A blast from the past
COLUMN
|
|
By Olli Kivinen
The early part of the year has brought with it a familiar reminder of days gone by - from the times of stagnation and Finlandisation - when those responsible for foreign policy have labelled criticism of Finnish foreign policy as unpatriotic.
Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja accused Jukka Tarkka and Risto E.J. Penttilä, whom he described as "two EVA doctors" [EVA is the Finnish Business and Policy Forum think-tank], of foreign policy quackery.
First Tuomioja came out piously in favour of open foreign and security policy, and then he continued:
"It does not fit well with this openness that we are seeing whisperers ... who, following the same old model - albeit from a different direction - are going around bad-mouthing Finns who disagree with them."
The EVA doctors have not been whispering. They have expressed views in clear language on the pages of this newspaper, among other places. In other words, they have practiced the very openness that Tuomioja writes about.
Tuomioja's article also shows a new way of repressing debate. Criticism is labelled as being motivated by the Presidential race, or by party politics, even though many people other than active party members have expressed concern.
President Tarja Halonen, for her part, sought to discourage debate in a suitably subtle manner at the opening of Parliament: "Seeking short-term political gain by pretending to see signs of disagreement in unanimous positions is rarely in the interests of the nation."
There are many issues facing us in foreign politics that require more debate and consideration. Change will bring with it dimensions with a profound impact.
One key matter is the development of the foreign and security policy of the EU, and extending it to include military action, to which our country has enthusiastically committed itself.
One part of this is joining the rapid action forces of the EU. They are primarily the "hard" spearhead of crisis management, which might have to be resorted to at some stage.
Military activity outside the borders of our country is the biggest step in defence policy in the postwar period. Because of the lack of internal debate, it came before the people unexpectedly and quickly.
Linked with EU defence is the law on peacekeeping, and the question of under whose mandate, or with what justification, Finns can take part in the action.
President Halonen yearns for a UN mandate, even though she has been involved in deciding on the project, and knows better than many others that the mandate of the EU and the Finnish Parliament will have to be sufficient.
The EU would lose all credibility if its ability to take action were to depend on decisions of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, such as the United States, Russia, and China.
Finland's options are to either swallow the EU mandate, or to withdraw from the whole project.
Another key dimension is the change in the rules governing the actions of Finland's rapid deployment forces, which apply both to the use of force and to its consequences, as Chief of Defence Juhani Kaskeala has underscored.
Finns must have the same kinds of rules governing the use of force as the others, because otherwise Finns might find themselves put in danger by being the weak link in a military force.
In plain language this means that the EU forces must be able to use force for purposes other than mere self-defence, if the people that they are responsible for are to be defended with any measure of credibility. Legislation must see to it that soldiers do not end up facing criminal charges.
The relationship with NATO is also an issue that will not go away. Membership is out of the question for now, because the people and many political leaders do not like the idea.
EU crisis management walks hand in hand with NATO, which causes problems for the "non-allied" EU members, who do not have access to all intelligence information, for instance, or to other activities reserved for NATO members alone.
Because of its close cooperation, Finland is already a virtual member - or clandestine lover - of NATO, and up to its ears in the alliance.
In the eyes of the rest of the world, our country bears the burden of NATO to the same extent as the actual members, without being under the official protection of the security guarantees offered by NATO.
In the real world, the scope for Sweden and Finland to practice neutrality during the Cold War was based on the strength of NATO.
The difficult special position will inevitably be exacerbated via the military activities of the EU because of the cooperation that exists between the EU and NATO, which Finland wants to see strengthened, on behalf of the trans-Atlantic connection.
In Finnish domestic debate there is a new bend in the road, because EVA has, deliberately or otherwise, taken up NATO membership as one part of the new assertiveness campaign of the Finnish business community.
It is hard to understand the wisdom of the tactic, because it hardens attitudes among opponents as well. Security policy is different from dabbling in political action in other areas.
The EU constitution has not been ratified in most EU countries, and it may well be rejected. The development of military cooperation will continue regardless.
In this respect, the position of our country is made more complicated by the most pointless words in the recent history of our diplomacy, concerning the subject of security guarantees: "It will not affect the special security and defence policy positions of certain countries". Finland tried to pick the raisins out of the security guarantee bun, without committing itself to helping others.
And yet, by committing to the rapid deployment forces, the government itself pulled out the rug out from under its own wordsmithery, even though a few months earlier it had struggled to get those very words included.
The core of the problem is that the attempt calls into question the stability of our EU policy.
In the eyes of an outsider, two matters will bob to the surface above others. In the first place, the declaration of non-allied status sounds increasingly hollow, and it amounts to deception of the people.
Another matter is credibility. The problem is a simple one: making declarations on one's own is not the crux of the matter. Instead, credibility is determined by the thoughts of outsiders; it is neither party politics, nor is it part of the Finnish Presidential race.
Helsingin Sanomat / First published in print 8.2.2005
The author is an independent columnist writing for Helsingin Sanomat
OLLI KIVINEN / Helsingin Sanomat
okivinen@kolumbus.fi
|
| 15.2.2005 - THIS WEEK |
 A blast from the past |
|
