An extraordinary meeting of the Riigikogu Foreign Affairs Committee was held the Sunday before last in connection with the U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran, where, according to committee chair Marko Mihkelson (Reform), a consensus position was reached.

"We convened the meeting on an extraordinary basis because the European Union's Foreign Affairs Council was scheduled for the same evening. In accordance with our procedure and good practice, before the minister attends such a meeting, he comes to present Estonia's political positions. Together we found that the minister could and should also deliver a clear message to his European colleagues that Estonia sees a clear need to stand with its allies. And to support, in one way or another, what the United States and Israel are doing," Mihkelson said.

However, according to Urmas Reinsalu (Isamaa), this was not reflected in the statements made by Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna (Eesti 200).

"My proposal was indeed, as Mr. Mihkelson noted, that we should have a clearer line regarding support for U.S. military action. I later looked at the written summary of the Foreign Affairs Council meeting and the foreign minister did not express it in that form," Reinsalu said.

Raimond Kaljulaid (SDE) recalled that similar cases of Estonia's foreign policy messaging becoming stalled have occurred before. "As a precedent, I also recall how we in the Riigikogu formed the position that Ukraine should be invited to join NATO before the NATO summit and that also did not actually make it into Estonia's official positions nor was it presented to NATO allies in that form," Kaljulaid said.

"It certainly gives us something to think about: if a position is formed in the Riigikogu by consensus with the participation of all political forces, then there cannot be a situation where the foreign minister does not convey that position. In that case, either there is no point discussing these matters in the Riigikogu or the foreign minister should explain why he does not take into account what the Riigikogu majority considers necessary," Kaljulaid said.

"Perhaps we should also consider how to further strengthen and improve cooperation between the Riigikogu, Stenbock House and the Iceland Square (Ministry of Foreign Affairs –ed.)," Kaljulaid added.

Marko Mihkelson responded that he does not see a problem and that in Estonia there is a politically shared understanding that the best security guarantee for Ukraine is NATO membership.

"I do not see a question here that, in the context of this or previous governments, there would be differing views on these fundamental issues between parliament, the parties and the government," Mihkelson said.

Both Reinsalu and Kaljulaid acknowledged that the European Union has also been unable to form a clear position on Iran.

"From the conclusions of last week's [European Union] Foreign Affairs Council, it is even harder to determine whether the council opposed the military action or actually acknowledged the possibility or necessity of countering Iran's terrorist threat by military means," Reinsalu said.

Kaljulaid pointed out that Europe has also lacked a unified position on strengthening Ukraine and Europe's collective defense.

"We see this especially clearly with Spain, but in fact there are many countries that, less loudly perhaps, nevertheless have no intention of increasing their defense spending anywhere near 5 percent and consider it some sort of absurdity pursued by Eastern Europeans. You could say this is Europe's weakness. You could also say these are sovereign states pursuing their own foreign policy. Perhaps there is no point even trying to maintain that office in Brussels that is supposed to harmonize these positions if it has never actually worked in history. How long will we pretend that Europe speaks with one voice and that we have a high representative for foreign policy if there is no foreign policy?" Kaljulaid said.

Reinsalu also agreed that European countries have been unable to formulate a unified approach. "The range of diagnoses on the thermometer is radically different," Reinsalu said.

"On the weekend when the attack began, one European head of government said it was a violation of international law. Ursula von der Leyen announced that she supports regime change and so on. The confusion among European countries persists to this day. Positions have remained in a kind of safety zone, expressing a desire for a diplomatic solution in the end and for the threat from Iran to be reduced, especially for countries in the region. But a strategic understanding of where this war should lead within that logic or what Europe's approach actually is has so far remained uncertain," Reinsalu commented.

Marko Mihkelson emphasized that following the Foreign Affairs Committee meeting, the European Union's position has certainly moved closer to Estonia's stance.

At the same time, he acknowledged that it is very difficult for European countries to formulate a sufficiently strong, clear and understandable strategic line that they could also act on. "If even in the case of Ukraine the position is still very ambivalent, then unfortunately on Middle East issues — which for many countries are also far more sensitive domestically — finding such strong common ground is much more difficult," Mihkelson said.

--

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