President Alar Karis' visit to Kazakhstan and its aftermath have helpfully brought greater attention to the practical side of Estonia's foreign policy — an area that has thus far been overshadowed by the broad national consensus around our security-driven stance and the foreign policy positions that stem from it.

No one has challenged these fundamental principles and yet Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna (Eesti 200) felt it necessary to state at a government press conference: "As foreign minister, I absolutely do not accept any alternative approach. Everyone is free to speak their mind, to say whatever they wish, but I have no doubt that Estonia has a single foreign policy and that policy exists precisely because all other directions would be directly against the security of the Estonian people and of Europe."

And it is in this statement that the real problems with our foreign policy are revealed. In the prevailing view, foreign policy has been reduced to little more than topical security policy. There's a failure to distinguish between unity of purpose and flexibility in how that purpose is achieved, combined with an intolerance for any deviations from the main line set by the minister's office. That's both ignorant and dangerous.

So, with kind permission, I'll go ahead and speak my mind.

Our public foreign policy has gradually become trivialized, consisting largely of black-and-white, slogan-like positions that divide the world into pro-Estonian and pro-Kremlin camps. These positions, presented under the banner of a "unified foreign policy," are increasingly being used in domestic political battles, drawing a hard line between the coalition and the opposition. How such an approach could possibly contribute to national unity or security is beyond comprehension.

On the international stage, we tend to view the world almost exclusively through the lens of Russia's war of aggression. From that vantage point, we publicly criticize nearly all our allies — from the United States and Germany to France and Turkey — never mind other countries. Unfortunately, this approach has even led to the emergence of a term on the international scene: the "Estonization" of foreign policy — a phrase that is hardly used as a compliment. Have we forgotten our once-justified concern about becoming a one-issue country?

Isn't one of the root causes of this way of thinking a simplistic take on value-based versus interest-based foreign policy where the former is pitted against the latter and special emphasis is placed on the supremacy of "values" — whose values, exactly, and which ones? Where do these values come from and to what extent are they truly shared?

Perhaps we should spend more time considering why other countries act the way they do and what we might learn from it. As a first mental exercise, let's consider Turkey, which has a thousand-year history of confrontation with Russia, and then Finland. I believe both of these countries have values, as well as national interests.

It would also be worth giving deeper thought to a reflection from Lennart Meri's "Silverwhite," in which he writes that international law is the nuclear weapon of small states. But the force of international law lies in its mechanisms of enforcement, and in today's changed world, not much remains of that "bomb." As a result, public rhetoric that disregards reality may not help move us forward — it may instead undermine our credibility in the eyes of our partners.

Like it or not, the future of the world will not be born out of a clash between our "correct" values and the "wrong" values of others. Rather, it will emerge from the pursuit of happiness by different nations and peoples — efforts that often lack common ground and, at times, descend into bloody conflict.

From this perspective, we should take a deeper look at what today's multipolar world truly means. There is no longer just one "temple of values" built on Enlightenment ideals and the Atlantic Charter, now enshrined in the UN Charter — there are several. Might this not point to our real challenge: to stand together with like-minded partners for ourselves, for our interests, our values and our history, rather than dedicating ourselves to saving the world through an egotistically canonized creed?

Head of the Riigikogu Foreign Affairs Committee Marko Mihkelson (Reform) has articulated this principle as follows: "Therefore, Estonia's foreign policy must be clear, principled and values-based." From that, we infer that the United States should do one thing, the European Union another and China a third. But so far, none of them have listened to us. Would we get further if we stated our positions even more clearly — and more loudly?

None of this calls into question Estonia's foreign policy as a whole; rather, it points to the questions we haven't been asking about how it's implemented. Through our determination, we've secured our place among the free nations of the world and built a professional foreign service whose knowledge and experience provide a strong foundation for future success.

That accumulated expertise is worth listening to. I believe that by doing so, we'll find the necessary balance between the ideal and the achievable and arrive at more flexible ways to meet our foreign policy goals.

Of course we must remain true to our values — they are like a compass in stormy seas. But any seasoned captain knows that the rougher the sea, the more important it is not only to follow the compass, but also to keep the ship steady against the waves and avoid running aground. It's good to know there's an experienced captain in Kadriorg.

--

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