DIPLOMACY AND THE POWER OF SENTIMENT ⟩ Sven Mikser: Estonia's Recent Pro-Palestine UN Vote Does Not Signal Hostility Toward Israel

Interviewer: Could you expand on why you believe Estonia hasn’t altered its UN voting pattern on the recent Palestinian resolutions?

Sven Mikser: When viewed over a longer period, it is evident that Estonia has never adhered to a fixed voting pattern. There has never been a commitment to align consistently with the United States. Likewise, within the European Union, no directive has ever compelled us to follow the lead of any particular country. Naturally, when the EU has reached a consensus, or something close to it, Estonia has respected that position. While some nations, driven by internal political or historical considerations, have occasionally chosen to vote differently from the EU majority, Estonia has never taken that path—nor has this practice changed.

Interviewer: Estonian opposition leader and former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Urmas Reinsalu, has asserted that during his tenure, Estonia adhered to the principle of aligning its votes with its most important security ally, the United States, when there was no EU consensus. Could this be considered a consistent voting pattern?

Sven Mikser: While that may have served as a guiding principle during his tenure, it has never been a rigid rule that Estonia has consistently followed throughout its history.

Interviewer: What is your general view on the principle proposed by Reinsalu?

Sven Mikser: Estonia is a sovereign nation, and we must make decisions independently. While our alliances—particularly with the United States—are undeniably significant, the extent to which the U.S. urges its allies to align their votes varies considerably depending on the issue.

In some cases, especially regarding Israel, the U.S. may exert pressure; in others, it refrains from actively influencing its partners. Therefore, rigidly adhering to a fixed approach is neither practical nor prudent. Estonia must always prioritize its national interests and never cast votes that compromise its immediate security concerns.

That said, our national interests are deeply rooted in the values upon which our statehood is founded. Some recent analyses argue that while voting in favor of the Palestinian resolution was the principled choice, neutrality might have better served our interests. I find this line of reasoning fundamentally flawed.

Interviewer: What factors might be fueling the current heated debate in Estonia over the recent pro-Palestine vote at the UN?

Sven Mikser: In Estonia, a few politicians advocate for a more vocal and critical stance toward Israel, while others believe our efforts should focus on unambiguously opposing groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorist organizations. It is natural for different political perspectives to emerge, but I believe it is not in Estonia’s best interest to set our future voting decisions in stone. Such inflexibility would reduce our diplomatic agility and limit our ability to influence the actions of our partners. If our voting behavior becomes entirely predictable, we risk significantly narrowing our diplomatic maneuvering space on the global stage.

Interviewer: Based on publicly available information, can it be said that the U.S. has not pressured Estonia to align with them on the recent Palestinian votes?

Sven Mikser: From what I’ve seen in the media, I haven’t observed any overt pressure from the U.S. There have been times in the past when the U.S. has made its expectations very clear, but recently, the U.S. has focused more on urging Israel to avoid escalating the conflict to prevent a regional war.

Interviewer: Critics might contend that, in the absence of an EU consensus and with the U.S. taking a different stance, Estonia could have chosen to abstain. After all, the Middle East conflict does not pose an existential security concern for Estonia.

Sven Mikser: I fully concur with Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna and Secretary General Jonatan Vseviov on this matter. Their reasoning has been both clear and well-founded. When we call upon nations in Africa or Latin America to vote on resolutions concerning Ukraine, we do not ask them to align their votes with their economic or security interests; rather, we urge them to vote based on what is morally right and in accordance with international law. If we expect others to act on principle in issues critical to us, we must demonstrate the same commitment in matters important to them. Acting opportunistically on issues significant to others, while demanding value-based decisions on those vital to us, only serves to erode our own credibility.

Interviewer: Considering the ongoing messy Israel-Hamas war, is the issue of Palestinian occupation currently morally clear enough for Estonia to take sides?

Sven Mikser: No UN resolution is perfect. This particular resolution, like many others, has elements that could have been better articulated. For instance, Estonia pointed out in its voting explanation that the resolution focused heavily on Israel's occupation while not adequately addressing the terrorism Israel faces. Most resolutions are imperfect, and had we written them ourselves, we likely would have used different language. However, that’s the nature of multilateral diplomacy.

Interviewer: How might Estonia’s vote in favor of the Palestinian resolution affect its relations with Israel?

Sven Mikser: Israel would undoubtedly prefer our unwavering support on all Middle Eastern matters. However, Israel values its friends and allies, and I believe they would be reluctant to jeopardize their relationship with Estonia. Estonia has demonstrated no hostility toward Israel—quite the opposite, we regard Israel as an important partner in many areas of policy. At the same time, Estonia remains committed to a two-state solution in the Middle East. We acknowledge both Israel’s legitimate security concerns and the Palestinians' aspiration for an independent state. Both parties must operate within the confines of international law. Terrorism, in any form, is absolutely unacceptable, but Israel, too, must uphold legal boundaries in safeguarding its security. When those boundaries are overstepped, it is entirely appropriate to voice criticism.

Interviewer: Can you recall other instances where Estonia has voted differently from the U.S.?

Sven Mikser: Throughout our time as a UN member, we’ve voted differently from the U.S. on several occasions. The key is transparency with our allies—explaining the values and principles that guide our decisions. When allies understand the reasoning behind our choices, they generally accept them. We never aim to surprise our allies, but we also cannot be expected to vote identically in every instance.

Interviewer: Are there any other examples of similarly intense foreign policy debates in Estonia’s past?

Sven Mikser: The 2018 debate surrounding the UN Migration Pact comes to mind. At that time, Justice Minister Urmas Reinsalu vocally opposed Estonia’s accession, turning the issue into a flashpoint of domestic contention. Another notable instance occurred in 2017, when Estonia supported the Spanish government during the Catalan independence movement, a stance that also faced significant internal criticism.

In the case of Catalonia, it was later revealed that Russian disinformation had influenced the debate, similar to what transpired during the Brexit campaign. Russia has long sought to exploit contentious issues within European societies, sowing division where possible. In much the same way, the current controversy over Estonia’s vote on the Palestinian issue appears to be an effort to stir discord within the country's foreign policy sphere.

Such matters illustrate how underlying domestic disagreements can surface and disrupt foreign policy, which is traditionally the domain of the executive branch. In the instance of the Palestinian vote, there also seems to be an attempt to recalibrate the balance of power within Estonia’s foreign policy institutions. Nevertheless, Prime Minister Kristen Michal (Reform Party) has made it clear that the government’s stance on the vote reflects a unified position across the entire cabinet.