Prime Minister Jüri Ratas, Minister of Foreign Affairs Urmas Reinsalu, and Adviser to the Minister of Foreign Affairs Mart Luik participated in the extraordinary press conference organised by the Government of the Republic on the anniversary of the passenger ferry Estonia disaster and answered questions from journalists.
The recording of the press conference is available at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pA5TRcGE5k
Chairperson Mariann Sudakov
Welcome everyone! Prime Minister Jüri Ratas, Minister of Foreign Affairs Urmas Reinsalu, and Adviser to the Minister of Foreign Affairs Mart Luik will talk about the disaster of Estonia.
I will now give the floor to Prime Minister Jüri Ratas. Welcome!
Jüri Ratas
Dear journalists! Dear audience of the press conference!
Today is a sad day. Today is a sad day in Estonia’s recent past. It still affects us today. 26 years ago, MS Estonia sunk in the stormy Baltic Sea.
The disaster killed people of many different nations, and the deaths of our loved ones, relatives, friends, and acquaintances caused us great pain.
It severely affected many families and people here in Estonia, as well as in our neighbouring countries and beyond.
Naturally, the grief over those lost lives is still felt.
A documentary screened today on the Discovery channel. The filmmakers have previously introduced to the representatives of the Estonian state some shots of the film, which concern significant damage to the starboard side of Estonia.
As a result, I have had meetings with my colleagues, the Prime Ministers of Finland and Sweden. I brought this information to them.
I think the question or answer is very simple. These are significant new facts which have not been mentioned before and they need a clear answer.
All ‘Why?’ questions must be answered clearly. It must, of course, be done with dignity and transparency, and the truth must come to light.
A new technical investigation into the circumstances of the Estonia disaster which emerged from the documentary series which screened on the Discovery Channel today must be carried out. In our opinion, the technical investigation must include underwater observations. We have also informed Finland and Sweden about this, and we have jointly agreed that Estonia, as the flag state of MS Estonia, will be responsible for this process.
Our understanding is that underwater operations must be carried out in compliance with the Estonia Agreement 1995.
Thank you!
Chairperson
Minister of Foreign Affairs Urmas Reinsalu.
Urmas Reinsalu
When we visited Finland and Sweden with the Prime Ministers last Tuesday, we agreed in principle – the prime ministers agreed – that the three ministers of foreign affairs would take a joint position on this new information.
This morning, together with my Finnish and Swedish colleagues, I made a joint statement in connection with the screening of this new documentary on the Estonia disaster.
The core of this statement actually consists of the following. Firstly, we have agreed between the three countries that if new information becomes available, we will process it jointly. Secondly, we do have new information. The documentary by the Discovery Network shows video footage of damage at the starboard of the wreck. It is extremely important to fully assess the significance of this information.
We have also agreed that, in verifying this new information, we will follow the Estonia Agreement 1995 between the three countries. This compliance with the agreement means that the inspections, including the underwater observations referred to by the Prime Minister, will be carried out with respect for both the victims and the principles of upholding the sanctity of grave.
We will agree on a technical procedure and a protocol on how this could be done without compromising of the sanctity of grave.
Our assessment, i.e. the assessment of the Estonian state, is that it is possible to carry out the underwater observations while respecting the agreement and adhering to the principles of ensuring the sanctity of the site.
It is important that further activities – the three countries have so agreed – are led by Estonia. This is due to the fact that Estonia was the flag state of MS Estonia.
In that statement, we also emphasised that we will rely on the findings of the 1997 final report. In other words, the technical investigation that we will be carrying out must also examine the facts presented in the documentary.
We need to learn the full truth about this and then, it will be possible to draw further conclusions and make assessments.
However, this technical inquiry does not in mean that the 1997 report of the International Commission of Inquiry has in any way been annulled.
New facts have emerged and we are conducting a technical investigation into these new facts. The conclusions of the technical investigation are, in fact, the basis on which we will make our decisions on further conclusions.
Thank you!
Chairperson
Thank you! Adviser to the Minister of Foreign Affairs Mart Luik
Mart Luik
Thank you! My task is to describe very briefly how we ended up in this situation.
The filmmakers contacted me two days before the emergency situation was declared, in early spring.
They said on the phone that they were making a documentary for Discovery, they had taken underwater shots last autumn, and they had new important information – substantial new findings, I think that was the term – that would need to be introduced to government officials.
Then came the coronavirus crisis, the emergency situation was declared, and travel stopped. We decided to come back to this.
In the summer, when travelling was possible again, we agreed that they would come to Tallinn and show us the most important shots.
Their counter-condition was that they must be able to film when the material was viewed, and someone must comment briefly on it. We decided that I would be the one to view it and I also invited Kalle Muuli, an adviser to the Minister of Justice.
On 12 August, they showed us those shots. I am not a shipping or maritime specialist, but it was clear this hole on the starboard side is significant damage that has not been reported anywhere before.
After that, I gave an overview to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. We then decided that these shots would be reviewed by technical experts as well.
In September, a group of five technical experts visited Oslo to examine these shots, and they confirmed that there are specific nuances that show the blow is from the outside and not ‘man-made’. This is not the result of an explosion, but the result of pressure from outside.
What happened next was already covered by the Prime Minister: these findings and this information were introduced to the other guarantors of the Estonia Agreement – Sweden and Finland.
Here we are now.
Urmas Reinalu
The media indicated there were some so-called secret negotiations in Finland and Sweden.
All the information that is currently at the disposal of the Estonian state is what Mart Luik described: there were certain shots in this documentary that some representatives of the Estonian state have seen.
The Discovery Channel requested not to make this public before the documentary aired. Mart Luik was with us when we visited the prime ministers of Finland and Sweden and he described what he had seen, but we do not have more information at the moment.
The information that the Prime Minister also presented to the prime ministers of Finland and Sweden was that the Discovery Channel had shown us some shots of specific technical damage to the ship.
This is where we are at currently. We are now at the beginning of a very long journey, where our task – the first thing we can do – is to find out the full truth.
Thank you!
Chairperson
Thank you! Dear journalists, you can now ask your questions. We will give you the microphone. Please state your name, publication, and the addressee of the question.
Viljar Voog, Õhtuleht
Mr Prime Minister, if you say that this underwater investigation can be carried out in accordance with the Estonia Agreement, does that also mean that the criminal investigations against two Swedish citizens, including the director of this series, a journalist, are unnecessary or wrong? Given that this can be done in accordance with the Estonia Agreement.
Jüri Ratas
First of all, Estonia has not initiated any criminal investigations.
We want to carry out this whole process in cooperation with the three countries, as I said – with Sweden, Finland, and Estonia.
This negotiation also took place when I visited Finland and Sweden last Tuesday. These technical studies and operations must be carried out jointly while respecting and abiding by the Estonia Agreement.
That was 22 September, last Tuesday.
As I said, we want to do this in cooperation with the three countries, respecting the agreement. The Estonia Agreement certainly makes it possible. Thank you!
Urmas Reinsalu
This certainly does not mean that – if the question referred to any future or past activities for which the agreement provides that the countries must ensure that such activities are prevented – it would in any way invalidate it.
The important thing is that it is an agreement between countries. It is the countries that actually enforce this agreement.
If we look at the purpose of the agreement in the preamble, which is the protection of the last resting place of the victims of the Estonia disaster from looting, it is definitely legally and substantially possible to reach an agreement between the countries by means of a technical protocol on further underwater observation activities which would respect the sanctity of grave of the victims and not contradict the agreement.
Johannes Tralla, Estonian Public Broadcasting
Could you shed some light on what this technical inquiry might contain and what are the limitations of the Estonia Agreement?
Does finding out the truth not outweigh reviewing these limitations?
Jüri Ratas
Thank you! We currently have a documentary series by a private company, a TV channel. This is what some representatives of the Estonian state have seen.
What does it contain? It must definitely include seabed surveys. Additionally, an observation of the Estonia shipwreck. So, in my opinion, all this must be done, but in great detail … it must include the development of certain solutions, such as 3D solutions, here on land. These steps must all be taken together. This will require an agreement between the three countries in the near future.
We have asked for a proposal from the Government Office, which will then submit it to the government cabinet.
Urmas Reinsalu
The point of the question was whether the Estonia Agreement imposes any restrictions that would not allow the truth to be discovered. We have – both the Estonian government and in this joint statement by the Estonian, Swedish, and Finnish Ministers of Foreign Affairs – clearly indicated the need to carry out an inspection when these circumstances arise.
The answer is no. It is certainly possible to follow the Estonia Agreement in this way and also to attribute such an interpretation jointly between the states which will make it possible to establish the full truth. Otherwise, there would undoubtedly be no point in this technical investigation currently being planned. That would be a fruitless.
We are conducting a technical study that provides a complete answer to the new questions that have arisen.
Our assessment is that it is legally possible to do so in accordance with the Estonia Agreement. We have also informed Finland and Sweden about it. We have agreed that Estonia, as the flag state, will lead this process.
Sven Soiver, TV3, Seitsmesed uudised
Question to Mart Luik.
Did I understand you correctly that these shots have been shown to representatives of the Estonian state, but not to representatives of Finland and Sweden?
Do the Estonian technical experts who looked at the shots have an opinion on what could have created such a hole?
Mart Luik
As far as I know, no one from Finland was directly involved in such a way that they would look at these shots. Representatives of Sweden have allegedly not seen it either. This was the answer to the first question.
The second question about technical experts: of course, they have their own theories based these shots. However, it would not be appropriate to discuss those yet. That is the point of this investigation.
What this hole shows is that it was caused by significant external force directed inwards. In this regard, the Estonian technical experts basically agreed with the professor who was interviewed in the documentary and with his assessment that this kind of damage would require at least 500–1,000 tons of force. It can also occur on the seabed – at the moment the ship sank. For example, it might have fallen on a large rock.
All of this can only be established as a result of an investigation with a seabed sonar scan and all these activities.
Jüri Ratas
I would like to add that, in my opinion, the fundamental question is: what are we going to do with this new and certainly important information which, to our knowledge, has not been reported before.
Our message today is that we want to find out the truth on the basis of this information. We do not think that the truth can be ascertained in any other way than to carry out this technical investigation.
Which is, naturally, based on underwater observations. However, it is also necessary, as I said before, to develop these solutions or constructions right here on shore or on land. The technical investigation must be carried out.
Sven Soiver, TV3
Another question to the Prime Minister.
You said that the 1997 report has not been annulled; it is valid. The new investigation is based on this report.
Would it not be reasonable to start a new investigation from scratch? In other words – will it not influence any previous conclusions and force the researchers to think in a certain direction?
Jüri Ratas
As I said, I know exactly as much as the press does. There is a 4-metre hole on the right side – as Mart Luik said, as the experts reported – which was caused by an external force or pressure.
This is completely new information. The technical investigation must be launched on that basis.
There is nothing to suggest that the 1997 final report is invalid or must be annulled in any way.
In that sense – the new information we gathered from the Discovery documentary series –, we are starting with a clean slate. This must, of course, be seen as completely new information.
As far as we know today, these investigations have not taken place before. This could not have been done before because the starboard side was not visible before.
Urmas Reinsalu
I think that Sven Soiver asked a very pertinent question regarding the joint statement by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs that we are relying on the report’s conclusions. This meant that the decision to carry out this new inspection in relation to the footage shown in this documentary does not automatically nullify the 1997 investigation report.
However, it would be completely unthinkable that if we carry out a new technical inquiry, it must somehow fit into all the possible technical conclusions of the 1997 report, which were drawn from the knowledge of the time.
That would undoubtedly be a distortion of the truth. The technical investigation will definitely be autonomous. It must be autonomous and completely independent of any previous technical assessments that have been made.
It will give us new findings on the basis of which it will be possible to draw new conclusions.
Viljar Voog, Õhtuleht
Question to Mart Luik.
The Prime Minister already pointed out that the ship has shifted 12 degrees compared to 1994, and the starboard side of the hull, where this hole is, has become visible.
Do the experts have an initial assessment as to whether this hole was visible when the earlier dives took place and simply not investigated? Or was it not visible?
Mart Luik
Experts cannot actually assess something like this as a result of visual observation, can they?
But the filmmakers’ claim seems logical, because the ship is on such a slope. The seabed there is not a flat. The keel has turned slightly upwards, 12 degrees, and the area where the hole is located is now visible. Before, the hull was on that side against the seabed.
This seems plausible to the experts. Regardless, it cannot be naturally checked by visual inspection.
Henry-Laur Allik, Postimees
Question to either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Foreign Affairs – whoever can answer better.
Is it known who will carry out these technical studies and is there any idea what this could mean for the state in terms of the budget?
Jüri Ratas
As the flag state, we have agreed that Estonia will conduct this technical investigation.
In regards to who will conduct it in Estonia, we have agreed that the Government Office, in cooperation with the relevant ministries, will work on this issue and then submit its proposals to the cabinet.
Third question: what will it cost? These amounts have not yet been discussed. I am convinced that funding will not be an issue – if that was the point of your question – we will certainly be able to carry out these observations and technical studies.
Henry-Laur Allik, Postimees
Will these costs be borne by Estonia?
Jüri Ratas
This information, as I said, was exchanged with the three prime ministers last Tuesday.
We did not discuss any percentages or who will have to pay how many euros. We did not focus on this. The main issue was to find out the truth, to find out on the basis of this new information what caused this big hole. It seemed to me that all countries actually sincerely wanted that.
Urmas Reinsalu
I also do not think money is an issue. The Estonian state is undoubtedly ready to contribute as much as necessary, no matter how technically complex these procedures become, no matter the price or cost.
I have no doubt that we will agree on the technical arrangements between the three countries when it comes to funding the investigation. It is only a matter of technical organisation.
I think the most important thing right now is to prepare a research scheme in which we can now involve the highest technical competence at the international level, which would allow us to carry out the investigation using advanced technological tools.
Siiri Ottender-Paasma, Kanal 2
Margus Kurm, as the head of the MS investigation committee, has stated that the statements of several witnesses were omitted from the first international report, as if selectively.
Would it not be reasonable to start this investigation from scratch in light of these new facts and not rely on the previous analysis and investigation?
Jüri Ratas
Let us talk about these new facts. These new facts are presented in the new documentary series and are available for anyone to see not only in the Estonian press, but also worldwide.
These are the new facts we now know.
We know that this has not been included in previous reports.
Therefore, we must analyse the information that is now available to us. If this technical investigation somehow leads us somewhere, we cannot stop until we find the answers.
As I and the Minister of Foreign Affairs have said today, our wish is that the truth come to light, no matter what. Our desire is to be completely open with society – thanks to you, dear journalists. We want all these ‘Why?’ questions to be answered.
Thank you!
Urmas Reinsalu
Our plan is not to add a few pages to the 1997 report and call it a reprint of the 1997 report.
No. We are conducting a new investigation based on the claims made by the Discovery Channel. Then, we will give a technical assessment and draw professional expert conclusions from it.
In my opinion, these things are completely autonomously separated from each other. That is how we understand it.
As for the other facts you referred to, without speculating on these facts, we emphasised in our statement this morning that if important new information becomes available, it will be discussed and assessed jointly by the countries.
In fact, pursuant to the decision of the Tallinn Administrative Court, it has been the obligation of the government to respond to the complaints of the people who lost their loved ones, which also concerns the need to open a new investigation into Estonia.
The government will respond to them in relation to the situation in which we have found ourselves this morning with a joint statement of the three countries. With the conclusions we have now presented.
Dmitri Kulikov, Estonian Public Broadcasting
What are the next specific steps – maybe you could share in more detail about what you are going to do and with whom?
Jüri Ratas
We are going to work with Sweden and Finland. The timetable on how exactly this technical investigation will be carried out will have to be agreed between the three countries.
At the moment, this communication mainly takes place through the offices of the prime ministers and ministers of foreign affairs. We will have to see exactly how this coordination will be facilitated.
As I have said, the Government Office is currently working on specific proposals to submit to the government in the near future.
At some point, this investigation must actually be carried out. Since it will take place at sea, weather conditions will, naturally, play a role, but I think it must be done as soon as possible.
Viljar Voog, Õhtuleht
A question to the Prime Minister. Understandably, it has been a long week and a half and probably quite stressful.
What is the situation with the budget negotiations? Will the Riigikogu discuss it on time? Thank you!
Jüri Ratas
Yes, we will. On Wednesday, the budget for 2021 will be presented to the Riigikogu.
The government must also adopt the state budget strategy 2021–2024.
These big processes are still underway.
Tomorrow, we will have another government meeting on this issue – both the budget and the state budget strategy.
Johannes Tralla, Estonian Public Broadcasting
You have mentioned on a few occasions that the series has already premiered. Have you had the chance to watch it? Or a part of it?
Jüri Ratas
I believe all five episodes of the series premiered at the same time. Each episode is, if I recall correctly, over 40 minutes long.
No, I have not yet seen it. I plan to watch it after tonight’s meetings, if possible.
I think that everyone is interested in watching it. I have not seen the episodes or the short clips that have been shown.
I have only heard descriptions from people who have.
Johannes Tralla, Estonian Public Broadcasting
Urmas Reinsalu, have you seen the series?
Urmas Reinsalu
I have not. Some people have seen some clips – in August – and we have drawn our conclusions from it. We have no additional information.
Chairperson
If there are no more questions, the press conference is over.
