore, WHO has not officially informed Taiwan about the epidemic, nor invited Taiwan experts to attend the two meetings organized by WHO Emergency Committee in late January. 

As pandemic knows no borders, incorporating Taiwan in the WHO mechanism would help to mitigate the impact of the epidemic, which is in the interest of the EU and its Member States, as well as the international community. WHO is not a place for geopolitical games, and health issues should never be politicized. 

In my view, the European Union together with the Member States should raise the issue with WHO and do everything they can to include Taiwan in the WHO mechanism and meetings as soon as possible. 

Sincerely,
Urmas Paet

The post Taiwan should be included in the WHO mechanism appeared first on Urmas Paet.

The opening of the European Parliament-Arctic Friendship Group took place in the European Parliament (Brussels) on 13 November 2019. The Chair of the Friendship Group is MEP Urmas Paet. The Vice-Chairs are MEP Miapetra Kumpula-Natri and MEP Pernille Weiss.

The EU and the Arctic have a longstanding engagement based on history, geography, economy and research. The aim of the Friendship Group is to facilitate improved cooperation, network building and knowledge sharing concerning the issues faced in the Arctic as well as to encourage a discussion on positive initiatives.

The post Opening of the European Parliament-Arctic Friendship Group appeared first on Urmas Paet.

As the rapporteur for the European Defence Union report, I find the launch of the European Defence Fund as an important and indispensable step in enhancing the European defence cooperation.

Because of the current geopolitical situation, the EU has to take rapid and decisive steps in order to protect itself and its citizens. My report on the European Defence Union was adopted last year in November. I am glad to see that now the EU is already making concrete budgetary decisions so that a stronger defence cooperation can become a reality.

At the same time, we all know that there is still resistance to increased military spending in Europe. Stronger defence cooperation can work successfully if all member states give their full support.

In November 2016, the European Parliament adopted the European Defence Union report, which was based on the principle that a strong European defence policy could also complement NATO and would greatly contribute to Europe’s security. Today the European Commission presented a reflection paper setting out possible scenarios for the future in the area of European defence and launched the European Defence Fund.

The post The launch of the European Defence Fund is a big step forward in enhancing EU defence cooperation appeared first on Urmas Paet.

The European security situation has grown increasingly fragile – primarily as a result of the activities of ISIS and other terrorist groups, Russia’s aggressive behaviour, as well as violence and instability in the countries near Europe. This means that Europe, in order to defend itself and increase its security, must do more. Defence cooperation between the European countries has been moderate and hopes have mainly been on NATO, although not all EU countries are members of NATO. In NATO’s context, the situation where three-quarters of all the expenses are paid by the USA alone and Europe is laying responsibility for its own security mainly on the Americans, cannot last forever.

Firstly, I would like to say that the role of NATO has been, is and will continue to be important, but Europe must contribute much more and take advantage of all the possibilities for increasing security and defence capability, especially in the European Union context.

This is the reason why the European Parliament is preparing a report on intensifying defence cooperation in the EU, also known as the European Defence Union. I have been appointed as its rapporteur. The main purpose of this report is to highlight the areas where and how the EU could do more than it has in order to support and complement NATO. This includes the recommendation to the EU countries to spend 2% of their GDP on defence, financing the infrastructure and establishing the Schengen of defence. We can endlessly talk about increasing the efficiency of defence costs, which is necessary, but in order to reach a certain level of quality, we need quantity.

The Treaty of Lisbon gives the EU far better opportunities for defence cooperation than which have been used so far. Thus the European defence cooperation can be significantly improved in the existing legislative framework. One might ask – why hasn’t it been done before. Likely the main reason is that there has not been a great need for it, since the security situation did not deteriorate significantly in the previous years. But the times are different now. Since the Paris terror attacks last autumn, the terror risk in the EU has drastically increased and the majority of the EU citizens think that security is something the EU should pay much more attention to and spend more resources on. The situation in the immediate vicinity of the EU is also deteriorating. In addition to the war in Syria, the last couple of years have seen Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, increasing instability in Egypt and Libya, as well as in African countries south of them, coup attempt in Turkey, tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia etc.

However, there is no real point in talking about the European army yet or scaring the sceptics with it, because at the moment it is unrealistic. Furthermore, there is also no reason to say that the EU defence cooperation is weakening NATO. This is simply not true, on the contrary – for years, NATO has been wishing to see the EU as a partner who could complement NATO and support it with its capabilities. Let us not forget that not all EU countries are in NATO and their systematic inclusion is necessary.

The Defence Clause is Empty

Thus the circumstances require that the EU defence cooperation and partnership with NATO be much more concrete and efficient. Creating the security and defence capability set out in the EU Treaties has not progressed much, although Article 42 foresees gradual development of the EU defence policy, which would lead to the establishing of the EU common defence. The same article of the Treaty provides for the establishing of defence institutions and defining of European joint capabilities and armament policy. Furthermore, the EU’s activities should be compatible with those of NATO in order to strengthen it and make territorial, regional as well as global security and defence capability more efficient.

At the European Council meeting on defence in June 2015, the heads of EU Member States demanded that Europe cooperate more intensively and systematically in the field of defence, including through the use of EU funds. After the Paris terror attacks on 17 November 2015, France proposed using Article 42 and requested assistance from other Member States. Only a few of them had the necessary will and capability to provide any assistance at the time.

Thus the EU and its Member States must make more effort and start doing what has been left undone in defence policy. The Lisbon Treaty gives the European Defence Union a solid footing and therefore it is reasonable to establish it and tie it to the EU’s next multiannual political and financial framework.

Unfortunately it is often so in the EU that actions are decisively undertaken only after something has already happened. So has been the case with the refugee crisis and terror attacks for example. Bringing defence cooperation to the next level would also be of preventive nature, because on the contrary case it might be already too late.

The EU battle groups reached full operational capacity already in 2007, but so far they have not been used. Even though they were established for performing military tasks, which serve humanitarian purposes or are related to peacekeeping and peacemaking. Having said that, the parties could not agree on using a battle group in the case of for example Mali or Central African Republic, where the nature of the activities would clearly have corresponded to the goals of the battle group. But now the battle groups must be adapted to the context of the changed security environment and we must be ready to deploy them operatively.

With the exception of the creation of the European Defence Agency, no other concrete element of the EU common security and defence policy has been conceived so far. At the same time, according to the EU Global Strategy on Foreign and Security Policy, the EU must systematically promote defence cooperation in all fields of defence capabilities in order to be able to react to external crises, build capacities of the EU partners, ensure Europe’s safety and also establish a strong European defence industry which is of critical importance in ensuring the autonomy of Europe’s defence activities.

Cooperation with NATO Is the Key

Cooperation with NATO is clearly the key for developing the capability of the EU and its Member States. On 8 July 2016, the presidents of the European Council and of the Commission together with the Secretary General of NATO signed a joint declaration, which emphasises the need to strengthen EU and NATO defence and security cooperation, and states that it must include increasing joint resilience in the east and south as well as investments in defence. Both the EU and NATO are of the opinion that they must improve the compatibility and synergy of their activities, because it would strengthen NATO’s role in the security and defence policy as well as in collective security.

There are a number of issues where the EU could improve its internal security cooperation as well as its cooperation with NATO and make it more practical with fast and clear decisions. At the moment the movement of the defence forces personnel of the allies is troublesome, bureaucratic and time-consuming. The administrative processes of the EU Member States are unreasonably slowing down the cross-border movement of the rapid response forces inside the EU. The EU must create a system that changes it. The system would coordinate the fast movement of the personnel and equipment of the defence forces for the purpose of a common security and defence policy task where the solidarity clause is invoked or in case of the obligation to provide assistance and support with all available resources. In other words – the so called defence forces Schengen should be established.

2% for Defence in the EU

Naturally, the EU countries must also set a goal of spending 2% of their GDP on defence as the NATO members have done. This would give a clear signal of the joint positions of the EU and NATO. In order to carry out the EU defence policy, we must contribute additionally from our common EU budget and the right place for this would be the EU’s multiannual financial framework.

In addition to the practical side, the use of EU money for increasing defence capabilities is also a clear sign of solidarity and it would allow all Member States to improve their military capabilities through joint efforts.

The initial action plan for the EU common defence policy or defence union must also include NATO projects that concern combating hybrid threats, operational cooperation, including at sea, migration, cyber security and defence, defence capabilities, strengthening the technological and industrial base in the field of defence, military exercises as well as security and defence capabilities of EU’s neighbours in the east and south.

The EU can financially support, for example, the placement of international NATO battalions to the EU Member States at the eastern border by backing the building of the necessary infrastructure such as roads, barracks and other facilities. At the moment, the majority of this burden is on the shoulders of a few specific Member States who due to their geopolitical location need increased presence of the allies. At the same time, the increased presence in specific countries serves as a protection for all EU and NATO countries and thus the solidarity-based distribution of additional costs is justified.

The EU must also gear up the defence research programme and start developing a common European capabilities and armament policy. This comes with the need to contribute more to strengthen the industrial and technological base of the defence sector in the EU Member States with the view of decreasing dependency on third parties.

The European defence industries market must function better and be more accessible so that the Member States would have the possibility to make their defence and security budgets more efficient. Unfortunately, no reliable policy for European defence industries has been drawn up so far, which would ensure better competitiveness, transparency and less bureaucracy.

The practical steps also require a political framework in order to ensure sufficient political attention. Therefore it would be reasonable to create the position of the European Commissioner for defence and set up regular meetings of the EU Defence Ministers. Furthermore, it is also necessary to establish the headquarters for the EU military operations in order to facilitate the cooperation with NATO as well as plan and carry out EU’s own operations.

The Members States that are ready to undertake more binding commitments towards each other could set up a permanent structured cooperation within the EU, in the framework of which it would be possible to establish multinational forces that can be made available to the common EU security and defence policy. An option would be the further development of the EU battle groups system.

However, the EU cannot create something that functions without the active participation of the Member States. In order to develop the defence policy, a binding agreement between the EU Member States and institutions is required. Such agreement should establish all EU defence policy initiatives, investments, measures and programmes.

More than ever, Europe can and should contribute to its security before it is too late. Unfortunately there are areas, where handling the consequences cannot compensate the damages. Defence and security is one of those areas. This preventive goal is the purpose of the European Defence Union. NATO and the EU have plenty of opportunities for strengthening European self-defence and deterrence. Then EU can finally become the long-awaited serious partner for NATO.

The post Europe Must Do Much More for Self-Defence appeared first on Urmas Paet.

At the meeting of the Delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee we discussed the EU-Arctic policy. This was a timely meeting as I am drafting the European Parliament report on the EU policy for the Arctic region. I emphasised that the report should focus on two key aspects: on the environmental protection of the Arctic region and on security matters.

We have to keep in mind that the situation in the Arctic region has changed significantly in a short time. It would be a mistake from the EU’s side to regard the Arctic as a forever calm and peaceful region, untouched by the international situation.

It is clear that the security dimension of the Arctic has been discussed far too little until now. For instance, the EEAS/EC joint communication on EU’s Arctic policy, published in Spring 2016, does not deal with security and geopolitics at all. All the more the European Parliament should ask for a proper EU-Arctic Strategy.

Our main goal is to keep the Arctic as a low-risk region but at the same time we should not ignore the fact that Russia is more and more militarizing parts of the Arctic.

The developments in the Arctic concerning security, energy and environment affect the security situation in the whole Northern Europe as well as more broadly. It is important to continuously monitor and analyse the situation in the Arctic, with a political and military focus, but also in economic terms, especially with regard to oil and gas reserves, as well as shipping and marine transportation corridors.

The post The EU has to take Arctic security and environmental risks seriously appeared first on Urmas Paet.

The European Union should not pressure the UK to quickly trigger Article 50. Even if the UK decides to start the process of leaving the EU, the aim should be to keep Britain a strong ally and partner. Thus, we should not let emotions get the best of us and later regret it.

Appointing of the new British Prime Minister will reduce the post Brexit referendum uncertainty. Further steps and the pace of decision-making remains in the hands of London. While planning the next steps, British politicians certainly have to consider the position of Scotland and Northern Ireland, which do not want to leave the EU. In addition, other issues have arisen after the referendum.

Britain was, is and will remain an important and close partner for European countries. Even if Brexit is carried out, it is of great importance to achieve a close relationship between Britain and the EU because of the current difficult and hostile environment in the world. It is crucial to keep our allies close.

I believe it is only in close cooperation between Britain and the EU that we can find a solution to the current European issues such as migration crisis, internal security problems, aggressive Russia and Europe’s weak economic growth.

The post The UK should not be forced to quickly leave the EU appeared first on Urmas Paet.

Today in the European Parliament we discussed the topic of Crimean Tatars. Russian annexation of Crimea is illegal and needs to stop. Crimea must be returned to Ukraine. Until this is not the case, Russia is obliged to protect the Crimean people from any form of discrimination and to protect their human rights. Sadly we are witnessing the opposite. The banning of Mejlis and the persecution of its members is deplorable and has to stop.

I made a proposal to nominate Mustafa Dzhemilev as one of the candidates for the Sakharov Prize. He is a leader of the Crimean Tatars who has been banned from entering Crimea for his activities in promoting the human rights of the Crimean Tatars in Crimea.

EU needs to send a clear message that we do not tolerate the current occupation of Crimea and the repressions of the Crimean Tatars.

The post Crimean Tatars appeared first on Urmas Paet.

Hopefully, the British public will decide on June 23rd by a small, but firm majority to keep the United Kingdom in the European Union. The deciding factor will be human uncertainty in the face of big changes, the results of which can not be accurately predicted by anyone. It concerns that part of the British electorate who have not yet clearly specified their stance and will decide at the last minute. That part of the electorate will often be determining when it comes to those decisions, where the polarisation of society is large and principled, but neither side has a clear overwhelming majority.

The situation, which the UK and the whole European Union have ended up in, is a clear example of what happens when the majority of political leaders has agreed with public opinion before elections, instead of trying to explain their principles in a rational way. That is exactly what has happened in the UK, where people mostly from Middle and Eastern Europe have arrived as part of the EU’s labour mobility programme. Those people have started to upset the locals more and more, and the subsequent political-populist mess in a pre-elections state caused all leading political powers to promise to hold a referendum on leaving the EU.

The United Kingdom is already very loosely tied to the EU. It is neither in the Schengen system nor in the eurozone. But still, it has not been able to avoid terrorism and economical problems. Recent agreements of the UK and the rest of the EU issued in the European Council give Prime Minister Cameron a reason to finally publicly support remaining in the EU in the referendum, but the influence of the EU-British agreement on the British public opinion is more likely quite limited. The more significant factors are going to be the USA’s clear support for the UK to remain in the EU and also a general uncertainty about the future. Because there cannot be any answers on how the UK is able to deal with security concerns, the possibilities of economic growth and many other important issues outside of the EU. In addition, if the majority support leaving the EU, it might lead to the collapse of the United Kingdom itself. Scotland will then hold a new independence referendum and in that part of the UK the majority supports remaining in the EU.

Brexit, or the exit referendum that grew uncontrollably out of the UK’s national politics, has become a big problem in the whole EU. There are other countries in the EU where in the current difficult times there are more people who oppose the EU, and the UK’s example seems to have an inspiring effect on them. The Netherlands, for example, will hold a referendum on the ratification of the Ukraine-European Union Association Agreement. In essence, the Netherlands referendum has nothing to do with that agreement, it is a more general demonstration showing dissatisfaction with the EU.

We in Estonia should keep our fingers crossed that the UK referendum does not put a start to a domino effect that leads to a weaker Europe. The British public will decide if they want their country to remain in the EU, but we hope that they will stay.

The post If the United Kingdom leaves the EU, it might shatter the country itself appeared first on Urmas Paet.

It is astonishing how many people are surprised that there was a military intervention by Russia in the Syrian Civil War on Assad’s side. How surprised can people be by what Russia is doing these days? The invasion of Georgia, the annexation of Crimea, the invasion of Eastern Ukraine, the intervention in the Syrian Civil War – and people are still surprised. It should finally be understood that Russia’s president Putin is basing his actions on something entirely different than the leaders of democratic Western countries do. The important difference here is readiness to use military force, even when the outcome is not entirely clear.

Dozens of people are killed and hundreds flee to Europe every day in the Syrian Civil War. Millions of Syrians are scattered around the world. In addition to the horrific acts by ISIL, many Syrians have fled their homeland to escape from Assad’s repressions. However, Russia has now created a new reality in Syria.

Russian leaders have a number of reasons to convince themselves and their society why they intervened in the Syrian Civil War and are supporting Assad’s regime. First of all, to achieve an international position that is as powerful as possible, it is necessary to tackle the most urgent problem in the world today. That is the Syrian Civil War, a huge political and humanitarian issue, considering the amount of casualties and refugees, with no end in sight.

Russian leaders are probably not wrong to assume that the majority of Europeans wish to see the end of the Syrian Civil War and the wave of refugees, even if that means Assad staying in power. In the current state it is possible to end the war if one side gains significant military superiority. Today these centres of power are the Assad regime and extremist militant group ISIL. Other opposition powers have unfortunately not had much success over the years. That is why it is easy for Russia to assume that the future of Syria is either Assad’s regime or ISIL, and to present that simplified approach internationally. That was confirmed by Russia’s actions in the first few days, the attacks against anti-Assad powers and not really against ISIL.

Russia’s intervention in Syria has been helped by the fact that Western countries have been unable to put an end to the war for years and there are more and more refugees headed towards Europe. The USA was close to a military intervention in Syria a few years ago, but it did not happen. Russia was one of the loudest critics of that intervention at the time. By now, Russia has created a new reality in Syria, which means there are no possible solutions for ending the Syrian Civil War without Russia.

Unfortunately Russia has no qualms about irritating Western countries. Especially considering that NATO member Turkey already feels directly affected.

The second reason for Russia’s intervention is the mindset that authoritarian leaders should not be overthrown. They probably see it as a threat to Russia, as well. Hussein and Iraq, Gaddafi and Libya, and, to some extent, Mubarak and Egypt – these are unfortunately examples of how a country was freed from its dictator, but it was followed by years of violence and anarchy. By supporting Assad, Russia wants to send a message about putting an end to that trend.

The third reason is belief that Syria’s current regime is viable and they can be Russia’s close ally in the Middle East. But Russia wants more than to just make friends with Syria’s current leaders. There is already a coalition between Russia, Syria, Iraq and Iran and it is very likely that Egypt and Lebanon will join, as well. Therefore, the support of Russia’s potential allies in the greater Middle East is significantly more extensive. If there are no more sanctions, Iran has more possibilities to take part in that partnership.

The fourth argument for the Russian leaders is to show themselves as men of action, not just to the greater Middle East, but on a global scale. Russia has delivered a message that they are prepared for a military intervention not just in the former Soviet Union, but anywhere in the world. That message is magnified for many areas of the world, where the USA and the EU are very subdued. Russian leaders think it is possible to increase authority or even fear, because in their opinion those are often one and the same.

We should not rule out the fifth argument, Russia’s hope that their intervention in Syria will blur reactions to what is still going on in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea. They also hope that in order to come to an agreement in Syria, Western countries are willing to disregard what is going on in Ukraine, as well as Russia’s interests in Ukraine and the former Soviet Union countries.

This is the instance where Western countries, Estonia included, can not allow for the lines of different conflicts to get blurry. Any possible deals with Russia to end the war in Syria can not damage the determination to end Russia’s aggression in Ukraine.

There are certainly some risks involved for Russia, in connection with their military intervention in Syria, and soon possibly in Iraq.

The biggest risk is not achieving instant military success, which means that the conflict between Assad, ISIL and other groups will keep going. People will still be killed, people will still flee, and Russia is unable to take credit for putting an end to the war. Also, constant military action is economically draining for Russia.

The other risk is that by intervening in the Syrian Civil War on Assad’s side, Russia has made its citizens the targets of revenge operations by ISIL and other extremist groups. If innocent Russian citizens are killed somewhere because of it, there will most probably be instant disapproval in the society. The wounds from the war in Afghanistan have not yet healed in Russia.

In conclusion, Russian leaders still have reasonings for themselves and their society to intervene with the Syrian Civil War. Europe, the USA and other Western countries are facing decisions and choices that are even more difficult. But those choices have to be made. Almost five years of the biggest humanitarian catastrophe of this century is a high price to pay, and Russia’s one-sided intervention in the hope of making their ally Assad stronger, will not bring the end to the Syrians’ suffering any closer. Any kind of functioning solution can happen only through cooperation, not by satisfying Russia’s global ambitions of opposition using the people of Syria.

The Nobel Peace Prize in the near future should go to someone who cares and who is able to create peace. In this instance it means helping Syrians to avoid fleeing from neither the governing regime nor the invading extremists.

The post Why did Russia intervene in the Syrian Civil War? appeared first on Urmas Paet.