Alliance of dreams

COMMENTARY

print this

By Anna-Stina Nykänen
     
      The man of the house opened his eyes in the gloom of the early morning and said that he had had a dreadful nightmare: the EU and NATO had begun to take on personal members. Isn’t that an awful thought, he asked me.
      I just lay there in bed, completely dumbstruck.
      He went on to tell me that in the dream we were both really irritated by what was happening. Apparently I had been particularly worked up at the fact that both these bodies had elected to accept personal memberships at precisely the same time. What are we to make of that, then, I had snapped in the dream.
      I was astonished. How could anybody be so interested in NATO or in the European Union that they would actually dream about them? And then even drag me into it?
     
As far as I’m concerned, stuff about NATO means only dull and boring litanies. I have never before heard anyone talking about the alliance in such energetic fashion.
      Usually the subject of NATO is spoken of in the soporific tone of “the voice of stable security policy”, which has neither inflection nor cadence.
      The sentences are long, dry, and convoluted, in order to ensure that the hoi polloi don’t understand what’s going on.
      There is nothing to grip on to in what is said. It is a way of showing that there is some arcane information about the subject that cannot be revealed. NATO ponderings and contemplations should always contain a number of big gaps. These bring an added mystique to the message and give the messenger greater authority. Isn’t that how it goes?
      The end-result is pathetic.
     
I don’t quite know with what I could compare the “NATO discussion”.
      We might just as easily be talking about whether salt should be added to food or not. Now if you are in favour of adding salt, is the right moment to do it at the beginning of the cooking process, or only after the food has been prepared? Would you personally support the addition of salt if a number of well-known TV-chefs recommended it?
      Answering this stuff is damned difficult when nobody tells you exactly what dish it is you are trying to make. Are we talking rutabaga casserole here, or gingerbread cookies?
     
For the experts, such small shortcomings are no problem. They wonder aloud why the salt debate does not fire people’s interest. For themselves they are perfectly happy to go on and on:
      Traditional Finnish food has always been preserved by using salt, creaks one. Research studies support a reduction in salt intake, cranks out another. And what about healthy Pan-salt, with added minerals, challenges a third, even though everybody knows that that commodity at least is no good for much of anything. Total rejection of salt in all forms is unrealistic and overly idealistic, thunders yet another.
      At the same time, professionals in the branch have long been familiarising themselves with the use of Fleur de Sel or finger-salt. They already have total compatibility with European cuisines.
      The public at large asks - where’s the beef?
     
A large part of the Finnish population would support NATO membership if they were to be given a worthwhile reason for it. Hence the first thing must be to talk frankly about security.
      Is Russia still the biggest threat, and is NATO membership the best means of fending off that threat? Wasn’t joining the EU enough after all?
      Are there any other threats facing us?
      I don’t wonder that support for NATO among the Finns went down during the Iraq conflict. There was not much enthusiasm for the idea of allying with the United States.
     
Even if the fear of Russia still exists, increasingly many people also dread international terrorism. As a non-allied nation we have not appreciably needed to worry about terror strikes. Would we be in the high-risk group as a member of NATO?
      Is it really so that nobody would defend us if we stayed outside NATO? If we were members, into what sort of things would we be involving our children: who would they end up having to defend?
      Yes, matters like this get the public’s interest, even if the NATO gobbledy-gook leaves them cold.
      I notice that I’m even beginning to get excited about it myself.
     
I remember how shocked I was at a national defence seminar years ago, when I grasped the fact that Finland was being measured up and fitted for NATO. And nothing was said about it in public at the time.
      The message then was that we had to shape our systems so that they were compatible, just in case we might happen to apply for NATO membership. I mean, they couldn’t just be changed on the spur of the moment…
      And now they are saying that membership is no big deal, because the systems are already so similar.
      Not much weight given to public opinion there.
     
A few days ago I read an op-ed piece by Olli Kivinen on the Helsingin Sanomat editorials page, in which he said that talk about “the NATO option” was just empty words. There is no certainty that Finland would even be approved as a NATO member, even though we have already been pushing ourselves eagerly forward into its operations and doings.
      To me, all the talk about security guarantees is just as much hot air.
      There are no security guarantees in life.
     
Helsingin Sanomat, first published in print in the Nyt weekly supplement from 2.12.2005


Previously in HS International Edition:
  Support for joining NATO appears to have slightly increased (9.11.2005)
  Former President Ahtisaari: Finnish NATO discussion hapless (18.10.2005)

ANNA-STINA NYKÄNEN / Helsingin Sanomat
anna-stina.nykanen@hs.fi