Values-based realism: What exactly does Finland's new foreign policy mantra mean?

Finland’s new-ish president Alex Stubb makes his United Nations debut next week when he travels to New York to give the Nordic nation’s ‘elevator pitch to the world’ at the General Assembly.

During his trip to the Big Apple, Stubb will take part in talks on climate change and biodiversity; hold several bilateral meetings with other leaders; and attend a reception hosted by US President Joe Biden.

But next Wednesday is the big set piece event of the annual pilgrimage to the UN, when Stubb delivers his country’s keynote speech to the General Assembly.

And one concept that will be guiding him as he speaks to a room full of world leaders, is his own newly-minted foreign policy doctrine of ‘values-based realism’.

Different Finnish presidential administrations have had their own foreign policy philosophies, with former President Sauli Niinistö espousing his '‘vakauspolitiikka’ - or stability politics - during two terms in office.

That meant trying to keep lines of friendly communication open between the great powers, and Niinistö acting as ‘mutual friend’ of Russia, China and the US.

Over 12 years, Niinistö visited Beijing and hosted the Chinese premiere on a state visit to Helsinki; was a frequent guest at the White House and presided over the 2018 Putin-Trump Summit in the Finnish capital; and kept in regular contact with Vladimir Putin hosting him in Naantali and Savonlinna, visiting Russia regularly, and playing ice hockey with the Kremlin hard man.

Stability was the Finnish watch word.

Putting meat on the bones of Stubb’s campaign slogan

Alex Stubb’s philosophy of values-based realism first surfaced during his 2023 presidential campaign but remained somewhat undefined: a catchphrase that sounds good in television interviews but which he didn’t really have to explain fully.

However, once he was elected in early 2024, the Kokoomus-led government agreed to incorporate Stubb’s concept into its own foreign and security policy review document which had been in the pipeline for months beforehand.

“What Stubb has said so far about the definition of the concept has been sparse but he has been elaborating about what it means in practice,” says Joel Linnainmäki, a senior researcher at the Finnish Institute for International Affairs FIIA in Helsinki.  

“Stubb has said we must have a realistic approach to our security and our neighbourhood and the security situation in Europe […] but we are not giving up our values like democracy and human rights,” he explains.

Stubb has clearly said that if values and security are in conflict, then security will always take precedence.

That has led some critics to say that if security always wins, and values like human rights never come out on top, is it really a “values-based” policy at all?

Finland’s cumbersome foreign policy dynamics

When it comes to foreign policy, Finland has a rather complex internal mechanism - some would say unwieldy.

Constitutionally, the president takes the lead on foreign policy issues outside of Europe. The Prime Minister’s office takes the lead on EU policy, and there’s also a Minister for Europe under the PM’s office who is frequently dispatched to Brussels, and of course the Foreign Minister too.

So how does this all fit together smoothly? The answer is that it doesn’t always work particularly well - having the president involved in foreign policy decisions adds an extra layer of bureaucracy that other Nordic and Baltic countries don’t have to deal with.

There had been some calls for a review of how much of a role an otherwise largely ceremonial presidential office could or should be playing in day-to-day foreign policy decisions; but in the current climate after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, those calls have gained little traction.

Values-based realism in action 

An area where Stubb’s values-based realism has been put to the test is over Finland’s decision to buy a missile defence system from Israel called ‘David’s Sling’.

The deal, signed at the end of last year, is worth more than €300 million according to the Israeli Ministry of Defense, and likely comprises one ground-based weapons platform which can intercept high altitude incoming targets - similar, but much cheaper, than the US Patriot missile defence system.

This week in an interview with Reuters, Stubb was forced to defend the decision to buy arms from Israel despite the ongoing war in Gaza.

In this case - as with every case, Stubb has indicated - “security” beats out “values”.

Human rights groups are adopting a wait-and-see approach to Finland’s new foreign policy line.

“It’s too early to say if the values or the realism will dominate Finnish foreign policy and we are seeing mixed signals,” says Frank Johansson from Amnesty Finland.

“In Amnesty of course we hope that values will prevail and that references to international law and respect for human rights in the Foreign and Security Policy document of the government will not just be words without concrete meaning,” Johansson tells Finland Insider.

“The danger is that it will be an opportunistic pick-and-choose in different situations”.

Another example is the new law rushed through parliament this year which allows Finnish authorities to push back migrants coming over the eastern border even if they want to claim asylum.

Frank Johansson flags this up as a “clear breach of international law,” but then cites the inconsistency of Finland’s UN ambassador Elina Kalkkus this week mounting a strong defence of international law in justifying Finland’s vote demanding the end of Israel’s illegal occupation of Occupied Palestinian Territories.

“Criticism of values-based realism from opposition politicians focuses on the question of when do values ever win,” muses FIIA’s Joel Linnainmäki.

“They say it should just be called ‘realism’, even if some of those politicians would want to see a similar approach to foreign policy if they were in government,” he adds.