On Monday, Marko Mihkelson had summoned Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna (Eesti 200) and Secretary General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Jonatan Vseviov to the Riigikogu Foreign Affairs Committee to provide an account regarding recent United Nations General Assembly votes related to Palestine. The discussion focused on a possible shift in Estonia's foreign policy course.

After the session, Mihkelson explained that the key takeaway was the understanding that Estonia's foreign policy course has not changed, but the circumstances influencing foreign policy choices have. He noted that Estonia is not the only country holding discussions after the General Assembly vote and that much has changed in foreign policy since Hamas' attack a year ago, marking a significant shift.

"Unfortunately, we are witnessing the expansion of war, and its direct implications for our security are evident. In the near future, we are likely to face more situations where we will have to choose between bad and very bad options," Mihkelson remarked.

"The rules-based world order that we are defending is, unfortunately, being reshaped in the context of Russia's and China's actions. The best way to ensure Estonia's security is to maintain close ties with our allies and democratic forces," he added.

Mihkelson stressed that Estonia aims to contribute to lasting peace in the Middle East and to move, if only theoretically, toward a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. However, the reality is moving further away from that goal.

"The issue isn't so much about choosing sides – in my personal opinion, Estonia should have remained neutral in this vote. The important thing is to recognize the potential traps being set for us," he said.

Mihkelson emphasized that Estonia must discuss its next foreign policy choices in detail before making decisions, taking various nuances into account to avoid cornering itself. As an example, he pointed to the possibility that the International Criminal Court (ICC) might issue an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

"If we narrow our room for maneuver too much – let's say the ICC soon issues an arrest warrant for Netanyahu – then if we consistently state that this is an unequivocal choice for us, it would essentially mean severing relations with Israel. Is that what we want? Is that in our foreign policy interest? I don't believe so. That's why today we discussed the various nuances in the committee that Estonia could consider, while still adhering to international law, to avoid finding ourselves in an impossible situation. Therefore, it is essential to have substantive debate before making such decisions when the government or the foreign minister must once again choose the next step," he said.

"To ensure that in future similar situations, we act in unity while maintaining a strategic perspective, so that when we make this move, we don't end up in a much more difficult situation down the road. When making these tough decisions in Estonia's best interests, it's important to include as many perspectives as possible," Mihkelson concluded.

Foreign minister: Future choices even more complex

After the committee session, Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna told ERR that he had explained the background of the various votes to the committee members and in his view, everyone understood that Estonia's foreign policy direction has not changed.

"I believe all committee members understood that Estonia's foreign policy course has not changed in any way. All decisions have remained within the framework established by the Riigikogu: the foundations of security policy and the foreign policy development plan," he said, adding that he does not understand whose interests are served by claiming that there has been a shift in Estonia's foreign policy.

Tsahkna also noted that ensuring international law is becoming increasingly difficult.

"However, future choices will be even more complex. Russia is trying to break out of isolation by exploiting opportunities to accuse different countries of double standards and Estonia should certainly avoid that path. But the situation will become even more complicated in the future," he said.

According to Tsahkna, Estonia had no other option but to support the General Assembly resolution that expressed support for the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and called on Israel to end its occupation of Palestinian territories.

"Estonia voted in line with the vast majority of European Union countries, as well as most Northern and Baltic states. We had no other choice but to vote in favor of this resolution, as it did not concern taking sides – whether Israel or someone else is in the right – but rather addressed the specific issue of international law and specifically the UN's International Court of Justice," he said.

In mid-September, Estonia supported a United Nations General Assembly resolution expressing support for the ICJ and calling on Israel to end its occupation of Palestinian territories.

Among European Union countries, Austria, Bulgaria, Denmark, Croatia, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Sweden abstained from the vote, while the Czech Republic and Hungary voted against the resolution.

Countries voting in favor included Belgium, Luxembourg, Estonia, Latvia, Cyprus, Finland, Greece, France, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Ireland and Malta.

Typically, Estonia's foreign policy line has been to vote alongside the European Union in UN votes. However, if the EU is split on an issue, Estonia usually votes with the United States or remains neutral.

--

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