Having recently returned to Finland and followed our foreign policy for several decades already, I wanted to express my concerns about the current state-of-play of the so-called value-based realism, which was introduced by our new President Alexander Stubb and has become the corner stone of Finnish foreign policy.

Since its independence, Finland has preferred to act as a doctor in international politics, avoiding strong positions on matters that might jeopardise its national interests. As pointed out by our late President Mauno Koivisto, the raison d’être of the Finnish state has been to survive, while the existential purpose of Russia has been to expand. Both of these estimates remain valid today.

However, there is a clear distinction between taking a position on matters that threaten national security and issues that represent a wider set of values that most democracies tend to honor. Human rights are among them. Let me give you some examples.

I have been struck by the reluctance of our current government to take a clear position on the recent events in the Middle East. The relentless bombing of Gaza and the indiscriminate use of violence and famine against its population have caused major uproar and protest in most countries, with increasing demands to recognise the Palestinian state. The Finnish government has rejected to do that, stating that the moment is not appropriate for that purpose.

Meanwhile, Israel’s activities continue unrestrained, and there is a growing concern that it intends to take over all the remaining territories inhabited by the Palestinian people, whereby the whole concept of a Palestinian state would become redundant. This, by no means, is in the interest of global peace, as it would generate endless frustration among the Palestinian people that could lead to further terrorist acts in other countries as well.

A similar reaction was experienced in the latest events in Iran. It remains unclear why the Israeli government decided to strike Iranian cities and military facilities while negotiations on its nuclear disarmament were still ongoing with the United States. Once again, the Finnish government remained silent, while president Stubb expressed his disagreement with preventive military strikes in general.

My only conclusion is that the Finnish doctrine of value-based realism means avoiding taking any stand that might be counter-productive to our relations with our closest allies, namely the United States. I don’t mind maintaining these relations, but does it have to happen at all costs, regardless of human rights abuses?

Finally, in the recent discussions held at the presidential summer palace in Naantali, President Stubb had kindly invited a number of representatives from the Global South to share their views on the latest developments, and to underline the importance of their presence to our future relations. Unfortunately, on the same evening, Minister for Finance Riikka Purra pointed out that further cuts can be expected to Finnish overseas development aid, which would further compromise any sense of solidarity that our previous governments have maintained towards the Global South.

As a Finn, I have been accustomed to trust that what our representatives say on human rights is also followed by corresponding deeds. Unfortunately, I am not sure whether this approach is still valid, and neither are the people concerned by these abuses.

Eero Yrjö-Koskinen