At a time when universities are making great efforts to apply expert knowledge in real life, belief in narratives is gaining ground. We need different stories that feel credible, are easy to explain and convince the masses that politicians are right to implement the policies they have planned.

Why ensure that knowledge is evidence-based at all or worry about its practical application if the end result is determined by how it selectively fits into a narrative structure? The ability to shape talking points into messages and then construct narratives from those messages does not require deep academic training, let alone relevant expertise. This is especially true in foreign policy matters.

The central thesis of our foreign policy should be values-based. Estonia owes its independence precisely to this. I agree with Marko Mihkelson that such an approach positions us with the part of the world that respects sovereignty and territorial integrity. Where the "freedom to be oneself" is not a privileged status reserved only for a chosen few, nor a bargaining chip for advancing the interests of great powers. Nor should power confer the right to intervene against someone's will or disregard the generally recognized principles of international law.

But if real life speaks a different language, what becomes of our values-based approach? Are we prepared to see similarities between Russia's war in Ukraine and Israel's war with the Palestinians? Are Vladimir Putin's and Donald Trump's "special operations" the cases where Estonia's foreign policy stance should clearly diverge? Answers, whether one way or the other, would mean choosing one narrative over another.

From here, however, obvious questions arise. A values-based approach does not mean selectively interpreting values or opportunistically orienting oneself around them. Adherence to rules cannot be measured on a relative scale. Invoking "special cases" that would justify "special treatment" does not stand up to the scrutiny of clarity of thought, consistency or credibility. Just as those terms are understood in their literal sense.

Unfortunately, the gap between wishful thinking and declarative statements is so wide that those speaking about foreign policy often appear unconvincing. I would find it difficult to credibly defend Estonia's values-based foreign policy if it calls the Bucha massacre genocide while remaining silent about crimes against humanity in Gaza. Expressions such as "we do not mourn Maduro or Khamenei" legitimize the illegal use of force precisely in terms we would be unable to imagine being applied to ourselves. Such values-based policy is indeed difficult to find.

If that is the case, realism comes to the rescue — or more precisely, "values-based realism." Not a war of all against all, but a war of the "good" and the "equivalent" against the "bad" and the "valueless." On the assumption that everyone interprets the narrative of an "axis of evil" and the justification of violence according to the principle that "the end justifies the means" in the same way.

By positioning ourselves as values-based, we align — under the pressure of realpolitik — with a camp that proclaims values to be universal yet applies them selectively in real life. Would a small state like Estonia even have other choices?

Jacques Chirac once expressed regret, in the context of the U.S. war in Iraq, that the countries of Central and Eastern Europe failed to take the opportunity to remain silent rather than support the Americans' military adventure — an undertaking with a strong narrative foundation but a weak connection to reality. In other words, the decision to use military force rested on anything but evidence-based material.

In light of the above, perhaps those shaping our foreign policy should consider how much and under what conditions to invoke the slogan of values-based policy, to veil it with realism and to ground it in real-world examples.

If that proves impossible for some reason, it might be wiser to produce messages that make our future steps on the international stage more understandable, while silencing those notes that unnecessarily sow confusion or could be maliciously used against us. In other words, we should not bark at every dog or wag our tail if doing so does not support our long-term actions or add real-world confirmation to what has already been done.

But as always, foolish talk is not prohibited and engaging in foreign policy is not the privilege of the chosen few. The same applies to hoisting oneself onto the stage and extracting political profit in any democratic society. Nevertheless, decisions driven by narratives should not undermine Estonia's survival in difficult times, especially when evidence-based reasoning and argumentation are relegated to a secondary role in shaping policy.

--

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