Renaissance of realism, a new stage of Europeanization, or both? Estonia, Finland and EU foreign policy
| Published date | 01 December 2015 |
| Date | 01 December 2015 |
| Author | Kristi Raik |
| DOI | 10.1177/0010836714560033 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Cooperation and Conflict
2015, Vol. 50(4) 440 –456
© The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0010836714560033
cac.sagepub.com
Renaissance of realism, a new
stage of Europeanization, or
both? Estonia, Finland and
EU foreign policy
Kristi Raik
Abstract
The relationship between EU foreign policy and national foreign policies of the member states is
changing due to various factors: the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty in 2009 and subsequent
creation of the European External Action Service (EEAS); the economic crisis in Europe; and shifts
in the global balance of power. The article explores these new dynamics in light of two cases,
Estonia and Finland. It examines why the two countries support further integration in the area of
foreign policy and what determines the limits of their support, applying rationalist and constructivist
approaches. From a rationalist perspective, Finland and Estonia view the EU and the EEAS as a means
to pursue national interests and make diplomacy more cost-effective; these aspects have become
more important due to the economic crisis and changes in the international context. At the same
time both countries value the EU as a security community and a source of solidarity, which points
to the importance of socialization, as conceptualized by constructivists. However, the predominance
of national foreign policy identity and an instrumental approach to the EU leaves limited space for
deeper socialization, in spite of the new mechanisms of socialization introduced by the EEAS.
Keywords
Constructivism, Estonia, Finland, EU foreign policy, national foreign policy, realism
Introduction: Tracing contradictory trends in European
foreign policy1
Interaction between the common foreign policy of the European Union and national
foreign policies of the member states has been a puzzling topic for scholars of interna-
tional relations (IR) and European integration (e.g. Baun and Marek, 2013; Carlsnaes
et al., 2004; Gross, 2009; Thomas, 2011; Tonra and Christiansen, 2004; Wong and Hill,
Corresponding author:
Kristi Raik, Finnish Institute of International Affairs, Kruunuvuorenkatu 4, 00160 Helsinki, Finland.
Email: kristi.raik@fiia.fi
560033CAC0010.1177/0010836714560033Cooperation and ConflictRaik
research-article2014
Article
Raik 441
2011). Since foreign policy is traditionally defined as part of the core of national sover-
eignty, it has been considered more resistant to integration than, for example, trade or
agricultural policy. Nonetheless, common foreign policy took ‘centre stage’ in the inte-
gration process over the past two decades (Bickerton, 2011: 121) and made a consider-
able leap forward with the latest treaty change: the Lisbon Treaty that entered into force
in 2009 created something akin to an EU foreign service and foreign minister, namely the
European External Action Service (EEAS) headed by the High Representative (HR) of
the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. One of the main goals of the treaty
reform was to make the EU a more unified and visible global player. At the same time,
common foreign policy remains an area of intergovernmental decision-making and
member states continue to exercise their national foreign policies.
The reform of the EU foreign policy system provoked controversy and heated debates
among the member states and EU institutions (Carta, 2012: 145–161; Murdoch, 2012).
It coincided with an extraordinarily difficult period inside the EU, as the economic crisis
was undermining trust among member states and overall confidence in the integration
project. Moreover, it took place in the context of a major shift in the international balance
of power, with the rise of new powers in Asia and elsewhere and a relative decline of
Europe and the United States. These simultaneous changes underscore the need to review
scholarly approaches to the relationship between national and EU foreign policy and
conduct new empirical research on the topic.
Against this backdrop, the article explores two cases of member states, Estonia and
Finland, addressing the puzzle of why they support further EU foreign policy integration
and what determines the limits of their support. Although the two countries’ national for-
eign and security policy traditions and positions on specific EU foreign policy issues differ
on many counts (see Haukkala et al., in press), the article shows that they represent a rather
similar pattern of Europeanization. The existence of both deep-seated differences and nota-
ble similarities between the two cases makes it interesting to bring them together. It is
important to note, however, that the purpose of this article is not to offer a systematic com-
parison of the two cases, but rather to identify and find explanations for the overall approach
of the two countries to EU foreign policy and its most recent evolution, the EEAS.
Finland and Estonia are two relatively small, peripheral and new member states that
have been firm supporters of a more unified EU foreign policy and a strong EEAS. At the
same time, they draw limits as to how far they would wish integration to go; both coun-
tries want to maintain national control and intergovernmental decision-making in this
area. Their foreign policy elites have been very critical of the way the EEAS functioned
in its first years of existence. They also do not expect fast progress towards a more coher-
ent and effective EU foreign policy. There has even been a perception of renationaliza-
tion (e.g. Tuomioja, 2013). So their support is not explained by a positive assessment or
even positive expectations, at least in the short term, towards the EU’s performance in
this field. Yet aiming for a stronger international role of the EU is a key priority of
Finnish and Estonian foreign policies.
Through the case studies, the article aims to contribute to scholarly work on European
foreign policy in a broad sense, encompassing the EU and member states and paying
particular attention to interaction between the two levels. It highlights the need for new
research to take into account recent changes in the EU foreign policy system and in the
To continue reading
Request your trial