Estonia's foreign policy experienced a shift in the spring, which was confirmed on September 18: Estonia has begun supporting the strengthening of Palestine's status at the UN, thereby taking a position that differs from that of its largest allies. The European Union remains divided on this issue, and the United States continues to back Israel. The previous policy, where Estonia remained neutral in such situations, has been abandoned without a broader public debate.

This appears to be a burst of idealism, with noble goals in mind. Estonia is attempting to resist the breakdown of a rules-based global order, as seen in conflicts in Ukraine, the Middle East, the South China Sea and other global hotspots.

From the perspective of a small state, global trends are currently dangerous, and it would certainly be good if we could somehow steer them towards justice rather than a path that favors force. Whether Estonia can achieve this through the Palestinian issue – especially if our stance diverges from that of our strongest allies – is highly doubtful.

Global South just as two-faced

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs justifies Estonia's policy shift by citing the need to uphold international law and avoid giving anyone grounds to accuse us of double standards. The so-called Global South has vocally expressed frustration that the West demands adherence to international law in Ukraine but not in the case of Palestine.

I, too, have occasionally had to answer the question, "What about Palestine?" during international discussions about Ukraine. I recall one event in Brussels where I explained that drawing a parallel between the Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Palestine conflicts is misguided. In the first case, one state attacked another without any legitimate justification, whereas the second conflict is far more complex. Afterwards, a good friend and experienced EU diplomat came to me and said, "Kristi, of course you're right, but that argument doesn't work here, and even less so in relations with the EU's southern neighbors."

Estonia's major foreign policy achievement in recent years has been our unprecedented influence on decisions related to Ukraine within both the EU and NATO. Estonia's undisputed priority remains supporting Ukraine and convincing our allies to do even more for Ukraine.

Estonia's policy shift on the Palestinian issue has also been justified primarily through the lens of Ukraine, with the argument that it helps Estonia persuade Global South countries to support Ukraine. Estonia doesn't claim to have any significant influence on resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict. Perhaps this surge of idealism doesn't reach that far.

What Estonia has now achieved is that it's easier for our diplomats to engage with those countries – 124 in the latest UN vote, representing the majority of the world – that have taken a pro-Palestinian stance. It's supposedly easier now to convince these countries that the war in Ukraine should be resolved based on international law, just as the Israel-Palestine conflict should. Unfortunately, this achievement has no tangible impact on resolving either conflict, and international law is no stronger as a result.

Those countries that loudly condemn Western double standards have no intention of abandoning double standards themselves. If it's not in their interest to change their position on Ukraine, even full EU support for Palestine won't sway them.

Countries like India or South Africa navigate according to their own interests. Many find it most beneficial to sit on the fence, as the outcome of either conflict is uncertain. It's better for them to grow their influence and reap economic benefits by maintaining relationships with both sides. While large Western countries can, to some extent, influence the calculations of Global South nations, Estonia cannot.

End of the old world order

The credibility of international norms and rules depends on the outcomes of wars, but those outcomes are determined by power, not law. In other words, international law is, unfortunately, largely shaped by power, especially in a world where the balance between major powers is shifting. If Ukraine wins the war with Western support, the credibility of Western countries as defenders of international law will grow, but if Ukraine loses, that credibility will collapse.

After World War II, the UN system was established, enshrining many good principles, such as state sovereignty and the resolution of conflicts without the use of force. These principles only began to apply to Estonia in 1991, when the global balance of power shifted dramatically in our favor.

Today, we live in a world where "the old rules-based international order no longer really exists," as Ben Rhodes, a former speechwriter for U.S. President Barack Obama, has acknowledged. Value-based foreign policy now boils down to whether we can protect our values – in other words, ensuring that Estonia remains a free, democratic state governed by the rule of law. Our values are protected (in addition to our own efforts, which are of course paramount) by strong allies. A balance must be struck between idealism and realism, depending on the global situation.

Certainly, it is in Estonia's interest for international law to be as strong as possible, but when it comes to the fight for survival, we cannot rely on the law, as it has neither saved Ukraine nor will it save Estonia. A small state cannot change the direction of the winds blowing across the world. To survive, we must stay close to our friends and adapt to the circumstances.

--

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