• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

PUSHED TOGETHER 167 BY EXTERNAL FORCES? THE FOREIGN AND SECURITY POLICIES OF ESTONIA AND FINLAND IN THE CONTEXT OF THE UKRAINE CRISIS Kristi Raik, Mika Aaltola, Katri Pynnöniemi, Charly Salonius-Pasternak FIIA BRIEFING PAPER 167 • January 2015 ULKOPOLIITTINEN INSTITUUTTI UTRIKESPOLITISKA INSTITUTET THE FINNISH INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS PUSHED TOGETHER BY EXTERNAL FORCES? THE FOREIGN AND SECURITY POLICIES OF ESTONIA AND FINLAND IN THE CONTEXT OF THE UKRAINE CRISIS Kristi Raik FIIA Briefing Paper 167 Acting Programme Director January 2015 The European Union research programme The Finnish Institute of International Affairs Mika Aaltola Programme Director Global Security research programme The Finnish Institute of International Affairs Katri Pynnöniemi Senior Research Fellow The EU’s Eastern Neighbourhood and Russia research programme The Finnish Institute of International Affairs Charly Salonius-Pasternak Senior Research Fellow Global Security research programme The Finnish Institute of International Affairs • New turbulence in the international environment is pushing Estonia and Finland closer together in the foreign and security policy domain. The Ukraine crisis has re-introduced old geopolitical constraints and concerns about national security and sovereignty, limiting the room for manoeuvre for small states. • Estonia and Finland took similar positions on many key issues regarding the Ukraine crisis. The common ground is based on both countries’ attachment to the liberal world order and Western structures. • However, there are deep-rooted differences between the Estonian and Finnish positions on the way to handle Russia and the need to adjust security arrangements, notably the role of NATO in the Nordic-Baltic region. It is common in Finland to see Estonia’s approach as unhelpfully hawkish, and common in Estonia to see Finland’s approach as too accommodating towards Russia. • Shared interests stem from an understanding that the weakening of the security of one country inevitably weakens the security of the other. As both countries are investing more in national security and defence, relevant bilateral cooperation is increasing. The Finnish Institute of International Affairs ULKOPOLIITTINEN INSTITUUTTI UTRIKESPOLITISKA INSTITUTET THE FINNISH INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS Introduction Similar, but different responses to the Ukraine crisis The Ukraine crisis has been sending shock waves On 6 January 2014, the then Estonian minister of across Europe. Concern about a dramatically dete- defence, Urmas Reinsalu, stated on a visit to the US riorated security environment has dominated recent that he would welcome the ‘permanent presence’ foreign and security policy debates in Estonia and of US troops in Estonia. The statement provoked Finland. strong criticism (but also supportive comments) in Estonia. It was seen by critics as an unnecessary Both countries have aligned themselves with the provocation that increased tensions. The criticism EU’s response and underlined the importance of reflected a trend whereby Estonia was seeking to Western unity and respect for international norms. pursue a more pragmatic and less confrontational However, the crisis has exposed notable differences approach to Russia. Finland provided a model of between the Estonian and Finnish positions, which pragmatic cooperation with the difficult neighbour. stem from different historical experiences and for- Estonia’s policy shift seemed to pay off: in February eign policy identities. 2014, after years of negotiations, the Estonian and Russian foreign ministers signed the border treaty Official assessments of the events in and around between the two countries. Estonia’s exports to Ukaine have been similar in many important Russia and the number of Russian tourists visiting respects, but the same cannot be said of the sub- Estonia were on the rise.1 sequent policy conclusions. Disagreements and sometimes mutual misunderstandings have been However, the tentative pragmatic shift came to an magnified in the public debate of both countries. abrupt end. The Estonian-Russian border treaty has In difficult times, unity and solidarity are sorely still not entered into force, as Moscow has taken needed, but harder to achieve than in a time of good no steps towards its ratification. Eastern trade weather. and tourism have slumped. 2 The abduction of the Estonian intelligence agent Eston Kohver by Russia This paper analyzes both the common ground, in September was reminiscent of pre-WWII events. embedded in both countries’ attachment to the Russia’s aggression towards Ukraine proved to the liberal world order and Western structures, and the Estonians that they had been right all along when differences between Estonian and Finnish foreign they had warned about the Russian threat, but been and security policies that have surfaced in the con- labelled by many in the West as paranoid. text of the Ukraine crisis. Overall, the differences between Estonian and Finn- To this end, the current debates are shown to indi- ish foreign policies re-emerged as the Ukraine crisis cate a strong continuity of national foreign policy escalated during 2014. On the surface, the official paradigms and historical lessons learned in both positions were similar on many key points: both countries. In spite of evident and persistent dif- states were quick to condemn the annexation of ferences, it is argued that the new turbulence in Crimea and destabilization of eastern Ukraine by the international environment is pushing the two Russia, and stressed the need to respect the inter countries closer together in the foreign and security national norms of sovereignty and territorial integ- policy domain. rity; both supported the sanctions adopted by the EU and underlined the importance of Western unity; The Ukraine crisis has re-introduced old geopoliti- and both saw increased support for strengthening cal constraints and concerns about national security and sovereignty, limiting the room for manoeuvre for small states. The Russian geostrategic challenge 1 Statistikaamet, http://statistikaamet.wordpress. re-contextualizes the difference between the two com/2014/09/26/kumne-euroopa-liidus-oldud-aastaga- states and exerts pressure to reach clarity over on-eesti-turism-joudsalt-edenenud/ possible future scenarios. The paper also highlights a trend of increasing pragmatic cooperation both 2 Statistikaamet, http://www.stat.ee/72344; http://www.stat. bilaterally and in the context of broader regional ee/72418 frameworks. THE FINNISH INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS 3 national defence. But on closer inspection, disagree- of the economy (notably the food industry) and the ments, mutual suspicions, misunderstandings and eastern regions have been hit hard.3 Estonia has also outright criticism can be observed. experienced negative economic effects, but this has not changed its hard-line position on the sanctions, The differences evolved around two interrelated top- as there is a clear priority order between what is ics: the way to handle Russia and the need to adjust perceived as an existential security matter (i.e. the security arrangements, notably the role of NATO in need to counter Russia’s unacceptable actions) on the Nordic-Baltic region. It is common in Finland to the one hand, and short-term economic interests see Estonia’s approach as unhelpfully hawkish, and on the other. Finland has made an effort to keep common in Estonia to see Finland’s approach as too economic and security interests separate, and has accommodating towards Russia. underlined the continued benefits of eastern trade. Finland has stressed dialogue with Russia and has Denial of the security policy implications of eco- maintained the rhetoric of good bilateral relations, nomic ties was sharply expressed in the debate on especially in the functional areas of low politics, a new nuclear reactor to be constructed by a joint albeit adopting the common EU stance in the area venture with Russia’s Rosatom. Following tense of high politics. domestic debate, the decision was adopted by the Finnish parliament in early December 2014. The The visit by President Sauli Niinistö to Sochi to meet decision was viewed by many in Estonia (and else- his counterpart Vladimir Putin in August 2014 was where) as quite simply being based on false judge- given a positive spin in Finland, although it did not ment of the related risks and vulnerabilities, and seem to produce any obvious results or benefits. The moreover a step that ran counter to the EU’s policy Finnish argument was that delivering unwelcome to reduce energy dependence on Russia. news (about the EU’s unity) was best done face to face, thereby keeping channels open for more posi- As for regional security, Estonia has made no secret tive dialogue in the future. of its wish for Finland (and Sweden) to join NATO, and duly welcomed the revival of the debate in The visit was strongly criticized in the Estonian Finland after the annexation of Crimea. On his public debate, and its purpose as expressed by state visit to Finland in April 2014, President Ilves Finland was met with suspicion about a possible was careful not to explicitly encourage Finland to hidden agenda of appeasement. Likewise, Finnish join – but his strong statements about the benefits statements made during the crisis about a ‘friendly’ of NATO were received as an implicit message to this bilateral relationship with Russia – as something end. More generally, many Finns have the percep- that can allegedly be isolated from

Load more

  8

Copy Link