Like it or not, realistic foreign policy outlooks of any nation depend very much on position and potential. While the large powers have a wide view that enables them to see from their corner suite picture windows, others have to contend with cobwebbed basement or garret fenestration, or, being allowed on the first floor, stretching to peer over the transom. The American world-view has of late become fogged by vision that stretches too far, causing squints and the accompanying errors in judgement. Coupled with an often patronizing, if not rude way of treating partners and neighbours.
Not that Nicholas Kristof's op-ed piece in this Wednesday's New York Times was an eye-opener of any kind, it just struck this reader as yet another article that needn't have been published. It perpetuates the swaggering stereotype that Americans could look to shed. Kristof's piece, titled "A Call to Arms" was perhaps meant to be humorous, but in truth ended up being a condescending look at Estonia's contribution to the "coalition of the willing".
Looking down their patrician noses at others is something that not only the Times does well. Kristof was on a “noble search to drum up troops” to bolster the coalition, and was dismayed that Estonia, a "postage stamped size member of our coalition" has a total of 4,000 troops in its armed forces, merely 55 of whom are serving in Iraq. While respecting the contributions of Estonia, which has suffered the loss of 2 servicemen in Iraq as well as 15 wounded, Kristof still kept dismissing Estonia's - and Latvia's, Lithuania's, - contributions, by calling them "giants of the coalition.” He was "stricken" by the realization, that according to local belief, the presence of Estonian soldiers in Iraq are a means of gaining protection, local expectations are that the U.S. will commit to "using its full military and economic force to back Estonia", should Moscow ever attack.
Hyperbole and disparaging commentary aside, Kristof did not exactly make it clear why he was in Estonia - it could not have been merely to ridicule Juhan Parts by suggesting to the Estonian PM that he send another 1,000 troops to patrol the dangerous laneways of Baghdad. Perhaps the Times had sent Kristof to Tallinn to cover the report of Foreign Minister Kristiina Ojuland to the Government of Estonia the day before?
Ojuland addressed the Riigikogu on Tuesday about Estonia's foreign policy goals, and Kristof evidently missed the fact that Estonia is encouraging the world community to strengthen the role of the United Nations in Iraq. Estonia intends to donate 500,000 kroons (C$32,000) to boost the presence of the U.N. mission in Iraq. Not a huge sum by any means, but perhaps more than a symbolic token. Ojuland also indicated that Estonia is also "considering its possible contributions to the incipient NATO training mission in Iraq." Under a parliamentary mandate, Estonian troops will remain in Iraq through June 2005.
Even if the New York Times missed these points, Ojuland's address (available on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website www.vm.ee/eng) dealt with much more than merely the U.S.- Iraq obsession.
That "postage-stamp" reality means that Estonia's foreign policy viewpoints take into account that there is no huge expanse of plate-glass to lord through. A vision must be created nevertheless. To this end Ojuland paid special attention to the European Union's Common Foreign and Security Policy and Estonia's role withal. Contributions to NATO are key, as is economic policy, development and regional cooperation.
Some of Ojuland's speech was lip service to consistently stated goals, such as that of the Lisbon strategy, due for a major overhaul. Then again, that is politics, Foreign Ministers rarely deviate from the national line, which in Estonia's case has, thankfully throughout the various coalition governments remained constant.
The key elements of the address had to do with historic issues, by virtue of membership in the EU and NATO no longer Estonia's to fight alone. Ojuland sees clearly, that the EU's foreign policy leverage and co-ordination must increase, and emphasizes that the most essential guarantee of Europe's security is a strong transatlantic relationship. (Perhaps Kristof was just too craven to visit the Spanish and French in his goal to drum up more troops for Bush?)
The EU's Neighbourhood Policy, designed to resolve internal conflicts as well as ensure stability in the immediate vicinity of the EU's external borders is a security issue. Estonia has been directing her exertions within the framework of this policy at Ukraine and Georgia to good result. However, where the Neighbourhood Policy needs attention is with regard to the European Union's relations with Belarus, and Russia.
The recent EU and Russian Partnership and Cooperation protocol is, in Ojuland's view, a positive step. At the same time, recent political developments within Russia affecting, in turn, global foreign policy have been of a "dubious nature", leading Ojuland to call for the EU's Russian policy to be unified and consistent.
She pointed out the recurring repeated violations of Estonia's air space by Russian planes. Ojuland hopes to keep President Putin at his word - to keep his promise made at the Hague summit on November 25th that border treaties with Latvia and Estonia will, in fact, be signed in the near future. These treaties have been ready to be signed for years, and Estonia is continually prepared to sign them. Yet Russia is continuing to implement measures that hinder, among others economic relations, and the European Commission has an essential role to play in protecting the interests of member states in the Baltics.
Partnership policies, proceeding from the indivisibility of European security and by extension, of the world were the key issues of Ojuland's address.
Today's security issues need to acknowledge the fact that Estonia is a reliable ally, and her voice should be heard in the foreign policy realm.
The op-ed page editors of the Times, which has championed the Baltic viewpoint in the past, would be well advised to consider the reality of the role of the Baltic States as a dynamic leader not only economically but in foreign policy. Progress must be made in the development of flexible and simple cooperative structures, regardless of size of partner nations or their armed forces.
Leader: Windows on the world (3)
Viimased kommentaarid
Kommentaarid on kirjutatud EWR lugejate poolt. Nende sisu ei pruugi ühtida EWR toimetuse seisukohtadega.
Please elucidate - this comment serves only to perpetuate a presumed difference between those Estonians living abroad and those living in Eesti. Where does yuppieness figure in? That term has to do with an economic outlook, not a national one. This Mats saw little if any economic approach in the article. A comment such as yours would gain from actual criticism in the real sense of the world, or is that word? What this Mats read was how the New York Times op-ed page chose to belittle a small country, and how Estonians, never mind their country of residence might react. Your response, sadly, is very much like Kristof's - patronizing and sneering without providing a base for dialogue. (Are we to read from your chosen comment name that you actually support a Russian instead of an American viewpoint?)
Estonians everywhere have struggled to establish a national identity, it helps no one to demean that effort. Välis-eestlased or Kodu-eestlased, should make little difference.
As a final reaction, as one who has visited Estonia lately, I would surely say that yuppiedom is alive and well in Eesti, but no longer a value driven system existing abroad, in this case the Esto diaspora. Choose your words with care.
Estonians everywhere have struggled to establish a national identity, it helps no one to demean that effort. Välis-eestlased or Kodu-eestlased, should make little difference.
As a final reaction, as one who has visited Estonia lately, I would surely say that yuppiedom is alive and well in Eesti, but no longer a value driven system existing abroad, in this case the Esto diaspora. Choose your words with care.
This is an excellent example of writing that may be perfectly in tune with the way of thinking of the typical Välis-Eesti "yuppie", but makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to an Estonian in Estonia. Welcome to....????
"Not that Nicholas Kristof's op-ed piece in this Wednesday's New York Times was an eye-opener of any kind, it just struck this reader as yet another article that needn't have been published."
That's what this reader has been saying about Peeter Bush's articles all along.... but that's for a different time.
Perhap's you should voice your concern to the NY Times by emailing the writer in question and the Editorial staff a copy of your above article.
That's what this reader has been saying about Peeter Bush's articles all along.... but that's for a different time.
Perhap's you should voice your concern to the NY Times by emailing the writer in question and the Editorial staff a copy of your above article.
Arvamus
TRENDING
