RAIVO VARE ⟩ How to ensure Estonia's freedom also when the world order changes?

Tall Hermann Tower. Photo: Sander Ilvest

• Value-based approaches tend to be characteristic of more peaceful times.
• In difficult times, freedom can inevitably require compromise.
• Freedom is Estonia's most precious asset.

Recently, I had the honor of moderating a discussion organized by the Estonian Council on Foreign Relations, bringing together top experts from various fields related to our foreign policy to discuss value-based politics. Below, I try to touch on some of the questions raised during the discussion, observer Raivo Vare writes.

The vital importance of the value-based policies of a small state

In Estonia, we have a popular saying, attributed to Lennart Meri, that international law is a small country's nuclear weapon. This is because, unlike major powers, small states each on their own do not have the option of real nuclear deterrence. Unless they are Israel. Equally important for small states in the context of foreign policy is its value-based nature. However, among practitioners, the general understanding is that for the major powers, interests nevertheless tend to be paramount. For small states, this often means that their policies are framed by the inevitable constraints imposed by the major powers, regardless of how well these align with the specific interests of the small states, let alone their values.

It seems to me that value-based approaches, not only in a declarative but also in a practical sense, tend to be characteristic of more peaceful times. In more tumultuous and chaotic periods, interests tend to come to the forefront of course. In this sense, the author, as an active participant in our regaining of independence, is experiencing a déjà vu, as this is exactly what we had to go through during the process of regaining our freedom. Fortunately, a window of opportunity opened for us, which we managed to seize wisely and, in our case, bloodlessly through pragmatic politics, as, fortunately, favorable changes took place also in the balance of the interests of the major powers.

For Estonia, as a small country with a specific geographical position, the crucial threat factor now increasing again is traditionally our eastern neighbor.

Now, alas, the tumultuous times are upon us again, as another 80-year global development cycle, which I have written about before, is coming to an end. The post-World War II world order is in a process of change, which China and Russia, in particular, but also a number of other major emerging economies are trying to exploit to their own advantage and to maximally reduce the role played by the collective West, led by the US, in this order, and to consolidate their positions internationally, both globally and regionally. For Estonia, as a small country with a specific geographical position, the crucial threat factor now increasing again is traditionally our eastern neighbor, Russia, with its imperial ambitions. Therefore, we are once again in a situation where, on the one hand, we must adhere to a value-based foreign policy as much as possible, while on the other hand, considering the rapidly changing and increasingly tense broader situation.

We must accept that the primary value of our foreign policy is to ensure the independence and freedom of our state, as only then can we also guarantee the preservation of the Estonian nation, language and culture through the ages, as stated in our Constitution. However, this in turn means the need to be well-oriented and to take into account and utilize the undercurrents operating in global politics and the interests of the major players, and unfortunately, at times, to make temporary compromises and to protect our interests by all available means and methods.

The role of international law in value-based foreign policy

It is clear that, like any other order, the world order is also based on rules, some of which are set forth legally and some of which are based on the practice of customary law. Whereas it can be argued that, as is jokingly said about the European Union – that usually it has evolved and changed through crises – so has, in fact, been largely the case with international law. Whereas the prerequisite for agreeing on certain texts of international law is, as a rule, some kind of agreement between major powers. This was the case in the 19th century, but also in the 20th century. Time and again, the trigger for such developments was a crisis, the most striking and visible examples being the two world wars. In the aftermath of which the major international players always need to fix the new equilibrium resulting from the crisis in a more general framework, in addition to the public and secret agreements between them.

Unfortunately, it is also true that the violation of rules defined by both written word and custom has often been carried out by some major power in pursuit of its interests. Due to their size and military capability, they have escaped punishment. In contrast, in the case of small states, if they have ever dared to undertake anything like this, some form of punishment has usually followed. Except when the small state is protected by an international heavyweight in the form of a major power. Doesn't this sound familiar in the current context?

In fact, we must acknowledge that many theorists assert in unison that, unfortunately, the framework of international law is merely declarative, and its enforcement lacks the necessary coercive power that should be present with legal norms, unless enforcement is provided by some major powers, either directly or through international organizations or under their auspices. Moreover, nowadays support is also sought from numerous developing countries, which make up an increasingly vocal majority in these international institutions, albeit, to date, rather a formal majority or one pursuing their specific interests. A prime example of this is the entire history of what has happened in the UN.

The current period of global change is also characterized by an accelerating trend of regionalization, which makes it even more difficult than before to take into account and utilize the entire hotchpotch of international interests and values. This means that those implementing our foreign policy need to be even more knowledgeable of the background and interests of the most important countries of different regions. For this, we need people who are proficient in this field. No matter how difficult times may be for us in material terms, all of this will pale in comparison if we fail to secure our primary value. Because, as they said in the popular Estonian film, our relic is freedom!