Ask the average Canadian on the street about the significant points of the country's official foreign policy platform, and chances are that a shrug will be the first reaction. Even in the throes of a heated federal election campaign, as we find ourselves now, the primary focus is on domestic issues. Some may be aware of two-faced Liberal promises - remember the helicopters? - , some may be aware that the Conservatives are promising to increase funding to the military, woefully emasculated by successive Liberal governments. Some may even be aware that the Liberals, so principled in shunning military participation in Iraq and Operation Freedom are quietly supporting Bush's new bellicose missile program, an aggressive air-defence system in the far North. The new NORAD in this context is American, not Canadian, as critics such as Paul Hellyer have pointed out. A key part of the defensive aspect of Canada's foreign policy is thus subject to American control.

It has long been this way - Canadian security has relied on the stength and implicit support of our southern neighbours, and perhaps the Liberals see nothing wrong with saying one thing, doing another. As this example, granted not a key issue in the campaign, precisely because voters are simply not interested goes to show, Canadians vote more on internal, rather than external issues. The Americans, going to the polls in November, vote with different motivation. Foreign policy has always been critical, involvement in issues abroad leading to conflictsuch as in Vietnam, Iran and now Iraq can make, or break a presidency.

With Americans, foreign policy is a major instrument of domestic government, creating patriotic bonds, principled union between citizens united behind a common cause. When a government has sufficient support at home serious policy abroad can be permitted, putting one's house in order allows one to assist others to do the same.

Systems such as communism, where a single party despotically controls power permit long-term foreign policy of a kind that is impossible to pursue in a democracy. As history shows, theses systems invariably fail to last. The difficulty in a democracy, where governments and their leadership are regularly subjected to reelection is in establishing continuity in foreign policy. This is achieved by maintaining lasting international contact, signing and honouring treaties, alliances. This is why the world has a need for organizations such as NATO, the EU and the United Nations. Flawed as they still are in power distribution, influence-wielding by the stronger nations, they are necessary simply to avoid international chaos.

Smaller countries, while equal in principle, must act in a disproportionately more significant role than the large, entrenched actors to be heard in such circumstances. Long established nations such as Canada need not place great emphasis on foreign policy; newcomers, returnees such as the Baltic nations must.

Consider that it is nigh impossible to commit a people to foreign policy issues such as war,or to agreements concerning trade without having domestic support. Any independent state desiring economic stability, political security at home must draw up a serious foreign policy abroad, and using a military metaphor, stick to their guns.

Estonia has now via EU and NATO membership achieved foreign policy goals that contribute to such security and stability. Diplomatic efforts must not now be allowed to plateau; indeed, much more work is involved now, as member of these unions. Diplomacy is the first line for exercising independence, but as the 1930's showed, diplomacy itself is not enough.

Kristina Ojuland, Minister of Foreign Affairs, presented the main guidelines of Estonia's foreign policy to the Riigikogu this Tuesday, June 8th. Ojuland herself is in the midst of campaigning for a European position of prominence as candidate for the post of Secretary General of the Council of Europe. The country is about to go to the polls this Sunday, to elect Estonian representatives to the European Parliament. The speech and reactions to it reflected the campaign mood the country is in, especially so as a former ForMin, Toomas Hendrik Ilves, is leading the EU parliament polls convincingly.

This was the first time Estonia's foreign policy was reviewed as a member of the EU and NATO, and Ojuland recognized the work of previous governments, especially that of the entire nation having supported this goal. Now, she argued, at a time when Estonia is in an enhanced position to ensure the security and welfare of the Estonian nation more successfully than ever before, a full comprehension and recognition of foreign policy's exact role in society must be declared. (Unlike Canada, where complacency rules the roost).

The European Parliamentary elections are a new yet significantly important exercise. Estonia intends to be a realistic, active and positively minded EU member. The government's vision of Estonia's priorities in the EU includes respect for the principle of equality of all member states. Ojuland expressed the view that in sensitive areas, such as taxation and social insurance decisions should be made at home, on the national level rather than at the EU. The Lisbon strategy needs implementation to increase competitiveness. The EU's foreign policy must also be clearer. Estonia must now be prepared to contribute to the assisting of poorer states and in easing humanitarian crises.

National security in foreign policy requires Estonia to actively participate in the work of international organizations. To this end a working partnership between NATO and the EU must be established. Estonia will actively continue participation in international peacekeeping operations.

About the only questionmark raised was when Ojuland glossed over EU-Russia and Estonia-Russia relations. Pro Patria leader Tunne Kelam emphasized in parliament during the discussion period after the speech, that Estonian foreign policy must ensure that Estonia insists on the maintenance of the EU's border with Russia. No visa-free travel can even be considered. No concessions to Moscow, for whatever reason.

That is where democracy matters - the right to voice opinion on such a critical point. A consistent foreign policy is an investment in the future. Estonia is on the right track - one wonders about Canada, where such issues hardly reach the voter.

Märkmed: