The Baltics have grown up. Do not call them new member states

Graphic by helloRuby / Shutterstock

Despite this, along with their Central European neighbours, they are still often referred to as “new member states” both in public and media discourses. It is as if their full European adulthood is still an aspiration, rather than an achieved milestone. As a matter of comparison, no one would have called Finland or Austria “new member states” in the early 2000s, just a few years after their accession.  

As we celebrate two decades since what has been called the reunification of Europe, it is probably the right time to look back and take stock of what has been achieved. This will help us to highlight where we are as a Union and what is still missing to move forward in our integration process.

Know where you come from

Many argue that for the Baltics, the Second World War only ended in 1991 when Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania regained their stolen independence after being impoverished and ruined by more than 50 years of brutal Soviet occupation. As they reappeared on the maps of a new Europe, the three countries were faced with the herculean challenge of rebuilding themselves from very little.

The idea of a “return to Europe” proved to be a powerful aspiration to bring the Baltics back to their natural home – the family of European nations, where their history and culture have been shaped over the past centuries and where, as proud independent nations, they had belonged for more than 20 years in the interwar period. European integration was not simply an abstract concept – an empty signifier – but also a concrete and tangible synonym of economic development, ontological security and democratic consolidation. The idea of return turned out to be a potent symbol uniting political elites and the public towards one common and shared goal.

Balts who fled their country out of fear of the terror of the Red Army in 1944, and their sons and daughters, returned to their homelands to help build a better future for their grandsons and granddaughters. The spirit of that time – a mix of hope and struggle, of economic poverty and moral richness – is epitomized by the famous words of Lennart Meri, the first president of the newly free Estonia, “the situation may be shit, but it is our fertilizer for the future.”

The personal saga of Meri, who faced persecution and exile during the long dictatorship of Soviet communism, exemplifies both the experience and challenge of Estonia’s young and freedom-minded political class. Thanks to their determination – backed by the strength of a whole nation that was united in the peaceful Singing Revolution – the movement that began in the late 1980s during Mikhail Gorbachev’s era of glasnost and perestroika saw the tiny Baltic states play a crucial role in the collapse of the Soviet Union. This role was similar to that played by Poland in the collapse of the Kremlin-led Eastern Bloc.

Not an easy path

Despite the general perception of an unproblematic process, the Baltic accession to the European Union was all but a relaxed gala dinner and it has – from time to time – presented tangible challenges along the way. Since the signing of the Europe Association Agreements in the late 1990s, it took more than five years to finalize the accession negotiations. Key issues addressed in the negotiations included the legal adoption of EU standards in relation to company legislation and the operation of the financial system; the protection of intellectual property rights and competition policies; as well as the integration of the Russian-speaking minorities. Moreover, given the limited progress in Latvia and the chaotic political situation in Lithuania, only Estonia was considered among the prospective enlargement countries in the 1997 Luxembourg summit, together with Poland, Hungary, Czechia, Slovenia and Cyprus.

In addition to the issues directly related to the accession negotiations, geopolitical considerations were not absent in relation to Baltic membership and – in many cases – made influential circles in Western Europe particularly cautious. We cannot ignore that, despite the western policy of non-recognition of the Soviet occupation, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were the only territories of the former Soviet Union to be granted the status of candidates for full EU membership until Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Overall, the synergy of political representatives and represented citizens allowed the Baltic states to overcome the struggles of the 1990s and to start the new millennium as the poster children of a successful democratic and economic transition, exactly at the time when the EU accession became a reality.

The myth of the “Baltic Tigers” was now born. The case of Estonia is emblematic of how EU membership served as a powerful multiplier of the country’s successful transition and – at the same time – provided the required motivation to undertake the necessary reforms to secure it. Being part of a borderless Europe has made Estonians freer, while access to the single market and to Brussels’s financial support has boosted Estonian businesses and supported the country’s infrastructure.

Estonia has now built an effective e-state and gained a reputation as one of Europe’s most digital countries. Estonians can profit from one of the best educational systems in the world and have one of the highest incomes per capita in Central and Eastern Europe. Its capital, Tallinn, is home to countless start-ups and innovative businesses, including world renowned hi-tech unicorns.

However, it would be almost impossible to imagine all of this in a “lonely” Estonia, detached from global trends and outside of the EU. Estonians and their Baltic fellows have delivered – with their determination and courage – the seeds of the country’s success. However, EU membership has provided fertile ground for them to flourish and prosper far beyond the borders of the nation state in a safe and secure environment. Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians know well what they were escaping from in the early 1990s – an oppressive and intrusive state; ubiquitous bureaucracy; a cripplingly centralized economy; and international isolation. They shaped their restored country in exactly the opposite way: digital, light, uncomplicated, business-friendly and open to the world.

Europe with a Baltic accent

This new openness translated into the Baltics’ full return to the European family as committed members of the free world, determined to promote the values of international cooperation and multilateralism by advancing European (and transatlantic) integration. Who we are today is shaped by our history. The experience of the Baltics’ troubled past, the painful liberal economic reforms of the 1990s, and the constant striving for individual freedom and regional security have also shaped the Baltics’ priorities as EU member states and their concrete and long-term policy objectives.

Internally, from economy to new technologies, the Baltic accent has been making Brussels more effective and less bureaucratic – less big words and more tangible deeds. In terms of socio-economic policies, the focus has been on fiscal restraint and on smart solutions rather than interventionism. In terms of the single market, the Baltic priorities have been to move away from protectionism, while embracing open trade and integrated global markets. In foreign policy and security policy, an emphasis has been placed on stressing complementarity and the non-duplication of tasks between NATO and the EU, as well as containing Russia’s imperialist temptations and focusing attention towards the Eastern neighbourhood.

Since 2004, the Baltic states have built a reputation in Brussels of being reliable, trusted and deeply committed members. Overall, they present some of the highest levels of compliance with EU rules and have among the lowest number of violations and infringement cases reported by the European Commission. It is also worth mentioning the fact that Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania refrained from two temptations quite common in the Central and Eastern European region: the idea of flexible solidarity and illiberal tendencies. When dealing with very domestically sensitive policy packages, such as the allocation of refugee quotas and the Greek recovery plan, the Baltics did not follow the example of some of the Visegrad countries and instead contributed to agreed EU actions. They always preferred negotiations over exit. The rationale behind this attitude was that to expect solidarity from others, it is necessary to show solidarity towards others.

In terms of domestic political developments, while the Baltics have not been immune to populist or illiberal politics, they have managed to maintain a strong adherence to the values and norms of liberal democracy and have not experienced substantial erosions in the quality of their democracies comparable to Orban’s Hungary or PiS-dominated Poland. Unlike Central and Eastern Europe, if anything – over the last 20 years – the quality of Baltic democracy has only grown, as a more empirical look at the indicators reveals. Nowadays, the Baltics outperform most of “old Europe” in terms of quality of democracy according to Freedom House’s Freedom in the World and Freedom on the Net indices. They also present a lower level of corruption than their western counterparts according to the Corruption Perception Index, as well as a remarkably open information space according to the World Press Freedom Index. Finally, they have some of the most transparent judiciary systems according to the Rule of Law Index.

Playing by the rules has also gone hand in hand with learning fast how to play the game in Brussels, with Baltic officials proving to be – in many institutional contexts – valued negotiators, key deal brokers, and the natural bridge builders between Northern Europe and Central and Eastern Europe. This combination of pragmatism, consistency and acquired trust among the partners has given the Baltics the chance to exert an influence over EU policy that is much bigger than their physical size. This has been clearly seen in their key role in shaping Brussels’s support towards Ukraine following Russia’s full-scale invasion.

 New Europe, no more

Over the last 20 years as EU members, the Baltics have moved from the periphery of the Union’s decision-making to its core and have a model to offer for the next 20 years characterized by the same pragmatism, consistency, reliability and can-do attitude that gained them full membership in 2004. The last two years, in the context of Russia’s war of aggression, have proven that beyond any doubts the Baltics have a lot to offer the EU, far beyond digital solutions and smart economy. While the traditional Franco-German engine struggled to understand and react to the new geopolitical reality defined by the war in Ukraine, the Baltic leaders have been central to articulating a more coherent European response; to redefining the priorities of the Union’s Common Foreign and Security Policy; and to eventually making the EU a geopolitical actor. While we cannot attribute the merit of Brussels’s direct military support to Ukraine and of the new momentum in the enlargement process exclusively to one single group of countries, it is hard to deny that the intensity of Baltic voices and their understanding of the geopolitical context have been key to shaking the sleepy capitals of old Europe.

In a recent address in Paris, Estonia’s Prime Minister Kaja Kallas, paraphrasing Schuman’s words, warned that “we must understand the threat – really understand it – to make the efforts proportionate to the danger” and stressed that “history is calling on us [Europe] to make bold decisions. Everything we do now will have real-life implications for all of us tomorrow.” As I listened to Kallas’s speech in front of a French audience, I cannot help but think back to when Jacques Chirac attacked, back in 2003, EU candidates from Central and Eastern Europe, saying that they missed a great opportunity to “shut up” with reference to their support for the US stance on Iraq.

Twenty years later, it is probably fair to say that – when it comes to the future of the European Union – the Baltic states and their Central and Eastern European fellows should not miss any opportunity to speak up and be heard.

Actions speak volumes and – as the core of EU decision-making becomes more plural and less a monopoly of the Paris-Berlin engine – Tallinn, Riga and Vilnius have proven to have reached full adulthood as EU member states. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are no longer “new member states” aspiring to be good students in a never-ending exam. The idea of an old Europe looking down at a teenage new Europe has been surpassed by history.

While this new reality is proven by facts and confirmed by actions, the state of things in Brussels and its institutions shows that the re-unification of Europe achieved in 2004 has not yet delivered all its fruits. Since the enlargement, we have witnessed only one representative of the region – Poland’s Donald Tusk – rise to the top of EU decision-making. In the current term, none of the leaders of the top three EU institutions have come from the countries that joined the Union in 2004. If the voices of half of Europe are not properly represented in the top seats of Brussels’s cockpit tasked with driving Europe forward, we should not be surprised if its citizens do not always understand where we are going and feel disaffected towards the European project.

As the recent European Parliament elections will shape the democratic state of our Union for years to come, we have the unique opportunity to take a decisive step towards the finalization of the process that we started in 2004. As Kaja Kallas reminded us, it is time “to make bold decisions” – to shape a Union for the next 20 years in which every voice is heard and in which there are no longer old and new member states.

As we celebrate Europe Day one year from now – on May 9th 2025, we can only hope to see a Lithuanian president of the Commission at the helm of Europe’s executive; or an Estonian president of the European Council shaking hands with the US president; or a Latvian high representative shaping the Union’s foreign policy. It will be the best way to celebrate genuine European Unity and to honour the true spirit of the Schuman Declaration.

Stefano Braghiroli is an associate professor of European Studies at the Johan Skytte Institute of Political Studies at the University of Tartu in Estonia.

Baltics, EU integration, EU membership