As scholars who work in an evidence-based manner and staunchly support a world order that fights injustices and upholds human rights and international law, we were extremely proud of Estonia’s vote. Estonia’s foreign policy has not often found its own voice and often simply follows its allies, in particular the United States of America. Estonia’s foreign policy has been rhetorically, if not always in practice, decisive in supporting a rules-based world order. The recent UNGA vote is a testament to the many times Estonia has put its principles into practice. Estonia, together with 124 other countries (with 14 against and 43 abstensions), voted to end Israel’s illegal occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territories, which to the surprise of many, did not match with the “against” vote passed by the USA. Does this indicate that Estonia has, as it were, unhooked itself from previous foreign policy positions?
This question has been fueled by the criticism voiced in the Estonian public sphere which currently debates anew what its foreign policy position on this matter should be. The problem, as presented by some, is whether Estonia should contribute to improving the world or should rather be concerned with its own survival (e.g. Kristi Raik). Presenting the dilemma in this either/or way is misleading, as the classical opposition of rules vs might is a tired script that actually only works for the powerful ones.
It is critical to understand that it is not idealistic to stand up for a rules-based order that seeks global justice but is vital for a small state. In the short and long term, Estonia needs to pave the way for world politics that respects its human rights and its state borders that are protected by international law. Thus Estonia’s long-term survival is actually dependent on what some have argued accounts for “improving the world”, or as we would call it, tirelessly working for global justice versus aligning with our allies no matter their actions or moral position.
This is also what Vootele Päi points out as he states that international law has always been the foreign policy priority for Estonia, and thus the criticism about the change in Estonia’s foreign policy is not truthful. In similar terms, we argue that there is no big change in Estonia’s position, and more importantly, the problem or choice between improving the world versus survival is a grave misrepresentation of what is at stake.
What has Estonia done previously?
The argument that in the past Estonia has always either voted in the same way as its allies and/or like the EU (which is currently in two camps on the Palestine issue) is incorrect. It is also not correct to say that Estonia only now changed its foreign policy direction as it has switched positions in the past.
In the last 15 years, there were many UNGA resolutions on Israel’s actions in Palestine. In many instances Estonia’s vote has not matched the one of the USA. For example in the 2012 UNGA vote Estonia abstained, yet the US voted against. In December 2017 Estonia supported to critique the US policy on Jerusalem (Resolution ES-10/19), in 2018 (Resolution ES-10/20) Estonia votes yes on Criticizing the Israeli response to the 2018 Gaza border protests, Estonia abstained in October 2023 on Resolution ES-10/21: Protection of civilians and upholding legal and humanitarian obligations in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, and very importantly voted yes in December 2023 on Resolution ES-10/22 for an immediate ceasefire.
As we stated, the votes are not consistent, still, in many cases Estonia has been on the side of international law and thus stood up for a human rights based world order. Even after previous Foreign Minister Reinsalu admitted in 2022 that he wants to reverse previous policy on Israel, and not condemn its actions any longer, due to its security dependence on the US. Yet, still, in the UNGA vote in May 2024 on the upgrade of Palestine as an Observer State, the US voted against and Estonia for it.
What’s at stake?
Estonia cannot afford to distance itself from its moral but also legal obligations to international law in favour of aligning itself with the US, as this would diminish rather than strengthen its chance of survival. If it ignores injustices and breaches of international law, then its survival is not dependent on commonly agreed-upon rules and rights but on the grace of the US to stand with it.
What happens if it does not? Loud were the worries that the NATO allies would not come to fight for Estonia in the case of a Russian invasion in the last two decades. But wouldn’t the non-adherence to NATO’s article five be precisely what we would expect in a world where the mighty dictate everything and international law is only optional? Isn’t this precisely why Estonia needs to make sure this order is upheld and strengthened and that, in the worst-case scenario, others would come to protect it by upholding justice?
Furthermore, if Estonia stands with the bully, then we must be ready to accept that Russia can break all international laws and commit uncountable war crimes in Ukraine, the same as Israel can do – with the brazen support of the US – in Gaza, the West Bank and now Lebanon. This is the outcome if we decide that international law does not really matter and justice is only available to the powerful ones.
Thus, we object to the claim that there is a difference between standing for rules-based order versus standing with our allies. Instead, we stress that seeking global justice and the upholding of international law, is what will protect it in the long-term, not pleasing the US. Our allies are all countries that stand up for justice and stand against war crimes and breaches of international law. If our allies fail to uphold this standard, then we need to muster the voice together with many others to get them back on track.
We know that impunity and the boundless rule of the mighty end in greater violence: Russia’s impunity has led them to leave behind a trail of suffering: they have bombed civilians, hospitals, and schools in Syria, as they are bombing civilian infrastructure in Ukraine. Israel and its 80-year-old list of war crimes, ranging from intentional targeting of civilians, collective punishment, starvation and food insecurity, scholasticide, the use of human shields, sexual violence and rape, torture, forced transfer, targeting journalists, all on top of the ongoing illegal occupation of Palestinian (and Syrian) territories, that the UNGA vote targeted, has been too long shielded by the US and thus they are both complicit in having created the situation we are in today.
This is precisely the result of the eroding of the international regime or order that allows for the impunity of powerful states.
We have argued here that Estonia’s best chance for long-term survival must be the conviction to strengthen international law and call out injustices around the globe, not the embrace of a hegemonic might-based order in which no one can be trusted. Therefore, Estonia does not have another option than standing up for human rights and international law, everywhere in the world.
Unfortunately, Estonia has forgotten about this over the last year as it stood with Israel and unequivocally supported its potentially genocidal actions against the Palestinian people.
As scholars of International Relations and as individuals we are always standing for justice and a world order based on international law and compassion. Estonia has done too little too late to protect the human rights of Palestinians and turned a blind eye to the injustices. However, it seems that it finally started to regain its legal, moral and strategic compass, which is reflected in the latest vote. We hope that the Estonian government and the public can clearly see this and continue to support human rights and build a world in which international law is respected and that it stands with the small and powerless who are being treated unequally and unjustly.
That being said, we also noticed that Minister Tsahkna still left the door open to please Estonia’s allies. He felt the need to add in the press release after the vote, “Our vote for the resolution does not change our firm position that Israel has the inalienable right to self-defence and that Hamas is a terrorist organisation whose actions should be condemned fully”. This is unfortunate as it still fuels Israel’s illegal actions. There is consensus among international law scholars that an illegal occupier cannot invoke the right of self-defence against the people it occupies – yet, Estonia seems to suggest it here, still after nearly a year of daily massacres of Palestinians.
The article appeared slightly edited and in Estonian in Eesti Päevaleht.