Estonian President Kersti Kaljulaid giving a speech in June 2017. Photo by Estonian Foreign Ministry, CC-BY. In her recent independence day speech, Estonian President Kersti Kaljulaid spoke on technological change, the globalization of labor, and the dangers of close-minded nationalism. This last point has dominated global reactions to her remarks. In her national address, which marked the 26th anniversary of Estonian independence from the Soviet Union, President Kaljulaid talked about the perceived contradictions between national and socially liberal values. Her remarks were concrete and straight forward, emphasizing the possibility of preserving Estonian culture “without inhibiting democracy.” “I am proud that I am an Estonian and I do not see any contradiction in also being part of an international value-based community,” she said. She continued: Iseseisvus tähendaski muuhulgas võimalust olla ka eri meelt. Üks idee, üks arvamus, üks õigus – see oli see, millest me tahtsime vabaks saada. Toona tundsime sarnases mõttelaadis ilmeksimatult ära totalitarismi. Täna, 26 aastat hiljem, oleme millegipärast hakanud arvama, et me ei vajagi oma erimeelsusi. Tundub ka, nagu ei oskaks me enam leida mõistlikke kompromisse. Selliseid, mille puhul võimalikult paljude süda oleks ikkagi rahul. Among other things, independence also means the opportunity to disagree. One idea, one opinion, one right – this is what we wanted to be free of. At that time [when Estonia gained independence from the Soviet Union], we explicitly recognised that this way of thinking meant totalitarianism. Today, 26 years later, we have for some reason started to think that different opinions are no longer necessary. We seem unable find any reasonable compromises anymore – ones that many people would be happy with. Kaljulaid outlined current, nationalist attitudes in Estonia that are also being felt around the world. Instead of supporting socially inclusive choices, she observed that the emphasis these days seems to be on everybody’s right to make their own choices. She drew on Estonia’s history and the Baltic states’ fight for freedom, saying how the struggle from Soviet occupation allowed for democratic states that easily adopted governments that “follow the rule of law, value personal liberties, free media, and keep the power of state within a predictable framework.” Now, Kaljulaid warned, Estonians are threatened by a “self-occupation” that can be brought on by the restriction of freedoms in the name of an idea. “One cannot aspire to lead the society and then make compromises related the Estonia's long-term future in the name of one's own short-term political interests. Victory is accompanied by the obligation to make sure that the losers do not feel they have been sacrificed for the interests of others,” she said. She continued: Iseenda okupeerimine, see algab ühe idee nimel, ühe mõtte taha koondununa teiste ideede ja mõtete kuulamata jätmisest. Järgneb selle tüütu pirina, mis on eriarvamus, kinni keeramine. Sest kui nagunii ei kuula, siis saab teistest mõtetest müra. Ja valmis ta ongi. Demokraatiast saab minevik. Me näeme sellist iseenda okupeerimist riikides, kelle kohta me oleme arvanud, et meiega sarnane raudse eesriide kogemus aitab niisuguseid arenguid vältida. Me oleme olnud veendunud, et demokraatiat neis riikides, nagu ka meie riigis, saaks hävitada vaid võõras võim. Sellepärast on oht, et me ei pane pahaks sarnaste arengute toetamist nende poolt, kes kõnelevad meiega sama keelt. Iseenda okupeerimine, see käib hiilivamalt kui siis, kui okupant on võõras. Vabaduste piiramine mis iganes püha idee nimel, olgu selleks puhas eestlus või parem toiduvalik – see on iseenda okupeerimise algus. An occupation is usually initiated in the name of an idea, mobilising behind a concept without listening to other ideas or concepts. This is followed by shutting off the annoying buzz of dissenting opinions, because if you don't listen, the ideas of others will just turn into noise. That's all it takes. And democracy is consigned to the past. We see this self-occupation occurring in countries where we thought that our similar experience behind the Iron Curtain would help them avoid such developments. We had been convinced that democracy in those countries, as in ours, could only be destroyed by a foreign power. And therefore we are in danger of not taking offence at the support for such developments if those promoting them speak the same language we do. Self-occupation moves more stealthily than occupation by a foreigner. The restriction of freedom, in the name of any sacred idea, be it pure Estonianism or a better choice of food – can mark the start of self-occupation. The speech resonated within the country and the neighboring region.