In defence of common values: The Finnish EU Council Presidency 2019

Abstract

Finland promoted a value-based agenda as the President of the European Union (EU) Council in 2019. The focus was especially on the defence of the rule of law principle. A role as a strong value promoter departs from the pragmatic and cautious tradition of Finnish EU policy. In this article, I will ask why Finland chose to promote values, and what kind of political debate preceded its Presidency term. Second, I will look at the actual promotion of the common values during the Presidency. Third, I will provide some evaluations of the success of Finland’s value-based approach. The analysis draws from comprehensive documentary sources related to Finnish EU policy and her Presidency term, and from 33 semi-structured research interviews among the key Finnish politicians, civil servants and civil society organization representatives in 2020. The article shows that values were thoroughly debated before the term and their relevance increased as the Presidency approached. Finland also succeeded in promoting several values, especially by linking them to practical questions. The article argues that evaluating the success of Finland’s approach is more contentious, which may be tackled several ways.

Introduction

Discussion about the European values has become a highly topical issue in the European Union (EU). The deteriorating respect for common values, especially democracy and the rule of law in some Member States, has been a major concern. The situation has been characterized as a rule of law crisis or, more generally, the crisis of European values (Mos, 2020). The member states have either been unable to achieve unanimity or lack effective instruments to intervene in systematic undermining of common values (Closa and Kochenov, 2016). The lack of respect for EU values can create normative divisions within the Union and decrease its external political and moral credibility. The value debate has become politicized, and the EU’s value policing has created tensions between member states and EU institutions. Political initiatives to link the EU budget and respect for the rule of law led to confrontation between Hungary and Poland and the EU. This situation raises the question of how to ensure respect for EU values, and who is the most legitimate actor to advance the value-based agenda.

In this heated atmosphere, Finland acted as the President of the EU Council in the second half of 2019. Finland underlined the role of the EU as a community of values and prioritized the promotion of the rule of law. In its programme, Finland acknowledged the questioning of common values (Finnish Government, 2019a). Such norm advocacy by a small member state is facilitated when it fits the overall ambition of the EU (Björkdahl, 2008). However, a strong value promoter role departs from the pragmatic and cautious tradition of Finnish EU policy. This article asks why and how Finland ended up focusing on values. Second, it will outline how Finland promoted values and how the value-based approach succeeded. The article is based on documentary sources related to Finnish EU policy and the presidential term and on 33 research interviews among the key Finnish politicians, civil servants and civil society representatives in 2020.

The Council Presidency is an important task for an individual EU member state, especially small ones. Bunse (2009) has called the Presidency the ‘guardian of equality’ between big and small members (p. 28). However, the opportunity of the President to influence wider EU policy agenda has divided scholarly opinions (Alexandrova and Timmermans, 2013; Häge, 2017; Thomson, 2008; Warntjen, 2013). A norm is that the President should be an impartial, neutral actor, who puts national interests aside. Studies on rotating presidencies have concentrated on external context and national conditions (Vandecasteele and Bossuyt, 2014) and comparisons between presidencies (Elgström, 2003; Panke and Gurol, 2018). Since the Lisbon Treaty, the role of the Presidency has diminished, leaving the President to deal with low politics issues (Wivel, 2018: 10). To improve continuity and effectiveness, agenda setting is tied to the collaboration in the Presidency troika and to the strategy of the European Council (Van Gruisen, 2019; Warntjen, 2013). The 6-month Presidency is also short and seldom proceeds as expected, which leaves the President less room for manoeuvre. However, I argue that individual presidencies can influence the EU agenda by raising specific issues for discussion, allocating time for debate and advancing compromises (Häge, 2017). Influence is the extent to which actions result in outcomes that correspond to the priorities of the presidency programme. I acknowledge how difficult the evaluation of particular presidencies can be (see Toneva-Metodieva, 2020). The focus of evaluation is the member states’ norm advocacy in the current ‘value crisis’. I claim that individual presidencies can have influence, especially on contentious topics. This was the case during the Finnish presidency, as the new institutional cycle and the newly elected European Parliament and Commission started their work.

This article adds to the literature on Finnish EU policy, wider-ranging Council Presidency studies and to research on small state influence in the EU. In the case of small states, an efficient strategy to influence is to act in accordance with the broader goals of the Union and choose a few clear priorities (Arter, 2000; Grøn and Wivel, 2011: 529; Panke and Gurol, 2018). Small member states are well positioned to push particular, more disputed issues onto the agenda (Raunio and Tiilikainen, 2003: 7). They may also be considered non-threatening, that is, soft powers (Wivel, 2018: 13). Consequently, small states may be competent negotiators, who enjoy neutral reputations. Finland has achieved a reputation as a defender of community interests, being a constructive player, and skilful builder of compromises (Lewis, 2013: 153). Previous research has also underlined the benefits of close cooperation between ministries during the small states’ presidencies (Bunse, 2009; Elgström, 2003). Finnish EU policy puts great emphasis on national policy coordination.

The article proceeds by discussing first the idea of the EU as a value community and its challenges. I will then introduce the context for Finland’s presidency and its value-based programme. In the empirical part, I explain why Finland ended up promoting values, and then summarize how values were promoted during the term. Finally, I evaluate the success of the value-based approach and discuss the relevance of such an approach for Finnish EU policy.

The EU as a community of values

The Finnish presidency programme underlined the EU’s role as a community of values. The idea entails some fundamental values forming the basis of the community, values shared among the members. The preparation of the EU Constitutional Treaty (2005) foregrounded values. After the treaty rejection, the Treaty of Lisbon (2009) imported the value dimensions by stating that the EU is founded on and driven by values (Articles 2 and 3). These values are mentioned in the second article and include respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including minority rights. The Treaty adds six guiding principles of European societies: pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men. The Charter of the Fundamental Rights is an essential part of the value-basis. According to the normative power image (Manners, 2002), these values and principles are the basis for norms and rules that shape the goals and behaviour of the EU.

As Weatherill (2016) notes, the idea of investing the EU with values has been highly transformative (p. 393). However, the idea of the EU as a community of values is relatively new. The references to individual values at the treaties have been selective and no specific value-driven emphasis can be detected. Of course, securing values such as peace and stability have been major concerns underlying the integration. The EU has been a successful peace project, awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2012. After the Cold War, a vital need to fix some ethical framework and identity through values was acknowledged. In the eastward enlargement, respect for common values was made a condition of EU membership and it became the prime example of their application (Wennerström, 2020: 249). The assumption was that the new members would adopt the values and develop into stable democracies governed by the rule of law. Respect for the rule of law became a central value, as it forms the basis for legal cooperation.

As the EU values remain rather abstract, actors may interpret them differently (Mos, 2020). In the 2010s, the EU has faced problems as some member states have contested the values. The rule of law principle in particular has caused political controversies. The EU institutions have aimed to define values more accurately and develop instruments to oversee respect for them. The tension between supranational and intergovernmental efforts is apparent, and the value policing has politicized debates. The European Parliament has been a vocal actor in the defence of values by publishing reports and statements on breaches of values. The Commission can supervise and monitor the treaty implementation through the preventive and sanctioning (Article 7 Treaty of European Union (TEU)) mechanisms. The infringement proceedings of the Court of Justice of the EU are also important monitoring mechanisms (Closa and Kochenov, 2016). In 2014, the Commission developed softer, preventive tool to hinder EU-criticism in countries, which could be targets of its actions (Closa, 2019). The Commission also proposed a protection for the Union budget in cases of rule of law deficiencies. In 2019, the Commission published a new action plan on strengthening the rule of law (Commission, 2019). The plan included the idea of annual monitoring of the rule of law situations in member states. The Commission has published two reviews reflecting this development in 2020 and 2021.

The intergovernmental Council and European Council have aimed to avoid politicization by furthering ‘objective, non-discriminating and constructive’ dialogue. The new Strategic Agenda for 2019–2024 sees the rule of law as the key guarantee that values are well protected (European Council, 2019). Overall, the Council’s action is restricted as many member states have been reluctant to identify the value breaches by their peers. One explanation is that member states may have their own rule of law challenges (Closa, 2019). Another is that political alliances silence criticism and make it impossible to reach unanimous decisions on sanctions. Consequently, the instruments deployed by the Council have not responded decisively to breaches of common values. This has left some member states frustrated, as they are willing to see determined action against violators. In general, the governments involved in value breaches have been increasingly criticized in the Council (Closa, 2019).

The context for the Finnish Presidency

When Finland joined the EU with Sweden and Austria in 1995, the membership was considered to serve important economic and security interests. It is also possible to approach membership from the identity perspective and willingness to join ‘the West’ (Arter, 2000: 680; Raunio and Tiilikainen, 2003: 28). In general, pragmatism and adaptability have been the leading features of Finnish EU policies. Finland has supported further integration in several policy areas and promoted compromises and common solutions (Lewis, 2013; Ojanen and Raunio, 2018: 153). As a small Nordic member state, Finland has been keen to defend EU norms and rules. According to the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), the basic stance of Finland’s EU policy is to further develop the EU, and to promote growth, stability and security in Europe.

During its EU membership, the Finnish political parties have mainly been supportive of integration. National unity in EU matters is considered a precondition for additional influence in EU-level bargaining (Hyvärinen and Raunio, 2014; Raunio, 2016). However, behind the consensus, there are increasing divisions between the elite and public opinion, and within the Finnish parties. Since the 1990s, the National Coalition Party and the Social Democratic Party have adopted a pro-integration attitude. The Centre Party and the Green League have been internally divided over integration. The Finns Party is the only consistently Eurosceptic party. The outbreak of the euro crisis and the 2011 parliamentary elections showed domestic politicization of EU issues. The disagreements concerning integration are mainly issue-based and related to the euro crisis, the refugee crisis and climate issues.

Previous research shows that small states can benefit from the centralized, effective coordination of national EU positions (Bunse, 2009; Elgström, 2003). The Government’s EU Affairs Department coordinates all EU matters. In the Finnish system, EU positions are negotiated in close cooperation between the ministries, Government and the Parliament. Responsible ministries prepare, monitor and determine Finland’s positions. According to Hyvärinen and Raunio (2014), small elite of civil servants have great influence in setting the governmental EU policy agenda. This is evident in formulating national positions and in Commission working group representation, in the Council preparatory bodies and in comitology committees. The active and powerful role of civil servants helps in avoiding the politicization of EU issues.

However, in comparison to many member states, the Finnish Parliament has a strong role in EU issues, having a right to express its views whenever these fall within its decision-making power. The Constitution requires that the Government keeps the Parliament informed of the preparation and consults it in proposals under consideration. The Grand Committee or Foreign Affairs Committee decides on and expresses the Parliament’s positions. Ministers are also required to appear before the Grand Committee prior to EU Council meetings. The plenary session of the Parliament may also discuss any EU matter. In the Government, the Ministerial Committee on EU Affairs meets every week to discuss important EU matters. The Prime Minister chairs the sessions and preoccupies a central role in EU policy-making. The Ministerial Committee agrees on Finland’s policy guidelines for EU Council meetings. It provides instructions for the Permanent EU Representation of Finland, which has a key role in policy preparation and implementation.

Finland has acted as President of the Council of the EU three times; in 1999, 2006 and 2019. Even if the presidencies differ, priorities show continuity: EU transparency, inclusion, multilateralism, the global role of the EU and the Northern Dimension appear in every programme (Arter, 2000; Raunio and Tiilikainen, 2003: 112–113; Ojanen and Vuohula, 2007). Following the Lisbon Treaty, the national programme has less relevance and visibility (Grøn and Wivel, 2011: 527–528). The politicization of EU integration and several crises in the 2010s have strengthened the leadership of the European Council. However, Schout notes how these crises have also opened windows of opportunity for the presidencies (Schout, 2017). Presidents are often charged with achieving political progress on controversial dossiers (Thomson, 2008: 594). Some presidencies are willing to take the challenge on, while others aim to avoid it by promoting an honest broker role. Smaller states can be well positioned to push controversial questions (Tiilikainen and Raunio, 2003: 7). In a sensitive political climate, good negotiation skills and compromise building capacities are highly valued. Small member states have benefitted from good reputation and careful preparation for their presidency (Vandecasteele and Bossuyt, 2014: 236).

In 2019, the Presidency coincided with the beginning of a new EU institutional cycle and the start of the new Commission. Finland was the first presidency that integrated the new priorities of the EU’s Strategic Agenda 2019–2024 into the Council’s work. While the extended Brexit process, the negotiations on the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) and formation of the new Commission took time and energy, the transition period enabled future-oriented debates in several policy areas, such as sustainable growth and migration. Finland worked with Romania and Croatia and the common programme focused on shared values, sustainable growth and the strengthening of external capabilities, safety and security (EU Council, 2018). As Romania and Croatia had their first Presidencies, there were expectations for the experienced Finnish term. Romania had ‘the Europe of common values’ as one of its programme priorities, but the focus was on cohesion and social rights. There were also doubts about the leadership capacities just before Romania’s term due to the internal political quarrels (Politico, 2018).

Finland held national elections in April, and the presidency programme remained open until the new Government was appointed in June 2019. The Presidency tasks were the first responsibility of the new government, a fact that underlined the need for wide-ranging parliamentary preparation. The final programme underlined common values and the rule of law as cornerstones of EU action. The other priorities were to make the EU more competitive and socially inclusive, to strengthen the EU’s position as a global leader in climate action and to protect the security of citizens (Finnish Government, 2019a). These priorities represented a bolder attitude towards the promotion of common values in line with the composition of the new more pro-European and left-leaning government.

Research data and method

The research data consist of Finnish EU policy and the presidency documents, including meeting memorandums, Government programmes, Council conclusions, thematic backgrounders and reports. The documents are public and collected from sources such as the Presidency websites (eu2019.fi) and ministry webpages. The data are complemented by 33 expert interviews with key Finnish politicians, civil servants and civil society representatives. The interviews add to the official picture, their use being justified because the presidency includes much quiet diplomacy (Lewis, 2013: 152). The parliamentary committees meet behind closed doors, and knowledge of the process can best be generated via the people involved (Van Audenhove and Donders, 2019: 183–185). As the article focuses on national processes, all the interviewees are Finnish. The politicians interviewed (n = 10) include Finland’s Prime Ministers (PMs) (Juha Sipilä and Antti Rinne) and the Ministers of European Affairs (Sampo Terho and Tytti Tuppurainen), the Grand Committee chairpersons, members of the Parliamentary working group for the presidency and Finnish Members of European Parliament (MEPs). The civil servants (n = 9) worked in key positions in the Parliament Secretariat, the Government EU Affairs Department, the Permanent Representation of Finland to the EU and as EU experts in ministries. The civil society representatives (n = 14) were selected according to their relevance and status.

Most of the interviews were conducted by phone in spring 2020 because of the COVID situation. Each interview followed a similar structure containing three areas: (1) the experiences of the preparatory process, (2) their views on the implementation of values and (3) the evaluation of the success of the value-based approach. The interviews were adapted to the participant’s position and were confidential. I will refer to informant groups by abbreviations: politicians (POL), civil servants (CS) and civil society representatives (CO). The manuscript was sent to the interviewees for comment to complement the factual description. The material was analysed by using qualitative content analysis. Careful attention was paid to contextualizing and to differences between the groups. The politicians interviewed may be biased as they hold varying positions and may evaluate their own contributions. Civil servants and civil society representatives focus on particular areas of expertise, and their opinions are more independent of party politics.

How and why values entered the Finnish Presidency programme

The first task was to explain how and why values became an integral part of Finland’s Presidency. Typically, the preparations for the Presidency start 18 months before the term (Lewis, 2013: 152). In Finland, the responsibility falls on ministries, and the EU Policy Unit manages the coordination. The Parliament, especially its Grand Committee, is closely involved. I will study the preparation process employed by politicians and civil servants, as well as how the civil society was involved.

PM Juha Sipilä launched the discussion on Finnish priorities in March 2018. Extensive participation was necessary as Finland held Parliamentary elections just before its Presidency. In the Parliament, the cooperation group worked in the Grand Committee and published the report on priorities in October 2018. According to the interviewees, the relevance of common values became a central issue in these debates. Promoting rule-based order and defending UN institutions and universal values was considered a key national interest. The situation in Poland and Hungary was debated in the Grand Committee, and the decreasing respect for rule of law caused frustration. Politicians were also generally worried about the decay of the EU values. Larger issues, such as the tense global political situation, the Brexit process, the future of the liberal order and the policy of Donald Trump were mentioned as causes of concern. ¹ However, the final report of the working group was a compromise between various party interests and it included a remark that not all the issues were agreed.

In December 2018, a parliamentary plenary session debated the future of the EU and Presidency priorities. In the discussion, the good spirit of the preparation and the need for national consensus was underlined. However, tensions between the parties on the more Europe-oriented and national views were evident. The politicians noticed that some, mainly representatives of opposition, would have prioritized interests that are more domestic. ² The Finns Party considered the programme too integration-oriented, and migration and climate issues were difficult. Still, the opposition did not strongly contest the programme. In December 2018, eight parties published a communique, which promised promotion of EU leadership on climate issues. The Finns Party did not sign this communique. Some politicians saw the statement as an important part of the preparation. ³ Climate issues were high on the agenda when PM Sipilä met other state leaders before the Presidency. Interestingly, Finland did not sign the member states’ letter demanding enhanced climate ambition in May 2019. ⁴ This decision reflected the traditional, cautious EU policy approach.

Individual ministries and the Government’s EU Policy unit focused on the long-term perspective and continuity. One key issue was to influence the new strategic agenda of the European Council for the years (2019–2024) by advancing common values, climate issues, security and growth (Finnish Government, 2019b). The preparation was tied to the Sipilä’s Government programme, in which value dimensions were not explicit. According to the interviewees, values were not discussed frankly at the Ministerial Committee on EU Affairs. ⁵ However, some interviewees underlined Finland’s traditional commitment to EU values and a strong value dimension as such was not anything new. ⁶ Pragmatism and the influence of the larger policy development were also mentioned. ⁷ The national programme had secondary importance, and issues unlikely to succeed, such as migration, would not be promoted. The clear value dimension at the EU level created momentum for value-based approach. Eventually, the promotion of the rule of law seemed to match the wider EU priorities well and the civil servants prepared the topic carefully. ⁸ Some politicians and civil servants underlined Finland’s courage in the promotion of divisive value questions that previous presidencies had avoided despite the Commission’s requests. ⁹

After the Parliamentary elections in April 2019, the government negotiations started and priorities for the forthcoming EU Presidency was one of the themes. ¹⁰ The EU group discussions were based on a parliamentary report on possible priorities, the preparation paper written by the PMO EU Policy Unit and the priorities of parties. The interviewees did not agree on how the final Presidency programme was formulated; the readiness to negotiate differed, and the policy paper from the EU Policy Unit reflected the ‘value nihilistic attitude’ of the previous Government. Negotiations were described as tense, and value questions were discussed at length. It was easiest to find agreement on the defence of the rule of law, while the strengthening the social dimension divided parties. ¹¹

Once the Government was formed, the Presidency programme was published. Comparing the earlier parliamentary report on Finland’s Presidency priorities with the final programme shows that the values and social questions are more apparent. ¹² The title was ‘Sustainable Europe – Sustainable Future’ and four priorities were highlighted: the strengthening of common values and the rule of law, making the EU more competitive and socially inclusive, strengthening the EU’s position as a global leader in climate action and protecting the comprehensive security of citizens. According to the programme, ‘only by acting together and defending our common values can the EU tackle the major challenges of our time’. The European success story is anchored in democratic institutions, human rights and the rule of law. The EU is described primarily as a value community, and values are considered to play a key role in the acceptability and credibility of the Union (Finnish and Government, 2019a: 3–5).

The civil society representatives agreed that they were excluded from the preparation. The main channels of influence were working group memberships and direct relations with ministries. Influencing the value dimension or gender and equality issues was considered difficult during Sipilä’s government. ¹³ Interviewees mentioned the formal hearings, which were considered merely symbolic, and generally lacking responsibility for the details of the process. ¹⁴ Politicians and civil servants confirmed this impression. ¹⁵ In July 2019, many organizations, especially their European offices (Concord, Amnesty, ILGA), reacted directly to the Finnish Presidency programme by publishing their suggestions for action.

The implementation of the value-based approach

In this part, I will examine the actual promotion of values during the presidency. The chapter is based on Finnish Presidency documents, and columns and backgrounders, Council conclusions, conference summaries and on the interviews.

Strengthening the rule of law was the most important theme of the Finnish presidency and the intention was to give it much publicity. According to the interviewees, Finland was the first president to promote the rule of law specifically. Several former Presidencies (Romania and Austria) were mentioned as reluctant to put efforts into this issue. ¹⁶ Austria focused on security, competitiveness and stability and aimed to promote its role as a neutral broker. ¹⁷ Romania did not act because of its own rule of law shortcomings. Finland developed the rule of law dialogue and preventive tools. The issue was central to the General Affairs Council (GAC), where Finland organized a public debate on enhancing respect for the rule of law. Council conclusions on an annual debate on the rule of law situation with the Commission’s rule of law report was supported by 26 member states. Hearings under Article 7 concerning the situation in Hungary and Poland were held. The rule of law notions recurred often in the Permanent Representatives Committee (COREPER) preparation. Furthermore, Finland put the rule of law questions on the Justice Ministers’ agenda in a systematic manner. Conclusions on victims’ rights were adopted and the advantages of digitalization in judicial cooperation were debated. Finnish PM Antti Rinne also underlined the importance of the rule of law and other values in his speech to the European Parliament (Rinne, 2019).

Finland was especially active in the initiatives to protect the EU budget in situations where there were generalized rule of law deficiencies. This was related to the Commission’s proposal to protect the Union’s budget (2018). According to Finland’s proposal for the MFF (EU Council, 2019a), EU aid could be withheld from any Member State showing serious and frequent deficiencies in implementing the rule of law. The interviewees thought that Finland was constructive and avoided naming and shaming of individual states. The rule of law priority created tensions in the Council meetings, but relief that the topic was finally on the agenda as well. ¹⁸ Another important dimension was to fight corruption and fraud through sound financial management. Finland brought forward the start of the operation of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). During the presidency, the Council also agreed on a shared approach on a legislative package to facilitate the detection of tax fraud, especially in cross-border e-commerce. Many interviewees mentioned Finland’s active contribution in fighting aggressive tax planning and tax evasion, and in reducing harmful tax competition. In December, Finland organized a business and human rights conference to advance a more responsible EU agenda. ¹⁹

Finland aimed to strengthen the capacity of member states to prevent and respond to hybrid threats by organizing scenario-based debates. The prevention was discussed at ministerial meetings, and Council conclusions on complementary efforts to enhance resilience and counter hybrid threats were reached. A new Horizontal Working Party was established to coordinate prevention of hybrid threats by member states (Marin, 2019). Disinformation and hate speech, as well as media freedom, were discussed at the European Council. In the GAC, these topics were considered in the hearings on Hungary. ²⁰ As one of its long-standing goals, Finland promoted transparency and openness in the activities of the Council. According to the Presidency report on openness and transparency (EU Council, 2019b), Finland saw the beginning of the new institutional cycle as an appropriate moment to improve the transparency of the Council. A wide range of background information was delivered through the Presidency websites and press meetings.

Finland also mainstreamed the rule of law principle in external relations. In October, the Council accepted conclusions on democracy promotion, and interviewees underlined the importance of the Finnish Foreign Minister Pekka Haavisto in this process. ²¹ The rule of law was considered an important element in the enlargement policy. During the presidency, the GAC discussed enlargement on several occasions but no agreement was reached on opening accession negotiations with North Macedonia and Albania. Finland also promoted a comprehensive, value-based approach to EU–Africa relations in the preparation of an Africa strategy.

The Government programme underlines fundamental and human rights as cornerstones of the Finnish approach (Finnish Government, 2019a). During the presidency, Finland organized several seminars and conferences on topical human rights questions. The 10th anniversary conference of the Charter of Fundamental Rights was one of the highlights and the Council reached conclusions on its implementation. Several concrete measures were monitored during the presidency term. ²² One of the main goals of Finland, a return to negotiations with the Council of Europe on the EU’s accession to the European Convention on Human Rights, was made possible through agreement between member states. Several human rights institutions, organizations and individual human rights defenders, as well as the EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), were invited to take part in the formal and informal presidency events. ²³

The Government programme promised to strengthen gender equality by focusing on gender-sensitive budgeting and fighting against gender-based violence (Finnish Government, 2019b). According to the presidency programme, the EU should promote equality and inclusiveness in all policy sectors. Inequalities are related to loss of human and economic potential (Finnish Government, 2019a). The gender equality declaration of the Presidency trio outlined the shared goals of promoting a gender equal economy, improving the employment rate of women and reducing the gender pay gap. ²⁴ During the term, gender equality was promoted especially as a component of sustainable economic growth and through the economy of well-being. Interviewees mentioned how Finland aimed to do both, mainstream gender issues and advance special measures to improve equality. ²⁵ In September, Finland organized two conferences on gender equality and its future challenges. The Council’s conclusions on gender equality were accepted, including policy recommendations for the Commission’s forthcoming gender equality strategy. Minister for European Affairs Tytti Tuppurainen emphasized the gender perspective particularly in budgetary policies. Other Finnish ministers took part in the EU4Equality campaign by outlining how they promote equality during the Presidency.

The Nordic states have been the main drivers of gender mainstreaming in development policy (Elgström, 2017). The presidency programme mentions gender equality in relation to sustainable development, crisis management and the EU–Africa partnership. It states that cross-cutting attention must be given to mainstreaming gender equality and promoting the rights of women and girls (Finnish Government, 2019a). The value-based Finnish foreign and security policy promotes gender equality and the full materialization of girls’ and women’s rights. Finland supports women’s participation in peace processes especially (Finnish Government, 2019b). During the presidency, Finland advanced the EU efforts to accede to the Istanbul Convention addressing violence against women. The Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) adopted conclusions prepared by the Presidency on humanitarian assistance and law, addressing inequality and strengthening gender equality and women’s empowerment in external action (Marin, 2019).

Finland has supported the rights of gender and sexual minorities in the EU Council and cooperated to demand effective promotion of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) rights. ²⁶ LGBTI equality has been forwarded in the Rainbow rights campaign, for example. ²⁷ Even if the Presidency programme focused on social inclusiveness, this mainly involved women and young people. The rights of minorities were not mentioned, and interviewees related this to the previous government’s reluctance to deal with minority issues. ²⁸ During the term, Finland organized a conference on sexual and gender minority rights with the Commission in order to prepare the EU’s first-ever lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and questioning/queer (LGBTIQ) strategy, which was published in November 2020. Finland also worked behind closed doors inviting politicians and civil servants from those member states who object LGBTI rights to take part in the debates. ²⁹ According to the interviewees, Finnish activism was welcomed, as the rights of sexual minorities are increasingly objected to in the EU. Finland also advanced the employment of vulnerable groups in the labour market. ³⁰ The European Disability Forum (EDF) organized a conference dealing with European accessibility legislation, in relation to transport and the built environment. However, according to the interviewees, activity in the area of disability rights was non-governmental organization (NGO)-based, and the programme did not have official events on this topic. ³¹

Sustainability was already visible in the title of the presidency programme. Finland promoted sustainable development and social justice by underlining the economy of well-being, the main idea being that people’s well-being fosters economic growth. The Council adopted conclusions on the economy of well-being. Some politicians and civil society representatives considered the theme as Finland’s main success. ³² The Beyond Growth seminar that focused on combining economic growth and measurement of well-being was highlighted. The interviewees praised the Finnish approach to sustainable development as exemplary. ³³ Finnish priority is to decrease inequality (target 10) in the EU and globally (Finnish Government, 2019b). The Council reached conclusions on addressing inequality in partner countries and on the implementation of Agenda 2030. The meeting arrangements adhered to the principles of sustainability as the presidency’s carbon footprint was reduced by 70% in comparison with a standard presidency.

A key priority for Finland was to promote EU climate leadership and bring a climate perspective to almost all Councils and ministerial meetings. The December European Council endorsed the objective of making the EU carbon neutral by 2050, except that Poland will follow its own schedule. The 2030 climate and energy goals were pushed forward, as well as ambitious EU goals at the UN Climate Conference. Interviewees mentioned the conclusion on the circular economy, protecting and restoring forests, and biodiversity. ³⁴ The circular economy was incorporated into the Commission’s work programme and the publication of the European Green Deal was accelerated. In the MFF proposal, Finland advanced an overall target of at least 25% of the Union budget expenditures to support climate objectives. Furthermore, the share of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) expenditure dedicated to climate action is set at 40% (EU Council, 2019a).

Success of the value-based approach

This part evaluates the success of the Finnish value-based approach. I acknowledge the complexity of the task, as there are no simple means of measurement or ways to differentiate the contributions of actors (Toneva-Metodieva, 2020; Vadecasteele and Bossuyt, 2014). I will base my analysis on the interviews.

Generally, the value-based approach was appreciated by the civil society, and the interviewees mentioned how other member states, the EU Commission and the European Parliament gave positive feedback for Finland. ³⁵ The value-based approach was related to the rule of law and its monitoring. The development of the rule of law toolbox was considered as the most notable contribution. This priority also provoked strong reactions, which, according to one politician, was a proof of success. The rule of law aspect was included in the MFF negotiation proposal, even if the process was not concluded. ³⁶ Finland’s contributions to human rights and democracy also received positive feedback and were brought to the forefront in external policy. According to civil servants, ³⁷ fundamental rights priorities succeeded better than expected. The invitations of human rights defenders to Foreign Ministers and Working Party on Human Rights (COHOM) meetings in particular were praised by civil society ³⁸ .

The forward-looking attitude in gender equality promotion was praised. Finnish priorities were apparent in the Commission’s strategy on gender equality published in March 2020. Finland succeeded in promoting gender equality through the idea of the economy of well-being, which highlighted gendered impacts and inequality as a threat to economic prosperity. Finland received a letter from the European Women’s Lobby (EWL) acknowledging its leadership in women’s rights. However, many interviewees mentioned how the appointment of the first female leader for the Commission and the new female PM also boosted the visibility of gender issues. ³⁹ Gender equality was high on the agenda of the new Commission (Abels and Mushaben, 2020). A clear difference from the side-lining of gender equality during Sipilä’s government was recognized with the new government.

Finland prioritized social inclusiveness, but according to civil society, Finland could have promoted more disability issues and sexual minority rights. These topics were approached sensitively, which was considered an asset and a disappointment. Finland’s strong focus on gender equality and sexual and reproductive rights in external policy was praised. ⁴⁰ In migration and refugee policy, the presidency was considered a disappointment. This had secondary importance, and not much was achieved. Finland remained outside of the emergency relocation of people rescued at sea (Malta agreement) agreed in September. ⁴¹ According to politicians and civil servants, migration was debated, but advancement was tied to the launch of the Commission’s new pact on migration and asylum. The migration-critical attitude of the Sipilä government influenced the more hesitant attitude (Wahlbeck, 2019).

Finnish neutrality was appreciated, but also criticized. Interviewees mentioned how neutrality worked well with member states who were reluctant to proceed on rule of law questions. However, in environmental and climate policies, neutrality was perceived as an excuse to avoid stronger acts. ⁴² Finland did not promote the ambitious targets or organize a high-level climate summit. The informal summit would have provided stronger profile (Alexandrova and Timmermans, 2013). In climate issues Finland acted as a middle power, which is the role studies have suggested for it (Carter et al., 2019: 991). The objective of making the EU carbon neutral by 2050 was considered a success that forwarded the publication of Commission’s Green Deal. However, Finnish climate priority was undermined by the fact that it lobbied to maintain forestry as a national competency and obtained flexibility in managing its emissions (EU Observer, 2019).

Interviewees thought that social justice and sustainable development were advanced during the presidency, especially in working groups. However, the concept of sustainable growth in the programme mixed sustainable development and economic growth, and the priority was not always clear. The internal perspective was also more prominent than the external one in the debates on sustainability. ⁴³ According to civil society actors, Finland did not use its full potential in the negotiations over reforming the financial architecture for development or in trade policies. In external meetings where Finland represented the EU, its efforts were still highly praised.

Conclusion

As the article has demonstrated, values became an integral part of the Finnish Presidency. There are alternative explanations for this approach, which underlines the relevance of the external context and national conditions (Vandecasteele and Bossuyt, 2014). The case can provide insights into the influences of various factors on the presidency. First, values such as the rule of law had been discussed at EU level before the term. The external demands and expectations clearly influenced the allocation of attention to rule of law questions. Finland prioritized values as a response to the European Council’s issue list and more general high issue salience across the EU. Such a reactive approach has been considered intrinsic to Finnish EU policy (Hyvärinen and Raunio, 2014). Second, for small member states, it is a good strategy to promote norms, which are close to the overall ambitions of the EU, as this boosts their efforts (Björkdahl, 2008). The Finnish contribution could be interpreted as the promotion of the shared agenda to strengthen respect for the values. In this regard, Finland lived up to its responsibility (Grøn and Wivel, 2011: 529). Third, the timing of the presidency was relevant. As the presidency occurred between the newcomers Romania and Croatia, there were expectations of strong leadership. Finland’s norm advocacy also coincided with the new institutional cycle, which provided room for debate on values. To sum up, the external context contributed to Finland’s value emphasis.

However, the explicit value focus departed from the rather pragmatic and cautious Finnish EU policy. In this respect, it can be considered surprising and quite bold. An important question is what caused the domestic change? In the literature, the internal factors influencing the presidency are less studied (Johansson et al., 2012: 207). This case study tracked the political preparation closely. As has been demonstrated, values were intensely discussed and most parties were concerned about the EU-level situation. Eventually, the new pro-European and leftist government decided to put emphasis on values. The difference from its predecessor, the Sipilä government, was notable. Despite the increasing politicization of EU issues (Raunio, 2016), the opposition did not contest the priorities. One reason is the broad political preparation before the national elections and in the negotiations on the new government. For example, the climate priority in the programme was agreed between the political parties in December 2018. The national consensus was maintained during the presidency and the Government could run the programme in peace.

This case confirms that small states see national consensus as an important precondition for enhanced influence (Hyvärinen and Raunio, 2014). The general pattern is that domestic political conflicts are put on hold because opposition does not have incentives to show disloyalty to the national effort to run the presidency successfully (Johansson et al., 2012). The civil servants who approved the political programme and prepared the priority themes sealed the national consensus. This is relevant as they do have an important role in directing Finnish EU policy. Some of the interviewees claimed that Finland has always been a keen supporter of values and norms. In this respect, the change was not considered noteworthy. The civil society representatives supported the strong value orientation even if they felt excluded from the preparation.

The article adds to the literature on small states in the EU, demonstrating Finland’s norm advocacy role (Björkdahl, 2008). Finland also benefitted from strategies used by small states. It utilized domestic areas of expertise, which created credibility for its norm advocacy (Björkdahl, 2008: 137; Grøn and Wivel, 2011: 534). For example, ambitious climate targets, the economy of well-being and gender-based budgeting were based on domestic models. The innovative ideas provide windows of opportunity for smaller states, as they may promote their interests as part of the wider themes (Panke and Gurol, 2018). Finland promoted fiscal discipline and respect for the rule of law through the MFF proposal, for example. Finland also promoted its neutral negotiator role by framing issues and by focusing more on value implementation. Such framing is an important small state strategy, especially in the promotion of contentious norms (Elgström, 2017). Controversial questions were advanced more informally, for example, by inviting human rights defenders to foreign ministers’ lunch meeting.

In this article, the evaluation of the success of the Finnish presidency was related to the value priorities. Evaluating the presidency performance objectively is difficult, and the article concentrated on subjective evaluations. As the evaluation leans on Finnish views, external perceptions would have complemented the picture. In the eyes of interviewees, the Finnish value promotion, especially the rule of law advocacy, was appreciated. The presidency also succeeded in raising difficult value questions and left its mark on the following Commission programmes. However, in the case of individual values, the opinions of the interviewees varied. Some issues areas, such as migration, did not provide much chance for success.