Karis attended the UN 80th General Assembly in New York last week, just days after three Russian military jets violated Estonian airspace, and gave some of his impressions to "Välisilm."

You gave a speech at the UN. Did the prompter and escalator function, and how did you actually get to the hall?

Life has taught me that you should not trust that tech too much, and I have delivered all my speeches at the UN from paper, so that I don't have to use the prompter.

In your speech you said that we should all ask ourselves what kind of future we want to see and whether we want a world where brute force and violence prevail and where the stronger is always right? Is it not already the case now, that the stronger is right and that the world is ruled by the U.S., Russia, and China?

When I went to the UN this time, I asked our ambassador what had happened this year. He said that things have gotten worse in the space of a year. This probably demonstrates that something must indeed be done more forcefully. There are also countries that have realized that this really leads nowhere, plus let us not forget that most of the countries in the UN are small states. That means it can also be cooperation between small states. It should be improved so that the multilateral world remains and brutality does not come to power. It is easier to say this here at the ["Välisilm"] table than to carry it out, but the UN was established for exactly this reason, to prevent conflicts. And also to make sure they do not spread.

You could ask, somewhat vindictively; whether the UN makes any sense. I have also asked myself that question, but then I also ask in return, what is the alternative? Today we see no other place where countries can meet, look each other in the eye, and talk through their worries and joys. Everyone has their own, and every speech certainly has meaning. Maybe it reaches the people who want to hear it. Some speak with the idea of resolving a domestic issue. Others want their concerns to be heard more widely, memos are made, and one must see where those memos end up. Most importantly, does anything actually happen when all these speeches have been made?

How many speeches were there that were listened to by a full house?

This is already a tradition that when it starts, the secretary-general is always listened to, and the first speaker is always the president of Brazil – as historically, at the beginning, no one wanted to be first, so Brazil decided it was willing to be, and it has remained so. Certainly also the president of the U.S., who is listened to both when standing and sitting.

The other speeches go as they do. It is never quite an empty hall, as if the heads of state are not in the room, there is always someone there taking notes. That doesn't really mean much, though, because it is a very packed week. Once those important speeches are heard, everyone breaks out to their meetings. There is a lot of bustle in those corridors, you get to meet many people, and heads of state. Perhaps a few words can be exchanged one, two, or three sentences at a time, but there are always speeches where one country or another goes to show its solidarity, just as we have always gone to hear the speech from the president of Ukraine.

This speech by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was highly emotional. Was the hall full for it?

It certainly was. I can't compare how many there were for the U.S. president and how many for Zelenskyy. The first time he spoke, when the full-scale war had just started, there were certainly more. Now people are, unfortunately, somewhat used to the war, but his speech was emotional and at the same time not only Ukraine-centered, since he also looked at the world a bit more broadly.

Estonia has been very prominent in foreign news due to the fact that Russia violated our airspace with three aircraft, and our foreign minister Margus Tsahkna spoke very prominently at the UN Security Council. Was Estonia's speech somehow listened to more than usual?

That is now very hard to assess, and I think that the step Estonia took at the Security Council – this was well organized. All credit has to go to our ambassador and to everyone involved. If we speak about victory, well I think that victory still has to be awaited. In the end, the shortest-term goal is that aircraft do not come into our and other countries' airspace, and secondly, that the war in Ukraine ends, so that we have confidence here in Europe – that must be the goal.

I think one appearance may not be enough, and let's be honest, I was also skeptical at first. Whether it is a sensible step to open Article 4, because Poland had just done that, but the circumstances fit together very well and it went exactly as it went. It was listened to, and it was praised in the corridors.

Canada, Australia, and France recognized the State of Palestine just before their speeches. We here in Estonia have not positioned ourselves on that. At the same time, three-quarters of the world's countries have already recognized the State of Palestine. So shouldn't we also? Has the time not come for us to start taking a position?

Our official position today is this: That we support the creation of two states. We have not recognized Palestine, and neither have the neighboring states [of Estonia], but certainly at some point the government must sit down and consider what our position will be, when most countries have already recognized Palestine. On the other hand, as I have always said when asked, today 150 countries have already recognized the State of Palestine, yet what does not exist is the State of Palestine. At the same time, understandably, the longer this process goes on, the smaller the chance that we can still speak of two states – the State of Palestine and the State of Israel.

You mentioned earlier that in all kinds of corridors it is possible at such events to meet various heads of state. Was there also any good meeting where something important happened for you?

Whether something happened or not, there certainly were some interesting meetings. Even before my speech at the General Assembly I spoke with the President of Argentina, whom I had not met before his speech, since his [speech] was the next one. Another interesting fact is that I spoke with the person who organizes all of this, and that is a science in and of itself. They said that all the speeches of heads of state from the past three years get reviewed – even if the leader has changed – and then they try to arrange the order so that by evening the speeches can all be delivered. It is not the case that people go one after the other and start speaking; there is a real science behind it.

There were many such casual encounters. For example, at an evening reception hosted by President Trump, I spoke at length with the Queen of the Netherlands, since I have also worked in the Netherlands so there were topics to discuss. Such casual meetings are quite frequent, so you also have to be ready for those – that if the president of a completely foreign and distant country comes up to you, you can say something about them or their country or that region, and not immediately start talking about Estonia and the digital state.

Trump was very critical of the UN in his speeches. Was he the same later at dinner?

That evening reception speech was shorter, but in content it was quite similar, and he continued to amuse himself with the escalator and the prompter, and also spoke about seven countries which he had brought peace to. And so these things go: Sometimes you have to look at a president's somewhat through the prism of humor.

Has he really begun to be seen through the prism of humor?

Let's be frank, he is still the president of a major state and his words carry weight, and so they must be listened to. In that very speech, which also concerned the UN, there was some truth there. Very much still remains undone. Conflicts are still ongoing, and on top of that there are several dozen frozen conflicts waiting their turn, as it were. Something must be done to fulfill the charter that the UN has, and otherwise we cannot move forward, because, as I said, there is no alternative to the UN right now.

--

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