Reader’s opinion|A small country cannot afford to keep its foreign policy on its toes.
President Urho Kekkonen once said that if one of the two, foreign or domestic policy, has to be on its way, let it be domestic policy. This is how the member of parliament criticized Antti Kaikkonen Minister of Development in the (Central) Parliament Ville Taviota (p.s.). This had made the decision to leave the equality coalition promoting the reconstruction of Ukraine, which the prime minister would have supported Petteri Orpon (kok) I said according to the Finnish line. Tavio threw the ball to the opposition, asking what all the rainbow subsidies it wants for Ukraine.
Congressman Päivi Räsänen (kd) criticized the foreign minister in turn Elina from Valto (kok) on Finland’s voting decision in the UN. The resolution supported by Finland calls for the dismantling of illegal Jewish settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories. Räsänen, who represents the ruling party, said that he was on different lines than the president on this matter Alexander Stubb and Minister Valtonen, because “our value base looks different here”.
Is Finland’s foreign policy on track? It looks confusing when you look at the matter from the level of the surface excitement of the parliament’s plenary session.
In the big picture, however, the nation blows on the same coal. The small country has a strong tradition of seeking common understanding on questions concerning the national existence of foreign and security policy. We speak with one voice on international forums. Otherwise, our internal wringing would be exposed to external influence.
“
When the value disputes within the government extend to foreign policy, the situation is serious.
This is realpolitik. Finland’s foreign and security policy is now being conducted in a world political transition dominated by power politics and power interests. But instead of confrontation, we strive to build dialogue. This is the realpolitik dimension in the value-based realism launched by the president.
What about value-based? Stubb has hoped for a discussion about its content. It is also currently being discussed in the parliament. The difficulty is that the government, called Orpo’s unholy alliance, is built on strongly divergent values.
Until now, value disputes have been visible in domestic politics. When the value disputes within the government extend to foreign policy, the situation is serious. The disputes undermine the coherence and credibility of Finland’s foreign policy based on value-based realism internationally. This cannot be in the interest of the nation. A small country cannot afford to keep its foreign policy on its toes.
However, in Finland, foreign and security policy is in consistent hands, and our line is clear. The governing parties should now just find a common understanding on which value base to conduct a realistic foreign policy.
My task as the chairman of the parliament’s foreign affairs committee is to build a common understanding between the government and the opposition as we outline a common foreign policy. However, it is difficult for an opposition politician to mediate value disputes between governing parties. The nation is now looking to Prime Minister Petteri Orpo for leadership. He has the place and ability to clarify the value base of his government.
Kimmo Kiljunen
Member of Parliament (sd)
chairman of the foreign affairs committee, Vantaa
The reader’s opinions are speeches written by HS readers, which are selected and delivered by the HS editors. You can leave an opinion piece or familiarize yourself with the principles of writing at the address www.hs.fi/kiryotamielipidekeisuis/.
#Readers #Opinion #disputes #government #undermine #credibility #Finlands #foreign #policy
